BoxRec

Do Dempsey and Marciano deserve their status? Did both fighters benefit from white Americas need to have a "great" heavyweight champ following the great black heavyweights Johnson and Louis?

Both fighters where cleverly managed-did they avoid the best at the time-Dempsey rumoured to have drawn the colour line for example, and Marciano avoided Valdes, Machen etc

Larry Holmes got a lot of stick for famously saying that Marciano couldnt carry my jockstrap-but did he have a point?

I do think they are both overrated, that being said, until quite the middle 70's most people thought they were the 2 greatest heavyweights ever so they are both very good, I just don't think they belong in the greatest ever debate personally.

Marciano was cleverly managed for certain, but once he became a star it's hard to say he ducked anyone like Valdes or Machen as he only fought 11 fights after beating Louis and 5 of those were against Walcott, Charles and Moore.

Dempsey did let people draw the color line for him and that's a bummer. And ducking Wills kept one of the greatest fights ever being made, the irony too is that by the time he was champ Wills was on the slide and Dempsey probably would have won. Regardless, Dempsey didn't just duck blacks he pretty much ducked everyone. By the time he lost the title to Tunney he had defended it 5 times in 7 years. Three of those were Gibbons, Carpentier and Firpo which were big fights in the day but still 5 times in 7 years is hardly even wort having the title.

I know it's blasphemy but I don't think either are more overrated than Lennox Lewis, not to say any of them weren't great and I have the utmost respect for all.

Duce, neither of them could have even remotely held Ali's jock.

Both Ali and Louis made more title defenses than Dempsey and Marciano combined.

I know you love the white boys but let's face it Ali and Louis would have messed them up. Probably Frazier as well. Definitely Wills in his prime. Tyson? Holmes?
Fact is Marciano is lucky he beat Walcott as it is. As for Dempsey, come on lol, most overrated fighter ever.

I think Marciano could give pre exile Ali a tough fight.

He was more athletic then (Ali), but it seems like his toughness and IQ went up when he came back.

I think Rock gets underrated by some.

Think Jack is overrated, but if he was to have been born in the '60's/70's where he'd naturally be a little bigger then he would have probably been a monster

Il Duce wrote:

DaveyMac wrote:Duce, neither of them could have even remotely held Ali's jock.

Both Ali and Louis made more title defenses than Dempsey and Marciano combined.

I know you love the white boys but let's face it Ali and Louis would have messed them up. Probably Frazier as well. Definitely Wills in his prime. Tyson? Holmes?
Fact is Marciano is lucky he beat Walcott as it is. As for Dempsey, come on lol, most overrated fighter ever.

I believe that could be construed, as a 'racist statement'.

Good for you Jack........

You would know.

It depends on who you ask really. They're certainly not overrated by me, but if you don't consider them at the very least Top 10 All Time Heavyweights, you're probably underrating them.

I'm not really sure who Marciano was steered away from. Dempsey beat almost all the top contenders on his way up. And other than Wills there was nobody else he really seemed to have missed.

You can list guys they should/could have fought but you can do that with anyone.

Ezzard wrote:I'm not really sure who Marciano was steered away from. Dempsey beat almost all the top contenders on his way up. And other than Wills there was nobody else he really seemed to have missed.

You can list guys they should/could have fought but you can do that with anyone.

Even Ali missed a couple, as did Larry Holmes and Gene Tunney.

At the end of the day, to call someone over-rated or under-rated, is rather immature. Especially when you compare records of fighters today, to way back then. Guys then were having upwards of 80 professional matches, these days you see them hang them up around the 40-50 mark. They fought more often, and against a wider scope of competition than fighters today. So, in that sense, who can say anyone prior to the 1980's was over-rated? As much as I have read on Marciano, there was not a single opponent he was steered away from--- he did what he had to in an era that may not of been the greatest, but was certainly not the worst. Dempsey, on the other hand, fought everyone worth while on the way up--- and then fought the soft touches (for the most part) as champion. But then again, outside of Harry Wills and possibly Sam Langford who was really out there? You cant blame just Dempsey for that, because alot of guys didn't fight either man.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I'm not really sure who Marciano was steered away from. Dempsey beat almost all the top contenders on his way up. And other than Wills there was nobody else he really seemed to have missed.

You can list guys they should/could have fought but you can do that with anyone.

Even Ali missed a couple, as did Larry Holmes and Gene Tunney.

At the end of the day, to call someone over-rated or under-rated, is rather immature. Especially when you compare records of fighters today, to way back then. Guys then were having upwards of 80 professional matches, these days you see them hang them up around the 40-50 mark. They fought more often, and against a wider scope of competition than fighters today. So, in that sense, who can say anyone prior to the 1980's was over-rated? As much as I have read on Marciano, there was not a single opponent he was steered away from--- he did what he had to in an era that may not of been the greatest, but was certainly not the worst. Dempsey, on the other hand, fought everyone worth while on the way up--- and then fought the soft touches (for the most part) as champion. But then again, outside of Harry Wills and possibly Sam Langford who was really out there? You cant blame just Dempsey for that, because alot of guys didn't fight either man.

So there you have it, to express an opinion that a fighter was over-rated or under-rated, is "rather immature."

Maybe we shouldn't have any opinions at all about anything or anyone.

We sure don't want to come across as "rather immature."

Who did Dempsey fight on the way up? Really for a champ he fought almost nobody of real consequence. The biggest names on the list are really LHW's.

Ali fought much better guys on the way up. Frankly, Marciano didn't really fight many good fighters on the way up, but at least he did once he got the title. Dempsey basically retired to Hollywood once he got the title.

Dempsey and Marciano...overrated?

Not for me. In my estimation both men would be comfortable top 10ers in the Heavyweight Division and for good reason too.

These days the boxing public prefer a more technically refined style - the which you would see from fighters like Mayweather or Wlad Klitschsko, as such fighters of more aggressive styles are often underrated and under appreciated. And I would go to far as to say perceived as too simplistic too be true ring legends.

In a way it's a form of boxing snobbery. Marciano & Dempsey styles are just as valid as others and it worked for them.

TheWigwam wrote:I know it's blasphemy but I don't think either are more overrated than Lennox Lewis

I applaud you for saying that, sir.

I'm surprised that boxing fans these days are not more critical of Lennox Lewis and his career.

I think that it comes down to this perception that he was the last great unified Heavyweight Champ and as such it places him above and beyond the reach of analytical criticism.

I would rate Lennox as probably the most overrated Heavyweight Champ in history. He really wasn't the man some people on here make him out to be.

DaveyMac wrote:Duce, neither of them could have even remotely held Ali's jock. Both Ali and Louis made more title defenses than Dempsey and Marciano combined.

That is true. But why should it devalue Jack or Rocky's legacy's?

Would you also use the same point as a weapon against: (let's say -)
Jack Johnson
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Mike Tyson

Just because Ali & Louis had more title defences doesn't mean that the other guys were rubbish.

Crease wrote:

DaveyMac wrote:Duce, neither of them could have even remotely held Ali's jock. Both Ali and Louis made more title defenses than Dempsey and Marciano combined.

That is true. But why should it devalue Jack or Rocky's legacy's?

Would you also use the same point as a weapon against: (let's say -)
Jack Johnson
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Mike Tyson

Just because Ali & Louis had more title defences doesn't mean that the other guys were rubbish.

No definitely not. I have them both Top 10 all time Heavyweights. With the very long and storied history of the sport, being Top 10 in any weight class is no small feat. Especially when you're talking about a division with a history as deep as the Heavyweights.

They're both great fighters, and legends in their own right.

DaveyMac, I am fascinated by two of the points you made:

DaveyMac wrote:Marciano was cleverly managed for certain, but once he became a star it's hard to say he ducked anyone like Valdes or Machen as he only fought 11 fights after beating Louis and 5 of those were against Walcott, Charles and Moore.

At what point of Marciano's (pre title) career would you say this "clever management" took place by Al Weill?

DaveyMac wrote:Frankly, Marciano didn't really fight many good fighters on the way up, but at least he did once he got the title.

This is a viewpoint that I have come across in BOTP a few times. You are entitled to your opinion, but let me ask you this:

Which top contenders of the Heavyweight Division did Marciano NOT face before getting his title shot against Walcott?

gilgamesh wrote:No definitely not. I have them both Top 10 all time Heavyweights. With the very long and storied history of the sport, being Top 10 in any weight class is no small feat. Especially when you're talking about a division with a history as deep as the Heavyweights.

They're both great fighters, and legends in their own right.

Apt and eloquent. Couldn't have put it better myself, mate.

I'm not saying they aren't top 10 hw's, they are. But they aren't 1 and 2 as Duce would have us believe.

During the time period for Dempsey you listed Duce he fought 25 white guys, the best of which was Billy Miske and he lost to Willie Meehan.
I'm far less impressed with that than I am with Ali's ascent.

Hell, let me fight 25 white guys and I might make a title run. DD

I have a number system that give a "schedule rating" for a fight. So depending on how hard the opponent is the length of the fight, the importance of the fight you have a point assigned. A four rounder against a guy who didn't fight 20 times in his career is worth 1 point. A HW championship fight is worth 8-10 depending on the opponent. Fighters are not ranked by my opinion but by a metric based on accomplishments.
It's not perfect I'm sure, but it's objective and with large amounts of date is pretty accurate account of how hard a fighters "schedule" was.
Also, with most fighters you can see certain patterns develop. I posted below the year by year totals for several fighters mentioned here. The first number is how many fights they had that year, the 2nd is how many points that was worth, the third is what the average is.

Career averages for the guys (which include their whole career and aren't as valuable as looking at year by year) are;

Joe Louis 5.38
Mike Tyson 4.33
Joe Frazier 5.46
Muhammad Ali 6.16
Harry Wills 5.57
Jack Dempsey 3.79
Rocky Marciano 3.76
Lennox Lewis 5.09






Jack Dempsey
fights points average
1914 2 3 1.50
1915 15 29 1.93
1916 16 39 2.44
1917 12 47 3.92
1918 21 92 4.38
1919 1 7 7.00
1920 2 15 7.50
1921 1 9 9.00
1922
1923 2 15 7.50
1924
1925
1926 1 10 10.00
1927 2 18 9.00


Muhammad Ali

1960 2 4 2.00
1961 8 21 2.63
1962 6 25 4.17
1963 3 17 5.67
1964 1 9 9.00
1965 2 18 9.00
1966 5 31 6.20
1967 2 15 7.50
1968
1969
1970 2 16 8.00
1971 4 30 7.50
1972 6 46 7.67
1973 4 28 7.00
1974 2 20 10.00
1975 4 27 6.75
1976 4 24 6.00
1977 2 13 6.50
1978 2 15 7.50
1979
1980 1 10 10.00
1981 1 7 7.00

Joe Frazier

1965 4 8 2.00
1966 9 33 3.67
1967 6 30 5.00
1968 3 19 6.33
1969 2 12 6.00
1970 2 17 8.50
1971 1 10 10.00
1972 2 6 3.00
1973 2 17 8.50
1974 2 18 9.00
1975 2 19 9.50
1976 1 10 10.00

Marciano

1947 1 1 1.00
1948 11 20 1.82
1949 13 35 2.69
1950 6 26 4.33
1951 7 24 3.43
1952 5 28 5.60
1953 2 15 7.50
1954 2 20 10.00
1955 2 15 7.50


Lennox Lewis

1989 5 11 2.20
1990 8 25 3.13
1991 4 19 4.75
1992 4 14 3.50
1993 2 15 7.50
1994 2 11 5.50
1995 3 12 4.00
1996 1 7 7.00
1997 3 21 7.00
1998 2 15 7.50
1999 2 18 9.00
2000 3 19 6.33
2001 2 14 7.00
2002 1 9 9.00
2003 1 9 9.00

Joe Louis
1934 12 39 3.25
1935 10 55 5.50
1936 5 23 4.60
1937 4 27 6.75
1938 3 18 6.00
1939 4 25 6.25
1940 4 25 6.25
1941 7 38 5.43
1942 2 10 5.00
1943
1944
1945
1946 2 15 7.50
1947 1 9 9.00
1948 1 9 9.00
1949
1950 2 16 8.00
1951 8 41 5.13

Mike Tyson

1985 15 28 1.87
1986 13 43 3.31
1987 4 26 6.50
1988 3 26 8.67
1989 2 13 6.50
1990 3 17 5.67
1991 2 12 6.00
1992
1993
1994
1995 2 5 2.50
1996 3 23 7.67
1997 1 9 9.00
1998
1999 1 6 6.00
2000 3 13 4.33
2001 1 6 6.00
2002 1 9 9.00
2003 1 3 3.00
2004 1 5 5.00
2005 1 3 3.00

Harry Wills

1911 3 7 2.33
1912 6 12 2.00
1913 5 22 4.40
1914 14 68 4.86
1915 5 38 7.60
1916 11 75 6.82
1917 7 52 7.43
1918 7 56 8.00
1919 8 55 6.88
1920 8 48 6.00
1921 10 46 4.60
1922 8 44 5.50
1923 2 10 5.00
1924 2 10 5.00
1925 2 10 5.00
1926 1 8 8.00
1927 1 9 9.00
1928
1929 1 3 3.00
1930
1931 1 2 2.00
1932 2 4 2.00

ETA- I've done this for about 200 Heavy's if anyone cares or wants to see another fighter.

Il Duce wrote:Davey Mac,

I have it at

#1... Jack Dempsey
#2... Joe Louis
#3... Larry Holmes
#4... James J. Jeffries
#5... Rocky Marciano

Putting Dempsey #1 is really just absurd, but not as absurd as not having Ali top 5.

I don't think Rocky was #1 or even #5 but at least I can see that argument being made. He never lost, once he did get to the top he fought everyone he could. Yes they were older, but he beat them and so maybe he helped them age. That's an argument that can be made. But Dempsey compared to these guys (and I've thought this for 40 years) is a joke. He's by far the most overrated fighter ever.

And of course not admitting that Ali is 1, 2 or 3 is just ridiculous.

I think Dempsey is amazingly overrated from a resume standpoint. Not top 10 for me. Marciano goes both ways depending on whom you're speaking with.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I think Dempsey is amazingly overrated from a resume standpoint. Not top 10 for me. Marciano goes both ways depending on whom you're speaking with.

Marciano is inside the top 15 for me.

Most of these guys outside of the top two for me could be moved up and down a bit. Especially Charles, Tyson and Marciano who I think there are real arguments for moving up, but this would be my top 20.

Muhammad Ali
Joe Louis
Harry Wills
Joe Frazier
Lennox Lewis
James J. Jeffries
Ezzard Charles
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
Larry Holmes
Gene Tunney
Jack Johnson
Riddick Bowe
Floyd Patterson
Jack Dempsey
Sonny Liston
George Foreman
Max Schmeling
Jack Sharkey
Max Baer

Dempsey's resume gets under-rated because most people know next to nothing about the fighters he defeated, especially pre-title reign. Fulton, Willard, Miske, Brennan, Smith, Levinsky is a hell of a resume. Add the victory over a peak Sharkey, which looks better and better to me with time, and his title victories over Carpentier and Gibbons (which also look better to me as I understand those fighters and that era more . . doesn't matter if they fought mostly at 175, they would've defeated most heavyweights, esp. Gibbons).

No-one who ever sparred or fought Dempsey, black or white, ever ranked him less than one of the very best (top 3) to ever fight at heavyweight. No heavyweights beyond Louis, Ali, and Johnson get that kind of praise from their fighting contemporaries, and that to me says a lot.

DaveyMac wrote:I have a number system that give a "schedule rating" for a fight. So depending on how hard the opponent is the length of the fight, the importance of the fight you have a point assigned. A four rounder against a guy who didn't fight 20 times in his career is worth 1 point. A HW championship fight is worth 8-10 depending on the opponent. Fighters are not ranked by my opinion but by a metric based on accomplishments.

I've never seen this before, at least you are bringing something fresh to old boxing debates.

DaveyMac wrote:It's not perfect I'm sure, but it's objective and with large amounts of date is pretty accurate account of how hard a fighters "schedule" was.
Also, with most fighters you can see certain patterns develop. I posted below the year by year totals for several fighters mentioned here. The first number is how many fights they had that year, the 2nd is how many points that was worth, the third is what the average is.

I would argue the opposite. It's absolutely 100% subjective because it comes down to how each person rates the Champion's opposition.

Just for example - I have seen a faction of boxing fans who rank Larry Holmes in their top three, whilst others would ran him 7-10.

It is subjective everyone rates fighters in their own way and their own style. The mathematical formula you come up with does make for interesting reading, and a fresh way of looking at things...
But the numbers were devised by your opinions and your ranking of the opponents of All-Time Greats.