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 wrote:A better example would be Gatti (RIP) and Ward. Superbly entertaining fighters and left their hearts in the ring all the time. Very aggressive with perhaps nowhere near the punch (p4p) as rocky. But a skilled fighter beats them always.

So Joe Walcott, Roland La Starzza, Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles weren't "skilled fighters" then? Walcott was as good a technician as you'll see and, regardless of his age, was in the best form of his life going in to their first bout. He also boxed with the legs of a twenty-one year old until that famous right hand caught him.

If He were as bad as your making out a old louis or walcott shouldnt have much problem with him. Unless of course these are overated aswell.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:THe rock was so poor he was beat in every fight he fought, ohh wait a minute.........

Brian Neilson went 48-0 a decade ago. If you fight has-beens, old has-beens and has-been light heavies and you win it hardly makes you a great does it.

You see Azania, I thought you'd be realistic and sensible enough to make the distinction that Marciano's level of opposition was much higher than Nielsen's, and that amongst it was a series of fights for the legitimate Heavyweight title. Obviously I was wrong.

For me, Rocky suffers because of it. His opposition was poor. Has been heavies and LHW and Don Cockell does not make you great. Going 49-0 is nothing special when your level of opposition is poor. I used Neilson to demonstrate that. Todays HW scene is slightly better than during rocky's reign because we have the Klits and haye who imo would all beat Rocky. Too much movement for him.

Compelling

Louis was fighting to pay his taxes. He was way past his best. Walcott was nearly as old as windy also. They were great heavies but past it. You may as well claim Mcbride beat a great fighter in Tyson as opposed to the shell of Tyson.

Chris

Those guys were past their best. At the time they fought Rocky they had seen better days. Are you claiming that they were peak fighters then or over the hill?

azania wrote:

Louis was fighting to pay his taxes. He was way past his best.

Maybe, but he was 8 - 0 since the loss to Charles, number one contender, ( Marciano was one place below him, ) and had just beaten the excellent Jimmy Bivins.

This version of Louis was a much better fighter than many of the opponents who filled out Holmes' resumé.

azania wrote:Chris

Those guys were past their best. At the time they fought Rocky they had seen better days. Are you claiming that they were peak fighters then or over the hill?

Some were, yes. That doesn't automatically mean that a win over them counts for nothing, though. Sonny Liston was past his best, in all probability, by the time Ali beat him. Likewise, versions of Holmes and Foreman which Holyfield beat were merely poor relations to what they'd been more than a decade earlier. I doubt you're so quick to discredit those wins as you are Marciano's.

Walcott may not have been able to run faster than he had been ten years earlier, or whatever (I know you like to point to such things), but was he a better boxer at thirty-eight than he had been at twenty-eight? Yes, absolutely. To argue otherwise is pure ignorance. His four year lay-off during the war seemed to revive him and it's a simple fact that in five years between 1947 and 1952, he achieved a hell of a lot more than he had in the other seventeen years which had gone before. Walcott was in the best form of his life going in to the Marciano fights - a better version of him had never existed.

The same can be said of Moore, although with the notable asterisk that he was a natural 175 lb man. Fighters peaking at such a late age is unusual, but as the case of Hopkins today shows, it's not impossible.

Walcott and Charles still had some left in their tanks..Lastarza was a cracking win...add an old Louis and I really can't see how Dempsey's opponents were as good..

Carnera????....Oh yes he did crack Sharkey when he was complainig to the ref that was a good name....

carpentier was a midget, Firpo????

Come on Azania you can do better than that.

Not sure he can, Truss.

Have to consider guys that power, chin, guts, determination, strength and stamina cannot compare to a simple jab, whilst good Holmes' jab was vastly over rated and like Marciano fought fairly average opposition although his opposition didn't have the advantage of being once magnificent like Charles, Louis, Moore and Walcott.

Speaking of heavyweights p4p can't see how Holmes would rank 2nd and surely Charles and Fitzsimmons would be 1 and 2 on a p4p heavyweight list.

Az...did you seriously claim that today's heavyweight division is better based on three fighters?

Was going to discuss the actual poll fight... but seeing as though we're on modern vs old heavies agaiiiiiiiin i'll give it a miss

I haven't even voted. Too close to call for me. Plus, I like both guys so there's not even favouritism to sway me.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Louis was fighting to pay his taxes. He was way past his best.

Maybe, but he was 8 - 0 since the loss to Charles, number one contender, ( Marciano was one place below him, ) and had just beaten the excellent Jimmy Bivins.

This version of Louis was a much better fighter than many of the opponents who filled out Holmes' resumé.

Thats a matter of opinion and one which I disagree. The Louis of 5 years prior to his fight with Rocky would have taken Rocky to the cleaners. Foreman was something like 19-0 before he lost his forst comeback fight. Most semi decent HW would have been 19-0 had they fought the same calibre of fighters.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Chris

Those guys were past their best. At the time they fought Rocky they had seen better days. Are you claiming that they were peak fighters then or over the hill?

Some were, yes. That doesn't automatically mean that a win over them counts for nothing, though. Sonny Liston was past his best, in all probability, by the time Ali beat him. Likewise, versions of Holmes and Foreman which Holyfield beat were merely poor relations to what they'd been more than a decade earlier. I doubt you're so quick to discredit those wins as you are Marciano's.

Walcott may not have been able to run faster than he had been ten years earlier, or whatever (I know you like to point to such things), but was he a better boxer at thirty-eight than he had been at twenty-eight? Yes, absolutely. To argue otherwise is pure ignorance. His four year lay-off during the war seemed to revive him and it's a simple fact that in five years between 1947 and 1952, he achieved a hell of a lot more than he had in the other seventeen years which had gone before. Walcott was in the best form of his life going in to the Marciano fights - a better version of him had never existed.

The same can be said of Moore, although with the notable asterisk that he was a natural 175 lb man. Fighters peaking at such a late age is unusual, but as the case of Hopkins today shows, it's not impossible.

I dont thik Liston was past his best when he beat Ali. Just my opinion though as Ali made him look average. As for Holmes and Foreman losing against Holy, I dont see them as great wins for Holy as those 2 were past. Foreman had a better chance of winning that Holmes due to his equalizer.

How fast he sprints is irelevant. But I seriously question your acsertion that Walcott was better at 38 than at 28. For one, his reaction time was slower and his reactions to his opponent's openings would be slower also. Its human nature. His ring savvy may have improved to compensate for some losses due to ageing.

WHy do people try and big up Rocky's wins so much? Holmes was correct. He was a young man beating up old men. What was Walcott's record against HWs? What did he achieve after he fought Rocky as HW? Zero.

Hopkins hasn't peaked at 46. He is no better now that 15 years ago. Quite the opposite. His ring savvy may have improved. But his hand speed, combination punches are not as good as previously. He has changed his style. A totally different boxer. One who relies on spoiling to win as opposed to winning 'clean'.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Walcott and Charles still had some left in their tanks..Lastarza was a cracking win...add an old Louis and I really can't see how Dempsey's opponents were as good..

Carnera????....Oh yes he did crack Sharkey when he was complainig to the ref that was a good name....

carpentier was a midget, Firpo????

Come on Azania you can do better than that.

Truss, as you know, styles make fights. Dempsey was a young, hungry fighter with a fearsome punch from either hand. A supremely dirty fighter who has everything Rocky had and then some. For me he KOs Rocky.

BALTIMORA wrote:Az...did you seriously claim that today's heavyweight division is better based on three fighters?

The 3 fighters of today would be Champs during the time of Rocky. 5 years earlier they would be contenders (perhaps the Klits due to their size only could be champs).

Fists of Fury wrote:Not sure he can, Truss.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Have to consider guys that power, chin, guts, determination, strength and stamina cannot compare to a simple jab, whilst good Holmes' jab was vastly over rated and like Marciano fought fairly average opposition although his opposition didn't have the advantage of being once magnificent like Charles, Louis, Moore and Walcott.

Speaking of heavyweights p4p can't see how Holmes would rank 2nd and surely Charles and Fitzsimmons would be 1 and 2 on a p4p heavyweight list.

Holmes' jab was over-rated by whom exactly?

Just because you cant see Holmes being ranked 2 doesn't mean others can. Personally I cant see how Rocky can be ranked in the top 30 p4p HW.

coxy0001 wrote:Was going to discuss the actual poll fight... but seeing as though we're on modern vs old heavies agaiiiiiiiin i'll give it a miss

HOw can it be an old vs new when I have spent time explaining how Dempsey beats Rocky. Unless you refer to Rocky as new.

I think you are selling Rocky very short azania. If he was a bad as you suggest then he would have been found out.

There are alot of valid criticisms of Marciano but I dont think durability, stamina, power, aggression, work rate, heart and so on can be questioned. I think many of the top huge heavies beat him due to size Im not sure why you think his limitations are so significant in a fight with Dempsey.

This has has all the hall marks of a slug fest and thee werent many better served to endure and prevail these kind of battles than Marciano. Hes well suited to this kind of battle and his positive attritubutes serve him very well in precisely this kind of fight.

Dempsey I think has the edge in skills and movement but hes not really the definition of finesse himself and whatever way you look at it, the fight is going to be a real war rather than a purist boxing match.

This is a very interesting match up as far as Im concered because it doesnt involve gigantic weight discrepencies or massive changes in eras. Its pretty much like for like which means you dont have to factor in Marciano giving away 40lbs or something.

I dont think Marcianos title reign is significantly worse than Dempseys. Plus he also doesnt have the monkey on his back of the colour line issues that nag Dempseys reign.

azania wrote:I dont thik Liston was past his best when he beat Ali. Just my opinion though as Ali made him look average. As for Holmes and Foreman losing against Holy, I dont see them as great wins for Holy as those 2 were past. Foreman had a better chance of winning that Holmes due to his equalizer.

How fast he sprints is irelevant. But I seriously question your acsertion that Walcott was better at 38 than at 28. For one, his reaction time was slower and his reactions to his opponent's openings would be slower also. Its human nature. His ring savvy may have improved to compensate for some losses due to ageing.

WHy do people try and big up Rocky's wins so much? Holmes was correct. He was a young man beating up old men. What was Walcott's record against HWs? What did he achieve after he fought Rocky as HW? Zero.

Hopkins hasn't peaked at 46. He is no better now that 15 years ago. Quite the opposite. His ring savvy may have improved. But his hand speed, combination punches are not as good as previously. He has changed his style. A totally different boxer. One who relies on spoiling to win as opposed to winning 'clean'.

Of course Walcott was a better fighter at thirty-eight than he was at twenty-eight. Prior to facing Louis for the title in 1947 (by which time he was thirty-three) he'd not been a fighter of note and had come up short more often than not each time he'd been presented with a step up in class. The NYSAC were so unimpressed with the choice of Walcott as an opponent (and his record to that point) that they in fact ordered the fight to only be billed as an exhibition rather than a title bout, and they only eventually relented after they came under pressure from Louis himself. It's simply undeniable that his performances as a boxer were hugely better in his thirties than they were in his twenties.

For God's sake, Azania, I'm sure nobody would dispute your statement that Walcott's reflexes would have been slower in his late thirties than they were in his late twenties; but boxing isn't solely about reflexes. They are merely a small part of what makes up a fighter. Some fighters have gone on to be genuinely great without ever even having great reflexes to start with. You've even touched on why Walcott was better later on in his career than he was in the earlier part; his all-round boxing skills, awareness, experience and so on had improved. That Walcott came in to the Marciano fights on the back of his best ever wins and in the best form of his career is simply a fact.

I didn't say that Hopkins has peaked RIGHT NOW at forty-six, either. I simply used him as an example to show that, like Walcott, a fighter can (albeit rarely) peak in their late thirties, and perhaps even a little later. Hopkins didn't become a recognized top pound for pound fighter until he beat Trinidad, by which time he was thirty-six. At forty-one he moved up from Middleweight to Light-Heavyweight to blitz Tarver. Maybe you think that Hopkins was a better fighter in 1993 than he was in 2003, but for me that's simply a ridiculous idea. Boxing is a results-based business, and the results of Walcott show that Marciano took on the best version of him that ever existed.

manos de piedra wrote:I think you are selling Rocky very short azania. If he was a bad as you suggest then he would have been found out.

There are alot of valid criticisms of Marciano but I dont think durability, stamina, power, aggression, work rate, heart and so on can be questioned. I think many of the top huge heavies beat him due to size Im not sure why you think his limitations are so significant in a fight with Dempsey.

This has has all the hall marks of a slug fest and thee werent many better served to endure and prevail these kind of battles than Marciano. Hes well suited to this kind of battle and his positive attritubutes serve him very well in precisely this kind of fight.

Dempsey I think has the edge in skills and movement but hes not really the definition of finesse himself and whatever way you look at it, the fight is going to be a real war rather than a purist boxing match.

This is a very interesting match up as far as Im concered because it doesnt involve gigantic weight discrepencies or massive changes in eras. Its pretty much like for like which means you dont have to factor in Marciano giving away 40lbs or something.

I dont think Marcianos title reign is significantly worse than Dempseys. Plus he also doesnt have the monkey on his back of the colour line issues that nag Dempseys reign.

I have and will never question Rocky's heart, guts, stamina, punch power and durability. That would be ridiculous even by my standards. But he lacked skills. His zombia like footwork, his woefully slow hand speed, his incredible lack of defence. He overcame many of those flaws by sheer determination and brute strength. But during his time, brute strength was obviously enough, 5 years earlier or later it wouldn't be enough.

His reign was better than Dempsey;s reign but it doesn;t make him a better fighter that Jack. Jack had all his sttributes plus added skills which for me, wins out.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:I dont thik Liston was past his best when he beat Ali. Just my opinion though as Ali made him look average. As for Holmes and Foreman losing against Holy, I dont see them as great wins for Holy as those 2 were past. Foreman had a better chance of winning that Holmes due to his equalizer.

How fast he sprints is irelevant. But I seriously question your acsertion that Walcott was better at 38 than at 28. For one, his reaction time was slower and his reactions to his opponent's openings would be slower also. Its human nature. His ring savvy may have improved to compensate for some losses due to ageing.

WHy do people try and big up Rocky's wins so much? Holmes was correct. He was a young man beating up old men. What was Walcott's record against HWs? What did he achieve after he fought Rocky as HW? Zero.

Hopkins hasn't peaked at 46. He is no better now that 15 years ago. Quite the opposite. His ring savvy may have improved. But his hand speed, combination punches are not as good as previously. He has changed his style. A totally different boxer. One who relies on spoiling to win as opposed to winning 'clean'.

Of course Walcott was a better fighter at thirty-eight than he was at twenty-eight. Prior to facing Louis for the title in 1947 (by which time he was thirty-three) he'd not been a fighter of note and had come up short more often than not each time he'd been presented with a step up in class. The NYSAC were so unimpressed with the choice of Walcott as an opponent (and his record to that point) that they in fact ordered the fight to only be billed as an exhibition rather than a title bout, and they only eventually relented after they came under pressure from Louis himself. It's simply undeniable that his performances as a boxer were hugely better in his thirties than they were in his twenties.

For God's sake, Azania, I'm sure nobody would dispute your statement that Walcott's reflexes would have been slower in his late thirties than they were in his late twenties; but boxing isn't solely about reflexes. They are merely a small part of what makes up a fighter. Some fighters have gone on to be genuinely great without ever even having great reflexes to start with. You've even touched on why Walcott was better later on in his career than he was in the earlier part; his all-round boxing skills, awareness, experience and so on had improved. That Walcott came in to the Marciano fights on the back of his best ever wins and in the best form of his career is simply a fact.

I didn't say that Hopkins has peaked RIGHT NOW at forty-six, either. I simply used him as an example to show that, like Walcott, a fighter can (albeit rarely) peak in their late thirties, and perhaps even a little later. Hopkins didn't become a recognized top pound for pound fighter until he beat Trinidad, by which time he was thirty-six. At forty-one he moved up from Middleweight to Light-Heavyweight to blitz Tarver. Maybe you think that Hopkins was a better fighter in 1993 than he was in 2003, but for me that's simply a ridiculous idea. Boxing is a results-based business, and the results of Walcott show that Marciano took on the best version of him that ever existed.

Sorry Chris, I dont buy it for a second that Walcott was better at 38 that at 28 or 33. What did he achieve after Rocky? His career was also yo yoing,

I am not going to deny Hopkins. He is a phenom. But it seems strange that all Rocky's old victims were phenoms when they lost to Rocky.

Charles was a past it LHW. Ditto Walcott. Ditto Moore and it leaves us with Cockell.

I would say though that Rocky would KO Patterson but lose to Liston.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think you are selling Rocky very short azania. If he was a bad as you suggest then he would have been found out.

There are alot of valid criticisms of Marciano but I dont think durability, stamina, power, aggression, work rate, heart and so on can be questioned. I think many of the top huge heavies beat him due to size Im not sure why you think his limitations are so significant in a fight with Dempsey.

This has has all the hall marks of a slug fest and thee werent many better served to endure and prevail these kind of battles than Marciano. Hes well suited to this kind of battle and his positive attritubutes serve him very well in precisely this kind of fight.

Dempsey I think has the edge in skills and movement but hes not really the definition of finesse himself and whatever way you look at it, the fight is going to be a real war rather than a purist boxing match.

This is a very interesting match up as far as Im concered because it doesnt involve gigantic weight discrepencies or massive changes in eras. Its pretty much like for like which means you dont have to factor in Marciano giving away 40lbs or something.

I dont think Marcianos title reign is significantly worse than Dempseys. Plus he also doesnt have the monkey on his back of the colour line issues that nag Dempseys reign.

I have and will never question Rocky's heart, guts, stamina, punch power and durability. That would be ridiculous even by my standards. But he lacked skills. His zombia like footwork, his woefully slow hand speed, his incredible lack of defence. He overcame many of those flaws by sheer determination and brute strength. But during his time, brute strength was obviously enough, 5 years earlier or later it wouldn't be enough.

His reign was better than Dempsey;s reign but it doesn;t make him a better fighter that Jack. Jack had all his sttributes plus added skills which for me, wins out.

My point is you are focusing intently on his flaws and largely ignoring his strengths. If Marciano fights a 230 pound behemoth or a real slick boxer with with great jab or movement then I understand why his lack of speed and movement and size etc are a massive factor.

But these flaws are not particularly devastating to his case in this particular match up. He certainly wont need any speed or movement to go looking for Dempsey. He meets him head on. In this kind of match up Im far more inclined to look at what Marciano had in abundance and what he was good at. His strenghts serve him very well in this clash. He has great power, stamina, work rate and durability. All massive positives in a kind of close quarter war that Dempseys style provides. I would actually give Marciano the edge in these areas. Demspey was more of a swarmer who overwhelmed his opponents. Marciano was more of a slugger.

I can see the arguments why Dempsey might win this early but it difficult to to overwhelm someone as powerful and durable as Marciano early and I feel if Marciano is still in there at the half way mark then the fight starts to shift in his favour. Dempsey was a better early round fighter as he came out of the blocks fast and aggressive but its also probably worth remembering that in most of Marcianos big fights he was facing boxers, rather than sluggers or swarmers so he had to chase and force the fight and eventually catch up with his opponent. When his opponet came to fight up close then Marciano was more than capable of stopping them early himself. In many of Dempseys big fights his opponents went toe toe with him and were simply ovewhelmed. I think you have to give to the edge to Dempsey in as the better ealry fighter and Marciano as better late on. However given Dempseys style and the fact Marciano would not have to chase or be up against an opponent trying to stay their distance from him then this is an advantage towards Marciano also and suits him. His slow, plodding reputation comes from having to chase around slicker operators who were looking to outbox him and avoid his power. This isnt going to be the case with Dempsey.

azania wrote:Sorry Chris, I dont buy it for a second that Walcott was better at 38 that at 28 or 33. What did he achieve after Rocky? His career was also yo yoing,

I am not going to deny Hopkins. He is a phenom. But it seems strange that all Rocky's old victims were phenoms when they lost to Rocky.

Charles was a past it LHW. Ditto Walcott. Ditto Moore and it leaves us with Cockell.

I would say though that Rocky would KO Patterson but lose to Liston.

Moore certainly was a phenom; though as I said earlier, with the notable asterisk that he wasn't a natural Heavyweight. He too was in the best form of his career prior to facing Marciano, but on the basis that he was a 175 lb man through and through I don't consider it a 'great' win for Marciano, merely a 'good' one. Charles, I accept, had certainly seen better days, although calling him a Light-Heavyweight at that particular stage is a point of contention (and let's not forget that Rocky was tiny for a Heavyweight himself - it was hardly a case akin to Klitschko hypotetically taking on Cleverly or suchlike).

But there is simply no reason to degrade the wins over Walcott, none at all in my eyes. At thirty-eight he was performing better, beating / facing a better class of opponent and fighting bigger fights than he had been ten years or so earlier. Why? It's simple - he was a better boxer, unless the you think that the likes of Joe Louis, Elmer Ray, Ezzard Chales, Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim represent a drop in quality from the unknowns that he was losing to with relative frequency in the earlier stages of his career.

Let me ask you this, Azania, because there's something here which I don't quite get. I see you've accepted that Hopkins reached his peak as a fighter in his late thirties and early forties. Presumably, you accept this because of the reasons I offered; he's secured all his biggest and best wins on the 'wrong' side of thirty-five, and his most clinical performances (namely Tarver and Pavlik) have come at and even later age than that. Now seeing as exactly the same applies to Walcott in the latter years of his career, why do you accept it for Hopkins, but not Jersey Joe? What is the difference?

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think you are selling Rocky very short azania. If he was a bad as you suggest then he would have been found out.

There are alot of valid criticisms of Marciano but I dont think durability, stamina, power, aggression, work rate, heart and so on can be questioned. I think many of the top huge heavies beat him due to size Im not sure why you think his limitations are so significant in a fight with Dempsey.

This has has all the hall marks of a slug fest and thee werent many better served to endure and prevail these kind of battles than Marciano. Hes well suited to this kind of battle and his positive attritubutes serve him very well in precisely this kind of fight.

Dempsey I think has the edge in skills and movement but hes not really the definition of finesse himself and whatever way you look at it, the fight is going to be a real war rather than a purist boxing match.

This is a very interesting match up as far as Im concered because it doesnt involve gigantic weight discrepencies or massive changes in eras. Its pretty much like for like which means you dont have to factor in Marciano giving away 40lbs or something.

I dont think Marcianos title reign is significantly worse than Dempseys. Plus he also doesnt have the monkey on his back of the colour line issues that nag Dempseys reign.

I have and will never question Rocky's heart, guts, stamina, punch power and durability. That would be ridiculous even by my standards. But he lacked skills. His zombia like footwork, his woefully slow hand speed, his incredible lack of defence. He overcame many of those flaws by sheer determination and brute strength. But during his time, brute strength was obviously enough, 5 years earlier or later it wouldn't be enough.

His reign was better than Dempsey;s reign but it doesn;t make him a better fighter that Jack. Jack had all his sttributes plus added skills which for me, wins out.

My point is you are focusing intently on his flaws and largely ignoring his strengths. If Marciano fights a 230 pound behemoth or a real slick boxer with with great jab or movement then I understand why his lack of speed and movement and size etc are a massive factor.

But these flaws are not particularly devastating to his case in this particular match up. He certainly wont need any speed or movement to go looking for Dempsey. He meets him head on. In this kind of match up Im far more inclined to look at what Marciano had in abundance and what he was good at. His strenghts serve him very well in this clash. He has great power, stamina, work rate and durability. All massive positives in a kind of close quarter war that Dempseys style provides. I would actually give Marciano the edge in these areas. Demspey was more of a swarmer who overwhelmed his opponents. Marciano was more of a slugger.

I can see the arguments why Dempsey might win this early but it difficult to to overwhelm someone as powerful and durable as Marciano early and I feel if Marciano is still in there at the half way mark then the fight starts to shift in his favour. Dempsey was a better early round fighter as he came out of the blocks fast and aggressive but its also probably worth remembering that in most of Marcianos big fights he was facing boxers, rather than sluggers or swarmers so he had to chase and force the fight and eventually catch up with his opponent. When his opponet came to fight up close then Marciano was more than capable of stopping them early himself. In many of Dempseys big fights his opponents went toe toe with him and were simply ovewhelmed. I think you have to give to the edge to Dempsey in as the better ealry fighter and Marciano as better late on. However given Dempseys style and the fact Marciano would not have to chase or be up against an opponent trying to stay their distance from him then this is an advantage towards Marciano also and suits him. His slow, plodding reputation comes from having to chase around slicker operators who were looking to outbox him and avoid his power. This isnt going to be the case with Dempsey.

I believe his flaws outweigh his strengths. Take Gatti for instance. Dertenimed, durable etc etc etc. But againstthe best he was found wanting (not just against Floyd). Ditto Hatton. (no I am not comparing them but using them as an example)

You are making Rocky sound like some sort of superman impervious to paid and with an impregnable chin. He got decked by a LHW. Dempsey would have kept him there. The myth that Rocky grew stronger as the fight wore on is that. A myth. He outhustled others due to his durability and that his championship opponents were old and less durable. The other guys just got weaker. That wouldn;t happen to Jack as he was equally durable. I cant see any other result than a Dempsey KO by R8.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think you are selling Rocky very short azania. If he was a bad as you suggest then he would have been found out.

There are alot of valid criticisms of Marciano but I dont think durability, stamina, power, aggression, work rate, heart and so on can be questioned. I think many of the top huge heavies beat him due to size Im not sure why you think his limitations are so significant in a fight with Dempsey.

This has has all the hall marks of a slug fest and thee werent many better served to endure and prevail these kind of battles than Marciano. Hes well suited to this kind of battle and his positive attritubutes serve him very well in precisely this kind of fight.

Dempsey I think has the edge in skills and movement but hes not really the definition of finesse himself and whatever way you look at it, the fight is going to be a real war rather than a purist boxing match.

This is a very interesting match up as far as Im concered because it doesnt involve gigantic weight discrepencies or massive changes in eras. Its pretty much like for like which means you dont have to factor in Marciano giving away 40lbs or something.

I dont think Marcianos title reign is significantly worse than Dempseys. Plus he also doesnt have the monkey on his back of the colour line issues that nag Dempseys reign.

I have and will never question Rocky's heart, guts, stamina, punch power and durability. That would be ridiculous even by my standards. But he lacked skills. His zombia like footwork, his woefully slow hand speed, his incredible lack of defence. He overcame many of those flaws by sheer determination and brute strength. But during his time, brute strength was obviously enough, 5 years earlier or later it wouldn't be enough.

His reign was better than Dempsey;s reign but it doesn;t make him a better fighter that Jack. Jack had all his sttributes plus added skills which for me, wins out.

My point is you are focusing intently on his flaws and largely ignoring his strengths. If Marciano fights a 230 pound behemoth or a real slick boxer with with great jab or movement then I understand why his lack of speed and movement and size etc are a massive factor.

But these flaws are not particularly devastating to his case in this particular match up. He certainly wont need any speed or movement to go looking for Dempsey. He meets him head on. In this kind of match up Im far more inclined to look at what Marciano had in abundance and what he was good at. His strenghts serve him very well in this clash. He has great power, stamina, work rate and durability. All massive positives in a kind of close quarter war that Dempseys style provides. I would actually give Marciano the edge in these areas. Demspey was more of a swarmer who overwhelmed his opponents. Marciano was more of a slugger.

I can see the arguments why Dempsey might win this early but it difficult to to overwhelm someone as powerful and durable as Marciano early and I feel if Marciano is still in there at the half way mark then the fight starts to shift in his favour. Dempsey was a better early round fighter as he came out of the blocks fast and aggressive but its also probably worth remembering that in most of Marcianos big fights he was facing boxers, rather than sluggers or swarmers so he had to chase and force the fight and eventually catch up with his opponent. When his opponet came to fight up close then Marciano was more than capable of stopping them early himself. In many of Dempseys big fights his opponents went toe toe with him and were simply ovewhelmed. I think you have to give to the edge to Dempsey in as the better ealry fighter and Marciano as better late on. However given Dempseys style and the fact Marciano would not have to chase or be up against an opponent trying to stay their distance from him then this is an advantage towards Marciano also and suits him. His slow, plodding reputation comes from having to chase around slicker operators who were looking to outbox him and avoid his power. This isnt going to be the case with Dempsey.

Great post.

Moore certainly was a phenom; though as I said earlier, with the notable asterisk that he wasn't a natural Heavyweight. He too was in the best form of his career prior to facing Marciano, but on the basis that he was a 175 lb man through and through I don't consider it a 'great' win for Marciano, merely a 'good' one. Charles, I accept, had certainly seen better days, although calling him a Light-Heavyweight at that particular stage is a point of contention (and let's not forget that Rocky was tiny for a Heavyweight himself - it was hardly a case akin to Klitschko hypotetically taking on Cleverly or suchlike).

But there is simply no reason to degrade the wins over Walcott, none at all in my eyes. At thirty-eight he was performing better, beating / facing a better class of opponent and fighting bigger fights than he had been ten years or so earlier. Why? It's simple - he was a better boxer, unless the you think that the likes of Joe Louis, Elmer Ray, Ezzard Chales, Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim represent a drop in quality from the unknowns that he was losing to with relative frequency in the earlier stages of his career.

Let me ask you this, Azania, because there's something here which I don't quite get. I see you've accepted that Hopkins reached his peak as a fighter in his late thirties and early forties. Presumably, you accept this because of the reasons I offered; he's secured all his biggest and best wins on the 'wrong' side of thirty-five, and his most clinical performances (namely Tarver and Pavlik) have come at and even later age than that. Now seeing as exactly the same applies to Walcott in the latter years of his career, why do you accept it for Hopkins, but not Jersey Joe? What is the difference? .

Interesting, all the old men Rocky fought (Clarles accepted) were phenoms. Strangely they did nothing of note after they fought Rocky (at HW). I suppose the beating they took from Rocky ended their careers.

There is every reason to look critically at the Walcott win. In my eyes (and Holmes) he was fighting an old man who promptly retired after losing. If he was in his prime, why didn't he carry on? Oh, Rocky beat the fight out of him also. He retired because his time was up.

I haven't accepted that Hop reached his peak at 41. He was a completely different fighter at 41 than at 31. He adapted to his fading skills and gained new skills (spoiling) and ring generalship. Its debateable if the 31 year old was worse/better than the 41 y.o version. Not being much of a fan of either version it is something I haven't looked at too closely although on euro sport now, he seemed much faster then than now. His boggest win came against a blown up WW and Oscar.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think you are selling Rocky very short azania. If he was a bad as you suggest then he would have been found out.

There are alot of valid criticisms of Marciano but I dont think durability, stamina, power, aggression, work rate, heart and so on can be questioned. I think many of the top huge heavies beat him due to size Im not sure why you think his limitations are so significant in a fight with Dempsey.

This has has all the hall marks of a slug fest and thee werent many better served to endure and prevail these kind of battles than Marciano. Hes well suited to this kind of battle and his positive attritubutes serve him very well in precisely this kind of fight.

Dempsey I think has the edge in skills and movement but hes not really the definition of finesse himself and whatever way you look at it, the fight is going to be a real war rather than a purist boxing match.

This is a very interesting match up as far as Im concered because it doesnt involve gigantic weight discrepencies or massive changes in eras. Its pretty much like for like which means you dont have to factor in Marciano giving away 40lbs or something.

I dont think Marcianos title reign is significantly worse than Dempseys. Plus he also doesnt have the monkey on his back of the colour line issues that nag Dempseys reign.

I have and will never question Rocky's heart, guts, stamina, punch power and durability. That would be ridiculous even by my standards. But he lacked skills. His zombia like footwork, his woefully slow hand speed, his incredible lack of defence. He overcame many of those flaws by sheer determination and brute strength. But during his time, brute strength was obviously enough, 5 years earlier or later it wouldn't be enough.

His reign was better than Dempsey;s reign but it doesn;t make him a better fighter that Jack. Jack had all his sttributes plus added skills which for me, wins out.

My point is you are focusing intently on his flaws and largely ignoring his strengths. If Marciano fights a 230 pound behemoth or a real slick boxer with with great jab or movement then I understand why his lack of speed and movement and size etc are a massive factor.

But these flaws are not particularly devastating to his case in this particular match up. He certainly wont need any speed or movement to go looking for Dempsey. He meets him head on. In this kind of match up Im far more inclined to look at what Marciano had in abundance and what he was good at. His strenghts serve him very well in this clash. He has great power, stamina, work rate and durability. All massive positives in a kind of close quarter war that Dempseys style provides. I would actually give Marciano the edge in these areas. Demspey was more of a swarmer who overwhelmed his opponents. Marciano was more of a slugger.

I can see the arguments why Dempsey might win this early but it difficult to to overwhelm someone as powerful and durable as Marciano early and I feel if Marciano is still in there at the half way mark then the fight starts to shift in his favour. Dempsey was a better early round fighter as he came out of the blocks fast and aggressive but its also probably worth remembering that in most of Marcianos big fights he was facing boxers, rather than sluggers or swarmers so he had to chase and force the fight and eventually catch up with his opponent. When his opponet came to fight up close then Marciano was more than capable of stopping them early himself. In many of Dempseys big fights his opponents went toe toe with him and were simply ovewhelmed. I think you have to give to the edge to Dempsey in as the better ealry fighter and Marciano as better late on. However given Dempseys style and the fact Marciano would not have to chase or be up against an opponent trying to stay their distance from him then this is an advantage towards Marciano also and suits him. His slow, plodding reputation comes from having to chase around slicker operators who were looking to outbox him and avoid his power. This isnt going to be the case with Dempsey.

I believe his flaws outweigh his strengths. Take Gatti for instance. Dertenimed, durable etc etc etc. But againstthe best he was found wanting (not just against Floyd). Ditto Hatton. (no I am not comparing them but using them as an example)

You are making Rocky sound like some sort of superman impervious to paid and with an impregnable chin. He got decked by a LHW. Dempsey would have kept him there. The myth that Rocky grew stronger as the fight wore on is that. A myth. He outhustled others due to his durability and that his championship opponents were old and less durable. The other guys just got weaker. That wouldn;t happen to Jack as he was equally durable. I cant see any other result than a Dempsey KO by R8.

It isnt a myth. Rockys style and relentless pressure and punishment caused his opponents to get worn down. They didnt just get tired because they were old. They had to run from a guy constantly that dished out huge punishement whenever he gets to you. This is the strength of his style. Nobodys saying he will outjab or outbox but he will keep applying the sort of pressure and power that few fighters in history can match.

Im trying to look this at this fight in the context of Dempsey and what he brings. I think Marciano struggles against guys like Ali, Holmes the later heavies that outsize him massively but this isnt particularly relevant to this contest.

Dempsey was also decked by a lightheavy so the argument that Marciano would keep him down is just the same. The point is not that Marciano was Superman, but that he was an immensely durable fighter who time nd time again proved he could absorb, survive and overcome tremendous punishment. This makes an argument for Dempsey just blasting him out significantly weaker as Marciano was extremelly difficult to blast out. He had the potential to absorb alot of punishment from Dempsey.

I dont accept your arguments in relation to Gatti and Hatton because they lost to the best competition in their own era. Marciano beat the best competition in his own era. The fact remains he was never found out the way Gatti and Hatton were. I agree with you that if he exists around the ame time as Ali he probably doesnt win the title but we cant say that as a matter of fact. I could also point to someone like Chavez rather than Gatti as an example of a great fighter rather than using a decent one.

Im looking at Marcianos strengths and weaknesses purely in the context of this fight. I am not applying them to other fighters with different styles. The things we know Marciano possessed in abundnce and were probaby his greatest assests I think are actually well suited to a brawl like this one. His weaknesses that you highlight dont significantly factor in this. His lack of speed isnt crippling because Dempsey is a big target who wont be hard to find.

What makes it intersting is both fighters style suit the other. Dempsey did better with opponents who came to battle and Marciano loved to slug and would not be damaged by his lack of size or speed in the fight. No outcome in the fight would particulary surprise me whether it was Marciano early, late or by decision or vice versa. My instict is that Marciano was just better equipped for the kind of battle that would surely occur.

Nice to see another debate ruined by someone who simply has got a clue

For what it's worth, Gene Tunney picked Dempsey on this one. He also reckoned Jack would KO Joe Louis in one though...

Cue Az... 8)

BALTIMORA wrote:For what it's worth, Gene Tunney picked Dempsey on this one. He also reckoned Jack would KO Joe Louis in one though...

Cue Az... 8)

I'd pick Louis over Jack. Better jab and able to keep the fight at range.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Nice to see another debate ruined by someone who simply has got a clue

So says the person who claimed Holmes's jab was over-rated. Too funny. How can an alternative opinion ruin a debate? Unless that is you want mutual agreement on everything you like?

Never seen Holmes dominate a great fighter with his jab

Should point out that you evidentally can't have a clue if you fail to realise that Walcott was in better form at 38 than he was at 28, far too simplistic to look at the numbers and assume something which is in fact far from the truth.

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.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think you are selling Rocky very short azania. If he was a bad as you suggest then he would have been found out.

There are alot of valid criticisms of Marciano but I dont think durability, stamina, power, aggression, work rate, heart and so on can be questioned. I think many of the top huge heavies beat him due to size Im not sure why you think his limitations are so significant in a fight with Dempsey.

This has has all the hall marks of a slug fest and thee werent many better served to endure and prevail these kind of battles than Marciano. Hes well suited to this kind of battle and his positive attritubutes serve him very well in precisely this kind of fight.

Dempsey I think has the edge in skills and movement but hes not really the definition of finesse himself and whatever way you look at it, the fight is going to be a real war rather than a purist boxing match.

This is a very interesting match up as far as Im concered because it doesnt involve gigantic weight discrepencies or massive changes in eras. Its pretty much like for like which means you dont have to factor in Marciano giving away 40lbs or something.

I dont think Marcianos title reign is significantly worse than Dempseys. Plus he also doesnt have the monkey on his back of the colour line issues that nag Dempseys reign.

I have and will never question Rocky's heart, guts, stamina, punch power and durability. That would be ridiculous even by my standards. But he lacked skills. His zombia like footwork, his woefully slow hand speed, his incredible lack of defence. He overcame many of those flaws by sheer determination and brute strength. But during his time, brute strength was obviously enough, 5 years earlier or later it wouldn't be enough.

His reign was better than Dempsey;s reign but it doesn;t make him a better fighter that Jack. Jack had all his sttributes plus added skills which for me, wins out.

My point is you are focusing intently on his flaws and largely ignoring his strengths. If Marciano fights a 230 pound behemoth or a real slick boxer with with great jab or movement then I understand why his lack of speed and movement and size etc are a massive factor.

But these flaws are not particularly devastating to his case in this particular match up. He certainly wont need any speed or movement to go looking for Dempsey. He meets him head on. In this kind of match up Im far more inclined to look at what Marciano had in abundance and what he was good at. His strenghts serve him very well in this clash. He has great power, stamina, work rate and durability. All massive positives in a kind of close quarter war that Dempseys style provides. I would actually give Marciano the edge in these areas. Demspey was more of a swarmer who overwhelmed his opponents. Marciano was more of a slugger.

I can see the arguments why Dempsey might win this early but it difficult to to overwhelm someone as powerful and durable as Marciano early and I feel if Marciano is still in there at the half way mark then the fight starts to shift in his favour. Dempsey was a better early round fighter as he came out of the blocks fast and aggressive but its also probably worth remembering that in most of Marcianos big fights he was facing boxers, rather than sluggers or swarmers so he had to chase and force the fight and eventually catch up with his opponent. When his opponet came to fight up close then Marciano was more than capable of stopping them early himself. In many of Dempseys big fights his opponents went toe toe with him and were simply ovewhelmed. I think you have to give to the edge to Dempsey in as the better ealry fighter and Marciano as better late on. However given Dempseys style and the fact Marciano would not have to chase or be up against an opponent trying to stay their distance from him then this is an advantage towards Marciano also and suits him. His slow, plodding reputation comes from having to chase around slicker operators who were looking to outbox him and avoid his power. This isnt going to be the case with Dempsey.

I believe his flaws outweigh his strengths. Take Gatti for instance. Dertenimed, durable etc etc etc. But againstthe best he was found wanting (not just against Floyd). Ditto Hatton. (no I am not comparing them but using them as an example)

You are making Rocky sound like some sort of superman impervious to paid and with an impregnable chin. He got decked by a LHW. Dempsey would have kept him there. The myth that Rocky grew stronger as the fight wore on is that. A myth. He outhustled others due to his durability and that his championship opponents were old and less durable. The other guys just got weaker. That wouldn;t happen to Jack as he was equally durable. I cant see any other result than a Dempsey KO by R8.

It isnt a myth. Rockys style and relentless pressure and punishment caused his opponents to get worn down. They didnt just get tired because they were old. They had to run from a guy constantly that dished out huge punishement whenever he gets to you. This is the strength of his style. Nobodys saying he will outjab or outbox but he will keep applying the sort of pressure and power that few fighters in history can match.

Im trying to look this at this fight in the context of Dempsey and what he brings. I think Marciano struggles against guys like Ali, Holmes the later heavies that outsize him massively but this isnt particularly relevant to this contest.

Dempsey was also decked by a lightheavy so the argument that Marciano would keep him down is just the same. The point is not that Marciano was Superman, but that he was an immensely durable fighter who time nd time again proved he could absorb, survive and overcome tremendous punishment. This makes an argument for Dempsey just blasting him out significantly weaker as Marciano was extremelly difficult to blast out. He had the potential to absorb alot of punishment from Dempsey.

I dont accept your arguments in relation to Gatti and Hatton because they lost to the best competition in their own era. Marciano beat the best competition in his own era. The fact remains he was never found out the way Gatti and Hatton were. I agree with you that if he exists around the ame time as Ali he probably doesnt win the title but we cant say that as a matter of fact. I could also point to someone like Chavez rather than Gatti as an example of a great fighter rather than using a decent one.

Im looking at Marcianos strengths and weaknesses purely in the context of this fight. I am not applying them to other fighters with different styles. The things we know Marciano possessed in abundnce and were probaby his greatest assests I think are actually well suited to a brawl like this one. His weaknesses that you highlight dont significantly factor in this. His lack of speed isnt crippling because Dempsey is a big target who wont be hard to find.

What makes it intersting is both fighters style suit the other. Dempsey did better with opponents who came to battle and Marciano loved to slug and would not be damaged by his lack of size or speed in the fight. No outcome in the fight would particulary surprise me whether it was Marciano early, late or by decision or vice versa. My instict is that Marciano was just better equipped for the kind of battle that would surely occur.

A boxer with good footwork will get out of Rocky's plodding attempts to get close. If he had fought Charles 2 years prior to their meeting, there would have been only one winner.

Regarding to my Gatti comparison, yes Rocky fought and beat the best in his era. The best was of a sub standard imo/ If Hatton had retired before he fought Floyd and before Pac becided to yo yo in weight, he could also claim to have fought and beaten the best in his era given that Floyd was a WW.

In the dream fight between Jack and Rock, I pick Jack because he had everything Rock had buts added skills and was faster (hands) and better footwork. I cant see Rock bulldozing him or Jack taking a backward step. Plus jack punched from wierd angles and all with mean intentions. No finesse in his style. He went for the kill from the first bell. As Rocky was a slow starter I see Jack taking the fight to him with Rocky getting more desperate and making more errors for Jack to capitalise on.

[quote="The Mighty Atom"]Never seen Holmes dominate a great fighter with his jab

Should point out that you evidentally can't have a clue if you fail to realise that Walcott was in better form at 38 than he was at 28, far too simplistic to look at the numbers and assume something which is in fact far from the truth.[/quote

Obviously you haven't seen many of Holmes's fights then. With him, everything came off the jab.

Once again, Holmes was correct. Rocky was a young man fighting old men. That is an undeniable fact. YOu are looking atthe numbers (49-0) and making assumptions about the alleged greatness of a crude, plodding brawler. What did Walcott do after Rocky beat him? If he was supposedly at the peak of his powers, surely he must have continued and achieved something (other than refereeing). What did he do? Have you heard of a boxer retiring at their peak form?

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?

Holmes opposition age aside was worse than Marcianos in my opinion, you become great by beating great fighters.

Then again not many can claim to have been on the receiving end of the most brutal one punch knockout like Walcott was which ultimately finished him as a fighter, the fact Marciano is 49-0 is of no relevance to me. The fact he like Monzon simply didn't know how to lose is one of the most under rated components a boxer can have, you can know how to beat him but discouraging him to make it work is something else.

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 ?

The thing with Rocky being a slow starter was because in his biggest fights he had to chase his opponents. Dempsey didnt start on fire when he had to chase fights either, it took him a while to catch up. Brennan, Sharkey, Tunney are all examples of this and they made Dempsey chase. It wasnt until mid to late that he managed to start finding them. Dempseys footwork wasnt amazing and it was in his nature to be elusive. So I see Rocky having little trouble finding him when Dempsey is going to be standing in front of him.

I still dont really get your arguments based on Hatton. If Hatton had retired without facing Mayweather or Pacquiao then he would have also been seen as avoiding Holt, Witter, Torres and Bradley who all held titles there so theres no way he could say he beat all the best.

You think that Marcianos competition was weak, fair enough. But the fact is he beat them all pretty decisely. This eliminates any comparison with the likes of Hatton or Gatti. I could turn around and say Mayweathers era was weak and he would not have been successful if he operated when Leonard, Benitez, Duran and Hearns were at Welter. You can do that with almost any fighter.

Ive no problem with people selceting to Demsey to win but you seem to be basing it entirely on Rocky Marciano was absolutely rubbish and incapable of beating a top heavy. I dont really agree with that and see it as being a very close fight with myself giving the edge to Marciano. We are probably in general agreement on the things Marciano lacked and his weaknesses. But in this particular match up I think his weaknesses are not hugely exploited and his strengths are extremelly relevant.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Holmes opposition age aside was worse than Marcianos in my opinion, you become great by beating great fighters.

Then again not many can claim to have been on the receiving end of the most brutal one punch knockout like Walcott was which ultimately finished him as a fighter, the fact Marciano is 49-0 is of no relevance to me. The fact he like Monzon simply didn't know how to lose is one of the most under rated components a boxer can have, you can know how to beat him but discouraging him to make it work is something else.

We're talking about Holme's jab which you said was over=rated. And then saying I didn't have a clue.

So that one punch KO finished Walcott. Nothing to do with him being old then. Another notch on Rocky there. Incredible. Walcott at his peak, lost to the world champ and then retired. Absolutely zero to do with him being old and having a long career.

What do you mean Monzon didn't know how to lose? This isn't Rocky 111. Monzon lost anyway so evidently you are wrong. And I liked Monzon as a boxer. Very under-rated but one of the best ever at MW.

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).

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.

manos de piedra wrote:The thing with Rocky being a slow starter was because in his biggest fights he had to chase his opponents. Dempsey didnt start on fire when he had to chase fights either, it took him a while to catch up. Brennan, Sharkey, Tunney are all examples of this and they made Dempsey chase. It wasnt until mid to late that he managed to start finding them. Dempseys footwork wasnt amazing and it was in his nature to be elusive. So I see Rocky having little trouble finding him when Dempsey is going to be standing in front of him.

I still dont really get your arguments based on Hatton. If Hatton had retired without facing Mayweather or Pacquiao then he would have also been seen as avoiding Holt, Witter, Torres and Bradley who all held titles there so theres no way he could say he beat all the best.

You think that Marcianos competition was weak, fair enough. But the fact is he beat them all pretty decisely. This eliminates any comparison with the likes of Hatton or Gatti. I could turn around and say Mayweathers era was weak and he would not have been successful if he operated when Leonard, Benitez, Duran and Hearns were at Welter. You can do that with almost any fighter.

Ive no problem with people selceting to Demsey to win but you seem to be basing it entirely on Rocky Marciano was absolutely rubbish and incapable of beating a top heavy. I dont really agree with that and see it as being a very close fight with myself giving the edge to Marciano. We are probably in general agreement on the things Marciano lacked and his weaknesses. But in this particular match up I think his weaknesses are not hugely exploited and his strengths are extremelly relevant.

Rocky was the best of a bad bunch. Very bad bunch. As for Mayweather, I think SRL and Hearns beats him at WW and he beats Duran and Benitez as WW. Duran wins as LW, Outside of Oscar he hasn;t beaten anyone who will be remembered in 10 years time.

You are correct. I do believe Rocky was rubbish. I have seen loads of his fights and what I've seen confirmed to me that he was rubbish.

Dempsey on the other hand had better skills, more rounded and a better technician.

Holmes jab looked good against mediocre opposition but there is nothing to suggest it works against a fellow great

So you don't think that KO and the subsequent beating he received in the rematch was a contributing factor to his retirement? Your far too hung up on age and it's evident that your knowledge of the era itself is very thin like it is with anything pre Ali, not your fault but does make your opinions look quite absurd when backed with no knowledge. As for my point about Monzon it clearly went over your head.

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.

Nothing to do with Marciano at all, strange how you wax lyrical about Dempsey when he lost to a light heavyweight some you've always bad mouthed Marciano for beating.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Holmes jab looked good against mediocre opposition but there is nothing to suggest it works against a fellow great

So you don't think that KO and the subsequent beating he received in the rematch was a contributing factor to his retirement? Your far too hung up on age and it's evident that your knowledge of the era itself is very thin like it is with anything pre Ali, not your fault but does make your opinions look quite absurd when backed with no knowledge. As for my point about Monzon it clearly went over your head.

Good point. Against a fellow great. Wise words. Rocky looked devestating against mediocre opposition and old men. But lets suspend reality for him and put questions on the man who possessed the best jab in HW history (second only to Hearns in boxing history imo).

Why dont you think he aged for that fight and the subsequent rematch?

Your point about monzon didn;t go over my head. All this nonsense about refusing to get beat is just that; nonsense. If you're hit right you go. No-one is impervious to the correct punch. Who would have thought Duran would be rolled like a doll?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Nothing to do with Marciano at all, strange how you wax lyrical about Dempsey when he lost to a light heavyweight some you've always bad mouthed Marciano for beating.

Dempsey was the better fighter. Simples.

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.