Who Wins?: Dempsey v Marciano

First topic message reminder :

Simple question really. Two of the greatest heavyweights of all time. Who do people think wins this tear up?

I would make Dempsey the favourite in this. Both guys are devastating punchers but I give Dempsey the advantage in speed and accuracy. Both fighters throw alot of punches but Marciano approach is to treat his entire opponent as one big target. Dempsey I believe was the more skilled puncher and picked his shots better. Marcianos open defense would spell trouble for him.

Marciano could also be a slow starter who took a while to grow into a fight. Dempsey was about as explosive a starter as there has been and would be all over Marciano from the opening bell. I think with his faster and more accurate punching he is able to cause Marciano huge problems. Marciano had a terrific chin and was durable but he would not be the person to be overwhelmed early by Dempsey and his lack of movement and defence could see him stopped either by knock out or by cuts.

The longer the fight lasts the more opportunity Marciano has to get a foothold in the fight but even if it goes to the cards I see Dempsey building up a sizeable lead and impressing more with the more accurate punching and better movement in order to win a decision.

Azania, your points about Marcianos opposition are valid. Rocky is a nightmare prospect for an older fighter who doesnt have the same stamina as he might when he was younger. His top opponents were in most cases past their best or outside their best weight class.

However I think these things are more relevant in considering his standing as a great or his lasting legacy. It doesnt automatically equate to Marciano not being able to beat them when they were younger or being a bad fighter. Those guys were still by and large the best operators when Marciano was around.

I think most people would agree with you on what he lacks. He was quite slow, he was quite small, movement wasnt great and so on. But his success wasnt based on these nor was it majorly inhibited by it. His succes was based on grinding down his opponents with relentless pressure and ferocious punching. At this he was absolutely formidable and I have no doubt he would be an extremelly fearsome cruiserweight in later eras.

He probably does get beaten by a dozen or so heavies throughout history but Dempsey isnt neccessarily one of them because of style and size reasons.

But he lost to a light heavyweight so can't be applying your logic

You say you get hit right you go but that doesn't ring true at all, i've seen fighters nailed with an absolute beast of a shot right on the point of the chin and the temple but they were still standing. Monzon after his patchy start was simply someone who did not know how to lose, there was nothing about him that stood out as being brilliant, he did everything quite well but always found a way to win. Generalise all you want but when i've got evidence in front of me that goes against some silly little saying i'm hardly going to ignore it and think 'oh yeah but hit him right and he's gone'.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:So obscure was Walcott that when he first challenged Joe Louis, ( at the age of thirty four, ) New York State Athletic Commission wanted to stage it as an exhibition. To say he wasn't at his best at the end of his career is absurd.

Just about everybody accepts that Walcott was one of those oddballs who really did improve with age.

What did he do after their fight?

Why, what difference does that make ?

If we count the two Joe Louis fights, the series against Charles and then the first loss to Marciano, Walcott's prime lasted longer ( in rounds, ) than did Tyson's. What's your point ?

A huge difference windy. He retired because he was old and finished. How come no-one mentions age catching up with him (as well as Suzy Q).

Primarily, because it's nonsense. He put up a splendid performance in the first Marciano fight, though it took a heavy toll on him. Tremendous pressure fighters do that to an opponent.

And then he promptly retired. Would he have retired 5 years earlier? Doubtful. Perhaps his age caught up with him and he realised it. Nothing to do with Rocky. But hey, lets give all praise to Rocky instead to mother nature.

He had already retired twice before fighting Louis. Bad management, lack of motivation, etc. Everybody agrees that the first Louis fight was the beginning of his best days, and winning the title, defending against Charles and putting up a tremendous showing against Marciano ( first time, ) were his crowning glories.

Besides, he didn't retire straight after losing his title. He fought a rematch with Marciano a year later and was stopped in one, protesting he'd had a short count.

So after fighting Louis he still got better but after he fought Rocky he got the boxing life beaten out of him and dediced to retire? Good grief. He's retired more people than Thatcher.

Why is it so hard to accept that age got the better of him and because he knew his body, he retired?

Because we know the background to all this which you do not but do try and enlighten me with your lesser knowledge

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:So obscure was Walcott that when he first challenged Joe Louis, ( at the age of thirty four, ) New York State Athletic Commission wanted to stage it as an exhibition. To say he wasn't at his best at the end of his career is absurd.

Just about everybody accepts that Walcott was one of those oddballs who really did improve with age.

What did he do after their fight?

Why, what difference does that make ?

If we count the two Joe Louis fights, the series against Charles and then the first loss to Marciano, Walcott's prime lasted longer ( in rounds, ) than did Tyson's. What's your point ?

A huge difference windy. He retired because he was old and finished. How come no-one mentions age catching up with him (as well as Suzy Q).

Primarily, because it's nonsense. He put up a splendid performance in the first Marciano fight, though it took a heavy toll on him. Tremendous pressure fighters do that to an opponent.

And then he promptly retired. Would he have retired 5 years earlier? Doubtful. Perhaps his age caught up with him and he realised it. Nothing to do with Rocky. But hey, lets give all praise to Rocky instead to mother nature.

He had already retired twice before fighting Louis. Bad management, lack of motivation, etc. Everybody agrees that the first Louis fight was the beginning of his best days, and winning the title, defending against Charles and putting up a tremendous showing against Marciano ( first time, ) were his crowning glories.

Besides, he didn't retire straight after losing his title. He fought a rematch with Marciano a year later and was stopped in one, protesting he'd had a short count.

So after fighting Louis he still got better but after he fought Rocky he got the boxing life beaten out of him and dediced to retire? Good grief. He's retired more people than Thatcher.

Why is it so hard to accept that age got the better of him and because he knew his body, he retired?

Why should that be so hard to believe ? There were four years between the two.

The Mighty Atom wrote:But he lost to a light heavyweight so can't be applying your logic

You say you get hit right you go but that doesn't ring true at all, i've seen fighters nailed with an absolute beast of a shot right on the point of the chin and the temple but they were still standing. Monzon after his patchy start was simply someone who did not know how to lose, there was nothing about him that stood out as being brilliant, he did everything quite well but always found a way to win. Generalise all you want but when i've got evidence in front of me that goes against some silly little saying i'm hardly going to ignore it and think 'oh yeah but hit him right and he's gone'.

So? That's your logic you are applying to me.

You obviously know little about the effect an impact from a punch does to the brain inside of the skull. If hit right, you lose senses. Its instinctive and you have little control over it. If hit hard enough you go down. If hit at the right spot, you stay down, providing the punch is hard enough. It has noting to do about determination of refusing to get knocked out. This isn't the rocky films when balboa said "Apollo I aint going down".

What evidence do you have? If it isn;t medical evidence from a neurologist then it is baloney to be polite

Monzon won because he was better. More determination to win also. But if someone had clipped him right, he would go. I'm sure Ali went into the fight with Frazier determined not to get KD. Oooops.

Why should that be so hard to believe ? There were four years between the two..

Equally why is it so hard to believe that a 39 year old man got old overnight given that he had over 70 fights. Oh yes, like Charles and Moore, he was a freak of nature until they met Rocky.

azania wrote:

Why should that be so hard to believe ? There were four years between the two..

Equally why is it so hard to believe that a 39 year old man got old overnight given that he had over 70 fights. Oh yes, like Charles and Moore, he was a freak of nature until they met Rocky.

Because, among other things, I saw the Louis fights and the Charles fights. Also, it is commonly accepted among just about everybody in boxing that Walcott hit his peak during this time.

Not my logic, your logic, constantly banging on about facing light heavyweights ignoring the fact that the opponent in question here actually lost to one.

Monzon won because of his determination more times than not, seeing Hagler not staggered by Hearns' best right hand your going to struggle to convince me that any middleweight could possibly knock him out with one punch nor do I believe any heavyweight has had the power to knock Chuvalo out with one punch. But make sweeping generalisations all over the place.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Not my logic, your logic, constantly banging on about facing light heavyweights ignoring the fact that the opponent in question here actually lost to one.

Monzon won because of his determination more times than not, seeing Hagler not staggered by Hearns' best right hand your going to struggle to convince me that any middleweight could possibly knock him out with one punch nor do I believe any heavyweight has had the power to knock Chuvalo out with one punch. But make sweeping generalisations all over the place.

The impregnable rocky got decked by a light-heavyweight.

Of course will to win and determination plays a huge part in boxing. But no-one is impervious to all punches. Do you have medical evidence from a neurologist that claims that a boxer can refuse to get KO'd if he is hit at the right spot? Hagler got staggered because he was hot hard but not hard enough to KO him. Plus he could take a punch better than most. Same with Chuvalo.

The sweeping generalisation is your comic bnook theory that a certain can refuse to get KO'd. That is medically impossible. If you believe it isn't I suggest you speak with Dr Richard Greenwood and Peter Hamlyn. I believe they know more about the trauma caused by punching to the head and why people get koncked out.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Why should that be so hard to believe ? There were four years between the two..

Equally why is it so hard to believe that a 39 year old man got old overnight given that he had over 70 fights. Oh yes, like Charles and Moore, he was a freak of nature until they met Rocky.

Because, among other things, I saw the Louis fights and the Charles fights. Also, it is commonly accepted among just about everybody in boxing that Walcott hit his peak during this time.

But Rocky gets the cudos of retiring a boxer at his peak at age 39. I have a bridge to sell.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Why should that be so hard to believe ? There were four years between the two..

Equally why is it so hard to believe that a 39 year old man got old overnight given that he had over 70 fights. Oh yes, like Charles and Moore, he was a freak of nature until they met Rocky.

Because, among other things, I saw the Louis fights and the Charles fights. Also, it is commonly accepted among just about everybody in boxing that Walcott hit his peak during this time.

But Rocky gets the cudos of retiring a boxer at his peak at age 39. I have a bridge to sell.

Hope you have more success than you do in selling your ' arguments,' since, in the subject of Marciano, nobody's buying them.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Why should that be so hard to believe ? There were four years between the two..

Equally why is it so hard to believe that a 39 year old man got old overnight given that he had over 70 fights. Oh yes, like Charles and Moore, he was a freak of nature until they met Rocky.

Because, among other things, I saw the Louis fights and the Charles fights. Also, it is commonly accepted among just about everybody in boxing that Walcott hit his peak during this time.

But Rocky gets the cudos of retiring a boxer at his peak at age 39. I have a bridge to sell.

Hope you have more success than you do in selling your ' arguments,' since, in the subject of Marciano, nobody's buying them.

No excuses windy. None whatsoever. A boxer hits his peak at 39, promptly loses and retires and you claim age was no factor. OK.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Why should that be so hard to believe ? There were four years between the two..

Equally why is it so hard to believe that a 39 year old man got old overnight given that he had over 70 fights. Oh yes, like Charles and Moore, he was a freak of nature until they met Rocky.

Because, among other things, I saw the Louis fights and the Charles fights. Also, it is commonly accepted among just about everybody in boxing that Walcott hit his peak during this time.

But Rocky gets the cudos of retiring a boxer at his peak at age 39. I have a bridge to sell.

Hope you have more success than you do in selling your ' arguments,' since, in the subject of Marciano, nobody's buying them.

No excuses windy. None whatsoever. A boxer hits his peak at 39, promptly loses and retires and you claim age was no factor. OK.

Where could he go, after being kayoed twice by Marciano ? It's not rocket science.

Read what I said again, I have yet to see a middleweight whom I think has the power to KO Hagler with the possible exception of Bob Fitzsimmons far different to saying I think it's impossible to knock them out.

Oh and, while we're at it, az, why did Foreman retire after the Young loss ? How is Hopkins getting along ? Vitali Klitschko ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Why should that be so hard to believe ? There were four years between the two..

Equally why is it so hard to believe that a 39 year old man got old overnight given that he had over 70 fights. Oh yes, like Charles and Moore, he was a freak of nature until they met Rocky.

Because, among other things, I saw the Louis fights and the Charles fights. Also, it is commonly accepted among just about everybody in boxing that Walcott hit his peak during this time.

But Rocky gets the cudos of retiring a boxer at his peak at age 39. I have a bridge to sell.

Hope you have more success than you do in selling your ' arguments,' since, in the subject of Marciano, nobody's buying them.

No excuses windy. None whatsoever. A boxer hits his peak at 39, promptly loses and retires and you claim age was no factor. OK.

Where could he go, after being kayoed twice by Marciano ? It's not rocket science.

The same place he went after losing to Charles and Louis. After all he was improving or at his peak.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Read what I said again, I have yet to see a middleweight whom I think has the power to KO Hagler with the possible exception of Bob Fitzsimmons far different to saying I think it's impossible to knock them out.

Mugabi, Hearns et al could have knocked him out if they hit him correctly and with sufficient power which they possessed.

Well i've seen Hearns hit him with his best shot so would have to respectfully disagree

HumanWindmill wrote:Oh and, while we're at it, az, why did Foreman retire after the Young loss ? How is Hopkins getting along ? Vitali Klitschko ?

Foreman had an epiphany as far as I know.

Hop is unique. He had adapted his style with age. Is he better than 15 years ago? I dont think he is.. But for Rocky to fight 3 old men all unique as they get better with age defies logic. The fact that one of them did absolutely zip at HW and the another lost more than he won after rocky with one other promptly retiring immediately after losing. That tells me something.

Oh and there was Cockell.

What a resume.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Well i've seen Hearns hit him with his best shot so would have to respectfully disagree

The shot that felled Duran was a harder and better shot. It's not me you are disagreeing with but medical science.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Why should that be so hard to believe ? There were four years between the two..

Equally why is it so hard to believe that a 39 year old man got old overnight given that he had over 70 fights. Oh yes, like Charles and Moore, he was a freak of nature until they met Rocky.

Because, among other things, I saw the Louis fights and the Charles fights. Also, it is commonly accepted among just about everybody in boxing that Walcott hit his peak during this time.

But Rocky gets the cudos of retiring a boxer at his peak at age 39. I have a bridge to sell.

Hope you have more success than you do in selling your ' arguments,' since, in the subject of Marciano, nobody's buying them.

No excuses windy. None whatsoever. A boxer hits his peak at 39, promptly loses and retires and you claim age was no factor. OK.

Where could he go, after being kayoed twice by Marciano ? It's not rocket science.

The same place he went after losing to Charles and Louis. After all he was improving or at his peak.

Walcott's first appearance in the top ten contenders is in 1945, at no.9

In 1946 he moves up to no.3

!n 1947 he is no.1 contender, challenges Louis in December, and drops a hotly disputed decision.

In 1948 he remains no.1, challenges Louis again, in June, and is knocked out.

In 1949 he has dropped to number 4.

In 1950, having lost to Ezzard Charles, he is down to no.7

In 1951 he is champion.

In 1952 he is no.1. ( Charles, incidentally, is no.3. )

Guess ' Ring ' magazine was wrong, also. What a pity that you weren't available to them, back in the day.

What's your theory concerning Archie Moore who, according to some sources, was born in the same year as Walcott - some say three years later - would fight Marciano in 1955, and would still be lightheavy champ until 1962 ? Guess Archie didn't know he was finished, either. Damned shame you weren't there to tell him, is what I say.

Your misinterpretation of what I said is the problem here, you can fall back on medical science all you want but at middleweight I don't see anyone knocking Hagler out.

Moore had done a fair bit at heavyweight actually Az but I never expected you to know that

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Oh and, while we're at it, az, why did Foreman retire after the Young loss ? How is Hopkins getting along ? Vitali Klitschko ?

Foreman had an epiphany as far as I know.

Oh and there was Cockell.

What a resume.

You could use an epiphany.

Cockell ? Terrible, eh ? If only he could have been as good as Scott LeDoux, Evangelista, Occasio, etc. Yep, Larry ' Never Unified ' Holmes would have carried Rocky's jockstrap and more with those names. Good job Joe Louis never had to fight LeDoux. My word, Sir, we'd never have heard of the ' Brown Bomber ' if Mr Scotty had been on the scene.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Your misinterpretation of what I said is the problem here, you can fall back on medical science all you want but at middleweight I don't see anyone knocking Hagler out.

Moore had done a fair bit at heavyweight actually Az but I never expected you to know that

No misrepresentation Atom. If Hearns caught Hagler with the same punch he caught Duran with, I doubt medically he would be upright and able to continue. There isn't a single boxer alive who is impervious to the effect of a full blooded punch from a hard hitting puncher. If SRR caught Hagler with the left he caught Zale or was it Fulmer with, its goodnight Marvin.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Why should that be so hard to believe ? There were four years between the two..

Equally why is it so hard to believe that a 39 year old man got old overnight given that he had over 70 fights. Oh yes, like Charles and Moore, he was a freak of nature until they met Rocky.

Because, among other things, I saw the Louis fights and the Charles fights. Also, it is commonly accepted among just about everybody in boxing that Walcott hit his peak during this time.

But Rocky gets the cudos of retiring a boxer at his peak at age 39. I have a bridge to sell.

Hope you have more success than you do in selling your ' arguments,' since, in the subject of Marciano, nobody's buying them.

No excuses windy. None whatsoever. A boxer hits his peak at 39, promptly loses and retires and you claim age was no factor. OK.

Where could he go, after being kayoed twice by Marciano ? It's not rocket science.

The same place he went after losing to Charles and Louis. After all he was improving or at his peak.

Walcott's first appearance in the top ten contenders is in 1945, at no.9

In 1946 he moves up to no.3

!n 1947 he is no.1 contender, challenges Louis in December, and drops a hotly disputed decision.

In 1948 he remains no.1, challenges Louis again, in June, and is knocked out.

In 1949 he has dropped to number 4.

In 1950, having lost to Ezzard Charles, he is down to no.7

In 1951 he is champion.

In 1952 he is no.1. ( Charles, incidentally, is no.3. )

Guess ' Ring ' magazine was wrong, also. What a pity that you weren't available to them, back in the day.

What's your theory concerning Archie Moore who, according to some sources, was born in the same year as Walcott - some say three years later - would fight Marciano in 1955, and would still be lightheavy champ until 1962 ? Guess Archie didn't know he was finished, either. Damned shame you weren't there to tell him, is what I say.

Yes Walcott better until he fought Rocky them promptly retired at age 39. Of course age had nothing to do with it. Zip. Nada. Incredible. They all went downhimm after meeting rocky. He put more fighter out of effective business than any Tory chancellor. What a man.

What did Archie achieve after Rocky at HW? Ditto Charles.

What did any of Holmes opponents achieve before they faced him let alone after?

The Mighty Atom wrote:What did any of Holmes opponents achieve before they faced him let alone after?

Quite a few went on to win world belts I believe. Witherspoon and Weaver are two who did just that.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Why should that be so hard to believe ? There were four years between the two..

Equally why is it so hard to believe that a 39 year old man got old overnight given that he had over 70 fights. Oh yes, like Charles and Moore, he was a freak of nature until they met Rocky.

Because, among other things, I saw the Louis fights and the Charles fights. Also, it is commonly accepted among just about everybody in boxing that Walcott hit his peak during this time.

But Rocky gets the cudos of retiring a boxer at his peak at age 39. I have a bridge to sell.

Hope you have more success than you do in selling your ' arguments,' since, in the subject of Marciano, nobody's buying them.

No excuses windy. None whatsoever. A boxer hits his peak at 39, promptly loses and retires and you claim age was no factor. OK.

Where could he go, after being kayoed twice by Marciano ? It's not rocket science.

The same place he went after losing to Charles and Louis. After all he was improving or at his peak.

Walcott's first appearance in the top ten contenders is in 1945, at no.9

In 1946 he moves up to no.3

!n 1947 he is no.1 contender, challenges Louis in December, and drops a hotly disputed decision.

In 1948 he remains no.1, challenges Louis again, in June, and is knocked out.

In 1949 he has dropped to number 4.

In 1950, having lost to Ezzard Charles, he is down to no.7

In 1951 he is champion.

In 1952 he is no.1. ( Charles, incidentally, is no.3. )

Guess ' Ring ' magazine was wrong, also. What a pity that you weren't available to them, back in the day.

What's your theory concerning Archie Moore who, according to some sources, was born in the same year as Walcott - some say three years later - would fight Marciano in 1955, and would still be lightheavy champ until 1962 ? Guess Archie didn't know he was finished, either. Damned shame you weren't there to tell him, is what I say.

Yes Walcott better until he fought Rocky them promptly retired at age 39. Of course age had nothing to do with it. Zip. Nada. Incredible. They all went downhimm after meeting rocky. He put more fighter out of effective business than any Tory chancellor. What a man.

What did Archie achieve after Rocky at HW? Ditto Charles.

Archie was a career lightheavy who moved up. Yes, they actually had lightheavies in those days, too. You know, natural 175lbers, like Michael Spinks.

Who beat Holmes.

And who retired after being slaughtered by Tyson.

Anyway, az, I'll leave you to your fairy stories. I'm just going to toddle off and try to convince a young chap that the Earth is not flat. It's on a similar level to any conversation with you concerning Marciano but it is, at least, a change.

Windy you are funny.

We are talking about the HW title here. Sooo, what did Archie ever achieve against other HW contenders after Rocky?

What exactly did Spinks do at heavyweight after he BEAT Holmes?

The Mighty Atom wrote:What exactly did Spinks do at heavyweight after he BEAT Holmes?

Absolutely nothing. Spinks won a highly dubious decision twice against a past it Holmes. He defended against Tangstad (who) and Cooney (ha) and got assaulted by Tyson then retired.

If you think HOlmes was at his peak then I'll lock the thread.

Was past it but was hardly over the hill when he lost as his performances after showed but doesn't change the fact he lost to a light heavyweight

The Mighty Atom wrote:Was past it but was hardly over the hill when he lost as his performances after showed but doesn't change the fact he lost to a light heavyweight

He was past it and robbed by the judges. I (and Holmes) believed that if he had kept his mouth shut about Rocky, the judges would have given him the verdict which he deserved.

But the bottom line is that he was past his best by quite a distance. I dont think a prime Holmes would be knocked out by any version of Tyson.

To put in the context of the Dempsey fight, none of Dempseys opponents other than Tunney who beat him did much at heavyweight after either. Jack Sharkey had limited success after but none of them went on to do anything amazing in the division.

Willard was virtually retired, Firpo did nothing, Carpentiers went back primarily to Lightheavy and was patchy there, Gibbons was retired by Tunney.

I dont think people are arguing that Marcianos opponents were top drawer or hadnt seen better days but it doesnt necessarily equate to Marciano being a bad fighter.

I can understand the logic of using Marcianos opposition as a means to argue against him being placed overly highly in all time great terms and acheivement. But I dont see why they make him such a bad fighter. He knocked them all out.

Wasn't that past it and thought Spinks deserved the nod in the first fight but not the second although an all time great heavyweight shouldn't be in that position against a light heavyweight though should he.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Wasn't that past it and thought Spinks deserved the nod in the first fight but not the second although an all time great heavyweight shouldn't be in that position against a light heavyweight though should he.

He was past his best in fights against Carl Williams, David Bey and Witherspoon. Even further from his best against Spinks but deserved both wins imo.

manos de piedra wrote:To put in the context of the Dempsey fight, none of Dempseys opponents other than Tunney who beat him did much at heavyweight after either. Jack Sharkey had limited success after but none of them went on to do anything amazing in the division.

Willard was virtually retired, Firpo did nothing, Carpentiers went back primarily to Lightheavy and was patchy there, Gibbons was retired by Tunney.

I dont think people are arguing that Marcianos opponents were top drawer or hadnt seen better days but it doesnt necessarily equate to Marciano being a bad fighter.

I can understand the logic of using Marcianos opposition as a means to argue against him being placed overly highly in all time great terms and acheivement. But I dont see why they make him such a bad fighter. He knocked them all out.

Styles make fights. Rocky and Dempsey wouldn't go far looking for each other. But Dempsey was quicker to the punch, punched just as hard and more frequently. Plus Rocky was very easy to hit. All made for Jack Daniel to score a KO in the mid rounds.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:To put in the context of the Dempsey fight, none of Dempseys opponents other than Tunney who beat him did much at heavyweight after either. Jack Sharkey had limited success after but none of them went on to do anything amazing in the division.

Willard was virtually retired, Firpo did nothing, Carpentiers went back primarily to Lightheavy and was patchy there, Gibbons was retired by Tunney.

I dont think people are arguing that Marcianos opponents were top drawer or hadnt seen better days but it doesnt necessarily equate to Marciano being a bad fighter.

I can understand the logic of using Marcianos opposition as a means to argue against him being placed overly highly in all time great terms and acheivement. But I dont see why they make him such a bad fighter. He knocked them all out.

Styles make fights. Rocky and Dempsey wouldn't go far looking for each other. But Dempsey was quicker to the punch, punched just as hard and more frequently. Plus Rocky was very easy to hit. All made for Jack Daniel to score a KO in the mid rounds.

Yes styles make fights which is why I dont understand why the likes of Holmes or Marcianos opposition are being discussed with great significance.

Dempsey is quicker and might punch more in the first few rounds but after that Im not so sure. Stamina and durabilty lie in Marcinos favour. Not even Dempsey can keep a relentless assualt up for 15 rounds and Marcianos greater steadfastness, stamina and durablity makes him more suited to a long lasting war. I dont see Dempsey being nearly as quick enough to beat Rocky to the punch all night and the chances are both guys will land alot of punches in this one. I just see Marciano being better equipped for the war of attrition.

You think Dempsey as better fighter and would win. Thats fair enough, I am sure the majority of people would agree with you. I just dont see the signifacance of bringin Marcianos opposition into it as a key determining factor or the fact Holmes or Ali etc would beat Marciano. Its not particularly relevant. The things Marciano was adept at and the qualities he possessed are far more relevant in this one. Hes vunerable to several styles and sizes but hes perfectly equipped for a war of attrition.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:To put in the context of the Dempsey fight, none of Dempseys opponents other than Tunney who beat him did much at heavyweight after either. Jack Sharkey had limited success after but none of them went on to do anything amazing in the division.

Willard was virtually retired, Firpo did nothing, Carpentiers went back primarily to Lightheavy and was patchy there, Gibbons was retired by Tunney.

I dont think people are arguing that Marcianos opponents were top drawer or hadnt seen better days but it doesnt necessarily equate to Marciano being a bad fighter.

I can understand the logic of using Marcianos opposition as a means to argue against him being placed overly highly in all time great terms and acheivement. But I dont see why they make him such a bad fighter. He knocked them all out.

Styles make fights. Rocky and Dempsey wouldn't go far looking for each other. But Dempsey was quicker to the punch, punched just as hard and more frequently. Plus Rocky was very easy to hit. All made for Jack Daniel to score a KO in the mid rounds.

Yes styles make fights which is why I dont understand why the likes of Holmes or Marcianos opposition are being discussed with great significance.

Dempsey is quicker and might punch more in the first few rounds but after that Im not so sure. Stamina and durabilty lie in Marcinos favour. Not even Dempsey can keep a relentless assualt up for 15 rounds and Marcianos greater steadfastness, stamina and durablity makes him more suited to a long lasting war. I dont see Dempsey being nearly as quick enough to beat Rocky to the punch all night and the chances are both guys will land alot of punches in this one. I just see Marciano being better equipped for the war of attrition.

You think Dempsey as better fighter and would win. Thats fair enough, I am sure the majority of people would agree with you. I just dont see the signifacance of bringin Marcianos opposition into it as a key determining factor or the fact Holmes or Ali etc would beat Marciano. Its not particularly relevant. The things Marciano was adept at and the qualities he possessed are far more relevant in this one. Hes vunerable to several styles and sizes but hes perfectly equipped for a war of attrition.

The history of the thread suggests that it wasn't me who brought Rocky's opposition into it. I responded to the questions posed about the merits of his opposition and how I believe they have been elevated beyond reason. Past it become peak ATG when they fight Rocky and go back to retirement and do nothing of note after. But that is an aside. Holmes is just being used to score points and probably to try and irritate me.

Back to the thread. Jempsey also had relentless stamina and punch power to the latter part of fights. His stamina would not be an issue. In an attritional war, because of dempsey's better all round skills he owuld win. As I have said before, he had all what Rocky had but with some extras which would be the deciding factor imo.

Dempsey only went past 10 rounds on two occassions in his career, hard to really say what his stamina would be like over a hard 15 rounds especially when he's used to blowing guys away in a round or two which I simply can't see happening here.

I dont think Dempsey has Marcianos level of durabilty, workrate or stamina over a 15 rounder. Marciano is proven in that regard. Dempsey isnt really. His style is suited to early wins. If he doesnt get that over Marciano then I believe Marciano becomes a clear favourite past 7/8 rounds.

Whether or not he manages an early stoppage is debateable. I tend to think its difficult over a guy like Marciano and I also suspect Marciano is more than capable of giving as good as he gets in early exchanges. I cant see him being dominated Dempsey even if Dempsey has the better of the opening rounds.

Tyson or Dempsey take Rocky out early.

Slow starter who is vulnerable early - see Moore and Walcott 1 fights, vs the fastest starting KO specialists the heavyweight division has ever seen.

Bump