I'm not talking about fluid movement, technique or anything here. Just who has the better ring record, who was more dominant, who beat better opposition, etc. I think Marciano takes it (rather easily, in fact), but i'm curious to see how many votes Dempsey gets.
I voted for Dempsey. First, i'd take into account the journies involved for both men. I know that Marciano didn't exactly have his name on the belt when he turned pro, just the opposite in fact - but look at where Dempsey came from. Ever seen an organised bare-knuckle affair? The idea of a man (and the "out of towner" at that) who weight in at around 160 going from there to the world heavyweight championship borders on ludicrous before we even start on the relative geographical location of the two men. Second, Dempsey was, I think, the first world champ to make more from boxing than from theatre. So many people loved and/or came to see him - his acheivments as a fighter in this departement are almost unique.
Well Marciano was a pretty busy champion. I cant say the same for Dempsey. I belive Marciano had the better run. Dempsey relly let himself down when he became champ. I cant credit him for fighting Wills, and takeing 4 years off of his 7 year rein.
Marciano had a great run to the top of contention, and while at the pinnacle. Dempsey's cultural impact was massive, but his run from 1920 to 1927 was somewhat anemic. He achieved his greatest competitive success under Kearns from 1918 to 1921, although he had also had a good showing in 1923. His peak really ended with Willard.
Imagine that Dempsey/Marciano was one fighter. What would his three best performances be? In order? In your opinion.
I don't agree that Willard was anywhere near the top performance. He was older than Louis and hadn't won a fight in three years.
True, but this isn't about Willard. Dempsey was at his absolute peak in terms of speed, power, conditioning and preparation. Willard is only important in that he had the toughness to extend Dempsey three rounds. Tyson's peak performances might have been Mike Spinks and Marvis Frazier, but we barely saw him. To me, Larry Holmes's best performance was against Tex Cobb. Again, Cobb was only important insofar as he was guaranteed to extend Larry to the 15 round limit, at a time when his endurance was being questioned. Holmes answered the doubters by shutting Cobb out, then stepping up the pace late when Cobb made his move. Where Mike Dokes is concerned, I was most impressed with his speed and power against John L. Gardner. Again, he may have actually been at his peak for the Ocasio rematch, but we didn't see enough of him to tell. Gardner lasted into the fourth round. In that performance, Dokes used his lead left hook like a jab, never telegraphing it, and scored a spectacular knockout with it. Many peak performances do not come against top competitors. (A very noteworthy exception was Frazier in the FOTC.)
Well, I think it should be noted that Dempsey fought for 12 years... Though he wasn't exactly active towards the end of his career. In contrast, Marciano only fought for eight years, and had far, far fewer fights than Dempsey. Don't think any HW champ stayed around for a lesser amount of time than Marciano. And this isn't even taking into account Dempsey's missing on record fights. Should be noted, I think.
IF we take away 4 years of Dempsey's 12 years(The time he was not fighting) Than there both about on the 9 or ten year gap. Not that far apart. Beating up Homeless people or fellow miners is ok for story, but its far differnt than beating a world class boxer.
