BoxRec

Id take the word of writers over any of that old time film. Almost all of it looks like shit, with the exception of Benny Leonard. He was too smooth for crappy film to distort.

beaujack wrote: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

Marciano was unappreciated in his time. Moreover, that poll is just an indication of how these writers seen Rocky... And it should NEVER be taken as conclusive evidence that points to a Dempsey win.

beaujack wrote:Dempsey was a faster and more accurate puncher

in your opinion. Please have the courtesy to stop presenting your opinion forward as a fact when it isn't.

beaujack wrote:who was considered as fast as a MW in his prime...Speed Kills...

Considered by who? Where is the evidence to support this claim?

With respect beaujack, a lot of your points are speculative & circumstantial.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Id take the word of writers over any of that old time film. Almost all of it looks like shit, with the exception of Benny Leonard. He was too smooth for crappy film to distort.

I'd read about Leonard growing up; imagine my shock when I saw some of his fights, years later, on the Interweb, & realised that if anything I thought he was under-rated.

As you said, & even the limitations of camera technology couldn't hide the footwork, the balance, the poise... Great, great fighter.

Rover wrote: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...

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.[/quote]
So, based on two films of Dempsey in his prime, the utter desruction of Jess willard who was NEVER floored before,and the ko of Luis Firpo in the second round, you therefore base your opinion that the writers who saw Dempsey at his best before Willard somehow knew less than you ? Respectfully
R, I go along with the professional boxing writers who saw young Dempsey and Marciano...

Rover wrote: 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.

I've had just this discussion (or at least, a hauntingly similar one) with this poster before. I hope your attempt to glean his opinion is more forthcoming than my own, on the small matter of wanting to see something with one's own eyes.

beaujack wrote:

Rover wrote: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...

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.

So, based on two films of Dempsey in his prime, the utter desruction of Jess willard who was NEVER floored before,and the ko of Luis Firpo in the second round, you therefore base your opinion that the writers who saw Dempsey at his best before Willard somehow knew less than you ? Respectfully
R, I go along with the professional boxing writers who saw young Dempsey and Marciano...[/quote]
And again you misstate my argument.
When did I say that the writers knew less than I.
I didn't.
So there is film of "prime" Dempsey available, correct?

Datsue wrote:

Rover wrote: 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.

I've had just this discussion (or at least, a hauntingly similar one) with this poster before. I hope your attempt to glean his opinion is more forthcoming than my own, on the small matter of wanting to see something with one's own eyes.

Glad someone else gets my point.
I understand we're talking about a century (approximately) ago.
I don't really comment on fighters where there's no film, and I have no problem relying on accounts of them.
But I don't need an account of Hagler, Leonard, Ali, Louis, etc.
I'm just trying to figure out if this poster believes there's film out there on "prime" Dempsey.
It seems like he does, but I'll await confirmation.

I’m sure beaujack can speak for himself but the point seems fairly simple.

A number of chaps who were dedicated professional boxing writers, and aficionados of the sport, saw both men ringside and picked Dempsey to win a prime for prime matchup.

Ezzard wrote:I’m sure beaujack can speak for himself but the point seems fairly simple.

A number of chaps who were dedicated professional boxing writers, and aficionados of the sport, saw both men ringside and picked Dempsey to win a prime for prime matchup.

Quite so. But he has attacked me before for having the temerity to suggest that I would want to see something with my own eyes before I have an opinion on something, which seems strange to me. I echo Boxbuzz's recent comments on another thread RE: Harry Greb. Could he have been the best of all time? A lot of other people think so. I do not, because I have never ever seen him. I care not the high regard which others have for him; none of my business. In fact, quite glad they do, he was obviously a remarkable fighter. My own opinion, however, is my business, & I try to take care over how it is formed (or informed, if you like).

But there you go.

Datsue wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I’m sure beaujack can speak for himself but the point seems fairly simple.

A number of chaps who were dedicated professional boxing writers, and aficionados of the sport, saw both men ringside and picked Dempsey to win a prime for prime matchup.

Quite so. But he has attacked me before for having the temerity to suggest that I would want to see something with my own eyes before I have an opinion on something, which seems strange to me. I echo Boxbuzz's recent comments on another thread RE: Harry Greb. Could he have been the best of all time? A lot of other people think so. I do not, because I have never ever seen him. I care not the high regard which others have for him; none of my business. In fact, quite glad they do, he was obviously a remarkable fighter. My own opinion, however, is my business, & I try to take care over how it is formed (or informed, if you like).

But there you go.

Off topic...but you do accept the expertise of experts in other fields? Not saying you should in this one, just that it can't be as simple as all that. Can it?

Ezzard wrote: Off topic...but you do accept the expertise of experts in other fields? Not saying you should in this one, just that it can't be as simple as all that. Can it?

Good question. Short answer: I don't think astro-physics or evolution has as much personal bias, subjectivity & sheer playground "My cock's bigger than yours"-ness than a bloke talking about fighting, that's all, so I apply different rules to it (trusting secondary sources etc).

Long answer: when it comes to something as shot through with romanticism, rose-tinted nostalgia, boasting, fan-boyism (or outright favouritism if you'd prefer a less modish term), PR flack, desperate search for a narrative that confirms the writer's own biases, subjectivity, outright lying, sheer bullshit & outrageous fantasy as boxing journalism, I am somewhat reticent to accept anything anyone has ever written about boxing as face value.

In terms of literary merit, I love it. I just don't fuckin' believe one word of it.

I suppose what one would have to do is to go through fights you've seen with your own two eyes, look up newspaper reports of those fights, note the reporter, note his biases & tendency to exaggerate, correlate that into a matrix so you can keep in mind his weaknesses/faults/blind-spots/prejudices/peccadilloes/whatever, then you could extrapolate from that the worth of his opinions on fighters you haven't seen... But this would be a Herculean task, & anyone with the time/lack of sanity to dedicate their life to it has my respect & admiration & deepest sympathy.

But owing to my own prejudices, I still wouldn't fvcking trust it, because it would be a boxing fan talking about it, & we all talk shite about boxing with no pretence at objectivity or "truth", all of us, because it's the nature of the beast. So every person would have to correlate his own set of rules based on exhaustive, intensive comparitive research, in order to come to his own set of truths (which would of course only be true for that individual). I certainly accept anyone who has taken this approach (or even a far less cynical, sceptical version of it) & I respect their right to their own opinion on it. But it's not my opinion, because I'd much rather have the comfort of primary sources before I open my trap about boxing.

Sorry if I seem narky or sarcastic, I'm not at all, it's actually a great question & I'm glad you asked.

Datsue wrote:

Ezzard wrote: Off topic...but you do accept the expertise of experts in other fields? Not saying you should in this one, just that it can't be as simple as all that. Can it?

Good question. Short answer: I don't think astro-physics or evolution has as much personal bias, subjectivity & sheer playground "My cock's bigger than yours"-ness than a bloke talking about fighting, that's all, so I apply different rules to it (trusting secondary sources etc).

Long answer: when it comes to something as shot through with romanticism, rose-tinted nostalgia, boasting, fan-boyism (or outright favouritism if you'd prefer a less modish term), PR flack, desperate search for a narrative that confirms the writer's own biases, subjectivity, outright lying, sheer bullshit & outrageous fantasy as boxing journalism, I am somewhat reticent to accept anything anyone has ever written about boxing as face value.

In terms of literary merit, I love it. I just don't fuckin' believe one word of it.

I suppose what one would have to do is to go through fights you've seen with your own two eyes, look up newspaper reports of those fights, note the reporter, note his biases & tendency to exaggerate, correlate that into a matrix so you can keep in mind his weaknesses/faults/blind-spots/prejudices/peccadilloes/whatever, then you could extrapolate from that the worth of his opinions on fighters you haven't seen... But this would be a Herculean task, & anyone with the time/lack of sanity to dedicate their life to it has my respect & admiration & deepest sympathy.

But owing to my own prejudices, I still wouldn't fvcking trust it, because it would be a boxing fan talking about it, & we all talk shite about boxing with no pretence at objectivity or "truth", all of us, because it's the nature of the beast. So every person would have to correlate his own set of rules based on exhaustive, intensive comparitive research, in order to come to his own set of truths (which would of course only be true for that individual). I certainly accept anyone who has taken this approach (or even a far less cynical, sceptical version of it) & I respect their right to their own opinion on it. But it's not my opinion, because I'd much rather have the comfort of primary sources before I open my trap about boxing.

Sorry if I seem narky or sarcastic, I'm not at all, it's actually a great question & I'm glad you asked.

I don't know, but if I was watching a fight with Ray Arcel or Jackie Blackburn or Eddie Futch and they told me my opinion was wrong I'd probably reconsider my opinion. All things being equal the closer you are to the game the more you know.

I don't believe everyone's opinion is of equal merit. I think some people (obviously not many) know more about certain things than I do.

And I think beaujack's argument is valid...and you might not agree with it, but it's still valid. But then it also suits my viewpoint...so guilty as charged.

Meh. The greats were great, but I bet you they believed some crazy shit, too. I would never presume to contradict such a giant as Arcel, but if he told me (fer instance) that Jack Sharkey would've beaten Lennox Lewis, & I sat down & watched some tapes of Jack Sharkey & disagreed, I'd still disagree. Privately, & not within his earshot. But I still would.

But I was actually specifically talking about newspaper reports, rather than Eddie Futch or Ray Arcel's actual personal opinion, just to be clear.

I'd be quite comfortable telling Ray Arcel that Riddick Bowe would beat Jack Dempsey's ass. Now if the conversation switched to anything technical about the actual art of Boxing, I'd STFU and take notes.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Id take the word of writers over any of that old time film. Almost all of it looks like shit, with the exception of Benny Leonard. He was too smooth for crappy film to distort.

I agree 100%

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd be quite comfortable telling Ray Arcel that Riddick Bowe would beat Jack Dempsey's ass. Now if the conversation switched to anything technical about the actual art of Boxing, I'd STFU and take notes.

Thank you, that's a concise & pithy version of what I was trying to get at.

Ezzard wrote:I’m sure beaujack can speak for himself but the point seems fairly simple.

A number of chaps who were dedicated professional boxing writers, and aficionados of the sport, saw both men ringside and picked Dempsey to win a prime for prime matchup.

And that argument isn't used in, say, a match between...Pac and Arguello, for instance. The reason is obvious: there's tons of film on both of them. Most people watch fights and evaluate fighters on T.V. I don't accept that being ringside provides some special perspective. So, if these opinions are based on evaluations of a "prime" Dempsey, and there's film of a "prime" Dempsey, I see no difference between a discussion of him and one of Hearns, Duran, SRL, Arguello, Ali, etc.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd be quite comfortable telling Ray Arcel that Riddick Bowe would beat Jack Dempsey's ass. Now if the conversation switched to anything technical about the actual art of Boxing, I'd STFU and take notes.

Well put.

Dempsey vs Marciano? Each guy never fought an opponent like the other before. Each was a freak, the best heavyweight fighter of his era. Both punched hard and both could take a punch.

Dempsey was a tiger for the first three or four rounds, then maybe not so much. Some had Bill Brennan ahead when Dempsey finally managed to stop him, and Brennan was average at best. On the other hand, Tommy Gibbons had scored 20 or 30 kayos in previous fights when he met Dempsey and was regarded as one of the top three heavies in the world going in, yet he soon adopted a very defensive style with the Mauler and avoided any overly agressive action of his own for 15 rounds. No doubt he felt the power early on.

Marciano was like a little tank. Full speed ahead all guns blazing, shells bouncing off him. Trained to go 15 rounds every fight. Crazy stamina and recuperative powers. The guy who demolished Joe Louis. The guy who whipped Ezzard Charles twice. One of the best records in sports at 49-0. Yet seen as clumsy by the boxing writers of his day.

Dempsey often said he liked them big, guys he could hit hard and often. Marciano was short by comparison, but weighed the same as Dempsey. Where Dempsey had problems with Gibbons was when he crouched low, where Rocky would be. Marciano had trouble with elusive boxers, and Dempsey wasn't as easy to hit as he appeared.

This is a definite pick-em match. Once the bell rang I wouldn't blink.

Cap

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd be quite comfortable telling Ray Arcel that Riddick Bowe would beat Jack Dempsey's ass. Now if the conversation switched to anything technical about the actual art of Boxing, I'd STFU and take notes.

Bowe would have gone nowhere near Dempsey, not if Rock has anything to do with it.