Do Marciano's Achievements Outstrip Dempsey's?

Ive often that that Marciano perhaps has a record that flatters his talents somewhat, while Dempsey has a record that is somehwat overrated in relation to his standing. In most cases I have come across, Dempsey tends to rank above Marciano and Im curious as to whether people think he should? The feeling I get is that Dempsey places higher by virtue of the fact that boxing fans and historians feel he was just the better boxer overall. But does the actual tangible records and acheivements support this?

Firstly, Marciano has a perfect record. No slip ups, no off nights and whatever one can say about his opposition and his talent - he did exactly what was required every time. Dempsey on the other hand does. We have the occasional blip such as losses to mediocre fighters like Willie Meehan and his KO loss to Fireman Flynn before he had his title wrestled off him by Tunney at the end. How much does this count towards their acheivements and legacies?

The other issue opposition. Both men are not immune to criticisms regarding the standard of their opposition and Dempsey in particular has the Wills shadow over him while Marciano is sometimes seen as benefitting from good timing among ageing legends. But looking at the business end head to head Dempsey has:

Willard
Miske
Carpentiers
Brennan
Gibbons
Firpo
Sarkey

Marciano has:

Louis
Savold
Walcott x 2
Charles x 2
LaStarza
Moore

Which is better and why? The accusation is often levelled at Marciano that Charles and Moore were light heavies. But no more so than Carpentiers, Miske or Gibbons and despite being older - they rank well above the latter in all time stakes. Marciano never lost his crown to a natural light heavyweight either unlike Dempsey.

We also see Marciano beating an ageing Louis. But was he in worse condition or any less a fighter than the semi retired Willard that Dempsey trounced?

The likes of LaStarza and Savold are surely not much worse than Firpo or Brennan as contenders either.

And whatever else about Marciano, they were the best around at the time which Dempsey cant really say due to the colour line being in place during his reign.

The IBRO have them paired close together - Dempsey at 4 and Marciano at 5. The 606 list has Dempsey way out in front at 3 with Marciano at 9.

I can see why Dempsey could be considered the better boxer, he was also the more popular of the time and the more highly thought off. He had a more far reaching impact on the sport. But if you remove that layer of gloss and get into the nitty gritty of the records and acheivements does Dempsey really deserve to rank above Marciano?

Was their respective level of competition much different? And if not would Marcianos unbeaten career and being able to say he beat the best around bar none not count towards him and perhaps even tip it in his favour? Or is the perception that Dempsey was just more talented all round and held as more popular make the difference in the end?

Marciano was far better than Dempsey who is overrated imo. Marciano was a true champ he fought everyone black or white and was unbeatan the guy was quality. I do not think many people would rate Dempsey ahead of Marciano I reckon Marciano would knock Dempsey out if they fought.

Marciano against Tyson now there is a fight I would like to see!

Whose quality was best though, Waingro?

Superb stuff, Manos, and plenty of food for thought. Particularly interesting to me, as I've honestly interchanged Dempsey and Marciano in my all-time Heavyweight standings more times than I care to remember, and I still have trouble splitting them now.

Have to be honest, I do find myself scratching my head a little when I see Dempsey placed as high as number three on an all-time Heavyweight list. I see him as a top ten man for sure, but at the low end of it. In a head to head I do tend to lean towards Dempsey more often than not, and see him taking Marciano out for two primary reasons; first off, Dempsey was arguably the most explosive four to six round fighter of all time, a stark contrast to the slow-starting Marciano, and also because while Marciano had an incredible right, Dempsey packed genuine power in both fists in equal measure. I see him perhaps taking Marciano out early having caught him relatively cold, though obviously the dynamic of that fight changes massively if Rocky makes it past the mid stages.

As to their records, there's little in it but I think I'd probably edge towards Marciano. I think you're perfectly right in suggesting that the 1951 version of Joe Louis would have been far too much for the 1919 version of Willard - and yet, Dempsey's win over the lumbering ox is lauded, while Marciano's victory over Louis is often derided. People can offer all the excuses they like, but I still maintain that Dempsey had no business struggling so often with the likes of Meehan (Dempsey's early explosiveness and the sheer gulf in class between the two should have made the fact that they were short distance fights a moot point).

I'm always loathe to get too deep in to the Dempsey-Wills issue, as it's clear that Dempsey did make at least some effort to make the fight happen, but whatever the truth is it's still a mark against him; it's unrealistic to pretend that a champion in the days of only one per division not taking on a number his contender can be swept under the carpet. I suppose if we're being ultra critical you can level the same accusation at Marciano with regards to not facing Valdes, but the big Cuban was not a threat for as long as Wills was, and again it's a touchy issue as reports indicate that it was Weill, rather than Rocky, who wasn't interested in the bout.

Sorry, but I think I'd have to say that the Wills issue, as well as losing his title to a Light-Heavyweight (albeit an incredible one) moving up mean that there are a little too many doubts regarding Dempsey's title reign to put him ahead of Rocky. As you say, Marciano dealt with every challenge thrown at him, while Dempsey did not. On the whole, much of their opposition was comparable, but in a division where weight hopping isn't possible and where the depth in quality hasn't always been great, consistency has to take on greater importance - and when it mattered most, Marciano was more consistent than Dempsey.

One more thing, I'm not taking Dempsey's incredible impact on the sport financially and socially (an element where Marciano gets nowhere near to matching him) in to consideration here. Had I done, they may be even more equally matched. But to put it bluntly, I just don't value it as highly as others do and, in the case of Dempsey, I think it sometimes spares him from a more thorough examination of what he actually achieved in the ring.

So, Dempsey to win had they fought, but Marciano the better record. The second one holds more significance to me, so I'm saying that Marciano deserves to be a spot or two higher in the all-time Heavyweight stakes.

It's hard to compare there careers as Dempsey entered the sport as a hungry hobo fighting for bread. Like Jeffries before him, Dempsey had a couple o early draws, but he had no amateur pedigree that I'm aware of. Marciano had amateur fights and was quickly matched with a top trainer as a pro.
When Dempsey sat on his title for three years

The KO loss to Flynn on Dempsey's record is most likely a fix that Dempsey took part in because he simply needed the money, he had some very uncomortable times in his career that Marciano didn't, he lived much rougher and had to survive somehow, I don't think Marciano ever experienced this. Dempsey was also matched far harder earlier on. Meehan, Smith and Flynn for example were veterans, and had some great wins between them. Marciano's first real test was against Lastarza. If only the judge's score mattered it would've been a draw over ten. Chris said that the fact that some of Dempsey's early losses and draws were short fights is a moot point because Dempsey was explosive early, but Rocky had longer distances to prove himself over his own acid tests. It's hardly crazy to think a future champ of Dempsey's natural ability could have turned things his way had he got the six extra rounds Marciano had against Lastarza.

We look back on Dempsey's demolition job on Willard as a great champ slaughtering a poor one, but let's not forget that Dempsey was the under dog. The doctor apparently told him if he knocked down, stay down. Willard had more advantages over Dempsey than Louis did over Marciano. I would add that Firpo was arguably more dangerous than any of Marciano's foes.

As for their record against light heavyweights, guys like Carpentier and Gibbons were far closer to their best years than a 41 year old Moore or a Charles who's record was on the verge of turning red with losses. It's also worth pointing out that Dempsey beat them both relatively comfortably. The same cannot be said for Marciano, who was almost stopped by Charles, a former middleweight. Similarly, Marciano didn't have the early going his own way against Louis.

So far, I'd say Marciano had the more glorious rise to the title, as he didn't have the same enviroment to content with, however with the title Dempsey had the better reign. Which do you prefer? Me, I see Dempsey putting in his best performences against his best foes. Marciano slaughtered the opponents on the way up with ease (apart rom Lastarza) but didn't look as dominant as Dempsey - against a less talented host of contenders than Dempsey faced as champ - once he became champion.

Dempsey of course loses points for not retiring as champ like Marciano did, but here's something:When Dempsey sat on his title for three years the nly really good challenge he hadn't beaten was Wills, there's already a long, intelligent thread dedicated to the many reasons that didn't come off. I hold no fighter responsible. After Jack Johnson drew with Jim Johnson it was not until Joe Louis that another black man challenged for the greatest prize in sports, so we can't lay the blame at Dempsey's door. I've digressed. When Dempsey sat on his title for three years he wasn't depriving the public of any great matchup. When Marciano retired Patterson was live and dangerous, dealing with Moore far more easily than Rocky did. Now we all know after sitting on the title for three years Dempsey loses to Tunney twice (also with a KO win over an on form Jack Sharkey.) Had Marciano waited three years for a credible challenger to come along, Liston - at his '58, devastating best - was lurking. Would we have expected a three years retired Marciano to survive to lose a lopsided decision against that?

I may have rambled slightly, but the meat of my argument is that Marciano has the perfect record, but he was a protected prospect on his way up the ladder to glory. Dempsey was just fighting for a living and happened to be Flip good at it! When we see each man at his best, each on top without any hindrance, Dempsey totally decimates what I see as superior opponents. He never has to take the fight back in a round or be stopped on cuts, nor find himself so far behind he had to go for the KO. That only happened to Dempsey after years of inactivity, and on the end of a very tough career. With everything for him, Marciano was still shown to be vulnerable.

They're difficult to compare, and I can see why one would disagree, but I rank Dempsey ahead.

PS, sorry if some of that has a typo or two - my "R" key is sticking quite badly, along with afew others.

Excellent arguments put forward by both Chris and John so there is not too much to add, however will say on this one I do tend to come donw with John in favouring Dempsey, mainly as John has said for the problems Rocky was fairly frequently given by guys somewhat smaller than him, problems I do not see Dempsey having. Also have to favour Dempsey's work in the pre title era over Marciano's.

Interesting stuff though and perhaps does make me think the gap between the two is not as wide as I have often thought, that said outside of Louis and Ali on any given day I can make an argument for anyone of a number of guys being above each other, and these two are very much in that mix.

I love threads like this. So much to discuss, and from so many different angles, and when it's done and dusted it still isn't conclusively proven either way, because we never reach the bottom of the barrel.

I'm a huge Dempsey fan, but I still reckon that manos - as per usual - makes a very compelling case, as does John as an advocate for the other side.

I don't have a great deal to add to the debate while it centres very much on record alone, though I could find myself here for hours were the parameters a little wider. One thing I would add, though, is that Dempsey must surely score many points for having been a genuine pioneer.

With the exception of Sam Langford, who was a much smaller man, the heavyweight division simply hadn't seen the like of Dempsey when he first hit the big time. The evolution of the heavyweight division had been markedly slower than the lighter divisions. The very early twentieth century spawned many fighters below heavy who were adept at punching in combinations, modern footwork, and varying their arsenal. Not so the heavies. Corbett was quick on his feet and, by all accounts, a marvellous defensive boxer ; Fitzsimmons was a superb strategist, master of timing and distance, and a murderous puncher ; Jeffries was a powerhouse who hit like a mule and was impervious to punishment ; Johnson was a master of the sidestep, the feint, the blocking and parrying of punches and, to this day, one of the best inside fighters in heavyweight history.

However.

None combined the speed, bob and weave, devastating power from either hand ( delivered by the shortest of punches, ) resilience, killer instinct, varying of angles of attack and downright aggression of Dempsey. He, all coils and springs, presented the entire package in one mass of muscle, bone and sinew. Very much ( in my opinion, anyway, ) a case of ' the whole being greater than the sum of the parts, ' Dempsey influenced the heavyweight division all the way through to Mike Tyson.

One other small point concerning the opposition. With Dempsey, we must consider the manner of his wins. Firpo was a big man, unbeaten, dangerous and feared. See how short the punches were with which Dempsey felled him. As historian Mike Casey noted, a visible shudder went through Firpo's entire body when Dempsey let those terrifying short hooks go. ( Firpo, incidentally, would take Harry Wills to a decision a year or so later. ) The Gibbons fight is also instructive. Easy to say that Gibbons was a career lightheavy, but he was regarded as the cleverest boxer in the heavyweight division when he challenged Dempsey. Having been made to look a bit silly in the opening rounds while trying to knock Gibbons out, Dempsey settled down to his boxing and took a clear decision.

As I said at the top of my post, these things can never be conclusively settled, but my vote goes to Dempsey.

Whilst as the debate it has stimulated suggests this is a more than valid question but what I find interesting is how so many of the old timers, in particular Dempsey has come under such scrutiny of late, whereas people commonly and consistently have Johnson in their top fives, many as high as three. Am not saying this is incorrect or unfair but he does seem to escape similar levels of scrutiny on his title record, when the reality is unlike the likes of Dempsey and Marciano (Wills aside for Jack) the guys they were fighting very much represented the best the era had to offer, pretty certain the same cannot be said of Johnson.

Apologies if this ends up derailing the thread Manos and is probably a debate for a different day but do find it a little interesting as an aside.

rowley wrote:Whilst as the debate it has stimulated suggests this is a more than valid question but what I find interesting is how so many of the old timers, in particular Dempsey has come under such scrutiny of late, whereas people commonly and consistently have Johnson in their top fives, many as high as three. Am not saying this is incorrect or unfair but he does seem to escape similar levels of scrutiny on his title record, when the reality is unlike the likes of Dempsey and Marciano (Wills aside for Jack) the guys they were fighting very much represented the best the era had to offer, pretty certain the same cannot be said of Johnson.

Apologies if this ends up derailing the thread Manos and is probably a debate for a different day but do find it a little interesting as an aside.

Johnson does escape scrutiny on his title record, jeff, that is correct, but I guess his record prior to becoming Champion, although not without fault, is pretty strong. Plus Jack probably benefits a touch, as Windy alluded too with Dempsey and his aggressive style, from his pioneer status as a defensive genius. It can lead to people giving him perhaps more leeway than others get.

I wouldn't wish to derail the debate, either, but for jeff's point we could also question Foreman's credentials. Defences only against Roman, Norton and, second time out, against Schulz, and then stripped of his title for not facing Tucker.

Foreman's greatness rests in his ability and the devastation which he wreaked. These are achievements in themselves and Dempsey shared these, along with a better championship tenure in terms of opposition.

HumanWindmill wrote:I wouldn't wish to derail the debate, either, but for jeff's point we could also question Foreman's credentials. Defences only against Roman, Norton and, second time out, against Schulz, and then stripped of his title for not facing Tucker.

Foreman's greatness rests in his ability and the devastation which he wreaked. These are achievements in themselves and Dempsey shared these, along with a better championship tenure in terms of opposition.

thi can be extended to the dicussion we were having a few days ago about toney. Sublimely skilled - but on record alone he doesnt come close to greatness yet we would have him beating lots of good-great middle/light heavies. The fat she-dog.

So it could, Shah. And a good few others, also.

HumanWindmill wrote:So it could, Shah. And a good few others, also.

I doubt there is a single boxer in history whose record can't be pulled apart if we try hard enough. That's why it is so difficult with people like Dempsey, Marciano, Johnson, Lewis, Foreman and the rest. Even guys like Robinson, Charles, Leonard, Greb etc etc, everyone has gaps or question marks over victories. That's why analysing Dempsey or Marciano or anyone for that matter, based on their record alone is a pretty thankless task. You just get into the realms of head to heads and then it becomes a free for all. That's what makes it fun, and that is why I would place Dempsey above Marciano, irrespective of their records, which can be praised or pulled apart as you wish, I think Jack beats him 7 times out of 10. No other reason than that.

I think though that all the older fighters suffer especially from the grainy footage of yesteryear. Especially Dempsey because all the subtle movement, positioning and timing is lost in the white noise and low frame rate. It really looks like they are punching each other randomly and without shifting their weight at all. Even in the time of Hagler.. etc - the subtle movements have to be looked at very carefully to identify them and their use.

Nowadays - RJJ is picked to batter the crap out of some of the great middleweights simply because of his speed - as if there has never been anyone faster - or more powerful.

Dempsey is rated ahead of Marciano because most people add em in so they can seem knowledgable and the rest who do know what his talents are give him the same pass that is given to Tyson - a standing beyond his achievements but quite certainly within his capability.

Sorry if I'm chatting crap, I am absolutely knackered.

Shah the other thing I would add is there are countless of journalists and experts fortunate enough to have seen both fighters in their prime and, whilst I am more than willing to be corrected on this score I am yet to see one who saw them both rank Marciano above Jack. I know a lot of people are loath to put too much stock in journalists or expert testimonials but when that testimonial is almost universal in saying the same thing it does become a little harder to ignore in my opinion.

The same can be said of fight insiders, jeff.

Fair to say that Tunney, having beaten Dempsey, had a vested interest, but he reckoned Dempsey, at his best, to have topped the lot. Tunney, we should remember, lived to see Larry Holmes. Asked abot Louis v Dempsey, Tunney saw it very simply. In close, Dempsey knocks Louis out. From a distance, Louis wins.

Jack Sharkey, the only man who fought both Louis and Dempsey and who, ostensibly at least, made a better showing of it against The Mauler, said that " if they fought in a phone booth it would be Dempsey who walked out." Sharkey was renowned for not sugar coating any of his opinions. What The Bostson Gob said is what the Boston Gob thought.

Now, great fighters or not, we are entitled to question the opinions of Tunney and Sharkey, but it would be unreasonably far fetched for them to claim that Dempsey would, at the very least, be in the same class as Louis if he hadn't been a genuinely great fighter.

Where Lewis is constantly attacked by losing to rather mediocre opposition I've often felt that it's overlooked that Dempsey gets a pass on his losses, in comparison to how Lewis gets treated, Flynn and Meehan - McCall and rahman, perhaps the Rahman loss is worse than both of Dempseys losses but it does seem that because he is a more modern fighter his record is pulled apart much more often.

Im interested to see people saying they think Dempsey had a tougher pre title schedule or that Rocky was the more protected prospect.

I would have thought there wasnt much in it. There have been accusations levelled at Dempsey that after his draw with John Lester Johnson, his management decided to avoid fighting black fighters as a matter of policy (also withdrawing him from fighting an ageing Joe Jeanette at one point). His run up to the title shot in 1919 also involves a series of seemingly exhibition match ups rather than genuine contests. It should be said he did get through some good match ups though with the likes of Fulton, Brennan and Miske although that does make it all the more curious that someone like Willie Meehan could cause him so many problems around the same time.

Marciano on the other hand had to get by an ageing Louis, unbeaten LaStarza and Lee Savold before his title shot.

I would take the point that Dempsey was probaby the rougher prospect of the two and therefore more likely to struggle early on but his loss to Meehan for instance is only a year before he wins the title so its difficult to explain that one I think.

Ive said before on other threads that I think that the more popular a fighter is, especially with the masses, the more he tends to get overrated. I do think this plays a part in Dempseys ranking. Ray Arcle for instant called Dempsey greater than Louis or Ali at one point (although Im told he later put them on a par) but I cant see how Dempsey, all things considered, can come close to Ali or Louis in rankings. His record doesnt really measure up and I dont think the opposition beaten by him really compares.

The other point is the one mentioned by Chris, as to how much things like popularity or transcending the sport count in all time stakes or compensate for record. Im happy to look at it both ways. I think I would agree with Chris that on reflection, Marcianos record is actually the better of the two. Jersey Joe and Charles would probably be better than anything that Dempsey beat for instance. But if you place alot of emphasis on the out of the ring aspect then that might be valid grounds for putting Dempsey ahead.

I would say in actual acheivements though, if used as the primary basis, then Marciano probably takes it for me. To me it seems that Dempsey is always held to be alot better than perhaps his actual record indicates, whereas Marciano seems to be thought of as generally worse than his record suggests.

At least one of Dempsey's losses is widely believed to have been a ' favour ' done for the Naval Relief Fund, to which the proceeds of the fight went. Dempsey had been charged with draft dodging and Meehan was a sailor. In addition, the Meehan fights were four rounders and Meehan, if nothing else, was a wily old dog who knew how to keep out of danger. Lennox Lewis might have lost quite a few of his fights had they been four rounders.

The Flynn fight, as already pointed out, has long been deemed a dive, Dempsey being desperate for money at the time.

Finally, Lewis was world champion when he was flattened. Dempsey was a work in progress when he came up short.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Where Lewis is constantly attacked by losing to rather mediocre opposition I've often felt that it's overlooked that Dempsey gets a pass on his losses, in comparison to how Lewis gets treated, Flynn and Meehan - McCall and rahman, perhaps the Rahman loss is worse than both of Dempseys losses but it does seem that because he is a more modern fighter his record is pulled apart much more often.

I think its the stage the losses happened. Dempsey lost to Meehan and Flynn in his pre title days where he is taken to be before he hit his peak. Lewis losses (especially against Rahman) are seen to be when he was in full world title swing with very little excuses for losing to that calibre of fighter.

manos de piedra wrote:Im interested to see people saying they think Dempsey had a tougher pre title schedule or that Rocky was the more protected prospect.

I would have thought there wasnt much in it. There have been accusations levelled at Dempsey that after his draw with John Lester Johnson, his management decided to avoid fighting black fighters as a matter of policy (also withdrawing him from fighting an ageing Joe Jeanette at one point). His run up to the title shot in 1919 also involves a series of seemingly exhibition match ups rather than genuine contests. It should be said he did get through some good match ups though with the likes of Fulton, Brennan and Miske although that does make it all the more curious that someone like Willie Meehan could cause him so many problems around the same time.

Marciano on the other hand had to get by an ageing Louis, unbeaten LaStarza and Lee Savold before his title shot.

To be fair, manos, Savold was 96-37-3 when Marciano toppled him, and up until three fights before Louis Rocky was still fighting men with losing records.

I've gone hammer and tongs, many times, to defend Marciano's record but it's surely only fair to see Dempsey's in proper perspective, also.

manos de piedra wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:Where Lewis is constantly attacked by losing to rather mediocre opposition I've often felt that it's overlooked that Dempsey gets a pass on his losses, in comparison to how Lewis gets treated, Flynn and Meehan - McCall and rahman, perhaps the Rahman loss is worse than both of Dempseys losses but it does seem that because he is a more modern fighter his record is pulled apart much more often.

I think its the stage the losses happened. Dempsey lost to Meehan and Flynn in his pre title days where he is taken to be before he hit his peak. Lewis losses (especially against Rahman) are seen to be when he was in full world title swing with very little excuses for losing to that calibre of fighter.

Also Alex, whilst this may seem to be giving carte blanche to old timers to lose to any old guff has to be remembered fighters were fighting a lot more regularly back then, is perhaps inevitable if you're fighting every month or even more frequently you can be expected to turn in the odd flat performance, perhaps is a little less forgivable when you have six month between fights, know a good three month before you step through the ropes who you will be fighting and also have the benefits of seeing videos of them in action to develop your strategy accordingly.

Its an interesting question, and one which I have pondered before. I have Dempsey number 3 heavyweight of all time with Marciano at number 5. So I do think they are close together. Both were fantastic fighters but I think you are correct in pointing out that Dempsey would be seen as the more talented of the two and this does play a part in my own rankings along with many other factors mentioned by others.

One thing that hasnt really been tounched on is the freshness of the opposition though. On papaer Marciano would have the better list. I rate Walcott and Charles as top 20 heavyweights with Louis needing no introduction. Moore, not as convincing a heavyweight but certainly one of the best light heavyweights. But theres no disguising that these men were in the twighlights of their career. Tunney, Gibbons, Carpentiers were much fresher opponents and all terrific fighters themselves so its less clear to me that these were lesser opponents in practical terms. I would consider the Tunney that beat Dempsey as more formidable than anything Marciano faced for instance.

Like most of these heavyweight ratings I think alot depends on your angle of approach. I have both fighters as top 5 heavyweights with only two places between them so I this reflects the fact I dont think theres a massive stretch between them. However to those that may have quite a large space between the two I think this article provides an excellent argument as to why the pair of them might be worth considering alot closer.

I think it's hard to split them on record but like most others I always have Dempsey ahead of Marciano.

One reason pehaps is that it comes down to style. When you think about Dempsey's high points you think about the unstoppable performance against Willard or climbing back into the ring to knock out the giant Firpo. When you think about Marciano's high points, it's the last ditch punch against Walcott or overcoming his horrendouss cut against Charles that seem to spring to mind. Dempsey is perhaps seen as the great destroyer where as Marciano is the great survivor.

Ive never been much convinced by Carpentiers I have to say. He seems to have lost to nearly all his good opponents.

To be fair Manos, Carpentier had some form going in, think he earned the shot by beating a British heavyweight, believe Beckett but may be wrong in a fight that many considered something of an upset. Obviously not making him out to be a heavyweight great by any stretch but he did have a little form going into the fight, and at heavyweight.

rowley wrote:To be fair Manos, Carpentier had some form going in, think he earned the shot by beating a British heavyweight, believe Beckett but may be wrong in a fight that many considered something of an upset. Obviously not making him out to be a heavyweight great by any stretch but he did have a little form going into the fight, and at heavyweight.

He beat some decent fighters I guess, like Levinsky. Beckett I guess was decent too, though no doubt ten times better than his record suggests I will be told. But Carpentiers ended up losing to Gibbons, Loughran, Dempsey, Siki and Tunney which is the vast majority of the top guys he faced. Not saying he wasnt a credible challenger at the time but I think the whole war hero status helped him and made him a much bigger draw.

Ive become more interested in the whole Greb v Dempsey non fight now lately which I think is more interesting than the Wills one overall because there was no real barrier to the fight coming off. When you consider Greb had wins over Tunney, Miske, Darcy, Brennan and Gibbons prior, who all faced Dempsey as champion it does actually appear that this was a plausible fight, maybe even an obvious one. I can see Tunney being considered a more valid opponent obviously, but were any of the others?

Difficult question to answer mate, is one perhaps Dempsey gets a bit of leeway of from modern fans because the idea of a middle weight fighting a heavy is so out of leftfield but back then with smaller heavies it was not really that unusual, with Fitz doing it regularly, Ketchel fighting Johnson and Langford fighting any number of heavies. Would not claim to be any kind of expert as to why it never happened but from what I have read seems clear Greb seemed more than keen.

I have very much mixed feelings about the Carpentier challenge.

On the one hand, there is absolutely no doubt that it was a money spinning exercise which was predicated on the ' European war hero v American draft dodger ' idea, and the fact that it generated the first million dollar gate proves that this was a fantastic piece of marketing by Rickard.

Rickard even ordered Dempsey to " go easy on the little Frenchie, because first round knockouts are bad for business " which cost Dempsey a very uncomfortable moment, early on, when Carpentier caught him an absolute humdinger, breaking his thumb on Dempsey's head in the process.

Herein lies a problem, though.

Suitably shocked, Dempsey absolutely annihilated Carpentier in chilling and devastating fashion. By contrast, an unusually aggressive Tunney would take fifteen rounds to shift Carpentier, and that was a fight in which Tunney most certainly didn't have everything his own way.

As I say, the records must be ( in my opinion ) augmented by an assessment of the manner of the victories and not merely assessed by a sterile win, lose or draw criterion.

HumanWindmill wrote:I have very much mixed feelings about the Carpentier challenge.

On the one hand, there is absolutely no doubt that it was a money spinning exercise which was predicated on the ' European war hero v American draft dodger ' idea, and the fact that it generated the first million dollar gate proves that this was a fantastic piece of marketing by Rickard.

Rickard even ordered Dempsey to " go easy on the little Frenchie, because first round knockouts are bad for business " which cost Dempsey a very uncomfortable moment, early on, when Carpentier caught him an absolute humdinger, breaking his thumb on Dempsey's head in the process.

Herein lies a problem, though.

Suitably shocked, Dempsey absolutely annihilated Carpentier in chilling and devastating fashion. By contrast, an unusually aggressive Tunney would take fifteen rounds to shift Carpentier, and that was a fight in which Tunney most certainly didn't have everything his own way.

As I say, the records must be ( in my opinion ) augmented by an assessment of the manner of the victories and not merely assessed by a sterile win, lose or draw criterion.

Thats fair enough I suppose, but just seems that Capentiers came up short against most of his top opponents. Ive often wondered why he was so highly rated. He appears to be a pretty tough and immensely brave character but many reports of his fights against Dempsey, Tunney, Siki and Gibbons seem to suggest he was on the end of some pretty heavy beatings.

Little bit of statistical analysis which may or may not be of interest.

I had a look at Dempsey's and Marciano's records and made a few calculations based on the periods during which we can say they were operating at world level. Starting point for Dempsey was his 1917 fight against Gunboat Smith, and starting point for Marciano the first LaStarza fight in 1950.

Here's what I discovered ;

Jack Dempsey

Peak from 1917 ( v Gunboat Smith ) to 1927 ( v Gene Tunney )

Number of fights in prime 38

Record for the period 34 - 2 - 2 = 92%

Opponents' average records at the time he fought them 28 - 6 - 4 = 81%

Successful defences 5

Number of HOF fights for the period - 10 Record 7 - 2 - 1


Rocky Marciano

Peak from 1950 ( v Roland La Starza ) to 1956 ( retired )

Number of fights in prime 24

Record for the period 24 - 0 - 0 = 100%

Opponents' average records at the time he fought them 48 - 14 - 3 = 78.9%

Successful defences 6

Number of HOF fights for the period - 6 Record 6 - 0 - 0


Marciano's opponents have the edge in experience, while Dempsey's have the edge in record when he met them. Dempsey fought more HOF bouts, but lost a couple, whereas Marciano didn't lose any.

All in all, close enough to be a pick 'em, I would have thought.

Facinating stuff, Windy. Thanks.

I would reiterate what I said earlier in the thread, analysing these two in particular, based on their records is incredibly difficult. Far easier to base it on a head to head and then formulate your argument as to why one or t'other would win. Not always the case, as in many instances one fighters record is clearly superior and so the head to head aspect becomes less important, but with these two, your excellent work shows how difficult it is.

Thanks very much, Tino.

Pleased you found it interesting, and I agree with you that, in this case, an analysis of a ' head to head ' scenario is very helpful.

Interesting bit of statistical analysis, Windy. It really does show how close they are and how difficult it is too split them.

Pretty close aren't they, Superfly?

Just out of interest, here are Foreman's :

George Foreman

Peak from 1970 ( v George Chuvalo ) to 1995 ( v Axel Schulz )

Number of fights in prime 57

Record for the period 53 - 4 - 0 = 93%

Opponents' average records at the time he fought them 23 - 8 - 1 = 73.4%

Successful defences 3

Number of HOF fights for the period - 4 Record 2 - 2 - 0


Only three title defences, 50% record in HOF bouts and an opponent average record of 73.4%

Foreman, to me, is a top five or six heavyweight, nonetheless. Sometimes, I believe, ability and the manner of victories is sufficient, as in Foreman's case, and sometimes not.

Dare say Jeffries would be an interesting one Windy (hint, hint) particularly one would guess on the HOF respect.

Not to take anything away from each of their records, I do think that Dempsey and Foreman are rated so highly largely because of their destructive style and often that is the differentiating factor between them and a fighter with a similar record.

Tyson, to a lesser extent, also gains a lot of credit due to the way he devastated the heavyweight ranks. Perhaps time will be kinder to him and he may one day be ranked alongside Dempsey and Foreman?

rowley wrote:Dare say Jeffries would be an interesting one Windy (hint, hint) particularly one would guess on the HOF respect.

Here you go, jeff :

James J Jeffries.

Peak from 1898 ( v Peter Jackson, ) to 1905 ( retired.)

Number of fights in prime 14

Record for the period 13 - 0 - 1 = 96.4%

Opponents' average records at the time he fought them 25 - 3 - 3 = 85.5%

Successful defences 8

Number of HOF fights for the period - 7. Record 7 - 0.

God bless you Windy, doesn't do to mess with the boilermaker.

superflyweight wrote:Not to take anything away from each of their records, I do think that Dempsey and Foreman are rated so highly largely because of their destructive style and often that is the differentiating factor between them and a fighter with a similar record.

Tyson, to a lesser extent, also gains a lot of credit due to the way he devastated the heavyweight ranks. Perhaps time will be kinder to him and he may one day be ranked alongside Dempsey and Foreman?

I wouldn't doubt it, Superfly.

Human nature being what it is, I'd guess that most folks like their heavy champs to be the ' baddest man on the planet.'

rowley wrote:God bless you Windy, doesn't do to mess with the boilermaker.

You're welcome, jeff.

It must have been a pretty scary moment, seeing him staring over at you from the other corner.

God bless you Windy, doesn't do to mess with the boilermaker. .

Struggled with Fitz until he got lucky...Overrated bar room brawler type...Rolled like a drunk off Johnson...

superflyweight wrote:Overrated bar room brawler type

Them are some pretty tough boozers you're drinking in Superfly

It's Scotland, jeff. Even the women would fancy their chances against Jeffries. Especially with all of the modern nutritional advantages that benefit from.

superflyweight wrote:It's Scotland, jeff. Even the women would fancy their chances against Jeffries. Especially with all of the modern nutritional advantages that benefit from.

Am fairly sure even those that believe in the wonders of modern nutrition did not have deep fried mars bars in mind.