Why was Marciano so successful?

YES. Very interesting take on Ali Liston. I agree completely.

 

It split the newspaper writers because it covered their ass. 60% picked Sharkey to easily beat Dempsey. When you break down who saw a low blow vs who did not it breaks down along those exact lines. 60% found there way to cover their ass.

You obviously have never fought in the ring or have any technical knowledge of the sport. Dempsey threw three consecutive right hands to the body within split seconds. Three punches thrown exactly the same fashion. There was no time to change up the final blow NOR do you see Dempseys shoulder drop which would indicate a much lower blow was thrown. Very obvious to those who know the sport technically (not you).

 

Perry

I don't know if I'm the "you" who knows nothing,

but as the men are spinning and Dempsey throws the first right, his shoulder definitely drops. It's right there on film if you watch the film one frame at a time. On the good you tube copy narrated by Marty Glickman, the shoulder drop is at 9:45.

To me this doesn't PROVE Dempsey hit Sharkey low, for his body blocks our view. The referee, by the way, is walking behind Dempsey and appears out of position to clearly see this blow also.

McGrain

"the two fighters had moved"

and were moving and struggling with each other.

I think this is a critical point weighing against Perry on this one.

 

It's like blaming Lennox Lewis for a bad record over 15 rounds.

 

I think another poor argument is the "so and so had lost 4 out out of his last 9" type.

We have to know who he was fighting and the details. It just doesn't prove the guy can't fight, especially in the old days when fighters were consistently matched tough.

Let's take Bob Satterfield, who has been mentioned in this thread.

Going into the Bob Baker fight he had lost 4 of his last 7. He KO'd Baker in the first round.

Going into the Nino Valdes fight Satterfield had gone 1-3-1 in his last five fights. He was coming in off a draw with Joey Rowan, and losses to Joe Lindsay and Archie McBride. Satterfield gave Valdes a thorough beating.

Perhaps the best example is Max Schmeling going into the first Joe Louis fight. He had won only 4 of his last 8 (4-3-1). A closer look shows that most didn't agree with the decisions in the loss to Sharkey and the draw with Uzcudun. Of the other two losses, he had reversed the loss to Hamas. Still, the stat of only winning 4 of his last 8 is correct.

 

I was ringside and thought it looked a bit low. My eyesight was very good then, too.

 

That depends on a lot of factors obviously. How many fights, with whom, how good or bad were the performances, how inconsistent that number is with the rest of his record, that sort of thing.

 

Throwing a pre-1960's heavyweight against modern giants is not, I think, a good argument about their historial importance or placement.

Take Tunney. Was he a better fighter than Tyson Fury? In a sense, or course (at least so far),

but I don't think he would have a shot at beating Fury purely because of size.

 

I don't agree with any of that

He was simply a very good boxer as package. He had a good defence always looking to slip, he counter punched well, when you hit him you'd get a counter back, he wasted no energy, he threw well timed straight powerpunches that were harder to get out the way of or threw in bunches. He was also 2 handed. Plus he we strong with top class stamina while being a significantly bigger puncher than Charles/Moore, he also had both beat for stamina and physical strength.

 

Maybe the fact that as champion ,he demanded a postage sized ring to fight in was a contributory factor?:bart

 

Is that your take on it? Because if it is, my obvious rejoinder would be if he did ,why would he need the tiny ring?