Dempsey doesn't belong in HW top 5's. Perhaps not HW top 10's.

The Moore, Charles, Cockell, Louis and Savold fights. The Layne KO was a good one, as the first Walcott Ko, but my point stands that Rocky had to land a ton of punches in most of his title fights to win. In fact, the average Marciano title fight went a shade over 9 rounds. Marciano did not have the one punch power of Dempsey, nor did he have Dempsey foot speed, hand speed, reflexes or skills.

I suggest you watch the Firpo fight, where Dempsey had his man down 7 times in one round ( Firpo went the distance with Wills ), or the Sharkey fight where Dempsey Ko'd him with one big hook, or the Willard fight, which was an absolute massacre. Had the Willard fight taken place in the 50's, its stopped much earlier.

 

Joe Louis knockout was a devastating 1-2 punch knockout, that right hand he hit louis with knocked him out cold. Louis was a big man 215lb.


Moore,Charles, Cockell notice a pattern? all these fights occured in 1954-1955, when marcianos style had changed from a one punch KO slugger to a swarmer attrition puncher.


Savold? Marciano had the flu. Most men can't even get out of bed when they have the flu, let alone fight a world class boxing match.

Disagree, marciano had better one punch power than jack dempsey, and dempsey himself admitted this. As for footspeed, and handspeed sure.......but i think rocky was just as skilled in his own style as dempsey was, and rocky was stronger and more durable than dempsey.

LOL I watched the fight. Looked like two clubfighters in there throwing bar punches. Firpo had horrible technique. The very fact dempsey was able to stand over his man thus gaining advantage and still needed 9 knockdowns to keep him down, shows you his lack of one punch power. Marciano would have needed only 1-2 knockdowns to put firpo away, and only 1-2 punches. Dempsey had to land hundreds of punches on firpo to put him away. Firpo lasted the distance vs wills, but was floored twice and lost every round...not to mention firpo knocked dempsey down 3 times including once out of the ring that dempsey had to be saved by a typewriter. firpo did not floor wills once.

You mean where dempsey illegally hit jack sharkey to the balls? sharkey could be seen on the canvas grabbing his balls in horrific pain.

Now this fight really shows dempseys lack of one punch knockout power. Dempsey literally had a big punching bag in front of him, and dempsey had to land HUNDREDS of power shots flush to floor willard, and EVEN THEN willard still did not stay down for the 10 count 7 knockdowns later with dempsey being able to stand over him. A pre 1953 Marciano wouldnt have needed anywhere near that amount of punches to finish willard

 

All in all, everybody of whom has expressed particular dismay for certain aspects of Dempsey's career has been misinformed to a noticeable level.

Dempsey was not a champions champion in terms of a statistical title reign, but he possess two assets that the fans who rate him highly are aspects that those who rate him poorly fail to objectively decipher - them being his stylistic pros and the quality of his wins.

Dempsey was a phenomenon, not just as a force of nature, but as a virtuoso in the ring - his style was perfected and varied for the normally limited, come-forward approach.

Secondly, superb wins against the likes of Brennan, Levinsky, Miske and Fulton cannot be overlooked - they were genuine key wins in Dempsey's career, displaying his efficiency in getting to his man and dispatching some of the best availible competition.

In all honesty, if Dempsey had concentrated on the black fighter the legacies of men like Brennan and Miske would of been enhanced and you would be asking why did he not fright the likes of them.

Weigh it.

 

This is all speculation, though.

The fact is that Wills was the clear-cut #1 guy for nearly 10 years during Dempsey's peak years and the fight didn't come about. Now regardless of whether he or Rickard were hiding behind the color line, it is a huge dent in his reign; one that no other top10 heavyweight has.

But for all we know, Wills may have been the superior man. Unlike Dempsey, he wasn't afraid to fight Langford or Jeannette in the 1910's. You couldn't possibly prove yourself more worthy than Wills did. In fact, if Wills was replaced by Muhammad Ali, you may well see the same record between 1917 and 1926: all wins.

So, i think it's down-right arrogant to assume Dempsey would win and dismiss Wills by saying "If Dempsey fought him, then we'd be talking about Miske, Fulton, etc". None of them were as good as Wills.

 

1. I have to interject that if the Williard or Firpo fights had taken place in the fifties Willard and Firpo would also have been allowed to get to their feet unimpeded and get into a position to defend themselves.
2. Dempsey showed great power against Sharkey, but, after all, Layne, Louis, Matthews, and Walcott were all bashed out rather impressively by Marciano. LaStarza moved well and had a good defense, but when Marciano caught up with him, he finished him. Savold ended up in the hospital.
3. Marciano fought 7 title fights and had 6 knockouts. Dempsey fought 8 and had 5 knockouts.
4. Picking a "he landed a lot of punches" can be pretty arbitrary. Watch Liston pound away at Willi Besmanoff. Hardly means Liston couldn't punch. Dempsey pounded away at Gibbons and couldn't stop him. It took him twelve to stop the ordinary Brennan. This doesn't mean that Dempsey couldn't punch, but the argument cuts both ways.
5. Dempsey's two losses to Tunney were scheduled for 10. If they had been scheduled for 15, he most likely would have had to go 15 each time, except I think Tunney would have tko'd him late in both fights.

 

Those who rank Dempsey highly seem to put very much weight on his ferocity, charisma and how good he looked in his very best perfomances, and kind of forgetting his less impressive perfomances as well as less impressive parts of some of his most famous wins. With this line of reasoning surely Tyson must be the supreme number 1!

 

"Weigh it."

Who did Brennan beat that showed him anything more than an ordinary heavyweight? He was not as good as Miske and Greb.

Miske fought a 10 round draw with Dempsey in 1918. A few months earlier he had been beaten by Kid Norfolk. A few months later he was beaten by Norfolk again. He was also beaten twice by Greb. Why is Miske so sensational? Norfolk was blown out early by Wills when matched with Wills in 1922.

 

Maybe, but I think the Willard fight is stopped by a 50's ref somewhere between rounds 1-3.

Both guys could hit. I do think Dempsey hit a bit harder though.

This was in reply to SuzieQ. I think Dempsey in his prime finished his top rated oppoents men a bit quicker than Marciano did.

Maybe. Had the match be 15, I think Tunney might get a late TKIO in one of the matches. The key thing to look at here is Dempsey came back after a three year layoff. Marciano never came back after he retired, and if he tried to fight Tunney after three year layoff, I suspect Tunney does a number on him too.

 

Quickly, Mendoza
1. I just don't give Dempsey extra credit for being inactive for 3 years while champion. He and Marciano retired at the same age. Dempsey laying off is Dempsey's problem and it doesn't get him a higher rating from me.
2. I would just say that I think Marciano caught up with his opponents sooner or later--he knocked out every man who was ever rated that he fought--and I think he was in against a few more slippery boxers than Dempsey was.

 

The two lived different lives outside the ring. Marciano was a family person, and somewhat tight with his cash. He always trained hard. Dempsey loved messing around with women, and embraced the “hollywood " lifestyle. Dempsey being in active in his prime cost him timing and skills.

It is hard to say who fought harder people to hit. Walcott for sure was hard to hit, but I never saw any film on Miske. Tunney for my money was beat than Walcott was because he kept moving. Walcott lost too many decisions. Yes, Jersey Joe could make a person miss clean, but if he made them miss all the time, he hardly losses.

The Louis and Charles that Marciano fought were there to be hit. I do think Marciano had better stamina and is more likely to score a late TKO. I also think Dempsey was a faster starter, hit a bit harder, and for my money fought bigger and stronger hitters in general. I have the two close to each other, with Dempsey being slightly ahead.

Most historians who saw them both felt Dempsey was the better fighter. For whatever reason, many newer boxing fans focus too much on who Dempsey did not fight instead of watching how he preformed in the ring.

 

We all have seen good film of both Dempsey and Marciano in the ring. Dempsey fans just have to understand that some people do not see "a force of nature" but simply a very good fighter with his share of flaws, a fighter who drew with Miske in 1918 while Miske was losing twice to Norfolk, a fighter known for quick starts who couldn't out quick start Meehan, a fighter who won his title from the old and fat Willard, defended it against a series of fairly ordinary contenders who were not the very best of the time, and ended up losing badly to Tunney. Yes, he was a strong hitter, but I personally can't see rating him above a fighter like Louis who defended his title against all comers for 12 years or a fighter such as Marciano who swept the best of his time. If the "historians" you mentioned did, I don't think their judgement should stand.