What rationale is there to rate Dempsey higher than Marciano?

Dempsey also beat Levinsky.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

Tyson has a better resume than dempsey too.

 

I think Demspey's resume is a tad deeper..

Debatable. Dempsey smashed some guys, knocked out bigger fighters with tougher chins, and faced bigger punchers.

I don't think Marciano beats Tunney either. Tunney's stamina and chin never let him down. In additon, Marciano never fought out of his prime, Demspey did.

I agree with this.

Disagree. Dempsey hit harder and ended his fights a bit sooner.

Not sure here. Marciano did not face big punchers. Demspey did.

Agree

Agree. And Dempsey's defense and footwork were better.

I'd give the heart edge to Rocky by a shade.

Dempsey threw better combinations.

Since Rocky never faced a big puncher, a top notch swarmer, or a super sized heavy, there are questions. Demspey beat more styles, I think. Fripo hit harder than anyone Marciano fought. So did Willard, and Brennan.

Dempsey and Marciano had decent film, and could be watched by the same era of historians. I think the historians input that Demspey was a bit better means something, but not everything.

Other areas where Demspey has an edge over Marciano is on cut resitance, height, and reach.

 

In your opinion. In my opinion - and many other peoples' opinion - Ali is vastly superior on film.

 

I can't justify it, which is why I have Marciano higher.

 

Good points Chris. I am not saying that I don't agree with you, but I will attempt a counter argument. Just for debates sake and because I respect your arguments.

For starters, Sharkey is in many peoples top 20. Sharkey, unlike Charles and Walcott, who many put in their top 20, was not past his best, like you could say for Charles, Moore and Walcott. Also, it was one of Sharkey's best performances, that Jack was able to captialize on his main weakness (being his eras Golota and kind of a head case) is not Dempsey's fault. Great fighters do not let their gaurd down and complain to the ref in a fight.
Willard was much as you say, but I think a little underated today. Does Dempsey not got any credit for perhaps the most vicious beat down in heavyweight history? Dempsey was pure rage in that fight, perhaps one that has never been equaled. Firpo was crude, but could take and land a punch. For pure power, he may be more powerful than anyone Marciano faced. In the heavyweights, those are not attributes to be taken lightly. Miske is largely underrated and I think he compares favorably to LaStarza. Fulton was the number one guy and Dempsey flattened him in 18 seconds. Nobody, not Joe Louis, not Mike Tyson, not Sonny Liston, ever pasted the number one contender so effertlessly. Fulton, was a good fighter, too. Willard would not meet him. Carpentier was a very good light heavy, do you think there is that much difference between him and Matthews? He may have lost a step due to war activity, but he was still very young. This is a guy who went 15 with a prime Jeanette when he was only twenty.
Some don't believe it, but I really think when watching the fight, that Dempsey could have taken him out much sooner. Can't be proved, but it certainly looks like it and it makes sense. I would rate Brennan and Morris over old Savold and fat Cockell easily.

One note here, there was no rule in the books at the time that a fighter could not be helped back into the ring. It was not illegal at all. It was put in the books after this fight, similar to the neurtral corner rule.
If you want to talk about modern rules, it would have been TKO 1 for the amount of knockdowns that were scored, with or without the neutral corner rule it seems fair to say that Firpo would have hit the canvas enough times to call off the fight. Dempsey is a fighter that would benifit from a three knockdown rule, even if he wasn't allowed to hover.

On one side of things, from a pure boxing side, yes. You have to go to Joe Louis to find a champion who gave every fighter a second chance as did the Rock. But, again, what about the excitement that Jack Dempsey's fights produced? Never before, and never since, was one fighter responsible for so many boxing EVENTS as was Dempsey. When you went to a Dempsey fight, you knew you were most likely in for some fireworks. Not being dull and electrfying your audience is also what makes a true champ. It is likely that had Rickard promoted more, Dempsey would have fought more, but part of Rickards philosphy was to keep the fight fan hungry. Jack Dempsey vs. Jack Renault in 1924 would probably not brought up a worthy of enough gate. It would have been just a fight. But it would have been a credible top ten win in Dempsey's championship years. In the end, it hurt Dempsey. But at the time, it sold tickets.
And, I hate to bring this up, because I am a big Marciano fan, but is Wills being avoided by Dempsey (in a fight that Dempsey did try and make) any better than Nino Valdez not getting a crack at the Marciano title instead of, say, Cockell? And is this better than a 7 year title reign held by Holmes where a single unifying match (and no rematches given on the close ones) was made? Its not entirely Dempseys fault that he didn't fight Wills. Not even Wills thought so.


These were the accomplishment-related points, which are most significant because it uses very little speculation. The next points are minor ones:

Con. Dempsey had the quicker hands and could do more damage in the same amount of time. Marciano threw harder than Louis, too, but does that make him the better puncher overall?

Con. Dempsey was only knocked out once (in dubious circumstances) and fought the more powerful heavyweight punchers than Rocky. Another con,
Dempsey was not prone to cuts.

Con. Many of Dempsey's opponents did not make it out of the first round or fought in a "not here to lose" shell a la Gibbons.

But then Marciano had the stamina...:hey

agree.

left hook or overhand right? Both can hurt ya.

Fulton, Firpo and Brennan were all big natural heavyweights who rank amongst the best punchers of all time in magazines like Ring. Marciano never had to deal with a boxer as fast on his feet as Dempsey did in Tunney or one as tall and heavy as Fred Fulton. Dempsey also had to deal with defensive master Gibbons, boxer puncher Sharkey, slick Miske (who was only knocked out by Dempsey before or after) and a still somewhat capable quick handed Gunboat Smith.

all in fun, can you at least move them closer??

 

Dempsey WAS prone to cuts, Tunney cut up Dempsey BOTH times.

 

While I agree that Marciano outranks Dempsey, and mostly for reasons you outline in this post, I will point out some places here where you're unfair to Dempsey/skew the facts a touch:
1. Marciano didn't necessarily "win more impressively" than Dempsey, if one looks at it in a different light- that is, while it is true that Marciano's body of fights against major opponents constitutes a far more impressive overall record, someone who is more focused on anecdotal facts/the "meat" of the fight would look at Marciano's major fights and see that he never really has one of those performances where he just "obliterates" an elite-level opponent. I think that's one of the reasons Marciano went unappreciated in his own time and still is by many today; although he has a very impressive record and consistently won in clear-cut fashion against very good opponents, he never put on one of those "He's INVINCIBLE!!!" masterpieces, like, say, Dempsey against Willard, Louis against Schmeling in the rematch, Tyson against Spinks, etc., that tend to cause their contemporaries to think of them in that "legendary" category instead of as just another, even if they are the best, of that terrible crop of current fighters.
Dempsey, on the other hand, in many of his major wins, gave off the impression of invincibility, of being superhuman, invulnerable and unstoppable. With that being the case, even though he certainly showed some serious chinks in his armor on many other occasions, contemporaries who saw him in those "masterpiece" performances had that image of the apparently untouchable, unstoppable and unbeatable Dempsey permanently engrained in their psyches. Yet, ultimately, it is apparent that Dempsey was never untouchable, unstoppable or unbeatable at all- rather, with the right opponent on the right night, he had the right set of very strong assets to look that way when the chips fell in his favor.

This part of their careers is a rather interesting inverse: Marciano's overall body of work seems practically superhuman, while Dempsey's is very much human, yet Marciano the man looks extremely human in the ring, while Dempsey the man appears all but superhuman on his night.

2. The "Firpo-DQ-loss thing" for Dempsey is a complete misinterpretation of the rules. If Dempsey's trainer had run over and pushed him back into the ring, for example, that would have merited disqualification. But if a third party which isn't affiliated with either fighter interferes in the match somehow, you can't disqualify either fighter for it. This would be like if I were in a boxing match and a sniper in the audience shot my opponent dead, so they disqualified me and named him the winner. At worst, it could be called a no-contest.
Besides which, even if the idea that this "should" have been a DQ loss were correct(which it isn't), what, exactly, would that have to do with anything? Dempsey "should" have had an incredibly unlucky "L" on his record because something completely beyond his control happened to interfere with his winning a fighter over an opponent he was clearly superior to, so we should all drop him out of the top 10(again, the premise isn't even true, but for the sake of argument)?

3. The "Dempsey-vs.-Tunney-and-Sharkey-comparable-to-Marciano-vs.-Charles-and-Moore" thing is unfair, and I think you know you're stretching things here. Marciano was in peak condition throughout his title reign and took no large lay-offs. Dempsey was coming out of(essentially) retirement after three years when he fought Tunney and Sharkey. I daresay that if, after beating Walcott, Rocky had gotten together with a movie star, gone to Hollywood and made movies with barely a thought of boxing for an extended time period, and then come back three years later and fought Charles and Moore, he would've struggled severely and/or lost.
----------------------------------------------------------------
All of that said, though, yes, Marciano was a greater fighter than Dempsey, in my opinion.

 

DEMPSEY was prone to cuts!?!?!?!? Right, Marciano came out of his fights with his face in pristine condition:yep

I skipped most of the commentary here by both sides,and am just going to the basic question by the thread: Dempsey is rated higher because he was the much superior fighter.

 

You really should read things in context. The post saying Dempsey "WAS" prone to cuts was a response to a post arguing that he had an advantage over Marciano because of not being prone to cuts. Dempsey1238 never said anything to suggest Marciano was less liable to cut than Dempsey, only that Dempsey also cut.

Personally, I do think Marciano demonstrated a stronger tendency towards cutting than Dempsey, but that may be a product of the fact that Marciano tended to take more punches.

 

Marciano was cut vs Walcott, and Charles, badly vs Charles in the 2nd match.
Dempsey was cut vs Bill Brennon and Gene Tunney(Both matchs)
Tunney did not just out point Dempsey. These were not light jabs, and Tunney won a UD, when Dempsey walk away with a non damage face. Tunney beat Dempsey up over the course of 20 rounds. And at the end of both matchs, Dempsey was hurt, cut, and eyes close. Dempsey eyes was close, that he had to be LEAD to Gene Tunney for a victory hug from Dempsey.

 

Me too.

 

I rate Marciano higher all-time, but he'd get beaten pretty convincingly head-to-head against Dempsey. :good

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected