jack dempsey vs ken norton...

true but we were previously discussing best competition. that would include loses, like tunney. if dempsey's competition (with losses) can't compare with marciano's, case closed.

personally, i think dempsey was lucky to come around during the golden age of sports with babe ruth and bobby jones. it was an age where sports figures became heroes and his exploits were passed down by verbal record and vivid description...

was dempsey as fast as a lion? against a useless farmer like willard he was.
was dempsey as tough as an ox? against a moronic brute like firpo sure.
was dempsey a cagey genius? against tunney...well against gibbons...**** it, it's the 20s!

dempsey was great for his time but benefitted heavily from the era he was in and from the stories (and style) that were written about him

 

Never said that. Please show me where I did.

 

compare them with the best 3 guys dempsey fought though. you said dempsey's competition was better by far. if it's by far, should be easy

 

agreed. a career overview is much better. and i do feel marciano is top heavy...but dempsey is top empty

 

The Tunney that dominated Jack is likely the best fighter either man faced.

Rocky beat: charles, jersey, moore, louis, layne, lastarza and cockell. Plus rematch stoppages over Jersey and Charles.

Jack's victories are way behind and I mean that in all honesty.

 

You could definitely make a case for Dempsey based on how he beat the people he did.

Most of his key wins were total dominations.

 

This has become a Dempsey v Marciano thread.

As such I pick Jack and , in the 50's those that had seen both, did too.

 

Dempsey threads tend to go way off tangent, the nature of the beast I guess.

Since it has turned into Marciano v Dempsey I pick Marciano. IMO just a better fighter all round, more durable, bigger punch, better 2 hand puncher, higher workrate, better inside game and more proven. This will be a slugfest so things like faster/better footwork just won't apply, this is going to come down purely to who had the greater physical gifts and better conditioning and Marciano edges Dempsey. Marciano KO's Dempsey within 5.

 

I predict atleast another 6 pages

 

Again, you say better all round, but the reality is that they have very different strengths and weaknesses.

 

No doubt, but I'm just saying all things considered I put Marciano above Dempsey in terms of how good he was. Just like I'd say Ali was better all round then Louis yet they fought very differently and again had very different strengths and weaknesses.

Let's also get real Dempsey fans will say Dempsey, Marciano fans will say Marciano and no matter what either side argues, neither will change their mind.

 

My starting point when assesing a fight like this, would be to ask who the stylistic dynamic favoured.

 

In terms of a h2h fighter you certainly could. You could say the same for Liston also. His victories were total dominations.

However you have to say Rocky beat better opposition. And i'm not really sure it's an issue that can be reasonably debated.

 

Dempsey was faster, moved in and out quicker, had better handspeed, quicker at bobbing and weaving etc. Despite this he came in very wide and open, alot of room to counter, his punches wouldn't go as far to say looped but they were out there, he usually only came in throwing hooks, didn't really look to set you up just came in banging away. Dempsey's gameplan was just go in and take them out which against a fighter of Marciano's strength and quality can spell doom. Firpo decked him twice and nearly had him out for the count and he was abysmal. Marciano was more awkward, i'd say better defense, threw short punches, very good inside game and would get the better of Dempsey in the clinches. He also threw a greater variety of punches, he doubled up, tripled up, threw head body head etc. Most importantly of all he was stronger, harder punching, more durable and better conditioned. Dempsey will come in doing what he does and the more methodical Marciano will be more than happy to oblige in slugging it out with him and IMO get the better of him, getting very well inside throwing punches in bunches inside of Dempsey's hooks. If there's anything Marciano did very well it was to systematically break down fighters and I think he'd do the same to Dempsey.

Dempsey's style suits fighter bigger, slower and clumsier men. He could use his superior footspeed + bobbing and weaving to work his way inward and throw those hooks but this isn't going to be effective against the smaller, more awkward Marciano who stayed in a crouch leaned out to the right, chin tucked in, protected behind his right hand and then swinging and crouching in and out with short punches that bruised arms and busted blood vessels. Marciano has shown in multiple fights he can sustain a 80+ punch output over rounds something Dempsey hasn't shown he could do nor proven he could take. Tunney nearly had him out of there with his constant assualt and Marciano was a much harder puncher. Marciano for me.

 

Depends how you want to look at it.

Is beating Jersey Joe Walcott in 13 rounds necisarily better than beating Fred Fulton in 23 seaconds?

There are also problems with judging the relative strength of eras, and there apears to be an underlying assumption that the top contenders of Marciano's era were better than the equivalents form Dempsey's.