Dempsey's Power

Low blows or not, I think it's pretty impressive seeing a man get lifted off the ground with a single compact left hook.

In my view it was a matter of Sharkey punching Dempsey after the bell, after which Dempsey, who had been quite lethargic previously in the fight, came out furiously in the next round and knocked Sharkey out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pynrEpJlMgM

 

I can't go in a time machine and place Marciano in those conditions against Dempsey's opponent in certain situations to know how he would have done. Marciano's life wasn't entirely easy though either. However, what I will say is I do think Marciano would have a better record and would've scored more knockouts. Especially when factoring the fact that men can be hit once they just get up.

I guess I can handle others thinking Dempsey had more power. I just don't see it nor get that belief. I'll admit he's a better puncher, just like how Louis is a better puncher. But I don't think they hit harder than Rocky. Do you think Dempsey hit harder than Louis?

 

Can always count on when film is concerned. Sharkey probably doomed himself with that 6th round tap on Dempsey. Sharkey looks to be in agony on the floor in the 7th. He's not out of it, he just looks to be in awful pain.

 

I think, if you could line them up with a punch machine, all in their primes, the power readings would go...

1. Louis
2. Dempsey
3. Marciano

If we could have them fight each other multiple times, I think the win-lost results would be...

1. Louis
2. Marciano
3. Dempsey

:thumbsup

 

The thing is Marciano had almost as much power in the last round as the first. His punching stamina was incredible. But if you compare him and Dempsey in the first round, I would say Dempsey easily generated more power with a single punch.

 

I agree with you! In the 15th round of a hard fought fight, I would go with Marciano's power all the way! :good

 

That's a good point, although I disagree with the last statement.

Interesting, Walcott seemed to think Marciano hit harder then Louis. Described Marciano as a one punch knockout artist always throwing bombs and always hurting you when he hit somewhere.

 

Guys let's put Walcott's comment into perspective. He was being interviewed on a show and was put on the spot. He gave a diplomatic answer. I've seen other guys go round and round about Rocky and his power and the main point is that Rocky threw almost every punch he ever threw as a knockout punch. He fought that way and had the exceptional stamina to pull it off. He did not jab, he did not box. He load up constantly, that was his style.

I rate the three:

Louis
Dempey
Marciano

All three could knock down walls ...

 

Marciano threw more hard punches. I couldn't argue with Jersey Joe there. The question I was trying to answer was who do I think was capable of the hardest single punch power? If we are talking about accumulative hurt, over the course of a long fight, I would say Marciano is #1 of the 3 by that measure.

 

There are valid points made about the different backgrounds. That said, Marciano gave a fantastic performance of stopping opponents. 43 of 49 for 88% is I think the best percentage of any 20th century heavyweight champion. It is even more impressive when you look at the rated or ever rated opponents. He knocked them all out. Many fighters came out of the amateurs as prospects and were carefully managed. How many matched or even come close to this sort of performance? In championship fights, Marciano ko'd 6 of 7 (86%), Dempsey 5 of 8 (63%)--interestingly close to their career performances. In their last 10 fights, Marciano stopped 9 of 10, Dempsey 7 of 10. Marciano's edge was not only in the early fights, but throughout his career. His run from the Layne fight to the Moore fight of 14 wins, 13 ko's, 13 bouts against rated or once rated opposition, ko'ing every man he fought either in the initial bout or the rematch, is more impressive to me than any run Dempsey had.

Another point is that Marciano was exceptional in his own era. That ko percentage stands out like a sore thumb if compared to top fighters of let's say the 1930 to 1970 period. What about Dempsey? Well, he ko'd 51 of 83 for 61%, but that wasn't the best ko percentage while he was active. Fulton did 63% (70 of 112), Firpo 67% (26 of 39), Bob Martin 74% (40 of 51) and Paul Berlenbach 65% (35 or 54). There might be a lot of reasons for Dempsey being behind these men, but the bottom line is that his ko percentage is just not exceptional in his own era.

As for the length of Dempsey's bouts, that is somewhat true and also somewhat not true. From April to December 1916, Dempsey went the full 10 round distance 7 times, more than Marciano did in his entire career.

 

On Dempsey's early fights in the west--but why would we think his opponents on the whole had it better? Most likely they had rough lives also, probably having to work, not being properly trained, etc.

Marciano fighting in the late 1940's between Boston and New York was probably in against opponents who know their way around gyms. It is likely to me that Marciano's average early opponent was better than Dempsey's just because of the progress boxing had made and the fact that he was competing near major urban centers.

I think a case could be made either way, but it is all guesswork.

 

Guys, 95% of Rocky's first 35 bouts were tomato cans and no historian disputes this .. after that he fought good fighters the rest of his career ... the nuthuggers can say what they like but read the newspaper reports prior to the Louis fight and they all rip Marcino's record as built on club fighters ... I'm not making this up, read the coverage.

 

I still don't get you though. It's not like Dempsey's punching power looks better than Marciano's on film. From the 1 punch KO's to the better opposition to the numbing clumbing shots he hit over fighters bodies and the careers he ruined I feel it's an easy decision to come to grips with. Dempsey, on the other hand only knocked out some bigger fighters. Most of which were either old, inactive, unproven, or both. I give Dempsey his dues as being the better puncher. But it took him banging guys out and them getting up with him standing over them to knock them down again, only for these opponents to get up another 5 times. That as for power doesn't really impress me that much.

And Tomato Cans or not. Rocky hit them and they all went to sleep. Are you going to criticize Tyson's KO record for being against tomato cans too? Rocky has the 2nd (Or is it 3rd?) biggest KO streak in HW history. And doing all this while supposedly being incredibly crude in a 4 round bout night in and out is quite impressive.

 

So. Dempsey's opponents prior to 1917 were something more than tomato cans? How great was Johnny Sudenberg? If your point is that some, such as Joe Louis, fought tougher competition than Marciano, I agree. But Dempsey is not in my judgement one of them. Check the records of the men he was fighting as late as 1918 and 1919 on his way to the title. More than a few were set-ups of the worst kind sent in to feed his one-round ko record.

And the whole tomato-can argument with Marciano is attenuated by the fact that he did just as well with world-class fighters as he did with his tomato-can opponents.

 

EXACTLEY. Sharkey is on the floor grabbbing his balls in worlds of pain. You could see by the expression on his face prior to the left hook those uppercuts to the balls hurt alot. This knockout has EXTREME controversy. Jack Sharkey beat the **** out of dempsey and won nearly every round...Dempsey knew he was on the verge of losing and got extremley cheap/dirty. I dont respect that. This is not a clean knockout. If he had landed that left hook on Sharkey WITHOUT the right uppercuts to the balls, then this would be one hell of a victory. But we cannot change history. The Film is there. Sharkey was in alot of pain.