What rationale is there to rate Dempsey higher than Marciano?

No is has a arugement against Dempsey on the way UP to the title. But once he won it, He defended the title against the Fipo's and Carps than the Wills and Tunneys of the divsion.

That is like Marciano creaming nearly evey one to get to Walcott, ko's Walcott, and process to defend his title against the weaker section of the top heavyweights. Maybe even dipping in the lower weights as Dempsey did to defend his title. Carp did a LOT in the 170 pounders. But what did he RELLY do to earn a title shot vs Dempsey?? Fight in WW1?? That was about it. It was no Charles or Moore cleaning out the divsion. Marciano hardly let the top rank contender set on his ranking for more than a year before the Rock knocks em back down the ranks. Wills was the top man for seven years. Can you image if Charles or Moore had to wait 7 years for a shot at the Rock??

 

There is no rational argument for rating Dempsey above Marciano. Dempsey should not even be viewed as a top 10 guy.

 

While I tend to put Marciano a smidgin ahead of Dempsey, there are counter arguments. Dempsey had a wider span over which he succesfully fought top-caliber opponents (1918 to 1927 (KO Sharkey), versus 1951-1955 for Marciano). And Dempsey's quick-start strategy might have more effectively translated into the era of 12-round title fights (although Marciano was dangerous early, too).

 

You could say that, except that Rocky didn't really "roll over" those guys aside from the knockout punches. That is, you see Dempsey taking on guys like Willard and beating them from pillar to post, winning every second of the fight and making it appear that there is just no way the other guy could do anything of any effect to him, whereas with Marciano in the Walcott rematch and Matthews fight, the fights are going on at a fairly nondescript pace with neither guy having a really obvious advantage, and then BOOM! Marciano puts him away. Impressive, yes, but I don't think it generates the kind of "legend" factor that Dempsey's performances aesthetically brought about.

I agree it would have been better if Dempsey had given Firpo a rematch, just to make that fight seem a bit less sticky, but my point was that the whole Dempsey-being-DQ'd thing is a bit silly.

Oh, I absolutely agree here. Even if Dempsey was better head-to-head than Marciano at his peak(which can be argued either way very well), Rocky was the better overall fighter because of the way he maintained himself and his career.

 

Good perceptive and objective post Dr!.

 

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Lodge/6525/JDOther2.htm
"Dempsey vs Marciano: 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 been 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." DEMPSEY TKO 4 MARCIANO


Monte Cox - Why and how Dempsey is better
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/20heavyweights.html

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/heavyweightchart.html

Eastside's own
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=3953&more=1

In 1950, the Associated Press conducted a poll of sportswriters to name the greatest fighter of all-time and Dempsey was the runaway winner, collecting 251 votes. [Joe Louis finished a distant second with 109 votes; Henry Armstrong was third with 13.] The sportswriters of the first half of the century named Dempsey as the greatest fighter they had ever seen.
Long after Marciano had retired, in the Dec 1962 Ring Magazine, a panel of 40 boxing writers tabbed Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight of all time.

ISN'T THE FAR BETTER QUESTION WHY SOME PEOPLE SUDDENLY SEEM TO THINK OTHERWISE NOW?

Sam Langford, when asked how Harry Wills (whom he fought 18 times in his career) would do against Jack Dempsey, said in the June 5, 1922, Atlanta Constitution "Well if he ever fights Dempsey my money will be on the present champion. Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen. He hits twice as hard as Jim Jeffries and is as fast in the ring as James J. Corbett."

Cox Corner again...

"Marciano is rated highly today almost completely because of his undefeated record. Marciano’s record of 49-0 appears impressive at a glance, but his competition is not inspiring. The argument that Rocky beat four Hall of Famer’s is laughable when one considers their ages when he met them, Walcott was 38-39 years old in their fights, Charles (a natural light heavyweight)was past his peak at 33, and Moore (also a natural light heavyweight) was 42. Moore was older than Holyfield when he lost to Toney but yet he put Marciano down."

Also consider the fact the "Rocky was floored by the 2 strongest punchers he ever faced, Moore and Walcott, as Joe Louis doesn't count since he had long since lost his once devastating punch" -Nat Fleischer Dec 1955 Ring.

Virtually no one who saw both Dempsey and Marciano would tab Rocky over Dempsey in a match. Recall, that Marciano finished a distant 6th in the Dec 1962 Ring magazine rating of the all time great heavyweights, far behind #1 Dempsey. Anything Marciano could do, Dempsey could do better. Jack hit just as hard with his right, was a much stronger puncher with his vaunted left, had superior hand speed, was more maneuverable, was a better boxer, had a better jab, and had an equally good chin, and better cut resistance Both men are insanely brave and would never quit - it just sounds to me that Rocky is in for a bad beating if they meet head to head.

Hat tip to Janitor who got me thinking about the following...

To end the argument that boxing is every day in every way getting better all the time I give you James ("The modern Galento") Toney the bloated Middleweight. Highly regarded, Highly respected, Highly ranked MODERN Heavyweight. What have all the advances in nutrition, training science and technology done for Boxing? - here we have the ultimate ranked contender and finished product of all these advances!
How would the old timers fare against modern 'superheavyweights'?
James looked pretty good against the former #1 contender and arguably (if you don't believe me just check the General forum) won their first bout.

I would make the 'natural' mean fat man (Galento) a favorite over James - with no disrespect intended. Galento has more KO's than Toney has fights and all his wins are against HW's. He beat more ranked HWs,and once had the great Joe Louis on the seat of his pants in a fight!
Everyone you would rank over Tony Galento you should rank over James Tony in the modern era!
That should give you a pretty good grip on what is really happening in boxing today...

Good Lord People - look at what and WHO is right in front of you...

 

Not that simple.

If you sift through the contemporary testimony then yes there is nostalgia but also there is relevant observation.

Dempsey was a unique puncher among the heavyweights. Nobody has ever been better just diferent.

 

Have you ever seen the smooth running film of Dempsey vs Willard,( rare ) or Dempsey boxing Tate ( on you tube ) , or Dempsey in exhibition vs others ( rare )? I highly recomend them.

No disrespect to Rocky, but Jack at his best was a jungle cat with speed, power and agility. A true terror in the ring. I have little doubt on who lands their best stuff first in a fantasy fight between Rocky and Jack. Jack was a fast starter. Maricano often took a while to get warned up.

The historians who saw them both were not divided on who was better. This to me means something.

One thing to focus on is Dempsey lacked management and guidence early in his career. Marciano did not. Marciano’s handlers moved him at a cautious pace before risking him vs LaStarza, then pulled the reigns back on him big time before moving him into position for a title shot. A good portion of Maricano’s rating is the " 0 " at the end of his record. Throw him in vs the wolves a bit earlier, or have take a few years off then return to the ring, and things would be different. The " 0 " would be gone.


While Dempsey did not look good vs an “ on “ Jack Sharkey or vs Tunney, I think being out of the ring for 3 years had a lot to do with that.

 

That's going to be an easy fight, providing that his reflexes are still in tact. Are you picking Kessler?

 

I suppose the Eddie Ross's were not the wolfs when he was 25-0 to Rocky's 4-0.

 

Let me mediate here a bit- Mendoza is somewhat wrong to say that "Rocky did not" lack guidance and management early in his career, since he, in fact, turned professional with absolutely no management or guidance and had to repeatedly beat down local prospects to get it; that is, he was thrown to the wolves for a little while, before he was noticed and taken under wing by Weill and Goldman, who then settled him down and carefully maneuvered him up the ranks over the next few years. The active point here should be that it took Dempsey much longer to get management and guidance, and he had to spend years out on the road as a scrapper before he finally received it, which is, by and large, the cause of the little pockmarks on his early record. Marciano would, no doubt, also have suffered some early losses if he had been a hobo and had to fight on the streets for several years before he could get a professional trainer and manager.