Is Jack Dempsey a Top 10 Heavyweight All-Time?

As I mentioned in another post I was playing devil's advocate really,demonstrating how you can put your own spin on things.

 

Marciano fought Louis, Walcott, Charles and Moore when he was in his prime .. they were not in theirs...Louis was a faded version, Walcott maybe 90%, Charles clearly faded and Moore still an old man ... not Rocky's fault but simply the facts ... Dempsey was faded when he fought Tunney and Sharkey, either of whom would have beaten the men mentioned above when Dempsey fought them ...

Louis v.s. Dempsey, who knows ? You have to favor the sharp punching Louis but Dempey with his lighting hands and explosive power has a hell of a shot as well ...

 

I'm not going into detail ,I don't feel inclined to justify my choices,but briefly,I feel Dempsey was superior to Marciano inall departments except one punch power.
Movement-Dempsey
Evasiveness-Dempsey
Combinations-Dempsey
Handspeed-Dempsey
Footspeed -Dempsey
Overall skills-Dempsey
I see Marciano as a lesser version of Dempsey.

 

Workrate - Marciano
Stamina - Marciano
Strength - Marciano
Boxing Brain - Marciano
Right Hand - Marciano

I'd also dispute the evasiveness, Dempsey would make lots of mistakes that saw him getting tagged by nobodies like Firpo, getting easily outboxed by Tunney, Marciano would have closed Tunney down, made him miss down, and systematically break him down for a mid-late stoppage. Marcianos defense is very underrated and suttle, Dempsey looks wonderful when he bobs and weaves but he too often made mistakes that left him open to being caught flush

 

I dont think Sharkey could beat Walcott or Charles imo.

But outside of Ali, which heavyweights have WINS over prime heavyweights in title fights.
Dempsey?? Was Jess Willard in his prime? Was Gibbions prime?? Nope, and I dont count Carp as a big heavyweight win.
Louis?? Well Sharkey, Carnea and Schmeling were not in there primes. Louis fight them when they seen better days. Baer was a step remove from his heyday also. Most of Louis's fights had guys on the way out. Sure there is Godey, but not much else of note.

Jeff?? Corbett, Sharkey, and Fitz were past there primes.
Jack Johnson, I suppose Flynn and Moran, but thats about it.
Gene Tunney beat past prime Dempsey.

 

jack dempsey should not be in the top 10 ...i'd put him in the 11-15 bracket ...

im not too fond of dempsey and i dont think his muscles and demenor should warrent him a top 10 place ... despite what any of you heard bert sugar claim...

the truth is ..dempseys body of work just isn't that thick ..throw in the fact he never defended agianst black challangers and not tha tmany white ones at that as champ ...

 

I see the prime Sharkey that fought Dempsey beating the faded Charles, Walcott and Moore that Marciano fought ...

Boxing brain Marciano ? Disagree.

Stamina Marciano ? Disagree. The myth that Rocky never got tired is just that, a myth. He had great stamina and so did Dempsey.

Dempsey was easily as strong and much faster. In addition a better two handed power puncher.

I see Dempsey stopping Marciano in a war.

 

I know, but Flamengo was basically giving me a standing eight count and it looked like i was heading for a premature stoppage, i had to do something! :admin

 

If it is a myth, then it is a well-documented one.


What i want you to do is count how many punches Marciano threw in the 15th round against Charles.

And how many did he throw in rounds 7 & 8 against Moore?

 

dempsy barley got out of that fight alive though... he had to sucker punch the guy to win it

on the flip side though rocky barley got by walcot the first time and charles ... and they were faded so that says something

 

Why not watch the telecasts of his actual bouts where the annoncers calling the actual fights are commenting when he was clearly tired such as in Charles 1, Walcott 1 and the Moore fights? This is the trouble with Marciano guys, they do not except him as human when he clearly was...he was a great fighter, no question but he did get hurt, he did get tired and he did come close to losing. The 49 -0 thing has blown the man completely out of proportion.

Why don't you count the punches Dempsey threw in the 13th, 14th and 15th rounds against Gibbons? He was still fresh. He was also still fresh in the 12th when he KO'ed Brennen on a bad night. Dempsey was a monster.

Both were great fighters in their eras. I feel Dempsey would have been more competitive in other eras based on size and speed and his body frame allowing for more muscle in times with different training methods. I definately do not feel Marciano would have been the undefeated champion if he fought in the 60', 70's , 80's or 90's ...

 

"how you can put your own spin on things"

That is called an opinion, I think. The real issue is can you muster evidence to back it up.

Head to head by its nature is unsupported opinion. Anyone can be viewed as better than anyone else.

Accomplishment is based on facts which can be at least studied and debated.

 

It is debatable whether Marciano was actually in his prime as a swarmer against Charles and Moore. He was, after all, as old as Dempsey was in 1926 and 1927.

I just watched the whole Dempsey-Sharkey fight and I must say was rather unimpressed with Sharkey. He and Dempsey basically fought this fight toe to toe as Sharkey showed scant movement. What was interesting was how Sharkey could easily beat Dempsey to the punch and control the inside fighting for six rounds. I don't share your view that Sharkey comes in a favorite against the Walcott, Charles, or Moore that Marciano fought. He was not as skilled a boxer, and he did not have their punch. I think the skill level of top boxers had improved quite a bit in the three decades between the twenties and the fifties.

 

By the fact that you could not answer my question, i take it you resign your earlier claim?