Dempsey and Marciano switch opposition

[HOUDINI563]

Never read more bull**** in my entire life.

Again those that watched both Dempsey and Marciano felt Dempsey was the greater fighter. Fleischer stated “You cannot compare Marciano to Dempsey except as a puncher”. He also felt of the two Dempsey hit harder.

Regarding punching power mass and velocity are the key elements if you are looking for an equation but their are those things that cannot be measured by an equation notably the skill of being able to put ones body weight behind punches. Dempsey, not Marciano, wrote the book regarding this subject. Suggest you read it and watch Dempsey literally launch his body weight behind very short compact punches…..no energy wasted. Your suggestion that Marciano has some sort of an advantage by “leaping” is ridiculous. Lots of energy is lost and wasted throwing long and wild.

One of many things that has been lost to time is the Dempsey speed. He was incredibly quick and this is testified by many including Ray Arcel. When asked what it was like to watch Dempsey fight he exclaimed “THE SPEED!” Show me a quote from any top trainer where Marcianos SPEED is highlighted as his major attribute. Marciano just was not very quick. Lots of slow twitch muscle fibers! Dempsey however was, in comparison, in warp speed.

Regarding Frazier he himself stated he had slow feet. Frazier was also a one handed heavyweight. He was talking about developing a right hand into the last bouts of his career! Joe never knocked any opponent DOWN with his right hand (a record for heavyweight champions). He lacked the coordination between his left and right fists that fighters like Louis, Dempsey and Marciano had in spades. Joe had an excellent left hook but who did he ever ko for a ten count with that punch? Bob Foster?

[The Old LefHook]

I heavily favor one entire era over the other. 50s>20s

I don't think just Marciano would stomp Dempsey's....resume...a new ass, I reckon Moore, Charles, and Walcott would too, and, LaStarza, ****ell, and Matthews would definitely be among the best of the era if not dominate that resume.

Rather than going through Dempsey's names, name-by-name, and saying what can be summed up with - they'd lose cause they suck - let's just jump to the one who didn't suck, Tunney.

Gene Tunney is the base for modern boxing. Good feet, good jab, good distance control, good guard, he's great, and boxing exactly like Gene Tunney is fabulous. For amateur boxers there's no one better to emulate. Shoulder rolling and/or dipping, hybrid stance, shuffle, using the ropes to absorb energy, you know, basic stuff you expect to see more of in pros than you do amateurs....not exactly Tunney's bag is it? In Tunney's era basic, amateur level, boxing was the trick.

Do I think the master of the sucka punch can sucka punch Tunney? Yes. Absolutely. Walcott sets him up and blows him out. I don't think Tunney has a chance. Joe's not just bigger, he's trickier, smarter, more evolved. Tunney's second worst nightmare.

Second, after Rocky Marciano who absolutely batters him. Tunney has no means to keep Marciano off him nor any to hurt him, he just gets smothered from a long distance than beaten into another KO for The Rock.

That said, I think LaStarza-Dempsey is the best match up because the only thing Roland brought to the game was catching punches on his elbows while riding the ropes to absorb the energy. I think Jack would find a way to break Roland down eventually, I don't think it'd be that easy for him. Certainly not Miske easy.

Miske-Marciano would be the worst. I don't think Billy Miske even gives Marciano a fight.

And to think people around here once actually thought this stooge knew something about boxing.

[HOUDINI563]

Interestingly one of Tunneys trainers lived into the 1960’s. He was interviewed and among various responses he stated “It’s not understood today but in his time Tunneys right hand was as feared as Listons”. To say Tunney “had nothing” to keep Marciano off of him is a ludicrous statement of unfathomable proportions.

Regarding Walcott being “bigger”…Gene Tunney and Joe Walcott were the same height and only 5 pounds separated them. Walcott was a very inconsistent performer. Tunney was one of the most consistent fighters ever to live. As examples Walcott lost nearly 30% of the bouts he fought and he was 30% likely to be koed when he lost. Tunney in over 70 pro bouts was never stopped, only knocked down once and lost only one fight….ever.

[Willie Pep 229]

Interestingly one of Tunneys trainers lived into the 1960’s. He was interviewed and among various responses he stated “It’s not understood today but in his time Tunneys right hand was as feared as Listons”. To say Tunney “had nothing” to keep Marciano off of him is a ludicrous statement of unfathomable proportions.

Regarding Walcott being “bigger”…Gene Tunney and Joe Walcott were the same height and only 5 pounds separated them. Walcott was a very inconsistent performer. Tunney was one of the most consistent fighters ever to live. As examples Walcott lost nearly 30% of the bouts he fought and he was 30% likely to be koed when he lost. Tunney in over 70 pro bouts was never stopped, only knocked down once and lost only one fight….ever.

Tunney is a funny fighter to evaluate - if you take all the attributes we usually assign to a great fighter: power, speed, jap, footwork, ETC. and score them on a 10 scale, you find yourself not assigning Tunney and 10s. But then you don't hesitate to give him all 9s and 8s.

It creates a hidden greatness.

Where is this greatest that should stand out ?

We don't hesitate to give Dempsey a 10 for power, but then in other categories he is a 6 or 7.

When you add up all of Tunney's 9s and 8s you end up with a 65-1-0 fighter who was KD only once (by Dempsey)

There seems no one thing that makes us wow, like we can with Dempsey, Ali, or Tyson, there's just this finished product, NEAR perfection, 65- 1-0 (just as all those 9 scores suggest.)

You had to argue that he had a 'good' right hand, it's obsurd you had to say it, he had 48 KOs in 65 wins. Take away the fact that he wasn't going to stop Greb (5) and Dempsey twice, it means he had 48 KOs in his other 58 fights. Of course he could punch.

[HOUDINI563]

I would disagree concerning Dempsey. His power in both fists is a 10 but his speed of both hand and feet is also way up there. His infighting skills were second to none. His defense was also above both Frazier and Marciano in terms of swarmers but he certainly was no Tunney in this regard.

Lots has been lost to time regarding Dempsey. His speed is on top of that list IMO. Dempsey was extremely quick.

[Willie Pep 229]

I would disagree concerning Dempsey. His power in both fists is a 10 but his speed of both hand and feet is also way up there. His infighting skills were second to none. His defense was also above both Frazier and Marciano in terms of swarmers but he certainly was no Tunney in this regard.

Lots has been lost to time regarding Dempsey. His speed is on top of that list IMO. Dempsey was extremely quick.

I'm sorry I used Dempsey as the example, I wanted to focus on Tunney's attributes - I thought Dempsey would serve as an example of an undisputed 10 in power so I used him - insert a different fighter into the example - I wanted to point out how mastered Tunney was across the board without there being any one 'super star' attribute about him.

[QueensburyRules]

More mystique because you have **** all else

- - Quite all I need to have more than you.

First title challenges-Finely tuned Dempsey strapped a masterclass wrecking bar type beating on Willard. Prime Gibbons was every bit as good a boxer/puncher if not better than ancient Walcott/Charles in their last championship days. Dempsey defended vs much bigger, stronger fighters than Rocky ever did and ushered in the full potential of modern boxing by legitimizing boxing by sheer dint of his reputation.

Rocky a work in progress until his retirement struggled mightily with the movement and power of ancient Jersey Joe in his first title challenge, and replicated that vs ancient Charles.

Big Rocky fan, but his comp don't match up to Dempsey though JJ/Charles/ and especially Archie starting a rare Lightheavy/Heavy streak where he was rated in both divisions are great legacy names. Post WW2 boxing was a greatly weakened era as we saw with Patterson's ascendance. Even young Ali save for Terrell fought a fairly old, weak cast of 50s holdovers challengers. It was Joe who turned boxing into a great era by taking on the young 60s studs into the 70s.

[The Old LefHook]

Fact is, it is not clear who wins. You boys are acting polarized. The attitude must be rubbing off from all the political news you watch.

We are talking about two of the greatest heavies who ever lived, both near the ideal proportions for a heavyweight but presently out of vogue among fans for galoots. The men are both close to six feet tall and 200 lbs. Uh-oh, they call those dimensions the galoot killer. They destroyed huge men like Firpo, Willard & Layne. They would destroy each other's competition. Dempsey would demolish Charles, Moore & Walcott with hasty KOs, while Rocky would have to work harder, but would walk through Jack's competition as well, other than Tunney, who is another kettle of fish. How hard Rocky has to work to wade through Jack's opponents, however, would have no bearing on how he will do against Dempsey himself, which is an independent matter.

The fight should result in much damage to both participants, probably career-shortening damage. Almost certainly a three or four fight series would leave them both spent and useless, and a fifth match would have to be staged as a wheelchair fight.

[Marchegiano]

- - Quite all I need to have more than you.

First title challenges-Finely tuned Dempsey strapped a masterclass wrecking bar type beating on Willard. Prime Gibbons was every bit as good a boxer/puncher if not better than ancient Walcott/Charles in their last championship days. Dempsey defended vs much bigger, stronger fighters than Rocky ever did and ushered in the full potential of modern boxing by legitimizing boxing by sheer dint of his reputation.

Rocky a work in progress until his retirement struggled mightily with the movement and power of ancient Jersey Joe in his first title challenge, and replicated that vs ancient Charles.

Big Rocky fan, but his comp don't match up to Dempsey though JJ/Charles/ and especially Archie starting a rare Lightheavy/Heavy streak where he was rated in both divisions are great legacy names. Post WW2 boxing was a greatly weakened era as we saw with Patterson's ascendance. Even young Ali save for Terrell fought a fairly old, weak cast of 50s holdovers challengers. It was Joe who turned boxing into a great era by taking on the young 60s studs into the 70s.

Mind boggling, y'all are very impressed by what one era has to say about itself, alone.

I never hear about how John L is so great because everyone around him ****** his ********. Dempsey and anything Dempsey ever touched, ****, let us pretend like ****ing Gibbons even knows the term shell let alone what it is or how to deal with it.

modern? Yeah, if modern is amateur ****. I laid out plenty of things that came after the 20s and before the 60s. Doesn't matter, let's talk about who got their ass kissed more because that's totes obviously the unbiased way to take a look at an era ya fookin mook

[QueensburyRules]

Mind boggling, y'all are very impressed by what one era has to say about itself, alone.

I never hear about how John L is so great because everyone around him ****** his ********. Dempsey and anything Dempsey ever touched, ****, let us pretend like ****ing Gibbons even knows the term shell let alone what it is or how to deal with it.

modern? Yeah, if modern is amateur ****. I laid out plenty of things that came after the 20s and before the 60s. Doesn't matter, let's talk about who got their ass kissed more because that's totes obviously the unbiased way to take a look at an era ya fookin mook

- - No doubt the above smatterings would be considered genius in the alternative site you yearn for.