how great would marciano be if he wasnt undefeated??

Foreman did not beat the same Frazier that beat Ali -but he still beat a good fighter. This is the main point I challenge. I also challenge the point that any “swarmer” (whatever that is) loses to Foreman. It’s far too sweeping a statement.

Valentino was rated as high at the time as he had ever been. It serves to show whomever beat a Valentino at that point still beat a guy that had legitimately claimed the ranks in his own right. in just the way Rocky beat Louis who was legitimately rated that high regardless of not being half the force he had been in his early twenties.

I have never argued the point that Marciano beat the same Joe Louis that beat Max Baer. Only that Rocky still beat a good fighter. Because he did beat a good fighter.

I never saw Valentino beat Turkey Thompson but if I did I could not argue Louis knocked out a guy as good as that. I will argue Louis knocked out a guy rated as high as that. Because he did.

 

How about your double standard of Dempsey being big enough but Rocky being too small?

 

So what? You are just searching for something, anything, with which to somehow discredit Liston.

Woeful.

 

I will concede your point, but I don't think it means anything, and I still think changing history is fantasy. Dempsey made it back into the ring against Firpo. Any analysis based on his not making it back and being counted out is, in my judgment, fantasy.

Turning decisive KO victories into defeats would matter,

but are fantasy.

"anything we do on this board is pointless"

You are right here, so it is good to keep it light and in perspective.

**Just an aside about something which just struck me. How many times is someone accused on this board of rewriting history if one takes issue with the judgments of past experts. But history is something that happened. Dempsey did get back in the ring to stop Firpo. Marciano did stop Charles.

An argument assuming otherwise is alternative history--ignoring what happened.

But a judgment that Jeffries or Johnson or Dempsey were better than let's say Louis or Marciano is not history. It was never more than an opinion. It is not something that happened and is an actual fact of the past.

 

I say Dempsey has a much better chance against the bigger heavies for several reasons,none of which have anything to do with a supposed dislike of Marciano.
1.Dempsey was quicker into range
2.He had quicker hand speed
3. More elusive head movement
4. Proven against big heavyweights
5. Longer reach ,9 inches!
6.Applied more intense pressure
7.Better resistance to cuts
8 Two and a half inches more height.

Those are my reasons for affording Dempsey a better chance against
modern heavies.

 

He is of the opinion that the Joshua v Takam fight was a mismatch because of the weight ,[ 19.5lbs ,]differential.

 

Well you are entitled to that opinion because you back it up with reason.

 

Although rare, Weight advantage can become a negligible advantage if certain tactics are used.

This content is protected