Dempsey vs Marciano

[CliSwe]

Two heavyweights with similar styles from different eras. Who would win if they could've met in the ring?

Cheers,
Cliff

[dr_devious]

For me, Dempsey by KO in 6 or 7 in a savage war

[Jaclem]

...depends which one gets disqualified first for fouling.

[Jaclem]

.....okay...okay....dempsey gets disqualified in brockton; marciano in utah.

[Rover]

.....okay...okay....dempsey gets disqualified in brockton; marciano in utah.

[Ezzard]

Jack would do too much damage early on...

[Crease]

I can only see a Marciano victory. For me, he has better stamina and he hits harder.

[keithmoonhangover]

The Dempsey that beat Willard would be tough for anyone to beat.

[Ezzard]

I can only see a Marciano victory. For me, he has better stamina and he hits harder.

Hard to say for sure but I think Dempsey probably hit harder.

[Crease]

Hard to say for sure but I think Dempsey probably hit harder.

No problem, we will agree to disagree on that, mate.

But I do think a telling factor in this bout is the fact that Jack only ever went 15 rounds ONCE in his career. Now, I know that is not his fault - a lot of his fights were 10 rounders but to my mind that does call in to question Dempsey's stamina issues... Particualrly against a machine like Marciano who never stopped going.



This point that I have made is never mentioned in these Dempsey vs Marciano discussions - usually this fight is just seen as a cowboy shoot-out, where the question becomes which would would knock the other one of first...

[Ezzard]

Hard to say for sure but I think Dempsey probably hit harder.

No problem, we will agree to disagree on that, mate.

But I do think a telling factor in this bout is the fact that Jack only ever went 15 rounds ONCE in his career. Now, I know that is not his fault - a lot of his fights were 10 rounders but to my mind that does call in to question Dempsey's stamina issues... Particualrly against a machine like Marciano who never stopped going.



This point that I have made is never mentioned in these Dempsey vs Marciano discussions - usually this fight is just seen as a cowboy shoot-out, where the question becomes which would would knock the other one of first...

Rocky could soak it up for sure. I think he also has the stamina edge. But he’s going to take a lot of left hooks early on.

It could come down to who is the most durable though...

[beaujack]

Two heavyweights with similar styles from different eras. Who would win if they could've met in the ring?

Cheers,
Cliff

I cannot see Rocky Marciano whom I saw ringside in 1949, beat the MUCH faster punching Jack Dempsey both in their primes...Marciano strong and a heavy hitter missed HALF of his punches
whilst Dempsey, was a much faster and accurate hitter who loved to fight a rough and tough fighter
as Marciano was...Dempsey was deadly inside and kod 25 guys in the first round...For the life of me I cannot see a mediocre Don Cockell lasting 9 rounds against the Manassa Mauler when Jack was at his best,pre Hollywood...
P.S. It should also be noted that when Marciano was champion, a poll was conducted in which
senior boxing writers who saw prime Dempsey foght,was asked "who would have won in a bout between Dempsey and Marciano ' in their primes ? Dempsey was their almost unanimous choice....
As is my choice...

[Crease]

I cannot see Rocky Marciano whom I saw ringside in 1949

Good for you sir, I am too young to have seen The Rock fight, but I would have paid big money to have watched him live.

beat the MUCH faster punching Jack Dempsey both in their primes...Marciano strong and a heavy hitter missed HALF of his punches whilst Dempsey, was a much faster and accurate hitter who loved to fight a rough and tough fighter as Marciano was...

That's a subjective term, sir. Dempsey's punching speed has never been measured and neither has Marciano's for that matter. So while, it's straightforward enough to disagree on who throws quicker, to say that either throws "much quicker" is not a valid point, because we cannot say for sure either way.
That's the way that I see it anyway.

Dempsey was deadly inside and kod 25 guys in the first round...

Marciano was lethal on the inside and he went the distance on only 6 occasions throughout his entrie career.

For the life of me I cannot see a mediocre Don Cockell lasting 9 rounds against the Manassa Mauler when Jack was at his best, pre Hollywood...

That is a good point, that. And I would tend to agree with you on that.
But, I would say that it's easy to poke holes in any fighter's career. For example, I would happily bet £100 that Marciano would stop Johnny Sudenberg or Joe Bonds within 10 rounds. And I would be strongly confident that he could stop former Heavyweight contender Bill Brennan within 11 rounds.

P.S. It should also be noted that when Marciano was champion, a poll was conducted in which senior boxing writers who saw prime Dempsey foght,was asked "who would have won in a bout between Dempsey and Marciano ' in their primes ? Dempsey was their almost unanimous choice.... As is my choice...

Fair enough. But that point just illustrates a fact that I already knew. For years I have been studying the Heavyweight Division from 1945-1960... And I can provide numerous articles that I have found on Rocky Marciano... He just was not appreciated in his time for various reasons...

And one of them is because he wasn't Joe Louis.

[Rover]

Did these writers see fights of Dempsey that aren't available on film and that would be relevant? If not, the argument strikes me as rather weak, considering that we can see what they saw.

[beaujack]

Did these writers see fights of Dempsey that aren't available on film and that would be relevant? If not, the argument strikes me as rather weak, considering that we can see what they saw.

Rover, this poll taken was when Rocky was champ in 1953-4. All the boxing writers were veteran
reporters who saw Dempsey before 1923 when he went to Hollywood...So they saw the prime Dempsey fight and they by almost a unanimous vote voted that Dempsey would ko Marciano...
As I who only saw Marciano in 1949 ko Carmine Vingo...Dempsey was a faster and more accurate
puncher who was considered as fast as a MW in his prime...Speed Kills...

[Rover]

Did these writers see fights of Dempsey that aren't available on film and that would be relevant? If not, the argument strikes me as rather weak, considering that we can see what they saw.

Rover, this poll taken was when Rocky was champ in 1953-4. All the boxing writers were veteran
reporters who saw Dempsey before 1923 when he went to Hollywood...So they saw the prime Dempsey fight and they by almost a unanimous vote voted that Dempsey would ko Marciano...
As I who only saw Marciano in 1949 ko Carmine Vingo...Dempsey was a faster and more accurate
puncher who was considered as fast as a MW in his prime...Speed Kills...

I'll repeat my question:
Are the bouts they saw on film for us to see? If so, it's a weak argument. Fighters are often viewed less favorably at the time they're active--even Lewis, who's looked upon much higher now. Same for Holmes.
If the writers are referencing bouts not available on film, that's a legitimate point to bring up. If they're referencing bouts that are available on film, yes, that's a rather weak argument.

[Ezzard]

Did these writers see fights of Dempsey that aren't available on film and that would be relevant? If not, the argument strikes me as rather weak, considering that we can see what they saw.

Rover, this poll taken was when Rocky was champ in 1953-4. All the boxing writers were veteran
reporters who saw Dempsey before 1923 when he went to Hollywood...So they saw the prime Dempsey fight and they by almost a unanimous vote voted that Dempsey would ko Marciano...
As I who only saw Marciano in 1949 ko Carmine Vingo...Dempsey was a faster and more accurate
puncher who was considered as fast as a MW in his prime...Speed Kills...

I'll repeat my question:
Are the bouts they saw on film for us to see? If so, it's a weak argument. Fighters are often viewed less favorably at the time they're active--even Lewis, who's looked upon much higher now. Same for Holmes.
If the writers are referencing bouts not available on film, that's a legitimate point to bring up. If they're referencing bouts that are available on film, yes, that's a rather weak argument.

But Rover, then they are all weak arguments... Apart from a few hundred people who may have been lucky enough to be ringside for a number of any two great boxers' fights...this is all anyonme has...

[Rover]

I'm saying that relying on writers based on their having seen both fight when the fights are on film is a weak argument because we can all see them. If the fights weren't on film, that'd be a different story; I'd certainly be more interested in the views of those who saw the fighters and fights in question.

[Ezzard]

I get it. But so few had seen them.

Expertise counts for something though, right?

Where are you on this Dempsey-Marciano debate?

[Rover]

I get it. But so few had seen them.

Expertise counts for something though, right?

Where are you on this Dempsey-Marciano debate?

Probably lean towards Dempsey, but tough to call. There's not a ton out there on Dempsey; that's why I was asking if these writers had seen relevant fights that weren't available. Obviously, not a lot was filmed almost a century ago as compared to today.

[Tomasino]

I can only see a Marciano victory. For me, he has better stamina and he hits harder.

Agreed. I think Marciano would stop him in 13.

[max hord]

Marciano

[beaujack]

Did these writers see fights of Dempsey that aren't available on film and that would be relevant? If not, the argument strikes me as rather weak, considering that we can see what they saw.

Rover, this poll taken was when Rocky was champ in 1953-4. All the boxing writers were veteran
reporters who saw Dempsey before 1923 when he went to Hollywood...So they saw the prime Dempsey fight and they by almost a unanimous vote voted that Dempsey would ko Marciano...
As I who only saw Marciano in 1949 ko Carmine Vingo...Dempsey was a faster and more accurate
puncher who was considered as fast as a MW in his prime...Speed Kills...

I'll repeat my question:
Are the bouts they saw on film for us to see? If so, it's a weak argument. Fighters are often viewed less favorably at the time they're active--even Lewis, who's looked upon much higher now. Same for Holmes.
If the writers are referencing bouts not available on film, that's a legitimate point to bring up. If they're referencing bouts that are available on film, yes, that's a rather weak argument.

R, please don't twist my answer around to fit your own view of Marciano to beat Dempsey ,both in their primes...Respectfully I will repeat my point once more...When Rocky Marciano was champion,
a poll of veteran boxing writers ,who were senior writers who saw Dempsey fight before 1923, such as Nat Fleischer , who incidentally saw Jack Dempsey from 1918 ko, Gunboat Smith, Jess Willard, Battling Levinsky, Fred Fulton [1 mim 1st rd], none on film, voted about to the man that they believed Jack Dempsey would have kod Rocky Marciano H2H...These veterans saw this Dempsey RINGSIDE
and not on film...I cannot be any clearer than that sir...If you agree with them or not, this is what they voted...This young Dempsey was not the Dempsey seen today on film,against a Gene Tunney...
This Dempsey against a razor sharp, Gene Tunney,hadn't fought in THREE years, without ONE TUNE-UP BOUT, without his manager Jack Kearns, and his close brother Bernie just commited suicide and killed his wife, and this 32 year old shell of Dempsey is what you see today on film most likely...
What great fighter can look good at 32 years of age AFTER a 3 year layoff ?...
So what the veteran pollsters saw was the young prime Dempsey, flattening everybody ringside
against Rocky Marciano...I must take their word for their vote over yours ,90 years later...
Shouldn't I ?
P.S. If I say to you for example that I say that Ray Robinson was the greatest Welterweight ever and would have murdered Floyd Mayweather, you would say most likely "why should I believe your opinion
as there is NO film today of Robinson in his welterweight prime ". BUT I SAW Ray Robinson several times as a welterweight and believe what I saw ringside, just as those veteran boxing writers saw Jack Dempsey in his prime 1918-1923 ringside...So I too who have seen Marciano ringside , believe that the faster tigerish Dempsey would have too much speed and accuracy for Rocky, and anyone Dempsey hit in his prime he kod, except for that master boxer Tommy Gibbons who Dempsey
easily decisioned...

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Dempsey by late stoppage on cuts or decision. Even in power & durability, give me the faster fighter that is more capable of defending himself.

[Rover]

Quote:

R, please don't twist my answer around to fit your own view of Marciano to beat Dempsey ,both in their primes...Respectfully I will repeat my point once more...When Rocky Marciano was champion,
a poll of veteran boxing writers ,who were senior writers who saw Dempsey fight before 1923, such as Nat Fleischer , who incidentally saw Jack Dempsey from 1918 ko, Gunboat Smith, Jess Willard, Battling Levinsky, Fred Fulton [1 mim 1st rd], none on film, voted about to the man that they believed Jack Dempsey would have kod Rocky Marciano H2H...These veterans saw this Dempsey RINGSIDE
and not on film...I cannot be any clearer than that sir...If you agree with them or not, this is what they voted...This young Dempsey was not the Dempsey seen today on film,against a Gene Tunney...
This Dempsey against a razor sharp, Gene Tunney,hadn't fought in THREE years, without ONE TUNE-UP BOUT, without his manager Jack Kearns, and his close brother Bernie just commited suicide and killed his wife, and this 32 year old shell of Dempsey is what you see today on film most likely...
What great fighter can look good at 32 years of age AFTER a 3 year layoff ?...
So what the veteran pollsters saw was the young prime Dempsey, flattening everybody ringside
against Rocky Marciano...I must take their word for their vote over yours ,90 years later...
Shouldn't I ?
P.S. If I say to you for example that I say that Ray Robinson was the greatest Welterweight ever and would have murdered Floyd Mayweather, you would say most likely "why should I believe your opinion
as there is NO film today of Robinson in his welterweight prime ". BUT I SAW Ray Robinson several times as a welterweight and believe what I saw ringside, just as those veteran boxing writers saw Jack Dempsey in his prime 1918-1923 ringside...So I too who have seen Marciano ringside , believe that the faster tigerish Dempsey would have too much speed and accuracy for Rocky, and anyone Dempsey hit in his prime he kod, except for that master boxer Tommy Gibbons who Dempsey
easily decisioned...[/quote]

1. I've twisted nothing about your argument.
2. There's film of the Willard fight, correct? That was when Dempsey won the title. I don't buy the argument that someone who was at ringside has a better perspective than someone watching a film.
Your Mayweather/Robinson analogy misses my entire point and reveals your lack of understanding of my argument.
I specifically said that for writers evaluating fighters where there's no film on them, of course I'd value their opinions.
There's film on Dempsey. None on the welter Robinson.
So, just to be absolutely clear:
Is there film of the relevant Dempsey bouts?
If not, I'd certainly value the writers' opinions.
If there is film, we can judge for ourselves.