every thing Rocky can do Jack can do better

was marciano a better body puncher?

Rocky seemed to go to the body more often, dont know if he has ever ko'd an opponent with a shot to the body.

 

I think that dempsey was better than marciano, faster,more aggressive, x10 better feet work,faster hands,better defense, and the chin is debatable because dempsey was down by a firpo (217 pounds of muscle ,bigger,stronger and harder puncher than walcott who knocked down rocky)., Marciano was harder puncher with the right and dempsey had better left hook.

the heart and stamina is close, but i give it to rocky

 

With you nickname you should be ashamed to post something like that. :nono

Defence is an interesting thing, I think Rocky had the more diverse defence while Dempsey relied mostly on headmovement. Hard to tell which one was better. Dempsey IMO had the best headmovement of all the hws.

 

I think Marciano may have had better one punch power,and carried it more effectively into the later rounds.

Dempsey had better defence ,better footwork,better short punches,more variety, more speed of foot, more hand speed , and was more elusive .I think Dempsey was, all round the more complete fighter and ,when Marciano was Champ, so did those who had seen Dempsey first hand.

 

Dempsey is like a bullet, if he hits you right it´s over. Marciano is like a lead shot, it hits you like everywhere and you die a slow, suffering death.

 

The things Marciano did better, were the attributes that made him as great as he was. Conditioning for days, staying power, a consistent, relentless assault and a high volume of punches thrown each round.

Dempsey was most dangerous in the early rounds, but it's not like he knocked everyone out early. He remained a threat late in a fight but a diminished force. He also had a tendency to throw out skill in favour of brute power, but it did not work on the best boxers he fought.

 

They fight in two totally different styles. Show me a video of Dempsey keeping up a high workrate over a long fight, with good combination punching, cutting off the ring well, and defending well. The thing with these old time greats is that they have momentary flashes of greatness. Short lived innovations that the fans see. Dempsey slips a punch and he's Willie Pep. Blocks one with his shoulder and he's Mayweather Jr. We can never know for sure, but I'd favor Andre Dirrell over the Dempsey who fought Tunney. There's just nothing consistent in any of the footage to make me believe otherwise.

 

Rocky was stronger and hit harder as a result. his timing and punch selection was better and has good counter punching ability. He is also better at finding angles at close range to generate more torque. He could effectively stalk and break down boxer types with his body attack, something I don't think Dempsey was particularly good at. He was also more cautious defensively not rushing in and his crouch made him more elusive. He also uses his jab in the way in at times, something Dempsey doesnt do. He is better at pacing himself, wasting nothing and has endless stamina

 

Let's not go overboard here. Dirrell lacks a very important attribute that is needed in order to beat a Jack Dempsey, and that is heart.

No offense to the man, but he's no Gene Tunney is what I'm saying.

 

You'd favor Andre Dirrell over an even faded Jack Dempsey? A guy full of excuses, with about a quarter of the professional fight experience, of a much much lower weight, who slips all over the place and whose chin has been questioned many many times, over the fighter that pre-1950 was considered by and large the GOAT?

Man, di tullio you're my boy but that is nothing short of ****ing ridiculous.

 

Dirrell-1926 Dempsey isn't a terrible match up, size wise Dirrell would be a very comfortable 180lber. Dirrell is an excellent out fighter but a pretty poor in fighter and has developed that horrible tactic of falling to the ground, which is really cheating and he wouldnt be protected by the ref in the 20s. Dempsey isn't landing those lead left hooks on Dirrell though and will be picked off and outboxed as long as the fight is at range, if Dempsey lands hes knocking Dirrell out but Dirrell is pretty damn ellusive. I do favour dempsey, but Dempsey never matched up well with ellusive fast boxers

 

Marciano had a better right, dempsey had a better left, marciano had better stamina, dempsey had quicker hands and feet.

 

I think the best boxers he fought would be Tunney, Sharkey, and Gibbons.
He had been inactive for 3 years when he met Tunney ,and was soft from the Hollywood life, his legs were not what they were.
Given one opening in their rematch ,against the ever backpedalling Tunney he threw a torrent of punches to floor Tunney, something no one else,accomplished.
He struggled with a prime Sharkey , when he himself was no longer prime ,but I think he was getting to Sharkey slowly but surely.
He beat Gibbons pretty convincingly though Gibbons fought a very conservative fight, and Gibbons had lumps all over him after the bout.Gibbons offered an unsolicited endorsement of Jack,"don't let anyone tell you Dempsey can't box".

Fred Fulton was a big fast boxer, with a terrific jab which he used to bust up Sam Langford ,a prime Dempsey took him out in under half a minute.

Prime for prime I think he beats all three boxers convincingly.
And Rocky too.

 

I have to throw things like that in there to catch people's attention while skimming or else they wouldn't read my posts. No one pays attention to me :|