What rationale is there to rate Dempsey higher than Marciano?

How is that relevant?

I was discussing accomplishments. Dempsey not fighting for 3 years and being rusty as a result of that is no one's fault but his own. A lot of excuses here.

Marciano is being punished now for always being in top shape?

Interesting observation indeed on how superhuman they looked on film and on resume are contrary.

1.I thought Marciano looked pretty invincible in his first round knockout of Walcott, by the way. Walcott was very durable; when i made the "most punchers faced" list, Walcott ended up #3 as a big suprise, yet he was only taken out a few times. Willard could take a punch well, but he was still stopped by the only two significant punchers he faced unless i'm overlooking someone. The Matthews fight was also a devastating finish of a short fight. I agree though that these fights are far from as popular as the ones you mentioned.

2. The point is that the rules state you must get back in the ring by yourself. Was it Dempsey's fault? No, he was probably thinking about stars and lights at the end of the tunnel when he was helped.
But even if it was allowed, i think there should definitely have been a rematch to make things more clearly. Jones came back with a KO1 when he got disqualified against Griffin.

3. At the end of the day, their resumes read this:
Dempsey was twice dominated by a great lightheavyweight
Marciano knocked out two greater light heavyweights, 2 of 3 fights in one-sided fashion.
You can't punish Marciano for not disgracing the sport and doing **** all for 3 years. He came in best shape and in terms of resume he comes out better because of it. I'm not gonna give Dempsey extra points or let him get away with it just because HE choose to get become inactive, get out of shape etc. Otherwise i would rate Mike Tyson in my top3.



Langford, i agree with most you said. I will make two points:

-I think Walcott and Charles should rate higher than Sharkey. Charles had a nice reign as champion, very active, beat a lot of ranked contenders. Same for Walcott, he fought everyone in the division. Sharkey was hot-and-cold.
Walcott 2x and Charles 2x are definitely better wins in my opinion, than Sharkey 1x controversial without rematch (i can understand why there was no rematch as it was a title eliminator, but that doesn't change the fact).

-I will reverse your point about Willard. You said he was underrated today and does not Dempsey deserve more credit for it?

Well, i think 90% of the people rate Dempsey as high as they do because they see him destroying Willard and think ohhhhhhhh he must be invicible! Most people have not seen any other footage and few know that there are a 2nd and 3rd round either, not to mention other fights of Dempsey at all or in what horrific condition Willard was even before the fight.