Who is better H2H Dempsey or Marciano?

This is a tough one but I'll go with Dempsey. At his best he was faster in both hands and feet. Tough to hit cleanly due to his bob and weave style and held a considerable edge in reach over Marciano. Plus he was more accurate than Rocky who missed quite often tho kept on throwing to make up for those missed punches. I always thought that Dempsey was the fighter from the 1st half of the last century who would be best suited to deal with the HW's who came after him due to his style. Rocky's 67" reach would be a big handicap against men like Ali, Lewis and others who were 6'3" and taller with 80" reaches or more. He would have to lunge up at these men to reach them most likely missing while taking huge punishment in return. Dempsey had a 77" reach would is better suited to dealing with these taller men and the handspeed to whip in his shots better as well. Combine that with his bob and weave and more moblie offense and Jack does a better job against the listed opponents. In an attrition fight Marciano is probably the choice. But overall I'll go with Dempsey based on style and speed.

 

it is funny because many people think that dempsey would fight better vs tyson.. i think that tyson would stop him as fast as he did with spinks.. marciano would fight better inside and he took a better shot and he woulg get up. i like more the chance of rocky vs tyson. foreman would demolish both men equal but dempsey was more mobile so he would last longer, i think that marciano would do better vs ali ,and dempsey would do better vs lewis like janitor said. rocky would be better rival for evander, and dempsey would do much better vs liston, he was faster. marciano would fight better vs holmes, i think that jack johnson would beat both but i like more dempsey than rocky here

 

frazier would beat both men, they would do even

 

If you pick Dempsey and Marciano to more likely than not lose to prime versions of every fighter listed are you choosing "better H2H" based upon taking less of a beating or being more competitive in losing (e.g., winning more rounds than the other against the same opponent in the losing bid)?

Jack Dempsey: He was a good fighter. No left jabs, no left hooks, just a lot of wild fightin’. Take it and give it. Throw punches from anywhere. A fighter that didn’t know how to dance, a fighter that didn’t have any footwork…Like a woman, no skill, no class, no nothing...He was great at slugging, he could take a lot, he could hit and hurt you, and he could go all night long, 100 rounds if he had to. He is dangerous in close, like Frazier and Marciano. Dempsey is a good ducker, he could bob a lot.

Rocky Marciano: Oooh, he hit hard. I truly think he was better than Joe Frazier. It’s hard, it’s just up to the imagination…He kept fighting even with his nose hangin’ off. Rocky Marciano came along at the right time, with the right promotion, he beat Joe Louis, Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles when they were old…He’s wild, chops, just wild punches, no class, no skill. He can’t whup a great fighter who is ripe, he whupped an old man (Charles).

Slight intervention on the comments as you'll note.


Seems to fit the tight poll results. Some similarities - from the opinion of ONE at one point in time. With the Frazier comment providing an edge (or "persuable" edge) I guess as while this wasn't based upon the OP's "list" it touches one combatant from the list.

 

sir, when you suggest "Dempsey, had no left-hook", you lost all credibility.
Oh MY!!!...

 

Isn't this the Classic Forum?

Surely the phrasing, word choice, and presentation would easily lead you (as opposed to general sport fans) - if you took a moment to contemplate - to the rather competent author of those assessments on Dempsey and Marciano.

Now, not every athlete's comments, reflections, or assessments are 100% reliable as "truth" and they can and do change over time or even become "sanitized" as they move into retirement to be more gracious to fellow fighters (who they might have to run into or share a table with at later celebratory events) - than when they were active.

Still, they are what they are. In his case, it is difficult to argue against (those comments) - unlike those of many denizens of this specific forum who venture in the area of knowledgeable fan rather than actual participant. Still, you might have him by some years as he's 72 now. So, it is his take from watching film (Dempsey) and whatever exposure(s) he had watching or being aware of Rock as a boy or young teen vis-a-vis your own.

Take your best shot, though. Perhaps it can be explained as a difference in relative interpretation or understanding (i.e., what is good or great or "no skill" depends upon what the standard is and that might be one thing to a novice or less talented athlete and a whole other thing to one of exceptional, more innate, or advanced abilities).

 

Spot on reply

 

I see no reason why Dempsey would beat Johnson.. Marciano was imo clearly better for Johnson than Dempsey was.

 

Brit Dempsey had a superb left hook as was noted, that is just way off.

He was not entirely wild, & something like "The Dempsy Roll" takes a good deal of coordination with speed & explosive power.

This quote is sholly misguided & vicious misogyny:

"A fighter that didn’t know how to dance, a fighter that didn’t have any footwork…Like a woman, no skill, no class, no nothing..."

First off if anything the stereotype + reality is woman tend to know how to dance better & enjoy it more + any statistics or anecdotal reports dealing with crime or crude/crass hehavior overturn the rest of the statement as the reversal of reality. Now it would still be an ugly & unfair comment directed at men generally, but it reveals a whole "subscription" of implied personal issues. That there are no woman here to object to the ***ism makes it sadder, substitute a racial group & see how the hate-fest reads.

Now back to fight analysis. Dempsy could not go 100 rounds, he could fade, & grew exhausted within the very few rounds of eveen his greatest triumph, the Willard fight. But had enough to finish an older, almost entirely inactive in nearly 4 years complacent champion who was losing to Johnson after 20 rounds.

Marciano & Frazier were better in close. He DID have excellent speed & ferocity. He admitted Rocky hit harder & thst he needed barrages to finish guys.


Frazier was better than him though. He tended to cut, & most importantly Frazier was much faster & much more accurate. Most anyone who likes Dempsey better than Rocky should like Frazier better than Rocky for these reasons.

Head to head, trouble with Rocky is lack of speed, accuracy & size, especially reach.

But Dempsey who might seem superfiscially better suited against more modern fighters has big questions.

He relied on power & aggression, & besides some defense & endurance limitations, his lack of muscle & weight per square inch would make it difficult to overpower larger men. You also can not "give" him modern training & bulk him up, since 1) like Rocky's reach it is not who he was, the question is who would be better as they were, not enhanced. 2) He might very well lose speed & work rate.

Size is not everything, but it is significant, ESPECIALLY when you are not a finesse fighter or technician like say Tunney. Dempsey allegedly said he weighed only 180 when he fought Willard, & looks thin by modern standards. At over 6" he was never more than in the 190's max. A great boxer can overcome some relative disadvantages, but for one relying on power & ferocity against the very best modern fighters, this is a lot to overcome. Willard when Dempsey faced him was not nearly as good as some 2nd rate/contender modern fighters, Lyle, Ruddock, Morrison Tua etc...




.

 

See the follow-up response to BB. That should help get you "re-tracked".

As for your impressions due to the verbiage, I can understand your response when reading something that was a quote that followed linearly and you don't have the benefit of watching the respondent. Actually, I believe the "dance" line - while a great hint (that surprises me has continued to be unidentified - really thought it was an easy one for most here) - was evaluation of footwork and mobility first, and the next comment of "woman" is moving forward to assessing the technique level which coming from a man of older generations (who hadn't seen the rise of MMA's Rousey or Anne Wolfe, etc.) would use as a reflection of being unskilled and untaught. So, your "modern" look and interpretation is way off base.

 

I am not remotely "un-tracked", & I virtually aleays read all comments before mine, as on this thread. And yours came before mine. I read it, yet like your response here, the syntax & grammar is scrambled & it is difficult to know just what you mean.

From what I can glean, you are referring to woman in boxing, OK, but only after an explanation is this apparent. And you meant before there were many or good ones I see, though again no way to know you qualify that too as easly daaaze for their boxing.

Anyway I am unsure exactly HOW much it plays a part but being smaller in stature/reach for Rocky, & bulk for a super aggressive fighter like Dempsey, must have an impact against decent modern fighters.

 

Okay, I get it now. You are actually still having some issues that need spelling out. Let me try again - very specifically - and you'll understand completely and can start again.

One, the comments on Dempsey first, and Marciano, second, are NOT mine. They are excerpted quotes with slight "intervention" to keep it grammatically even and in context.

Two, the comments are by The Greatest.

You'll have what you need now. I really thought the second post to BB (which is why I directed you there) would provide enough clues to figure it out in combination with what I wrote to you.