jack dempsey vs ken norton...

To all who have read my post addressing this deadly and ACCURATE fact...
When Rocky Marciano was the Heavyweight Champion in the 1950s,the Ring Mag conducted a survey asking this question to BOXING reporters who saw Dempsey in his prime, asking ":who would win a fight between Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano, both in their primes " ?
Almost to a man they PICKED Jack Dempsey to ko the much slower Marciano...A
unanimous choice !!!. They all felt that Dempsey ,so much speedier and more accurate
a two handed puncher would get their always first against the slower Rocky, and anyone
a young prime Dempsey hit he ko'd....Why does all these naysayers of this thread
completely IGNORE this poll I cite ??? Do they who deny this poll, have a vested interest
in Marciano, that they think they know more about Dempsey and Marciano than just
about everyone of those Boxing experts, who chose Dempsey over Marciano ?
Marciano, whom I saw ringside was a bull. No doubt about that..But he missed half of his punches at least and against a fast, equally tough deadly hitter liks a prime
Dempsey, that is a recipe for disaster...Dempsey was a deadly fast hitter who kod everyone who he hit...Aside from the master boxer Tommy Gibbons, who lasted the 15 rounds, Dempsey kod every opponent he faced in his prime...He flattened 25 guys in the 1st round,he obliterated a giant Willard who was never on the floor before, he flattened
a brutish Luis Angel Firpo with a one-two,so fast that you can hardly see the punches
even in slow motion..Yes Firpo was not a great heavyweight but he was immensely powerful,and Dempsey annihilated him in the 2nd round...Watch before the ko Dempsey and Firpo were in a clinch. Dempsey got his left hand free and without any punching room
Jack hit Firpo with about 7 or so left hook=uppercuts so freakin fast and powerful
from a clinch for gosh sakes...
So naysayers why not address the fact that every boxing writer chose Dempsey because of style over Rocky,when Marciano was champion.? Do you nor I , know more than they who saw them both ? I think not ...
P.S. Of course Rocky could hit, but seeing him throw punches at a punching bag Don Cockell ,missing half his punches for 9 rounds, proves to me that those boxing experts
during Rocky's title reign knew what they were talking about...And so do I...

 

Dempsey catches Norton with a fight ending left hook when Ken stops to hitch up his trunks..a familiar move of Ken's.

 

How would Rocky's career be different if he could stand over his fallen opponents waiting for them to get off their knees before unloading another Suzie Q? How about if the Rock had House Ref's for all his fights, was able to get away with late blows, low blows and rabbit punches (ok, he did have the Cockell fight) and newspapermen helping him up from his knockdowns? How about if he avoided a middleweight who destroyed his title contenders multiple times?

 

i just can't put as much stock in experts opinions as you do at times burt. yes, they knew what they were talking about and knew far more than i BUT they had their biases, same as every generation. everyone tends to favour the champions of their childhood/past over the current crop. wlad is **** now compared to tyson, tyson would be dominated by ali, ali was a runner who would get flattened by louis, louis was too robotic for dempsey, etc. in 50 years, who knows what the experts will say...

 

Burt i'm not interested in those opinions because I can watch both men myself. I can research both records and read fight reports of both.

Information is much more readily available now and I might not have any contacts in the boxing world nor any witty anecdotes with which to impress casual fans, but I can judge for myself who I think a victor will be. And I judge that victor to be Rocky.

Janitor, absolutely it is better to stop Jersey in 13 than fulton in 1. That's a ridiculous question. Ofcourse Rocky beat better guys anyone with access to the internet should reach that conclusion. Hell Louis who lost to Rocky is leagues ahead of the Willard who lost to Jack. Gibbons and Miske are comfortably behind Charles and Moore. Fulton is leagues behind jersey. Firpo is perhaps on the level of Layne. Rocky has an advantage at just about every juncture. Once your comfortable with the idea he beats Jack it's not that much of a leap to say as an overall great Rocky is himself leagues ahead of Jack.

 

Not to demean your post in any way,but how come the sports writers who saw both, thought Marciano was a cruder ,slower version of Dempsey?:huh

 

Not to demean your response in any way but you'd have to ask them.

 

Boy I tell you that Ken Norton had his moments.

 

It is the beuty of it.

Fulton was definitely more highly regarded when Dempsey beat him.

We only know that Wills was better in hindsight.

Thats about the closest example I can think of, and it is one of the greatest wins of all time.

 

I'm not sure that he was more highly regarded. Not sure at all.

It's the only example I can recall from the top of my head. Lewis destroyed Ruddock but didn't get the fight with Bowe. He again destroyed golota but took holy on points.

Ingo is the only man I can think of who destroyed the top two hw's in such fashio.