Faster Handspeed Dempsey Or Marciano?

Is anyone pleading for anyone's input?

Is anyone pleading for the same tired Burt Sugar regurgitations?

All I am asking for is some mild intellectual rigor... or barring that, at least some originality.

 

A slaughter indeed, but a slaughter of what?

Al Norton KO1. Norton had won 1 fight in his last 6.
Miller KO 1. 4 losses in previous 6 fights.
Flynn again. 5 losses in previous 6.
Saddy KO 1. 1 fight veteran.
Riley KO 1. 0-3 record
Ketchell KO2. 0-4 record
Pelkey KO1. Name fighter but had 4 losses in his last 6.
McCarthey KO1. 0-1 record
Porky Flynn KO1. Lost previous 9 fights.
Fulton KO1. A QUALITY WIN. PERHAPS THE BEST OF HIS CAREER.
Moran KO1. 3-6 record, lost previous 3.
Carl Morris KO1. Another name fighter, but one who had lost 4 of his previous 6. Local papers doubted whether he would even show up for the fight he had become so unreliable.
Gunboat Smith KO1. Another name fighter, but one who had not gotten a victory in 8 fights.
McGuire, Hurley and Harris. All KO1. Combined record of 0-2.

It's hard to judge this run by Dempsey because it was pure barnstorming hoping to capitalize on some over the hill "name" fighters while keeping busy. Not entirely unlike some recent heavies (and even non-heavies) but 100 years removed we can not remember that Flynn and Pelkey and Moran and Morris were not exactly what they had been a few years earlier.

And before everyone jumps on my ass, I understand that this was how business was done back in the day. Jeffries did it this way. Johnson did it this way. But the balance between business and challenging boxing can still be judged and measured when we take a longer look.

 

Are you being purposefully dishonest? You fail to mention anything about Brennan or Levinsky. Two important wins. It's coming across very very clear that you don't want to give Dempsey credit for anything other than being a racist coward frightened of fighting anyone in the top 5 (which he wasn't).

It's easy to look back today with our incomplete records of the fighters from that era and cast doubt on their ability. It's much more worthwhile to take the word of the contemporaries of their time that they were first rate fighters. If you don't want to rate Dempsey as a great fighter then that's obviously your choice but it's not very honest to come on here and just detract from Dempsey with made up claims ad nauseam.

 

So you are an idiot then... I figured as much. You don't know anything about this subject, read up on it more.

 

Dempsey had the faster hands.

 

Dempsey, but Rock would a fight by KO

 

Did say it was or wasn't, but I can still post it regardless. Thanks for the tip though.

 

I schooled you on the topic. You're the one who needs to pull out the books.