jack dempsey vs ken norton...

the speed is Jack's advantage, I agree there.

Defence I certainly favour Rocky who was harder to hit against a higher calibre of opponent.

Versatility, Rocky was always able to move through the gears no matter his opponent and he never met anyone who forced him to significantly alter what he was doing, but even against Jersey who started well, he found himself able to move through the gears and get the stoppage.

Accuracy is harder to determine as neither of them failed to land significantly on anyone they faced. Even when facing defensive masters, Rocky still found a way to knock them out which isn't true for Dempsey (Gibbons).

 

can you elaborate? let's say top 5 opponents of each

 

I don't buy the reductionist evaluation of fighters. It's absolutely hack. Fighters are more than the sum of an arbitrary set of parts.

Marciano's game was more seamless, and definitely more proven as he fought the very best of his era. That is the ultimate proof.

 

faced would give a better indication purely of competition

 

you must be trolling now.

 

Had he faced Wills and Greb I might agree, but not by a lot.

 

personally, i'm curious. people have different perspectives, ESPECIALLY when it comes to dempsey. i personally don't rate him highly at all but always want to hear from people who do

 

I think it's quite clear his reputation is based on his reputation as a man killer. I also think it's difficult to assess if he was the best HW of his own era.

 

I am amazed. Genuinely amazed.

 

I would have to take issue with that.

Even if you think the era was pure garbage, you would have to grant that he was scrupulous, in defending his title against the most highly ranked challengers available.

 

Ridiculous statement ... he fought the top men of his era without question. He ducked no one. While his biggest names were past their best , Walcott/Charles/Moore were all very experienced, tough guys who gave everything they had on their bouts w Rocky (possibly exception is the Walcott rematch) ...

 

Thank you for confirming what I had thought all along, you're just another delusional Dempsey nut hugger. If Marciano's competition is putrid then Dempsey's is pure dog ****.

 

Marciano-Moore, Walcott x2, Charles x2
Dempsey-Tunney x2, Firpo, Gibbons, Carpentier

Direct comparison, who wins?

 

:deal

I'd also say Rocky displayed more ring intelligence, he knew when he needed to step it up, he knew against certain fighters he wouldn't be landing clean shots so he'd grind them down, he proved he could be cool and methodical and he never just openely and blindly charged them like Dempsey who found himself on his ass against the abysmal Firpo.

Also I think it's clear Rocky has the better chin, never on rubbery legs, never looked like he was on the verge of being KO'd. Both KD's he suffered were against very smart punchers who got him with a punch he didn't see coming while he was coming in and he recovered very quickly.

 

Should Tunney even be included? Dempsey didn't beat him and only won 1 round out of 20.

I'd favour all of those mentioned for Marciano to beat Carpentier, Gibbons and Firpo (yes even old Louis over Gibbons). Tunney would beat the version of Moore and Louis that Marciano fought. Walcott - Tunney i'd favour Tunney, I think he'd be too busy and have too much in his legs for the old champ. Charles - Tunney is pick em, but slightly leaning towards Charles.