Jack Dempsey .Vs. Rocky Marciano

Haha...just baiting you mate.

 

No he didnt but he never met a puncher like Dempsey either.If Marciano and Charles had there second fight today ,its probable the ref would have stopped it during the 7th rd.I think Marciano's edge in one punch power is equalised by Dempsey's edge in hand and foot speed,plus Dempsey was better at bobbing and weaving,but its a pick em fight ,I don't see how anyone can really get too upset with a prediction either way.If you don't think Marciano was susceptible to facial damage have a look at his face after he fought Louis,Walcott and Charles.Dempsey was only really marked up by sharpshooting Tunney when he was past his best.nb Louis was 36,Walcott was 37 ,Charles was 33 /34.

 

I think Dempsey has the edge in overall punching effeciancy due to his edge in precision and speed, while Marciano has a slight edge in pure one-punch power. IMO, Dempsey has more advantages over Marciano than vice-versa.

 

I doubt this fight would come down to physical advantages but most likely a battle of will, rather than skill.

 

I picture it as a Thrilla in Manilla type of fight, with both putting it all on the line and putting on a near superhuman display of heart and durability. If it somehow happened, with both in their primes, seeing it live probably would have mind blowing, literally, people would have been having ****in aneurisms in the crowd.

 

This is the opinion of Eric Jourgenson Boxing Historian

"Marciano was a true warrior and an indisputably great fighter. His inhuman stamina allowed him to hurl really hard punches at an incredible rate (in terms of volume, if not speed). Though his wildness meant it usually took him a while to find the range, he always did find it, and there's no denying the guy could hit.

Still, if there is one great whom I am convinced Dempsey could have beaten every night of the week, it's Marciano. Basically, everything Rocky could do, Jack could do better. Specifically, if you took Marciano as a baseline, juiced up his right hand a bit and his left hand a lot, tightened his defense, doubled his reflexes, and gave him skin that didn't cut, then you'd have Dempsey. Dempsey and Marciano would have collided at center ring, whereupon Marciano would have started missing and Dempsey would have started landing. Very quickly, Marciano would have busted up and blacked out. Fundamentally, if Walcott and Moore could hurt Marciano, then Dempsey could have hurt him severely; and if Dempsey could survive Firpo, then he could have survived someone who took 9 rounds to polish off Don Cockell. A furious fight, but a short one.

Result: Dempsey TKO4 over Marciano"

And then there is Gene Tunney's opinion:
In a 1952 interview with ‘Look’ magazine, Gene spoke of Dempsey thus: “Jack Dempsey, I’m convinced, was our greatest heavyweight champion. In his prime, when he knocked out Jess Willard to win the title in 1919, he would have taken the four leading heavyweights of today – Jersey Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Harry (Kid) Matthews and Ezzard Charles – and flattened them all in one night.

“These four men are honest, earnest, capable professionals. If they are not touched with ring genius, neither are they stumblebums. So I do not mean to deprecate them when I say Dempsey would have levelled them all in the same evening as follows: Matthews, two rounds. Charles, two rounds. Walcott, five rounds. Marciano, one round."

Monte Cox
"In the final analysis, Jack Dempsey deserves to be rated among the all time greats in the heavyweight division. In comparison to other heavyweight champions of similar size, such as Marciano and Frazier, he was just as tough, showed more durability to fight when hurt, was a faster and more explosive puncher, had better overall boxing skills and had greater ring experience. Dempsey should be considered the number one or two heavyweight prior to Ali by established opinion."

In the Associated Press Mid-Century Poll conducted in 1950, for example, Dempsey received 251 votes as history's number 1 fighter, pound-for-pound; distant runner-up Joe Louis received only 104 votes - this was a little early to get a good read on Rocky so lest also look at the 1962 (after Rock had retired: Apr 27. 1956) Ring magazine poll of 40 boxing experts and it was Jack Dempsey that was rated the # 1 Heavyweight of all time AGAIN with Joe Louis 2nd, Jack Johnson 3rd and Marciano finishing a distant 7th, way behind Dempsey.

Almost no boxing expert or historian who had seen them both picked Rocky over Jack.

 

I agree with them, though I feel Marciano would have troubled Dempsey more than they do. It is true that practically no one who saw them both fight in person felt that Marciano would get the better of Dempsey in a hypothetical head to head match-up.

 

that is the worst logic I have ever heard

 

Charles was 32/33 just to clarify

 

Everyone talks about dempsey being a fast starter, yet he lost too and was given fits by a short swarmer like willie meehan. anyone think this pertains to the fight?

 

Because they're boxing historians or fighters doesn't make their opinion any more valuable than most people here. A lot of boxing historians make dumb remarks. Mr Jourgenson too: "Specifically, if you took Marciano as a baseline, juiced up his right hand a bit and his left hand a lot, tightened his defense, doubled his reflexes, and gave him skin that didn't cut, then you'd have Dempsey."

Maybe he could think about why Marciano has several one-punch KO's (with both hands) whereas Dempsey doesn't (with smaller gloves), yet Marciano's power is "a lot" below Dempsey's? As far cuts, the one from Charles was caused by an elbow and to be frank, Dempsey was never in with fighters as good as Walcott, Charles, Louis and Moore; outside of Tunney. And Tunney messed up Dempsey's face badly, in just 10 rounds. He also fails to mention how Marciano's stamina is far superior as well as his durability.



It's rather obvious that no one picked Marciano in 1952, he had just won the championship back then. On top of that, current champions are always hated, the old days were better, blablabla. No one ranked Lewis or Holyfield in the top10 less than 5 years ago; right now just about everyone does. This is basic human psychology.

This shows how completely incompetent and/or biased boxing experts were back then. Dempsey has no, i repeat, NO justification whatsoever to be ranked over Louis. Louis has triple Dempsey's amount of title defenses, never voluntary sat on the throne for 3 years, Louis' opposition is in a different category than Dempseys, he never ducked the #1 contender for 7 years, etc etc. Either they based their views for a part on racial thoughts, or they were just plain ******ed and basing their opinion on heresay. It should be noted that back then, film of Dempsey was not available at decent speed. Records (particularly of opposition) could not be looked up in blink of an eye like they can now.

Everyone's jaw dropped when they read the heroic stories and autobiographies of how Dempsey destroyed that 6'6 240lbs giant and the Firpo strongman. Of course you won't read on how Willard was inactive for 3 years, 37 years old with horrible technique to begin with, but still looking like Sugar Ray compared to Firpo, who had Dempsey down twice.

Those same heroic stories won't go on lengths on how he disgraced the championship by keeping the title hostage for 3 full years, how he gave Wills the shaft by ducking him for many years, how he was helped back into the ring by thirds against Firpo, etc etc. I mean, ducking the #1 contender for 7 years, that's a record for any weight category that still stands 100 years later yet almost no one talks or knows about it; when Patterson (for good reason: spectacular rematches with Johansson) doesn't fight Liston for as much as 2 years, everyone in the world knows it and will never forget.


Much of how you regard a fighter is based on perception; what you hear, read and see about him. Back then, information was a lot harder to come by. You couldn't just watch all those films and records whenever you wanted to. Dempsey was part of the great four in sports during the roaring twenties when people needed a hero. And a hero he was. But not greater than Louis.

 

:good

 

I agree with most of your post chris.


One thing here

It wasnt liston. It was patterson giving radamacher, london, harris title shots 1957-1959 instead of machen, folley, or valdez. or giving tom mcneeley a title shot in 1961 instead of cleveland williams.

 

I agree with Tunney - not all in one nite tho LOL. Peak Dempsey wins by early KO. He's not fighting Archie Moore in this one but a real heavyweight killer at his peak. Dempsey was way past his peak v Tunney.

 

Yeah ok, but those are a bunch of fighters you're talking about. Not that that makes it any better, but i mentioned Liston because that was one single clear-cut #1 contender, just like Wills was.


On a sidenote, Patterson fought Johansson three times in a row; i think the easy Mcneely fight in between is forgiveable, especially considering he fought the #1 right after that. I probably think less off Patterson than you do, but i do think sometimes he gets a bit of a raw deal considering his reign.