What rationale is there to rate Dempsey higher than Marciano?

and Chris, majority of the people i have seen rate Marciano ahead anyway.

 

Fired up Title Bout and ran this classic tavern-talk matchup. Both guys are fast. Both guys have quick hands. Both guys are tough as nails. Both guys can punch like a sonufabitch.

Put them in a ring at the old Madison Square Garden. Ten rounds, cause no one expects this to last past ten. Picked Lou Marsh of Toronto to referee so no one can shout "Bias". Doc Kearns is in Dempsey's corner. Al Weill is in Marciano's. (The house is jammed packed SRO. Press from all over North and South America and Europe.)

Ref Marsh calls the fighters together and reminds them about hitting below the belt and using the elbow, and tells them to go to a neutral corner in the event of a knockdown. No standing eight count and no three knowndown rule. "Touch gloves and Come out fightin'!"

There's the bell!

 

No, actually, you don't seem to get it. "Because so-and-so said so" isn't really a rationale so much as it is an appeal to authority. Everyone here is aware that historians and sportswriters have, for the most part, historically held higher opinions of Dempsey than of Marciano. Chris has acknowledged that since the first post. Why, then, would you think that repeating that exact same point again in long, drawn-out fashion would cause him(or any of Marciano's other proponents) to change his mind?

I'm curious; do you think the appropriate way to rank fighters historically is to count the number of sportswriters, trainers and ex-champs who rank them in a certain order and decide to agree with the majority? No original research, no personal evaluation of the facts, just believe what somebody else believes?

 

No.

At the same time I think some people here are too qick to dismis contemporary opinion on the romanticism argument.

It is one thing to dismis the opinion of sombody like Nat Fleischer on this basis but if all the contemporary writers were unanimous on a given fighter you should take note.

If for example Jack Johnson was a primative fighter who would not have got anywhere in subsequent eras as some here try to make out then there would be at least a handfull of writers from the period claiming that the champions of the 30s had turned a corner stylisticaly and would all have had an easy time with him.

 

Dempsey on Marciano in 1953 (might help with the punching power aspect):

This content is protected

 

Dempsey was a very modest person.

 

Or a very honest person. He had nothing to gain by saying that.

 

I believe Dempsey also said the same thing about Louis not having to floor his opponents repeatedly to keep them there during Joe's heyday.

Dempsey only needed to drop Morris (in their final match), Fulton, Brennan (in their title fight), and Sharkey (albeit possibly low), only once to keep them there. In sparring, he only needed to plant a single left hook on the steel chinned Tony Galento's jaw to knock him out, and get Two-Ton to stop pestering Jack to be his manager. Dempsey could be pretty modest, and like Ali, was always dedicated to the promotion of the sport which made his name.

The fact is that Dempsey also needed only one solid smash to end matters. (25 first round knockouts would tend to indicate that.) Dempsey could truthfully say that Marciano was the hardest punching heavyweight champion he ever saw, but keep in mind that he never saw himself, that the hardest puncher he ever did see may not have been a heavyweight, or a champion. (Sam Langford could fit the bill on both counts, for all we know. Try reading, "between the lines." What one does NOT say can be as significant as what is actually being said.)

For all we know, Dempsey changed his tune again, after watching Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle and Shavers in action.

 

Why does he need something to gain?

 

That's why I made sure to include the year he said that.

 

Dempsey was a verry humble man by nature.

While he is one of the more reliable heavyweight champions in terms of assesing other fighters he always gave himself a conservative write up.

 

It seemed him and Marciano got on quite well... that may have had something to do with his praise.

I was reading some of Foreman's remarks a few days back and he also underrates himself a bit.

 

My bad. (Just got dazzled by the bright yellow lettering I guess.)

 

When did you become "Dementia Pugulistica"?

 

Well thsos 25 first round knockouts were imo more a result of the rules of that era. Seeing Dempsey just stand over Willard and wailing away on him, kinda of makes me think a bit if with the netrual coner rule, It may take Dempsey a bit longer for the knockout. I pretty sure Marciano could have ko Charles in round 2 of the rematch had Marciano had the same options Dempsey had.