What rationale is there to rate Dempsey higher than Marciano?

He fought him twice before he won the title.

 

I don't recall who posted that Savold was better than Levinsky or Fulton, but I myself would say that I wouldn't bet on any of these guys to beat the others. These would all be pick-um fights. Levinsky was smallish with no punch, but was durable and a good boxer. Fulton was large and had a punch and some skills, but clearly had a weak jaw. Savold had skills off what I see of him on film against Louis and Marciano, and he could punch, knocking out 11 rated heavyweights in his career. Once he got rolling in 1939 he did not do badly, but he was always erratic. All fell short more often than not against the top men.

 

that's fair OLD FOGEY, but do you think Savold was in his prime when he met Rocky?

 

No.

He still had skills, though, and it is difficult to say how far gone he was as he only lost at the end to Louis and Marciano.

The reason I bring Savold up is that he came from Minnesota and he was discussed by the old timers on the Friday post-fight boxing show quite a bit, along with fellows like Miske and Gibbons. Savold was a respected second-tier contender who fought most of the top men of his era.

 

thanks OLD FOGEY

 

Fulton was the man in the heavyweight division outside of Harry Wills when Dempsey blasted him. This is a huge win.

Levinsky had also been talked about as a possible title challenger since Jack Johnsons time.

Relative to their era these guys were above Savolds level.

 

My reasons for favoring Marciano:
1. Marciano not only has the edge in consistency, obviously, but he defeated the best of his time. Dempsey lost to Tunney and did not fight Wills or Greb.
2. I don't see on film the arguement that Dempsey is a better defensive fighter. Dempsey had his bob and weave, but Marciano also bobbed and used a rolling crouch. Marciano also could and did use his hands to block punches. Dempsey carried his hands low, at his chest, and I do not see him on film using them as defensive tools. As a result, when he is caught by a punch and stunned, he stands rather open and eats a series of punches--see the Firpo and Sharkey and Carpentier and Tunney fights. Other than maybe right at the beginning of the 1st round of the Walcott fight, Marciano never accepts a series of punches--watch the 11th round against Walcott when he is stunned and makes Walcott miss and miss with a crouch and roll, or the 2nd round against Moore after Marciano is knocked down. Moore, a very experienced finisher, spends the next two minutes missing most of his punches. Marciano could fight in center ring when he had too.
3. I think the arguement that Dempsey faced better punchers is weak. Brennan and Morris are ordinary, no more dangerous than Savold or Layne. I judge Walcott, Moore, and old Louis to be at least a match for Fulton and Firpo. Charles is generally dismissed, but he knocked out 12 rated heavyweights and was certainly a more dangerous puncher at heavyweight than Brennan, for example.
4. Each of us will make his own judgement off the films, but I would point out that the increasing availability of the films starting in the sixties coincided with Dempsey's slippage in the ratings. Why? if the films show a vastly superior Dempsey? The films should have cemented his superior rating.

 

Dempsey's true praise comes from a combination of the men he fought and the style in which he ditched 'em; Certainly what he did to Fulton was a real eye-opener as it was viewed essentially as a 50/50 fight with the winner to go against Willard.

Pre-title massacres vs. men like Brennan, Levinsky and Fulton, combined with underrated work against Gibbons and Sharkey, and even the closer than told Tunney fights add hidden depth To Jack's resume.

When comparing the Mauler to the Rock though you must understand that they were each a product of a big difference in management:

Dempsey's career picked up pace as fast as his management started to fall apart with Richard and Kearns disagreeing on nearly everything and Kearn's later trying to rip-off Dempsey. Marciano's management was quite sound as champion (when you need it most), so their respective title reigns reflect the management more than the desire to fight/be great - Dempsey did not collect his crown and then sit on his thrown intentionally as some believe.

Is there a rationale to rate Dempsey higher than Marciano based on the men he beat and the fighter he was? Sure.

 

Nobody would make a fool out of Marciano and Coopers left hook almost made a fool of Ali...and Cooper was 180lbs and could never hit like Rocky, Frazier had a great hook that almost made a fool out of Ali and he was 5"11...I dont know what makes people think Ali was a God

 

I agree that Fulton was higher-level relative to his era than Savold, but not Levinsky- remember, Savold was top five a couple times and was considered by many a joint-claimant to the heavyweight championship with Charles after Louis' retirement and before his comeback; note the RING didn't recognize Charles as champion until he beat Louis, because the BBBC(British Board of Boxing Control) considered Savold to be world champion after his win over well-regarded British champ Bruce Woodcock, and Fleischer had written after seeing this fight that Savold's performance was "masterful" and that he had as strong a claim to the championship as Charles did.

 

Marciano was very consistent but he may not have an advantage when compared with Dempsey in terms of the number of highly ranked contenders they beat at heavyweight.

 

Bringing up Dempsey's fights with Sharkey and Tunney while pointing out that Marciano could beat skilled boxers seems silly. During Dempsey's prime he was able to beat foes such as Billy Miske and Tommy Gibbons who were highly skilled.

 

because Dempsey was better!