If we switch Dempsey and Marciano, does anything interesting pop up?

I mean he seems like a nice guy but not a good historian or anything.

 

As far as old Nat was concerned, i have never seen anyone with such horribly biased rankings as him. Schmeling over Marciano? Corbett over Louis? Fitz oveR Dempsey? I dont understand how his rankings influenced the rankings of so many others for so long.

This is the same guy that didnt have Archie Moore or Billy Conn in his top 10 atg lhw list.

 

He was biased to fighters that were from his day and before...legends of boxing lore...some of these men were strong fighters but to put them in perspective is hard without film. A lot of the men of those days were naturally stronger from the hard conditions. Nat was conservative and carefull to rate a modern fighter biased but most of the so called experts are biased. Bert Sugar is better than a newby like max Kellerman ( who has improved) but has a modernish bias....Certo and Duva are very frank and Dundee has a bias for Alii but is smart...Arcel, Freddie Brown good opinions but like I said I have my own opinions and they may be fixed to a certain degree and I AM OPEN TO THOUGHT but I do not listen to an expert as gospel

 

"I do not listen to an expert as gospel"

Also, there is a line which, if crossed, any serious historian would admit his speculation is no better than anyone elses. In the example I gave earlier, few military historians would make any claims that they have any real idea how Grant would have done if he replaced Wellington at Waterloo. That is not knowledge that is reachable for a human being.

That is why in boxing I think historical rankings should be kept separate from head to head speculation.

 

Have you ever talked to Bert Sugar, have you ever been in his company for several hours. I have, many times, and he is a wealth of information. When I first met him, he would always give me a trivia question on either boxing or baseball. He was surprised how much I knew and now we just talk boxing. I don't know anybody that would agree with him or any other historian on everything. No he is not a good boxing historian, HE IS A GREAT ONE.

I agree!

I agree again, I don't take any historian or expert as gospel, BUT I do take it into account. Their opinions are important BUT we should all go by other things as well, such as watching films, their records, who they beat and when, etc.

 

One thing that bothers me is this hatred towards Dempsey because he drew the color line, there was talk about this not too long ago, actually in a thread that had something to do with Liston and Tyson lurking into the top ten and Johnson being left out, in that thread Dempsey got a lot of **** too, but it's still unclear to me whether he personally refused to fight these guys he was supposed to fight, just because they were black or because he couldn't beat them?

BTW, this is an excellent thread once again, just like the aforementioned one which made me register here...

 

Excellent point

 

Dempsey probably had plenty of losses in his first few years in the ring. We only have a few losses on record because our knowledge of his activity doesn't pick up until later. No doubt Marciano would have also lost more than a couple fights under these circumstances- perhaps more than Dempsey, given that Dempsey was probably the more physically talented of the two, while Marciano was the harder worker (and a strong training regimen would likely not have been a possibility in this scenario). However, keep in mind that if Marciano starts fighting in his early teens as Dempsey did, he likely develops a more polished style by the time he's in his twenties than the real one (who started boxing at 22-23, meaning his technique was never so "natural" as that of someone who boxed since childhood).

Willard might go a few more rounds with Marciano. If Marciano is anything like himself from the '50s, then no, probably no million-dollar gates, and yes, I would expect to see multiple fights a year as opposed to multiple years without fights. Marciano would absolutely murder Harry Greb, though Harry Wills, who would be a more important opponent to this hypothetical 1920s Marciano title reign, might make things more interesting.
As for who would have beaten him, who says Marciano doesn't still retire as champion in this scenario? At the least, I don't believe he would face a top challenger straight off three years of inactivity, and assuming his character is substantially the same, he likely retires as soon as he doesn't feel he can maintain his top form anymore.

If we change his life this much, then there is no way of knowing what would have happened to him- no doubt there are people walking around right now who never put on a boxing glove, but could have been champions as great as Marciano or Dempsey if their lives had taken different paths. Per his family's account, Rocky always thought his future was in sports, and it certainly seems as though his best sport was boxing, so it doesn't seem implausible.

If Dempsey had started boxing well into his 20s and turned professional with scant amateur experience as Marciano did, then, like Marciano, he would likely have had a less polished style, and I imagine he may have lost an early fight or two in this scenario. Later on, folk like Walcott and Charles surely could give Dempsey trouble on their nights.

I wonder, though, why don't you ask whether Dempsey would have boxed? In this scenario, Jack is still poor, but he isn't destitute or a hobo- perhaps desperation never drives him to fight and he becomes a humble shoe factory employee.

Again, if we're assuming his personality is more or less in accord with the actual Dempsey's, then it appears so. He couldn't have gotten away with three-and-a-half years off in the '50s, mind you, but he probably wouldn't have fought twice a year against top challengers like clockwork the way Marciano did, and he probably wouldn't have maintained such amazing conditioning as Marciano did, which might lead to an upset.

Easier/quicker than Marciano's, or easier/quicker than Dempsey's actual run to the top? If it's the former, perhaps, though we have to take into account that Dempsey is probably a somewhat different fighter in this scenario, and if the latter, then no, as top fighters were already somewhat less active by the '50s than they had been in 1919, and due to certain rule changes (eg. bigger gloves, no standing over opponents, less rabbit punching allowed, etc.) I doubt Dempsey would have been able to blitz opponents early quite as quickly as he did in his original title run.

 

Hmm... I guess I killed this thread with my reappearance on the forum.

 

THE LOUIS THAT MARCIANO FACED HAD ONE STOPPAGE IN HIS LAST 4 FIGHTS AND THAT OVER A USED UP LEE SAVOLD,WHY WOULD YOU THINK HE WOULD STOP DEMPSEY ?
That Louis kept his right in its scabbard he relied on an occasional left hook and the remainder of his once immaculate jab.
Dempsey would have roared through him.imo.

 

Not sure, Louis was no Jess Willard, and did have the jab and footwork to stop Dempsey from roaring though him.

Dempsey had his problems with Bill Brennan, and Dempsey didnt roar though him, Took 12 rounds to wear him down and out.

 

Having done some research on this fight--a few comments

1. Unfortunately the original Chicago Tribune article is blind--the reporter does not give his name. Why not? Was this to protect himself from being sued.

2. Dempsey was blackballed in Salt Lake City---Dempsey did not fight again in Salt Lake until he fought exhibitions there in 1931. However, he did referee the fight between Abie Mischkind and Al Young there on 12-27-1920. If they thought he threw a fight, why was he hired as a referee? He also refereed four fights there between 1922 and 1924.

3. Dempsey supposedly threw this fight for $500. The Deseret Evening News reporter mentions that the gate was $5000. What would have been Dempsey's share? Also, this gate clearly shows that Dempsey was a strong local draw. Why kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs? for the promoter, for the managers, and for Dempsey himself. It seems far more logical to have fixed Flynn to lose than Dempsey.

4. This article leaves the impression that the ringsiders thought the fight was fixed. The ringside fight reports do not back that up at all.

5. No details are given about who arranged the fix exactly. The quotes from Auerbach for example, while put out in such a way as to back up the premise of a fix, in fact refer to a "thing" whatever that is. That quote might not even be referring to a fight. A good reporter would have pinned people down with explicit quotes.

6. Maxine Cates is not a reliable source in any way, shape, or form.

 

You make some good points BUT you and I know there have been a lot of fixed fights that were never solved. Dempsey was a BIG name in the early 20's so that is most likely why they used him as a referee, and he lived in Salt Lake City, Utah.

I know of several bouts that people stated wasn't on the up and up and later on they either fought or refereed. LaMotta fought 10 times in New York State, and 4 of them were in Madison Square Garden, after his bout with Billy Fox at MSG.

 

He was the same guy that stood up for the rights of black fighters in an era where a champion was not only accepted but expected to refuse to defend his title against black challengers.

He was a man who vheamently oposed any injustice in the sport whatever race or ethnic group it was perpetrated against.

Could we perhaps give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he sincerely believed in the rankings that he published.

Could we go further and say that even if obvious flaws in his rankings have emerged with the passage of time we should still ask why he held the fighters he rated highly in such high esteem?

 

Has anyone read AJ Liebling's piece on the Marciano-Moore fight?

He opined that ,Dempsey-great champion though he was-the likes of Firpo and Willard would have been beaten on the same night,by both Marciano and Moore.

He wrote that he had a sense of satisfaction from the knowledge that the science of pugilism was not in decline and that ,though he was old in years,he was not so old in spirit not to appreciate that.


But ,as you say,Bummy,that's just one man's biased opinion.