Dempsey in Marciano's Era

Does not go undefeated.

 

Naw..... Demps would hang and do well with the 50s crop just like Marciano did....... Not a whole lotta difference there......... Come the 1960s? Well, that's another story.......

MR.BILL

 

Just as the US Olympic Basketball Team did in 2004, yet they came away with the Bronze.

He losses... I don't know he just does. He grows complacent somewhere. The only change is the harsh conditions. Maybe he's not starving and getting KOed by Flynn... but who really knows the validity of these stories. The truth is somewhat of a land min.

If I'm required to choose someone to beat Dempsey it's Walcott.

 

And looses to one of them in corporeal reality?

 

I think Walcott might be able to win over ten rounds with Dempsey. A hard fight to pick though.

Charles? Now that's a hard pick and I honestly
think either man could win, and either man could gain a stoppage. It's hard though, because Ive never really contemplated Dempsey against that crop before, nor have I imagined him fighting Floyd Patterson.

I may have to mull it over more, there are some great fights to be discussed

 

Dempsey would probably go undefeated if he was in the same era and circumstances as Marciano was.

If he was connected with Al Weill and had Goldman in his corner and working with him after a few fights - as Marciano had.

I'm not saying Marciano had it easy, but Dempsey had it awful rough for the first 3 years or more, and he still managed a decent record. I'm no expert on American economic history and geography, but from what I understand the conditions in post-WW2 New England, for an ex-GI, even for a struggling pug, were qualitatively better than the hobo jungles of 1915 western desert states where Dempsey learned his trade with full commitment to success. And, again, I stress that Marciano had some good big-time boxing connections and tutors from fairly early on.

 

Dempsey would be held in higher regard. Would he have won them all? Who knows... But he'd have been the better HW in every match up.

Charles as a younger man probably would have taken Marciano. Dempsey? I'm not so sure.

 

Great post and I do agree with you. Who do you see Dempsey losing to? I think Charles would give him fits but that's really about it...:think

 

Dempsey in his prime,circa 1917 and before, could do anything Marciano could do as good and in most cases better..Dempsey was so much a faster puncher, with two hands,his great left hook and right cross..A better defense, Dempsey could move around quickly when needed...Dempsey could avoid solid punches, with his bobbing and weaving style,also...I take nothing away from the Brockton Blockbuster...Marciano also cut easily, while Dempsey seldom was seriously cut...Both had great chins...I believe Jack Dempsey had a much harder and more tested youth than Rocky had, no doubt...I saw Marciano in his prime, and loved his tenacity...But this is what puts me in Dempsey's corner...Virtually every boxing expert who saw both Dempsey and Marciano. in their primes picked Dempsey superior to Marciano...VIRTUALLY everyone...How could I ,90 years later , not respect those great writers of yesterday, who saw young Dempsey and Marciano ringside in all their fights...Please , tell me why I'm wrong or illogical, siding with all the boxing experts who SAW them both in their careers...Thus I feel Dempsey prime fighting all of Marciano's opponents, would have had the same unbeaten record as Rocky had...I'm willing to learn...

 

If Dempsey fights Marciano's schedule, with no layoffs, I can't find an opponent on Rocky's record that Dempsey doesn't find a way to beat...in my opinion. So I guess I'm in the 49-0 camp. :good

Then some of the young guys on here could talk about how Dempsey was too small for the Klitschkos and how Jack's (actually Rocky's) competition was ****. Wait! That's what they do anyway!