Dempsey v Marciano - I think Marciano wins

I would guess that Dempsey would be the popular choice in this hypothetical fight but I would favour Marciano to win this.

I think most people would back Dempsey simply because he was a better, quicker and more dynamic boxer. I think this makes him better suited to blasting out lesser fighters but I feel Marciano overall may be better equipped for the head to head. Here are just some thoughts:

Early favours Dempsey: Dempsey was a fast starter, Marciano was a slow starter. This is true enough. Dempsey was known for being quick out of the blocks and his superior speed and agility meant he could get to his opponents quicker. Marciano was slower and relied on catching up with his opponents more. However if you look at most of Marcianos top level fights, he was fighting boxers who wanted to stay away from him and outbox him. So while Marcianos lack of comparative speed meant he had to settle for catching up to his opponents where Dempsey might get to them quicker, I don’t think its necessarily by choice that Marciano wanted to start slow. He had just had to chase. Dempsey fought guys like Willard, Firpo, Brennan, Carpentiers and Sharkey who were far more inclined to stand in front of him and slug it out. Dempsey didn’t blast out guys like Tunney and Gibbons and like Marciano he was forced to chase them with no better results really. In Marciano against Dempsey one can guess that Dempsey will come out of the blocks quickly and Marciano wont have to chase at all. The two will meet head on and probably start exchanging. The basic point being Dempseys quick start - is it all that significant in this fight?

The Firpo fight: Of all the fights either fighter had, this is arguably the one that Marciano v Dempsey might take after in outset. Firpo was a pretty average fighter. One handed, limited, durable and possessing a strong right he made Marciano look like technically brilliant. What happened in this fight was Dempsey flying out of the block and Firpo meeting head on with knockdowns galore. Firpo was a lot bigger than Marciano but even more limited and cruder yet he still had Dempsey down and almost out. Dempsey by his own admission brawling on instinct in that first round and was hurt. Although Demspey rallied to win, it’s a fight that I think would give Marciano a lot of encouragement. Perhaps Marciano is better suited to the brawl?

Defence: Dempsey is considered to the better defence of the two. Chin tucked behind the shoulder and fighting out of a crouch. Marciano considered to be easy to hit by comparison. However I don’t think Dempseys defence, or at least his ability not to be hit is as superior as made out. Marciano was fighting accurate, precision punchers like Charles, Walcott and Moore and he did get hit often. But Dempsey was getting hit by much more limited fighters like Carpentiers, Sharkey and Firpo. Not as accurate punchers and all guys who didn’t struggle to find him. Tunney who was a more precision puncher landed on him frequently. So is this as big an advantage to Dempsey? Would it be a significant factor?

Opposition: I would say most people who watched both would conclude Dempsey was a better overall boxer with regards to speed, punch selection and agility and I think he was better overall. However Marciano was a sum of the parts fighter and overall I think he gets a harder time for his opposition with respect to Dempsey when there maybe isnt a great deal in it. Even aged versions of the likes of Moore, Walcott and Charles or fighters like LaStarza I think are superior to Miske, Firpo, Carpentier and Willard where Dempsey forged his reputation.

Late favours Marciano: Marciano was more proven in this respect. The flip side of his lack of speed and explosiveness which made Dempsey the dynamite fighter he was early, was that Marciano had a relentless about him that could go all the way to the final bell. Dempsey on the other hand was not so proven in this regard. Tunney said in both his fights with Dempsey he felt Dempsey tire towards the end and felt if the fights were 15 rounders he would have stopped a weary Dempsey. Dempsey was also noticeably slower in his 15 rounder with Gibbons by the end. And as with many fast starters, they run the risk of shooting their bolt early and fading down the stretch. In this sense I think Marciano is certainly better equipped if the fight goes long, but given the respective styles of the fighters, is it likely to down to the championship rounds?

To summarise, I basically think Marciano wins this because he is better equipped for the style of battle that I think would inevitably ensue. Agree or disagree?

Dempsey for me. Quick started with dynamite in both fists against a slow starting, easy to hit Rocky. Jack in 4 after a sustained and brutal beating.

I'm one of those who reckon Dempsey murders Marciano. You've given me much to think about, will get back to you later. As always a well thought out and well written argument. Might want to ask adam to stick it on the V2 journal, this is the sort of stuff they are looking for.

The big question for me is which chin will crack first and I think after a couple of early knockdowns Marciano will settle into his stride and walk Dempsey down who I feel is the less durable of the two. Marcianos Suzy Q could end the fight at any moment while Dempsey will need a lot punishing accumulation to do likewise, does he land enough without getting tagged himself, personally I don't think so.

Always felt that Marciano breaks Dempsey's heart in this one. Would always put the Rock above Jack in a historical sense (pace az) and don't think that Jack can put Marciano down for keeps in the first four rounds that you would expect to belong to him.

The second half of the fight is Marciano territory and I could see Jack being broken down after around 11 or 12. The stories of Greb kicking Dempsey's backside in sparring may be open to some doubt, but I can't see Dempsey enjoying the lack of peace for most of the fight against a swarming Marciano either.

Good article Manos. I can't ignore that there were a lot of people that saw both men fight and Dempsey was held in higher regard. I think Nat Fleischer from memory had Dempsey above Marciano in his all time list from around the time of Nat's death.

I also think some of the things that go against Dempsey are from the latter part of his career in particular the Tunney fights. A younger more focused Jack would be favourite against Tunney in my book.

I have to go with Dempsey and one of the main reasons is obviously his explosiveness but also his tremendous power in both hands. I don't think Dempsey, by any stretch of the imagination, would need an accumulation of punches to knock Marciano out.

Dempsey was a very good puncher but i've never considered him a one punch knockout man like Marciano.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Always felt that Marciano breaks Dempsey's heart in this one. Would always put the Rock above Jack in a historical sense (pace az) and don't think that Jack can put Marciano down for keeps in the first four rounds that you would expect to belong to him.

The second half of the fight is Marciano territory and I could see Jack being broken down after around 11 or 12. The stories of Greb kicking Dempsey's backside in sparring may be open to some doubt, but I can't see Dempsey enjoying the lack of peace for most of the fight against a swarming Marciano either.

I thought I was being kind to Rocky in saying he would go to 4 when in reality it wouldn't go past 2. I don't get this argument about breaking his heart. Jack had a pretty big heart to match Rocky's will to win. Jack had everything Rocky had but with more speed and fast out of the traps. A mismatch and massacre in 300 seconds. Rocky was so easy to hit he seemed to enjoy it. Jack loved to hit people and he would make Rocky very happy until he ended the party.

That Suzie Q on JJW is used to prove his massive punch. It was an open hit and perfect punch whilst it landed. But he needed an accumulation of punches to get rid of Charles, Archie and Cockell. Hardly a one punch KO merchant

I'm not saying he wasn't a big puncher for his size. He was. But not such a huge puncher that he hit you and you go. No.

Dempsey also has a 3 inch height advantage over Marciano along with 5 inches in reach.

Strongback wrote:Good article Manos. I can't ignore that there were a lot of people that saw both men fight and Dempsey was held in higher regard. I think Nat Fleischer from memory had Dempsey above Marciano in his all time list from around the time of Nat's death.

I also think some of the things that go against Dempsey are from the latter part of his career in particular the Tunney fights. A younger more focused Jack would be favourite against Tunney in my book.

I have to go with Dempsey and one of the main reasons is obviously his explosiveness but also his tremendous power in both hands. I don't think Dempsey, by any stretch of the imagination, would need an accumulation of punches to knock Marciano out.

Ive never been a big fan of Fleischer ratings I must say although I would agree in the general point that the view from earlier era's would have held Dempsey as more talented fighter than Marciano. He probably was insofar as speed, technique and skills go but I do think he benefitted from opposition that made him look good.

Marciano was facing technical boxers that whilst past their best still had the kind of style to make him look bad. Guys like Willard, Carpentier or Firpo were made for Dempsey to tear into and its notable that when faced with boxers of the same ilk as Moore/Charles or Walcott, Dempsey didn’t look anything like as good (even accounting for his getting older).

In an overall sense I think Dempsey is the more talented fighter but in this particular match up I think Marciano measures up well, although I wouldn’t be cast iron certain by any means.

Strongback wrote:Dempsey also has a 3 inch height advantage over Marciano along with 5 inches in reach.

I dont think hes the kind of boxer to utilise it though. He would try and tear into Marciano up close I think which would mean both guys are well within range.

It's a tricky one with Dempsey because he ultimately lost to the man I consider the most perfect boxer up until that point whom would have been favourite over anyone up til that point including Johnson, Langford, Jeffries and Fitzsimmons.

First off, brilliant article, Manos. Hats off.

I've tended to favour Dempsey in this one, inside-schedule as well. Dempsey's defence wasn't water-tight by any means, but he didn't ship as much punishment as Rocky and I think that Marciano was pretty fortunate that none of his best opponents (Charles, Walcott, Matthews, LaStarza, Moore etc) were exceptional hitters at Heavyweight (Matthews maybe being the closest, though he wasn't much cop in any other area). All of those guys were lesser punchers than Dempsey and all of them either landed on him at will or put him on the deck. Marciano's chin was very good, but the best Heavyweight punchers would have cracked it, I feel, and Dempsey may well have been one of them.

You make a great point regarding Marciano maybe being made to look a slower starter than he was because he was facing guys who could box going away. And I agree that Dempsey is very likely to meet Rocky head on. However, let's say that, by some small chance, he doesn't - what does Marciano do then? Dempsey managed to eventually round his skills enough to outbox, rather than outmuscle and outpunch, a top-class technician in Gibbons, and it was because he shipped a few more shots than he wanted to early doors that he settled down in to his boxing rhythm, too. To me, that suggests that Jack may have enough about him to adapt after a few rounds if Marciano is roughing him up, whereas I'm not sure adapting was ever Rocky's USP.

It's a very compelling argument you've made, though, and I'll definitely be watching the pair again in light of it to see if my mind changes. You've done enough in this article to at least make me a little less sure of backing Dempsey, I must say! I agree wholeheartedly that, if Rocky's still there going in to the championship rounds, the odds favour him; I'm just not quite one hundred percent convinced that he lasts that long the majority of the time.

Still, great article and some excellent points.

88Chris05 wrote:First off, brilliant article, Manos. Hats off.

I've tended to favour Dempsey in this one, inside-schedule as well. Dempsey's defence wasn't water-tight by any means, but he didn't ship as much punishment as Rocky and I think that Marciano was pretty fortunate that none of his best opponents (Charles, Walcott, Matthews, LaStarza, Moore etc) were exceptional hitters at Heavyweight (Matthews maybe being the closest, though he wasn't much cop in any other area). All of those guys were lesser punchers than Dempsey and all of them either landed on him at will or put him on the deck. Marciano's chin was very good, but the best Heavyweight punchers would have cracked it, I feel, and Dempsey may well have been one of them.

You make a great point regarding Marciano maybe being made to look a slower starter than he was because he was facing guys who could box going away. And I agree that Dempsey is very likely to meet Rocky head on. However, let's say that, by some small chance, he doesn't - what does Marciano do then? Dempsey managed to eventually round his skills enough to outbox, rather than outmuscle and outpunch, a top-class technician in Gibbons, and it was because he shipped a few more shots than he wanted to early doors that he settled down in to his boxing rhythm, too. To me, that suggests that Jack may have enough about him to adapt after a few rounds if Marciano is roughing him up, whereas I'm not sure adapting was ever Rocky's USP.

It's a very compelling argument you've made, though, and I'll definitely be watching the pair again in light of it to see if my mind changes. You've done enough in this article to at least make me a little less sure of backing Dempsey, I must say! I agree wholeheartedly that, if Rocky's still there going in to the championship rounds, the odds favour him; I'm just not quite one hundred percent convinced that he lasts that long the majority of the time.

Still, great article and some excellent points.

Good points Chris and I think the million dollar question as you put is just what happens when the two collide. To this extent the fight I think that would maybe make the best case from Marcianos perspective is the Firpo fight. Where you got a taste of what might happen if two come forward fighters with power met head on. Although Demspey won, he showed vulnerability, was hurt and could have lost the fight to an opponent that was basically just a big right hand. You would think that they are both the most powerful hitters each other would have faced so anything could happen. I think I would slightly favour Marciano in terms of durability though. He was put on the floor alright, but more by accurate punchers hitting him with well timed shots. Dempsey was kind of clubbed to the floor and out of the ring by blunt force against Firpo. Im not sure Marciano was really ever hurt when he got floored. They were more flash knockdown variety which Marciano bounced up quickly from and didn’t really get discouraged at all by them. They didn’t seem to take anything out of Marciano.

Dempsey I think was more defensively sound but still not really as defensively superior as maybe he is made out for me. I say this because while he may have got hit less, they were by more limited fighters. Carpentier, Firpo and Sharkey all got to him who were of a more limited variety than Moore, Charles or Walcott. Tunney was able to pick him off. Im not saying that Demspey would have lost to JJ, Charles or Moore that Marciano faced but they may have made him look a lot less of a fighter in terms of effective aggression and defensive ability in the way Tunney and Gibbons did.

Pickem for me..........

Always the chance Dempsey lands one.............Walcott and Moore decked the Rock early and I imagine this fight is a brawl.........

However If Dempsey doesn't get the KO you'd have to fancy the incessant mauling of the Rock and incessant fouling to wear Dempsey down..........

Dempsey early or Rocky late.................perhaps the latter...

Think Truss’ point about Walcott and Moore flooring Marciano is what swings it for me, am not convinced either hit as hard as Dempsey and if they can put him over one perhaps have to think Dempsey does likewise and Jack was a guy who rarely let folk off the hook when he had them going. Whilst I don’t think Marciano was a slow starter per se think he did need a while to build up a bit of a head of steam and you know with Dempsey he was not going to do likewise.

Like Manos has said there cannot be too much weight to Fleischer’s opinion as he could be a bit all over the place in his analysis but Fleischer was not alone in believing Dempsey to be the superior fighter. In fact you would be hard pushed to find anyone who saw them both in the flesh who ranked Marciano higher.

There is definitely a case to be made that if it goes late Marciano has a real chance because few carried their power better late than him but for me I don’t think it goes that far. Also think cuts could be a factor in this. Marciano was a little prone to them and neither fighter was exactly a paragon of virtue when it came to a strict application of the rules, suspect Dempsey’s liberal use of elbows and his head could see Marciano get cut and cut bad early. If this happens and desperation creeps into his game you don’t want to be taking silly chances against a puncher like Jack.

I see this pretty much like truss does.

Dempsey takes the early rounds then Marciano turns it round and Dempsey takes heavy punishment in the second half of the fight. The Rock wins by decision or late stoppage.

Cracking article mate, Dempsey early...Marciano late. Jacks mantra was "The sooner the safer" and he would attack from the opening bell like Walcott did against Rocky in thier 1st fight. Marciano was a slow starter compared to Dempsey and that might be his undoing here.

If Walcott hurt Rocky early and dropped him then I can see Jack doing the same as well. That's not a rap against Rocky's chin which was first class. Anyone can get caught cold and dropped. It's just that Dempsey liked to come out looking for the kill.

If Rocky can survive Jack's early onslaught and drag this fight into the later rounds then his chances increase exponentially. Whatever the case may be I don't see this going past 7 or 8 rounds. These 2 will be all over each other from the get go with no letup. If Dempsey wins it's between rounds 1 and 3. If Rocky wins I see it happenenig around the 7th or 8th and neither one is the same after after an absolute barnstormer.

Cheers Rodders

Dempsey is overrated, Marciano destroys him in 7, dempsey lacked the boxing skill of guys like walcott and charles, htey set Rock up with boxing to drop him, marciano was never hurt, Dempsey would make a great fight in the first 3 rounds but marciano is just far more evolved and take over in a brutal fashion after that point.

Dempsey didnt have a good defence he had good head movement but never fought guys like marciano did, Dempsey was a huge puncher and mean in the ring, but he wasnt good enough boxer or fighter to beat marciano

This fight would be brutal, no doubt about it. I think Marciano has what it takes to survive an early onslaught and more than enough power to keep Dempsey honest so he can't come in looking for the kill with the absolute reckless abandon that he could do on occasion. I think the rules in this one could affect the outcome here as well, if Dempsey is allowed to jump on Marciano straight after putting him down like against Willard then that's a big advantage for him as I think Marciano goes down early at some stage. However if it's with the modern rules where you have to go to the neutral corner after a knockdown that helps Marciano survive and take it into the 2nd half of the fight where he should win it.

If Dempsey puts Rocky down he will keep him there.

If the fight goes past 6 Jack would win a UD. No way Rocky wins. His punch power is over-rated.

KO-KING wrote:Dempsey is overrated, Marciano destroys him in 7, dempsey lacked the boxing skill of guys like walcott and charles, htey set Rock up with boxing to drop him, marciano was never hurt, Dempsey would make a great fight in the first 3 rounds but marciano is just far more evolved and take over in a brutal fashion after that point.

Dempsey didnt have a good defence he had good head movement but never fought guys like marciano did, Dempsey was a huge puncher and mean in the ring, but he wasnt good enough boxer or fighter to beat marciano

I do think Dempsey was over-regarded by his own generation to some extent but its hard to say if he was over-rated or not. We can look back now and say the esteem Demspey was held in probably doesnt befit his ranking, but then we are looking back over many subsequent great heavyweights that came after Dempsey. Almost 90 years worth.

For the people of the Dempsey generation there hadnt really ever been a heavyweight like Dempsey before at a time when boxing was really on a high. Dempsey would have been compared to Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Jeffries and Johnson.

I agree with you on their respective opposition. Marciano gets a much harder time for his but when I consider it, Im not actually sure there is a single Dempsey opponent I would pick to beat Marcianos other than Tunney (who he lost to). Firpo, Brennan, Carpentier, Willard, Sharkey, Miske - not actually all that great and I dont see them beating Moore, Charles, JJW or even LaStarza.

The main difference is Tunney and while he does embarrass Marciano he also beat Dempsey anyway. A faded great is a better boxer than merely good ones especially when they are Moore and Charles.

Depends how faded those greats are.

azania wrote:If Dempsey puts Rocky down he will keep him there.

If the fight goes past 6 Jack would win a UD. No way Rocky wins. His punch power is over-rated.

I think his punch power was one of the best in the business and what was most noticeable is he very much took his power into the later rounds where most boxers lose it. And his defense was not nearly as bad as some like to think, maybe if they had modern cameras back then this would have been more apparent.

Great one. Blame the cameras. That would have made his defense look better.

Didn't need good defence with great wins like Wacott twice, Charles twice and LaStarza..............

First man to stop Louis for over ten years............

Top 10 fighter was rock....................Never beaten.

manos de piedra wrote:

KO-KING wrote:Dempsey is overrated, Marciano destroys him in 7, dempsey lacked the boxing skill of guys like walcott and charles, htey set Rock up with boxing to drop him, marciano was never hurt, Dempsey would make a great fight in the first 3 rounds but marciano is just far more evolved and take over in a brutal fashion after that point.

Dempsey didnt have a good defence he had good head movement but never fought guys like marciano did, Dempsey was a huge puncher and mean in the ring, but he wasnt good enough boxer or fighter to beat marciano

I do think Dempsey was over-regarded by his own generation to some extent but its hard to say if he was over-rated or not. We can look back now and say the esteem Demspey was held in probably doesnt befit his ranking, but then we are looking back over many subsequent great heavyweights that came after Dempsey. Almost 90 years worth.

For the people of the Dempsey generation there hadnt really ever been a heavyweight like Dempsey before at a time when boxing was really on a high. Dempsey would have been compared to Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Jeffries and Johnson.

I agree with you on their respective opposition. Marciano gets a much harder time for his but when I consider it, Im not actually sure there is a single Dempsey opponent I would pick to beat Marcianos other than Tunney (who he lost to). Firpo, Brennan, Carpentier, Willard, Sharkey, Miske - not actually all that great and I dont see them beating Moore, Charles, JJW or even LaStarza.

If Ezzard Charles and Walcott couldnt go the full 15, not sure tunney could have, close fight - tunney faced a old Dempsey, I feel fighters evolved quite quickly after dempsey era

Tunney was a darn sight tougher than both Charles and Walcott as well as being a better boxer than the version of Charles that Marciano beat.

P.s. Charles did go the full 15 first time around.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't need good defence with great wins like Wacott twice, Charles twice and LaStarza..............

First man to stop Louis for over ten years............

Top 10 fighter was rock....................Never beaten.

Never faced anything other than chumps and past it guys.

Tyson was the first and only man to stop Holmes. Holmes was almost a relic when they fought. But that version of Holmes was better than anything Rocky beat.

Top 10 in most If not all lists..........

Lastarza was the best fighter never to become world champ according to Angelo Dundee............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Top 10 in most If not all lists..........

Lastarza was the best fighter never to become world champ according to Angelo Dundee............

So what? Top 5 in many lists. Most top 10 HW would beat him without much fuss. Bhop would give him a good argument.

So what??

He's a top 5/10 heavy..........That's what and it's a great achievement..

Most heavyweight would be Louis...............Bhop would give him a good argument.

Wonder why you don't pick on him....who did he beat..

Louis is there because of his longevity. In terms of who would beat him I can think of several former champions who imo were better than him.

I know what you're getting at bwana, so why not simply cut to the chase instead of trying to be clever because you're as transparent as glass.

Calm down you're misjudging me..........

Louis victories weren't as good as The Rocks.........Chuck in a Schmelling slap......

All Louis had was longevity...

As I've said many times, I don't rate pre war boxers. Wlad would have had Louis for breakfast.

Carry on bwana.

Never liked them Carry on films.........

I do.

Out of curiosity, who are your top 15 or 20 heavyweights azania? It seems to change constantly. When it comes to Lewis, on one thread you had Charles, Jeffires, Louis and Dempsey above him. Then it switches back to not rating pre war fighters. I consistently see you rate guys like Wlad or Lewis - giant modern heavyweights as only top 15/20 material so Im really struggling to see who you actually rank in the top 15.

It might seem counter intuitive but I have Louis taking Wlad out.

Wlad can always bury Louis with one right hand but outside that I see Louis just bring too good and all it takes is a good hit from Louis and the job gets finished.

Louis beat some guys Wlads size albeit not of the same quality. It still shows that Louis could negotiate a big man.

Mismatch for me.....Louis is way too small..................

Close to a cruiserweight and giving a way five inches..........Didn't have the best chin either....

Yes, the Rock was the first to stop Louis in over 10 years...an old 37 year old Louis. If they were both at their bests, I'd put money on Louis to beat Rocky.

'First man to stop Louis for over ten years............'


Now I think Rocky was a helluva fighter, but you are not seriously holding that up as an important win are you!


That's like attaching importance to Villa's win over Wilde.


Clueless.

Oh dear I've got a nugget trying to wind me up...................

No wind up, the fact you hold up the win as important strikes me as ludicrous. Moreso coming from a hardcore fan.

Plus a few other things you've come out with recently. Like longevity not being important. In a sport where a fighter can grow old with one fight, indeed one punch, I personally think longevity counts for a lot.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't need good defence with great wins like Wacott twice, Charles twice and LaStarza..............

First man to stop Louis for over ten years............

Top 10 fighter was rock....................Never beaten.

Referring to the fact that stopping Louis was an achievement ...........However never said he was a great win..............

TRUSS - check your PMs

azania wrote:Great one. Blame the cameras. That would have made his defense look better.

Slow motion makes his defense look better..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b0yHvw-vW0