Jack Dempsey vs rocky marciano

Why would I not like Dempsey? He was a very colourful, exciting fighter; boxing's first real superstar - and since I didn't know him personally, what would be the reason for me disliking him? But I suppose in your eyes, everyone who simply thinks that he wasn't quite what you believe him to be, must be a "hater"!

 

the rule of boxing historians:

the fighter from the older era always wins!

 

Fighters who are termed ATG by experts of their time are ATG fighters. No one saidBurns, Hart, Willard, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Braddock or Carnera were The best ever. Dempsey was considered the best by those same experts.

 

I think that this generally holds true.

While contemporary observers can be prone to errors and biases, they can't all be mistaken in the same way, and there is always somebody who calls it like it is.

Legends do not get built in this game, without a streak of truth in them.

Jack Dempsey might not have been the greatest heavyweight of all time as these people contended, but they would not be rating him as such, unless he was a phenomenal talent.

I suspect that the streak of truth in it, was that he had a god given talent for finishing.

 

I think you underestimate Dempseys skills. His ability to throw quick ultra short punches in combination is equaled only by Louis and his inside game was better. It's such a shame we don't have prime Dempsey on perfect quality modern film. I can see the feints, short punching skills but unless you spend time watching closely the jittery silient era quality film these idiosyncrasies get easily lost. As one example watch the first KD of Firpo in the second round. Dempsey bobs forward feints And throws a picture perfect right to the body left hoof to the jaw. Both punches thrown textbook and as short as I have ever seen them thrown. Firpo crumples to the canvas. That's one small example of the kind of skills Dempsey brought to the table. Very unique highly skilled hwt was Jack Dempsey.

 

His only peers among the heavyweights as an infighter, were Joe Louis, and possibly Tommy Burns.

 

So now you're saying that Dempsey was an ungulate? I know that Dempsey gets his nickname from the way big cats "maul" their prey, but this animal imagery just seems down-right inappropriate.

 

He kicked like one.

 

I have good news for you Perry. There are quiet a few Dempsey historians out there, one of them has clear film on Dempsey. Seek out Mike Hunnicut. He’s got the best clear copy of Dempsey vs. Willard. You’ll be able to see the idiosyncrasies that old film blurs.

Mike used to trade with Jimmy Jacobs. He has some rare flims. I'm pretty sure Klompton can verify that.

Anyway Mike's a good historian. Dempsey is " his guy "

 

B, that's bunk...I was referring to a small few posters who go out of their way to besmirch the name of Jack Dempsey time and again. Why in their eyes he is just a notch above a Butterbean as a good heavyweight, and their foolish disregard of what multitudes of boxing gurus who saw Dempsey at his 'best', is
totally ignored and scorned upon....If this total disregard for
boxing history is ignored and frowned upon what better adjective would you give them ?
You know B, I just might be on the right side of this quest for
what the Jack Dempsey of his prime truly brought into the ring ???

 

FP ,"hoof" could mean HOOFER, and in show business it means
a dancer of the 1920s and up...Well I suppose one can be a hoofer and a "mauler' at the same time..

 

Lol, really? *The More You Know*

I certainly don't doubt it.

 

Burns? He wasn't even a better infighter then ketchel

 

He certainly was, and even if he wasn't, what would your point be?

 

Burns was considered a great infighter during his day.