REVISED: Under 185lb Tournament, FINALS # 1 Rocky Marciano vs # 2 Jack Dempsey

Partying hard to celebrate the Rock's victory. Nice.

 

No, I don't think there's any "right" or "wrong" on this subject. I'm just having fun with it.

Of course I couldn't care less about where Dempsey is ranked by a consensus, now OR in the future or even in the past (I mean, Jim Corbett was often rated super-high too c. 1940s, and I'm not sure I'm convinced).
The consensus of the old-timers and eye witnesses testimonies of those generations is only a response to accusations that I must be insane, or deluded, or some sort of emotion-fuelled hero-worshipper, or something. Rating Dempsey can't be THAT bad if whole generations did so.
Dempsey was just ONE OF the greatest fighters ever, IMO.

Why on earth BN printed Haye would KO Dempsey, it's hard to fathom. That kind of thing goes beyond what we are talking about. Of course they were on a mission to boost Haye rather than insult Dempsey. Anyone who bought into Haye is probably not a good judge of fighters anyway.

 

I do think it's interesting to point out that most of the people posting and voting here, were not following boxing when Dempsey or Marciano were active - maybe 10% here has seen Marciano as a kid.

So, the other 90% has no emotional bias towards either man, and assesses their judgment based on film and records. And time and time again, the records show that Marciano has an unprecedented KO and ratio against highly ranked contenders and basically beat everyone out there. Dempsey, while spectacular on film, has a more spotty record in that he set a historic record for ducking a #1 contender seven years straight, has an early KO loss to a mediocre opponent, never fought Greb but instead took on the losers of title eliminators. Then went on to be completely dominated twice when he faced a quality opponent.

Dempsey is very much about perception. People think Dempsey, they think the Willard slaughter. A great looking win, but you don't see that Willard hadn't fought in three years.

Edward makes a good point that illustrates this perception. Based on their actual fights, Marciano has a better chance to score the knockout after 3 rounds or more than Dempsey, yet most pick Dempsey as an early winner here. Again, despite the fact that Dempsey has been stopped early whereas Marciano never was, against better opponents.

I really don't see why one would blindly put faith in writers from 80 years ago, who didn't have the access to information and film that we today have. I'm sorry, but ranking on seeing something 5+ years ago (let alone 30 years) is completely unreliable. Just look at how many different reports there are on Dempsey-Flyyn. Some have it as a right-hand one-punch KO, others say Dempsey was down three times and stopped on his feet, yet another says it was a left hook, etc, etc. I regularly re-watch fights that I've seen many times and to my surprise find that the ending punch, or momentum of the bout, was contrary to my memory of it.

And I'm sorry but being a great trainer doesn't mean your opinion is fact. Back in the day or now. Just look at how many fighters Emmanuel Stewart has considered "the greatest in history", same for Roach, Dundee, D'Amato, etc. Incidentally, it was D'Amato who greatly rated a fighter from the 20's that he'd personally seen. Upon seeing film of said boxer in the 80's, he was surprised to find out how primitive and technically unequipped the fighter was. He mostly remembered the fighting spirit and subconsciously translated that into ability. This is normal human behaviour and happens to all of us, including great trainers/writers.

By the way, welcome back Old Fogey!

 

Perhaps i'm awarding too much credit here but I think pollack's books have quite an influence due to the amount of unbiased research he puts into them.

He's writing the jack johnson book now, so maybe 6 or so years time he'll be up to dempsey (he seems to be following hw lineage with his series) it wouldn't surprise me if there's a new consensus formed on dempsey when a lot of the info is available in one book.

I'm not holding adam above any other author here, btw, (there are many fantastic boxing writer's such as moyle etc) it's just that his books are consistent and well researched plus follow a lineage of their own which helps with their popularity imo.

 

I don't see how we have access to more relevant knowledge/information than guys like Lou Stillman or Ray Arcel had, or some veteran gym rat ringside reporter of the day.
We simply don't.
If you spent half your life rubbing shoulders with professional fighters and champions and observing them up close, you will have had better source material than some guy 90 years later straining his eyes over old black and white film. It's absurd to suggest we are in a better position to judge.

Ask someone like Angelo Dundee about Dempsey and he'll say, "I've only seen film of him, but I knew many guys who saw him and they tell me he was great". It's only on ESB and in the minds cyberspace anti-realists than seeing old film could possibly be viewed as superior. Guys like Dundee know that it's seeing a fighter up close and seeing thousands of world class fighters up close that allow you to properly judge them.

 

You do have some good points But when they vote athletics into a Hall of Fame, who does the voting?

Answer: The experts in that field. For the International Boxing Hall of Fame most of the voting members are from the Boxing Writers of America, where I am the Historian. The rest of the people that have a vote are the top boxing historians in boxing. If the IBHOF would leave it up to all of us, the HOF would most likely look a lot different. Baseball, Football, Basketball, Hockey or any other sport, all pick the experts to do the voting.

 

U,well said ! As in today's politics, I feel boxing fans are not on a par with
rhe fans of my day, and my dad's time. They in their infinite wisdom DISREGARD history, and the boxing writers who OBSERVED history. The past is mostly irrelevant to most of them [not all of course],and they
on the basis of a few snippets of film clips, base their "expert" opinions
on the merits of fighters long gone ,who can no longer defend themselves,
and completely disregard the eyewitness opinions of great boxing figures who were marinated into the boxing business ,and saw Ringside all the great fighters of the past. Somehow a [it must be stated again] Sam Langford.,Hype Igoe, Tad Dorgan, Damon Runyon, Grantland Rice, Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker,Jack Sharkey, Max Schmeling,Ray Arcel,and the pollsters who by a great majority chose Dempsey as an all-time great, and the victor over Rocky Marciano,were they to have collided. Their opinions are less valid then some of today's connoisseur's, who gaze at a few clips of Dempsey,and determine that he was overated,too small, didn't fight Wills, lost to Gene Tunney, was a product of antiquity,and so forth. Well U
I see things through the eyes and writings of great boxing writers of that time and AFTER. I see things that Dempsey did on a few segments,that have imporessed me no end. Such as the Willard fight,when that first round left-hook [not clearly seen],drops the 65 pound heavier Willard who was never floored before. I see in the Firpo segment, when Dempsey almost in a clinch with the powerful Firpo, frees his left hand,and with amazing speed of hand unleashes 5-7 left hooks so powerful that firpo drops to the floor.And all this without much room for leverage. I see in the second round Dempsey hits Firpo with two short punches,that the camera hardly picks up and Firpo goes down on his back like he was shot. I see an old 32 year old Dempsey,out of the ring for 3 years finally catching Gene Tunney with a series of 5-7 punches, so beautiful to watch in the speed and accuracy of the punches, that as some wag once wrote," the punches seem fast even in slow motion". These things I see ,that prompted the pollsters to vote Dempsey as the best heavyweight they had seen. Yes he had faults, but I can say this about ANY heavyweight in history, but Dempsey had certain attributes, never seen in a heavyweight before or since. Namely pantherlike speed when in his prime, a great left-hook and right hand, A tough bob and weave defense, very good chin,a kill or be killed attitude, and the greatest rough and tumble heavyweight of all time....Did he face the best contenders ? No,Ali most likely did. But no fighter picks the time of their birth. Was he wise in taking 3 prime years off from fighting [1923-6] ,No,
but Hollywood and harlots beckoned,and Dempsey took the bait...
Who of us wouldn't after living your early life as a hobo and barfighter.?
So U, I might be in the minority on ESB, extolling the merits of Jack Dempsey today, but methinks I'm in good company...:good

 

:good

burt,

If a 100 year-old man turned up and said,
"I had sex with Mae West in 1930 and it was great !",

I'm sure someone here on ESB would say :
"No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. It's impossible. According to modern day internet and information resources, it's apparent that Mae West was actually an overrated and lousy lover, completely unresponsive in sexual encounters. You probably had more fun masturbating in that Jap prisoner of war camp."

 

I think the deal is that a fighter like Marciano would never be appreciated by "experts" as much as a Jack Dempsey who visually may have looked more impressive. But all the people who were actually in the ring with Marciano or closely observed him throughout his career praised his effectiveness and acknowledged his greatness. Jack Dempsey himelf was one of those.

The fact is that as crude as Marciano may have looked at first look, you have to take into account that he was able to beat some great fighters and did it decisively, greater fighters than those that Dempsey beat.

To an extent you have to know or atleast visualize what it's like to be in the ring with a Rocky Marciano before you can fully appreciate him.

 

Ok, thanks for letting me know.
But I don't do that anyway. To me, opinions are opinions, almost all can be valid and backed up with reasoning. Difference of opinions is a good thing on this forum, for sure.
And more recent opinions cannot really be formed without some sort of dependence on earlier opinions anyway.

But some sources of knowledge are clearly superior to other sources. Watching fragments of a fighter on grainy old film is not as good as watching that fighter in real life from a few feet away at ringside, and in training, for years on end. And people who watched a thousand fighters multiple times from a few feet away have a better access to the subject at hand, than someone who may watch the same 60 minutes of grainy old footage again and again.
That's not to say that they will form a superior opinion, but they do have access to better data.