jack dempsey vs ken norton...

I would agree that Marciano has better one punch power than Dempsey,in his right hand anyway .
Dempsey I think had, faster hands ,faster footwork, quicker combinations,a better left hook,was a more accurate puncher, was the quicker man all round, and had better head, and body movement . It's just my opinion . And that's why I qualified my statement with the words "just about".

 

Yeah I believe a stone to be significant. Between two great fighters, that extra weight can be all the difference.

Genuinely believe? More like suspect. This is a fantasy match up. I suspect Rocky beats Jack and I suspect Joe beats Rocky I also suspect Larry beats Rocky. No statement requires a devout belief and none will be proven.

Tunney and Rocky aside there's not a man from cruiser and below i'd favour over Jack.

 

The difference is that when discussing Marciano's weaker performances we are still talking about victories.

 

In a fantasy version match up I think Rocky's opponents win a near clean sweep.

Charles v Gibbons
Moore v Miske
Jersey v Sharkey
Louis v Willard
Layne v Fulton
Lastarza v Carpentier
Cockell v Firpo

Switch fights around if you feel i've made any poor matchups there.

Honestly Fulton over Layne is maybe the only pick i'd make.

Again apologies to Ken. The guy never gets his dues, even in his own thread :-(

 

mcvey,

Watch the films...heeney looked soft against tunney. About 10lb overweight. Yes, Cockell was a fat ass too.

 

GI,

You talk about Charles at age 32 on june 17th, 1954 being "way past it". What about Tommy Gibbons at age 32 fighting Jack Dempsey? Was gibbons "way past his prime" too?

 

Heeney's weight fluctuated.I would not call him roly poly however ,which is how you described him.
There is no doubt Heeney earned his title shot, just as there is no doubt he was more deserving of a shot than Godfrey at the time The Hard Rock went in with Tunney,Heeney had beaten two of the top ten contenders and drawn with the number 2 in his last three fights.
Stylistically he may have been made for Tunney, but he had a legitimate ,and solid claim to a title shot.

Godfrey would not have beaten Tunney in 1928, he couldnt beat Gains by then, his sun was not only setting, it was gradually fading over the horizon.

The man Tunney was not keen to fight was the unpredictable inconsistant, but occasionaly brilliant Jack Sharkey.

Sharkey's lack of consistancy gave Tunney the excuse not to fight him.
I've often wondered if an "on form", Sharkey had faced Tunney, would history have been altered?

 

Great point...has this question been done in a thread before?

 

Charles had 94 fights on the clock when he went in with Rocky had had lost two of his last four fights.he would have another twenty four, losing fourteen of them
Gibbons had won his last seven fights, five by stoppage and he had engaged in 51 fights, he would have another twelve winning eleven , ten by stoppage ,losing only to Tunney in his last ring appearance.

Yes I think Charles was further along to the Pugilists Old Peoples Home than Gibbons was.

It's not the age of the car, it's the mileage on the clock.

 

Nothing stopping your good self making a thread on it.

 

Touche...

 

I really like Dempsey, quite a lot actually. He destroyed a good part of the division on his rise, and did so in emphatic fashion. His style was high risk/high reward, tho, and his management thought it better to manage this risk once he was champion.

 

It's too late, we've seen them.

This content is protected

 

Is that a skin condition...

 

I would suggest that the uncertainty about how these fights would turn out, is more prevalent than any meaure by which one would be favoured over another.