jack dempsey vs ken norton...

Gibbons was past it when Tunney took him apart for his only stoppage loss. Canzoneri was the no 2 contender for the Bantam weight title in 1926. We disagree on the advancement of boxing .
I think it largely took a retrograde step after the war.
The 50's were not deemed to be golden years ,and TV killed the game because of it's insatiable demand for Friday night fights , kids were pushed into fights they were not ready for. The heavyweight division of that decade is better than today, not difficult] , but palpably inferior to other decades.
Foster was a great LHVY but his opposition was pretty poor , simply because there was not the depth of talent in the division.
Foster could not handle quality heavyweights because of his physical stature he was a string bean lhvy.

 

Did I even mention Foster in my last reply? Also you completely dodged my question but I can tell you like to cherry pick. Again never said 'foster sucked when he moved up and therefore tunney would too' so i don't know why your acting as if I did. In spite of this i believe Tunney would not do as well at Heavy in the 70's as he did in the 20's, you cannot dispute this nor do you have much reason to favour him over the likes of Frazier and Foreman as like I said his record doesn't have much traces of heavyweights, blacks or punchers let alone all 3 qualities rolled into one.

 

By and large I agree with you. I do say stuff in jest every now and again but I think it's obvious to everyone he's great.

I don't think we can definitively say he was the best of his era and I do think a good big un beats a good little un but that's true throughout boxing by and large.

Burt, how do you see him matching up with Rocky and Tunney, prime for prime?

 

I see prime Jack beating Tunney in a hard fight. Either on points or late round tko.

Dempsey/Marciano is a good 50/50 one,imo. I see Jack early or Rocky late.

 

They're the two men i'd rank above jack h2h in the sub 200 pound category.

I think Tunney is amazingly talented and one of the toughest guys in the division. Rocky is unbeatable below 200 for me, or as close as it comes to being. If you aren't significantly bigger than Rocky you aren't gonna beat him in my opinion.

 

I think his sole advantage is speed. I think Rocky hits harder, more accurately, has a better defence, is better conditioned and has a higher workrate. I think he's less reckless and has better footwork despite his feet being slower.

 

Luf, I have given my opinion as to who would win between Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano many times on ESB,and quite recently, but once again ad nauseum...I think very strongly on this outcome. I saw Marciano/Vingo
and saw Rocky train,so I have an idea of Rocky's clublike power and fortitude...But this is important to this question : During the Marciano reign ,the 1950s, in a poll of writers, and trainers who saw Dempsey in his prime ,virtually everyone polled picked Jack Dempsey by a ko over Marciano
because of the fact that Dempsey could hit so much quicker and with so much more accuracy than Rocky, and anyone Dempsey ever hit he kos ...
I remember reading all their opinions and to the man concluded that Dempsey ,just as tough, NEVER EVER CUT,would get there first all the time...If you watch Marciano's films you will see he misses half his punches
and wins by attrition...Dempsey would get there first and wouldn't miss
and ko Marciano...And so would Joe Louis of the Max Baer era...Speed and accuracy trumps when you match equal punchers...One more example Luf..
Do you honestly think that a Don Cockell would last 9 rounds with a
killer like Dempsey ? Nossir...Cheers...

 

And Luf, the Dempsey of Toledo and Firpo,and Tommy Gibbons, catches up to Tunney as he did in the long count in Philly,but was too old and rusty to finish the job...Dempsey kos Tunney in a late round !MO...

 

Dempsey had speed and was a better two handed hitter. Marciano was a better right handed hitter and had proven stamina while Dempsey never really proved it in his prime other than against Brennan and even past it vs Gibbons so he was pretty decent too ... defense , where Marciano is under rated, they are even .. they remain a hell of an interesting match up to me ..

 

Cheers B.

 

Except fight the best available contenders.

 

H2H Jack's worth is certainly debatable and he could reasonably be argued above Rocky.

But resume and accomplishment wise Rocky is leagues ahead of Jack in my opinion.

 

Dempsey's skill set, which I quite like, was definitely flashier... however, he squared up and left himself wide open too often, especially for right hands. He didn't seem to manage his fights well either, too often displaying no fight plan but to take the other guy out quickly (perhaps hard to argue with 25 first round KO's)... When that didn't work, he could get derailed. Marciano was a much cooler customer most of the time (the Cockell fight being the exception). He stuck to his plan and believed in his ability to win. He also had an underrated defense. Walcott said he was very hard to hit squarely. He knew his range, worked well to get the and mixed his punches. Not as flashy but arguably more effective.

 

:good

 

What advantages do you see Jack as possessing?