Jack Dempsey vs rocky marciano

Would Dempsey have even fought applegate? He was black, and Dempsey drew the color line

 

Fireman Flynn had zero power. It didn't stop him from knocking Dempsey out for 20 seconds in round 1.

Marciano did what he was supposed to do with applegate and buonvino...beat them

 

By the way a fight report on Marciano buonvino


The Providence Journal reported that Marciano "never punched more sharply and with such power as he showed last night. He was a tiger and relentless in his attack."
Buonvino landed a terrific right to the jaw midway through the first round, one of the hardest punches Rocky ever stopped. Gino landed another powerful right in the second, but his decision to punch it out with Marciano was fatal to his chances.
The final exchange in the second round ended with "a vicious looping right to the jaw" of the Italian heavyweight, which put him down for the full count. "We told him to box as he did in the first fight (with Marciano)," his cornerman said, "but he slugged it out and paid the price."

 

But what point is being made? Marciano had some easy fights along the way, but he also beat the good fighters, and in fact often did better with them. His next three fights after Applegate were KO's of Layne, Beshore, and Louis.

And one could certainly do this with Dempsey.

According to boxrec, in 1918 Dempsey fought

Fred Saddy (0-2 for career, 2 KO bys)

Tom Riley (0-7 for career, 6 KO bys)

Dan Ketchell (0-6 for career, 5 KO bys)

Jack Moran (3-18-2 for career, 15 KO bys)

the totals for this group was 3-32-2 with 28 KO bys,

but what does this prove?

Dempsey also beat good fighters in 1918, as did Marciano in 1951 and 1952.

 

at "long ago proven truths"

 

EM you know your stuff in detail :good

 

The Jack Sharkey circa 1927, would have beaten Archie Moore a LH who was 42 years old when he fought Rocky Marciano in 1955. This prime Jack Sharkey I believe would have whipped
the past peak Ezzard Charles [an alltime great LH] and Joe Walcott who was a past peak 38 years of age when he gave Marciano hell for 13 rounds...The Jack Sharkey of the 1927 Dempsey fight was a damn good fighter at this time...

 

EM, you are a worthy adversary...When comparing this thread
of who would win a bout between Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano both in their respective primes, who they fought early in their careers mean little to me...I who have seen rocky Marciano ko Carmine Vingo in their historic slugfest, and seeing him sparring at Grossingers from 3 feet away from ringside, was terribly impressed with his thudding punches, and raw power and stamina...BUT, I also saw him also on film missing half his punches on vital spots, winning by his attrition offense and great stamina that wore his opponents down...This was a MAN in the ring... But in my mind's eye, I agree with the vast majority of
veteran boxing writers in 1953-54 who when polled and asked who would have won between Dempsey and Marciano at their best CHOSE Dempsey by almost a unanimous vote...Mind you
E M. this poll was conducted when Rocky was heavyweight champion and was at his zenith in popularity...They chose the prime Dempsey because of his MUCH faster and accurate punching that would beat Rocky to the punch and anyone a young Dempsey could hit he ko's...In a frenzy punchout NO ONE
beats a Jack Dempsey in a shootout...His forte was raw speed for a heavyweight, combined with a ferocious two handed attack
that made him the great fistic attraction of all times...And in the slower less accurate punching Marciano, I agree with the pollsters who saw them both at their bests....Speed and style
trumps power alone I have seen this so darn often...

 

I don't have a huge amount to contribute given the quality of the posts thus far, but I will make one observation on this:

"the vast majority of veteran boxing writers in 1953-54 who when polled and asked who would have won between Dempsey and Marciano at their best CHOSE Dempsey by almost a unanimous vote...Mind youE M. this poll was conducted when Rocky was heavyweight champion and was at his zenith in popularity"

It seems to me that for some strange reason reigning champions are often underrated by their contemporaries. Just take a look at Klitschko today, for example.

 

Okay Burt. The polls of old sportswriters in the fifties and sixties favor Dempsey.

One problem I would have with it is that I recall the certainty of the "experts" that Sonny Liston would destroy poor Cassius Clay (or in another sport that the Baltimore Colts would trounce the New York Jets). Experts aren't always correct when their opinions can actually be put to the test which can never be done with assertions in fantasy match-ups.

I think I am not quite as mature as you, Burt, but I'm pretty seasoned and I've found my views evolving over time because so many things have changed during my lifetime.

In my youth, I would have considered Dempsey easily better than Marciano, but in fairness, it was never based on a serious look at their achievements. Dempsey was the colorful icon of the remote past and Marciano the colorless copy. It was only in the seventies when I had the opportunity to watch extensive films that I began to question that judgment. Whatever the talk of "prime" and age and the like, the fighters Marciano was in against just looked better to me, and he beat them all. Presented with the visual evidence, and the evidence of the record book, I changed my opinion.

Still, I am like most old-timers. Ask me who was the best NFL running back, and I wouldn't name Barry Sanders or some young guy playing today, but Jimmy Brown. Ask me who was the best basketball player and I would say Bill Russell rather than Michael Jordan or Lebron James.

If I had been a young sportswriter in the twenties, I think I would have gone to my grave saying Dempsey was the best.