BoxRec

Dempsey fought plenty of cans himself. Walcott, Charles, Moore & LaStarza make it reasonably close. Matthews was a solid fighter as well.

If the 54 version of Charles can lose to Nino Valdez he can lose to the far superior Willard as well. I think Brennan-Charles at that point is about 50/50.

Lastarza was infamous for his padded record and protective management. Nice looking record but his actual performances vs elite comp leaves much to be desired . . .

Matthews was a fine super middle/light heavy but past his prime when he fought Marciano and his stay as a heavyweight was not impressive . .

I never said he couldn't, just that I would favor him. I wouldn't call Willard far superior to anyone.

yancey wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd take that past it Charles over Brennan, Morris, Smith, Meehan & willard in the blink of an eye. But I think overall that Jack probably has a slight edge in competition. Neither of them rank anywhere near the top as far as opponents go.

Slight edge?

In the year before he won the title, Marciano fought three times in a row against fighters with LOSING records.

One of them had a 3-13 record.

In late 1950, less than 24 months before he became champ, he fought a gentleman who had lost 56 fights! (61 wins)

The fight went the full 10 rounds, btw.

Nicely put i think more than a few of us raised our eyebrows

Marciano beat far greater competition than Jack Dempsey. It's not even close. Not even close. I will take the June 1954 Ezzard Charles over anyone Dempsey beat. Walcott of the first Marciano fight dominates Depmsey's competition. Joe Louis of 1951 is far more talented of a big man than the big oafs Dempsey fought. Archie Moore would cut through most of Dempsey's opposition like hot knife through butter. Rex Layne, and Roland Lastarza would beat most of Dempsey's victims. The only real impressive name Dempsey beat was Jack Sharkey, and he had to hit him in the balls to beat him. Fulton was a good win too. How can Dempsey's opposition be better than Marciano's when he didn't even fight the two best heavyweights of his era(Harry Wills, Harry Greb)? Marciano fought and beat the best of his era. Dempsey did not. It's not even close.

yancey wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd take that past it Charles over Brennan, Morris, Smith, Meehan & willard in the blink of an eye. But I think overall that Jack probably has a slight edge in competition. Neither of them rank anywhere near the top as far as opponents go.

Slight edge?

In the year before he won the title, Marciano fought three times in a row against fighters with LOSING records.

One of them had a 3-13 record.

In late 1950, less than 24 months before he became champ, he fought a gentleman who had lost 56 fights! (61 wins)

The fight went the full 10 rounds, btw.

Did you look at the NAMES on those losing records? Two of the three fighters were tough journeymen fighters. Look at the attendance numbers on the fights. One was a sell-out. Do you think the good fans of Providence RI would have shelled out their hard earned money if they thought the opponent was some kind of bum? The gentleman who lost 56 fights was Ted Lowry. Ted Lowery was another tough East Coast journeyman who fought everybody. Of the 56 losses, only three were by stoppage.

Dempsey was faster, and more skilled than Marciano----however, there was no let up with Marciano who never wavered or tired, his stamina made sure of that. I think Dempsey would have bloodied and butchered Marciano up bad, but I think Marciano would have overcame him.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Marciano beat far greater competition than Jack Dempsey. It's not even close. Not even close. I will take the June 1954 Ezzard Charles over anyone Dempsey beat. Walcott of the first Marciano fight dominates Depmsey's competition. Joe Louis of 1951 is far more talented of a big man than the big oafs Dempsey fought. Archie Moore would cut through most of Dempsey's opposition like hot knife through butter. Rex Layne, and Roland Lastarza would beat most of Dempsey's victims. The only real impressive name Dempsey beat was Jack Sharkey, and he had to hit him in the balls to beat him. Fulton was a good win too. How can Dempsey's opposition be better than Marciano's when he didn't even fight the two best heavyweights of his era(Harry Wills, Harry Greb)? Marciano fought and beat the best of his era. Dempsey did not. It's not even close.

BB, your posts are usually good but the above is just ridiculous. You are spouting off fanboy nonsense with a clear lack of knowledge of Dempsey's era and competition. Rex Layne beats most of Dempsey's comp? . . .that is one of the stupidest things I've read on here. Layne was as crudely skilled as Firpo but without the power, durability or size. I won't even comment about the shot Joe Louis . . .he would have lost to a good deal of solid heavyweights in that incarnation, he was a pale, slow imitation of what he'd once been.

If Charles of that period loses to clumsy Valdez, Fulton dismantles him as does Willard. I'll take Gibbons and Miske over that Charles as well.
Walcott and Moore are his best victories and both guys were over 38 years old.


And people are talking like Marciano has the clear stamina edge . . . when did Dempsey ever badly fade in a fight? Watch him vs Brennan and he's on his toes in the late rounds as much as the early ones, ditto with Gibbons.

. . . when did Dempsey ever badly fade in a fight?

Against Tunney . . . but I don't fault him for it. He'd been out of action for three years.

dempseyfire wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Marciano beat far greater competition than Jack Dempsey. It's not even close. Not even close. I will take the June 1954 Ezzard Charles over anyone Dempsey beat. Walcott of the first Marciano fight dominates Depmsey's competition. Joe Louis of 1951 is far more talented of a big man than the big oafs Dempsey fought. Archie Moore would cut through most of Dempsey's opposition like hot knife through butter. Rex Layne, and Roland Lastarza would beat most of Dempsey's victims. The only real impressive name Dempsey beat was Jack Sharkey, and he had to hit him in the balls to beat him. Fulton was a good win too. How can Dempsey's opposition be better than Marciano's when he didn't even fight the two best heavyweights of his era(Harry Wills, Harry Greb)? Marciano fought and beat the best of his era. Dempsey did not. It's not even close.

BB, your posts are usually good but the above is just ridiculous. You are spouting off fanboy nonsense with a clear lack of knowledge of Dempsey's era and competition. Rex Layne beats most of Dempsey's comp? . . .that is one of the stupidest things I've read on here. Layne was as crudely skilled as Firpo but without the power, durability or size. I won't even comment about the shot Joe Louis . . .he would have lost to a good deal of solid heavyweights in that incarnation, he was a pale, slow imitation of what he'd once been.

If Charles of that period loses to clumsy Valdez, Fulton dismantles him as does Willard. I'll take Gibbons and Miske over that Charles as well.
Walcott and Moore are his best victories and both guys were over 38 years old.


And people are talking like Marciano has the clear stamina edge . . . when did Dempsey ever badly fade in a fight? Watch him vs Brennan and he's on his toes in the late rounds as much as the early ones, ditto with Gibbons.

Mr. Pot allow me to introduce you to the kettle. You're very knowledgable, but when it comes to Dempsey's era you're quite a dramatic fan. Fulton, Willard and their ilk weren't nearly the world beaters you portray them as.

"]Marciano beat far greater competition than Jack Dempsey. It's not even close. Not even close..." - BB49

This is going beyond subjective. It is simply fanciful.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Marciano beat far greater competition than Jack Dempsey. It's not even close. Not even close. I will take the June 1954 Ezzard Charles over anyone Dempsey beat. Walcott of the first Marciano fight dominates Depmsey's competition. Joe Louis of 1951 is far more talented of a big man than the big oafs Dempsey fought. Archie Moore would cut through most of Dempsey's opposition like hot knife through butter. Rex Layne, and Roland Lastarza would beat most of Dempsey's victims. The only real impressive name Dempsey beat was Jack Sharkey, and he had to hit him in the balls to beat him. Fulton was a good win too. How can Dempsey's opposition be better than Marciano's when he didn't even fight the two best heavyweights of his era(Harry Wills, Harry Greb)? Marciano fought and beat the best of his era. Dempsey did not. It's not even close.

BB, your posts are usually good but the above is just ridiculous. You are spouting off fanboy nonsense with a clear lack of knowledge of Dempsey's era and competition. Rex Layne beats most of Dempsey's comp? . . .that is one of the stupidest things I've read on here. Layne was as crudely skilled as Firpo but without the power, durability or size. I won't even comment about the shot Joe Louis . . .he would have lost to a good deal of solid heavyweights in that incarnation, he was a pale, slow imitation of what he'd once been.

If Charles of that period loses to clumsy Valdez, Fulton dismantles him as does Willard. I'll take Gibbons and Miske over that Charles as well.
Walcott and Moore are his best victories and both guys were over 38 years old.


And people are talking like Marciano has the clear stamina edge . . . when did Dempsey ever badly fade in a fight? Watch him vs Brennan and he's on his toes in the late rounds as much as the early ones, ditto with Gibbons.

Mr. Pot allow me to introduce you to the kettle. You're very knowledgable, but when it comes to Dempsey's era you're quite a dramatic fan. Fulton, Willard and their ilk weren't nearly the world beaters you portray them as.

And this is b/c you said so? Willard not a world beater? I guess winning the undisputed world heavyweight championship is not for world beaters . . .

Fulton was a class heavyweight who continually beat top contenders. Those who saw him viewed a very athletic, dangerous big man. What basis are you using to calling him not a very talented fighter unless its your ignorant bias of the fighters of that era? I'm not calling Willard superman by any means but to denigrate him and then prop up the likes of a shot Louis and Layne is ridiculous.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:
BB, your posts are usually good but the above is just ridiculous. You are spouting off fanboy nonsense with a clear lack of knowledge of Dempsey's era and competition. Rex Layne beats most of Dempsey's comp? . . .that is one of the stupidest things I've read on here. Layne was as crudely skilled as Firpo but without the power, durability or size. I won't even comment about the shot Joe Louis . . .he would have lost to a good deal of solid heavyweights in that incarnation, he was a pale, slow imitation of what he'd once been.

If Charles of that period loses to clumsy Valdez, Fulton dismantles him as does Willard. I'll take Gibbons and Miske over that Charles as well.
Walcott and Moore are his best victories and both guys were over 38 years old.


And people are talking like Marciano has the clear stamina edge . . . when did Dempsey ever badly fade in a fight? Watch him vs Brennan and he's on his toes in the late rounds as much as the early ones, ditto with Gibbons.

Mr. Pot allow me to introduce you to the kettle. You're very knowledgable, but when it comes to Dempsey's era you're quite a dramatic fan. Fulton, Willard and their ilk weren't nearly the world beaters you portray them as.

And this is b/c you said so? Willard not a world beater? I guess winning the undisputed world heavyweight championship is not for world beaters . . .

Fulton was a class heavyweight who continually beat top contenders. Those who saw him viewed a very athletic, dangerous big man. What basis are you using to calling him not a very talented fighter unless its your ignorant bias of the fighters of that era? I'm not calling Willard superman by any means but to denigrate him and then prop up the likes of a shot Louis and Layne is ridiculous.

I never said a word about Layne or Louis. In fact, in my ignorant bias I picked Dempsey in this fight and said he has faced better competition.

Your opinion of those guys is higher than anyones who I have ever spoken to. Not just mine. Willard and Fulton would fit in perfectly today, scrapping and clawing with the valuev's of the world. Do you know anyone else that would favor Willard or Fulton over Bowe? That doesn't make you wrong, it's all subjective. But you seem blown away that others don't agree.

Hasim Rahman was the heavyweight champion too. That doesn't mean he was a top30ish Heavyweight. Like i said, you know your shit. Much more about that era than I do. But forgive me for pointing out your obvious bias when it comes to Dempsey's opponents and Dempsey himself. We all have our favorites and he is clearly yours.

This is just too simple. Rocky would simply grab his big "O" and clutching it firm in his hand he would proceed to clobber Dempsey Senseless within a matter of a few rounds. Sure Dempsey would try to hang in there, but once Jack realized that only The Rock had the big "O", it would eventually dawn on him that resistance is futile.

Now if each of these fighters were mortal, and say Rocky had lost a close fight to SOMEONE or ANYONE, I'm pretty certain that everyone here would then be brave enough to back Jack.

It just seems unfair to me that people write off fighters b/c there is no film of them, or write off other fighters b/c the hand-cranked film of them makes them seem Chaplin-like in their movements. It always strikes me as perculier that post-1925 people (and I'm not saying anyone in particular here) will say so and so could compete with anyone ,but pre-25 (with the hand-cranked film) the fighters are suddenly "un-evolved" or 'primitive'.

Willard was a hands-low, defensive orientated big man who liked to stay on the outside with his jab and often looked awkward with that style just like Vitali but unlike big brother could fire awesome uppercuts on the inside and had a knockout punch in either hand.

I know Saad you said you think Vitali is unskilled, which I'd disagree with. At least you are consistent in your critiques though. The same people who applaud Vitali as some unbeatable He-Man then call Willard a clumsy unskilled oaf!

BoxBuzz wrote:This is just too simple. Rocky would simply grab his big "O" and clutching it firm in his hand he would proceed to clobber Dempsey Senseless within a matter of a few rounds. Sure Dempsey would try to hang in there, but once Jack realized that only The Rock had the big "O", it would eventually dawn on him that resistance is futile.

Now if each of these fighters were mortal, and say Rocky had lost a close fight to SOMEONE or ANYONE, I'm pretty certain that everyone here would then be brave enough to back Jack.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:
BB, your posts are usually good but the above is just ridiculous. You are spouting off fanboy nonsense with a clear lack of knowledge of Dempsey's era and competition. Rex Layne beats most of Dempsey's comp? . . .that is one of the stupidest things I've read on here. Layne was as crudely skilled as Firpo but without the power, durability or size. I won't even comment about the shot Joe Louis . . .he would have lost to a good deal of solid heavyweights in that incarnation, he was a pale, slow imitation of what he'd once been.

If Charles of that period loses to clumsy Valdez, Fulton dismantles him as does Willard. I'll take Gibbons and Miske over that Charles as well.
Walcott and Moore are his best victories and both guys were over 38 years old.


And people are talking like Marciano has the clear stamina edge . . . when did Dempsey ever badly fade in a fight? Watch him vs Brennan and he's on his toes in the late rounds as much as the early ones, ditto with Gibbons.

Mr. Pot allow me to introduce you to the kettle. You're very knowledgable, but when it comes to Dempsey's era you're quite a dramatic fan. Fulton, Willard and their ilk weren't nearly the world beaters you portray them as.

And this is b/c you said so? Willard not a world beater? I guess winning the undisputed world heavyweight championship is not for world beaters . . .

Fulton was a class heavyweight who continually beat top contenders. Those who saw him viewed a very athletic, dangerous big man. What basis are you using to calling him not a very talented fighter unless its your ignorant bias of the fighters of that era? I'm not calling Willard superman by any means but to denigrate him and then prop up the likes of a shot Louis and Layne is ridiculous.

I admire your knowledge of that era. Many do tend to just open their mouth ignorantly without viewing fighting of that time. Fulton sounds interesting I will be sure to check him out. Thanks for this illuminating viewpoint and for expressing a view outside the box.