PDA

View Full Version : Dempsey vs. Bill Tate sparring session footage



Kid Achilles
03-29-2006, 07:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wxHY3p9DiQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eboxingscene%2Ecom%2Fforums %2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Fp%3D1365983

This is some great footage of Dempsey exhibiting his bob and weave and fleetness of foot against Bill Tate, who seems quite quick of hand and foot for his size. Not a clumsy giant by any means. There is a lot of clinching and pushing, in which Tate get's the upper hand more times than not but Dempsey stills holds his own which is impressive considering the size difference.

PeteLeo
03-30-2006, 02:57 AM
Interesting how Dempsey's bob and weave style compares favorably with Frazier's 40+ years more "advanced" routine, though Jack's incorporated more side to side than Joe's (which was basically up and down/up and down). Unlike Frazier, however, Dempsey seemed able to switch the moves on and off with a thought and employed it primarily when advancing on a lively (unconcussed) opponent or to evade jabs. At his best, Joe was like a bobbing machine (even as late as the third Ali fight, his "workrate" at this tactic was amazing). Dempsey also appeared to be better able to slip beneath crosses and hooks at distance. Not saying Foreman wouldn't ever hit Dempsey solidly, but I'll bet George would find the task of honing in on the Mauler a lot more difficult than he did with Frazier. This elusiveness is the main reason I think Dempsey would have beaten Wills in spite of the latter's height and reach advantages. PeteLeo.

Ted Spoon
03-30-2006, 06:58 AM
Dempsey's movement was superb in the late teens.

When he closed the gap n' started sharply bending down, switching from side to side, and then skipping out of range he left his opponents buffudled. His movement was very fluid and educated, never predictable.

The speed of foot he possessed was quite considerable in his younger hayday, second to that of Ali's to my mind.

You can see the elements of Tyson's game that Dempsey had, but he was a more versitle and rangy fighter; bulling in like Frazier, but exploding like Mike.

Tate looks fairly capable there. He fairs quite well in playing matador to the bull as Dempsey was noctoriously rough in sparring sessions -- check those left hooks he tries on.

This footage is of the refined street fighting destroyer, not the hollywood infected playboy. He was young, hungry, mean and very talented.

BDeskins
03-30-2006, 08:54 AM
Thanks for posting the clip.

hawk5ins
03-30-2006, 09:16 AM
Still wish he'd keep his hands up above his waist. Better to parry a stiff fast jab. And he wouldn't have to reset. Yes he had good head movement, but agianst a bit more skilled fighters with Solid and/or fast jabs, that's going to work agianst him.

I know this was just sparring and possibly the low hands were purposeful (spider to the fly tactic), but those hands have to come up when facing a Holmes or Liston or Ali jab or even a Foreman jab.

Pressure or no by jack, he's going to keep taking it in the mush and it's going to upset the deliberate rhythm you can see him employing.

Argue all you want about Jack being superior to Frazier, but Joe when bobbing and coming in like that could pick off jabs with his higher held guard and get his his hooks.

Jack HAS to bring those mitts above his waist agianst the above mentioned fighters.

Hawk

Sharkey
03-30-2006, 10:58 AM
Why do I do this... how often have we gone back and forth about this..each trying in vain to avoid the inevitable destination we always reach: "you may be right, I don't know, I am not sure..I don't agree but.." I guess I love it, I dunno.

Watching Larry Holmes in sparring for the Ali, or any assorted fight...he: needs to not back away with head held high against Dempsey. He also should avoid dropping his head to go to the body with both hands as he did throughout his career. He must find a way to not paw with both hands in front of his face, palms out, and he needs to not have his weight on his front foot with his right hand way low to compete against the Dempsey we see here in SPARRING...let alone Dempsey in against live comp. If Larry only turned his shots over...etc.

The reaction would be of course, that Holmes' 'flaws' are not really that bad, etc. etc. etc. because Larry is 'better'...I don't see it.

Such over-simplification. We all bring to an analysis a completed opinion that is corroborated by what we 'see'.

I have never agreed with you, Hawk, about Dempsey's fighting prowess vis a vis Holmes et al. Dempsey has to have his hands up in sparring against Big Bill to even have a chance against Holmes, Foreman etc because they allegedly have no serious flaws Dempsey will exploit? Frazier picked off jabs...and had not close to the offense in close, or coming in Dempsey did as a result.

Frazier's sparring footage and fight footage reveal an alarming inability to deal with hard shots in volume.

Another observation one could make deeming him, as is, in need of overhaul to compete with any odd great we wish to match him with.

---I have said this numerous times..but it bears repeating, mostly because I seem to be mostly alone on this island...my appreciation of Dempsey flies in the face of liking him, and then searching for the silver lining...it is indeed totally the opposite.---

hawk5ins
03-30-2006, 11:14 AM
I'm just trying to recreate what was lost.

It's almost theraputic for the both of us.

Of course I have my retorts for many of the things I saw in both Jack and Larry, which I have seen in both Sparring and in live action which leads me to my conclusions of Larry W Jack. And many are not just oversimplifications, but are the old tired themes we have danced to before.

This was kinda nostalgic for me Sharks. Plus I think I might have irritated you (playful, non serious irritations folks), before you got my goat (not a real goat either.).

Hawk

Sharkey
03-30-2006, 11:18 AM
*Sigh* that was nice.

mike
03-30-2006, 12:04 PM
listen-1- dempsey used a cross arm defense. 2-the surface area of the gloves diring fights meant less blocking potential-you best move your head well and chin down behind the shoulder. to constantly have one or both gloves open for a dempsey to fight- that is not effective. 3-i have plenty of film of dempsey sapping,as well as fighting. often he kept his hands low to work on his head movement-and foot movement- and dduring fights draw his opponent in because so few ever committed themselves when punching at him.4 check how low his hands are sparring wwith tate and then where they are when coming out to meet willard a couple of weeks later.5 a lower left hand increases head and foot movemnt- i do not see robinson and dozens of other excellant fighters getting the razz because of it. thanks gotta go.

mike
03-30-2006, 12:07 PM
dempsey would bring them up aka willard bout before he decimated him- but up to a level and keep them there that was effective for him. bye

hawk5ins
03-30-2006, 12:18 PM
"Boxing" with one's hands down is one thing.

Leading aggressively with your hands at your waist is another thing altogether.

I don't see how Robby or Hearns boxing with thier hands low is comparable to aggressively pursuing, Chin out, bobbing or no, with one's hands down at their waist.

It's entirely different.

And in all honest, I don't see a whole lot of different placement of the hands in live action from Jack.

Again, this may very well be a spider to the fly tactic. I personally think it would be unwise agiasnt an educated jab.

Hawk

Ted Spoon
03-30-2006, 12:35 PM
In the Gibbons bout, Dempsey utilizes a high cross armed defence n' often pushes his straight shots away from their target. His hands were lower when he fought bigger targets, who he could out speed, size up, and then pounce on.

Carpentier's the same -- high cross armed defence that he raised in accordance to the range of engagement, like mike said.

Moreover, Dempsey's slips rates where quite considerable -- both Willard and Tunney can be seen on film heavily missing via well timed duck's and full weaves to escape combinations.

Dempsey explained that his styles one weakness was that he could not fully retreat if in any spot of bother -- he had to fight it out, but he often pulled back (protecting his head with a turning shoulder) and then planned another attack.

There is allot to be said of his elusiveness and ability to get in position.

Labbeled a 'swarmer', but that is such an ugly term of phrase (grouped up with the Marciano/Frazier family) for one so efficient.

mike
03-30-2006, 01:16 PM
ted- fact is, after reading hunnicutts articles, i tried some slip and duck rates myself. altough like punch rates, its not that important a tool, of all the fighters with the high slip rates per round, dempsey scored the highest in the sharkey bout, and then the second tunney bouts. the other bouts of dempsey- well the opponent did not trow very many punches and or got crushed.dempseys slip and duck rates were as high or higher than ANY top fighter ever. do it yourself.

hagler04
03-30-2006, 01:43 PM
Mike brings up a good point. When people complain about how the fighters of the teens didn't keep their hands up, you have to remember these wern't 10 or 12 ounce Everlasts with lots of padding . . .they were 4 and 6 ounce 'mitts' . . .Ali would have NOT been able to rope a dope with those things on.

mike
03-30-2006, 04:02 PM
hagler-im glad that you picked that up.also, many of the very highest slip/duck rates were of 1900-1920. later on,guys like canoneri,bratton,duran were very high-around 15 per round per fight. dempsey 20 to 25 per round,moran 20,bleanord 15 or so.srl srr.around 12 per round- defense of foot as well as head movement. anyhow, some of the aformentions were masters at slipping by the graze or inch. dempsey hightest so far- including all heavyweight champs.if dempsey came a little later, he may bring them up a little more and take some off the gloves without slowing his attack. thanks

The Shoemaker
03-31-2006, 04:35 AM
Dempsey was #1 on Mike Hunnicutt's "slip and duck rates"- there's a shock. Someone once asked Mike "who would give Dempsey his toughest fight" ? Answer-"No one" . Not exactly an arguable point.
I'd be shocked that that fighters from 1900-1920 would be the highest, but you looked at the film and counted and i didn't. (I would have thought the 71 Ali-Frazier fight would be #1, Ali hit him a ton but also missed a ton) Point is that there arn't that many complete fights from that era on film and there is so much clinching, holding, and wrestling. Of coarse when you have two fighters that are both leaning back, with all of their weight on their back foot, winging punches, I guess you'll have a lot of missed punches (Langford's about the first one to actually work the body, that doesn't say much for his predecessors).
As far as who's tougher to hit between Frazier and Dempsey : Frazier does give you both up and down and side to side (along with making himself even smaller by going low to the ground), while Dempsey's more of a side to side. Lotierzo once told me that he tried to fight like Frazier, but couldn't. Of coarse Dempsey has an in and out style while Joe's one deminsional (forward) So Joe's probably easier to figure out. Of coarse the Dempsey fans will bad rap Joe like they usually do (Ali has ungodly fast and accurate hands - its not as though he's not going to hit Dempsey either) pointing out the foreman fight
Hey, Joe was 215, and the 71 fight with Ali took a lot out of him. But he ain't beating Foreman anyway- but neither is Dempsey ! Foreman's like an albatross
for Joe, everyone bases everything on those fights. Yes, Joe got knocked down 8 times in two fights, but he got up each time. Firpo came within an eyelash of KO'ing Jack (Dempsey didn't know where he was in between rounds, asking Kearns "what round did I get knocked out in"), and the Dempsey fans have a 100 excuses for the first Flynn fight :"it was fixed", Jack hurt his arm in a bowling alley, Jack didn't sleep for three days, Jack wasn't warmed up properly, Jack was too green for Flynn, Jack ... Yes, Dempsey wasn't in his prime, and he did KO Flynn a year later (although I could say that Flynn was shot, if I wanted to make excuses). The point is that he is not some 185 llb superhuman, who can't be hurt or KO'ed. And last point: Willard/Firpo are not George Foreman, and Big Bill Tate is not Larry Holmes.

Kid Achilles
03-31-2006, 11:57 AM
"(Langford's about the first one to actually work the body, that doesn't say much for his predecessors)"

You accuse the Dempsey fans of bias but there is a lot of bias and disrespect in this statement.

To say that Langford was the first guy to work the body is a ridiculous claim. In bare knuckle boxing, punches to the body were always common as it was the one place one could hit without full power without breaking one's fist. This is the reason those fights went on for so long. Put modern gloves on those guys and you'd see many more knockouts and hard punching to the head as the protective padding for the hands more than compansates for the lack of hardness at impact. Bodypunching has always been important in all martial styles involving the fist and to suggest that Sam Langford was the first bodypuncher is an insult to the intelligence of every boxer pre- Langford.

Those guys were much smarter and craftier than you give them credit for. Do you actually believe people were less intelligent back then? Those guys boxed for a living, they were professionals, and they only appear primitive to our eyes because the rules of boxing have changed so much over the years.

If a Muhammad Ali had to fight barefisted in those times (using the style he employed in the 60's and 70's) chances are he'd either break both hands by the early rounds, or he'd get worn out using such an energy inefficient style. No way he's fresh for 60 rounds with a hard punching, steel chinned adversary who's adept at wrestling and used to hitting to the body with bare fists (he would know the softest, safest areas to hit with full power blows and Ali would be relatively clueless).

I am not convinced Ali could have taken John L. Sullivan under bareknuckle rules. Gloved rules, okay piece of cake for him, but put the man in Sullivan's pre glove era and make him fight by those rules and he doesn't last.

Now Chuvalo, Frazier, Marciano, etc. is a different story but even those guys would have a lot of learning to do before they would be successful.

Sorry for the rant Shoe but statements like that rub me the wrong way. As if professionals living a hundred or more years ago were somehow incompetent or less intelligent than the modern fighter. If anything they were more focused on their craft as there was less money and distractions in the sport. Then, it was all glory and for the love of fighting. Todays guys are a bunch of pampered prima donnas in comparison.

Sharkey
03-31-2006, 12:06 PM
Does anyone really think that humans did not know how to fight before 1932? A man covering his face in 1845 in a fist fight would be immune from injury as his opponent stood aghast unable to manipulate his arms to punch to the ribcage?

The bayonette was quite useless because it was hard to spear a guy in the face?

A disagreement in Bavaria in 1749, causing a fight, would be noted for the concerned parties' lack of what we in the modern day call "roughhousing"?

The Old Testament God did so much more smiting of people because they had not learned that they could actually hold their hands above their waist?

A guy fighting in 1894 after being hit to the body is shocked at the new innovation, but unable to retaliate nonetheless given his being a product of his time-period, against his foe who obviously travelled back in time to employ such an amazing tactic?

There is a method to the tactics they employed I always thought.

Sharkey
03-31-2006, 12:16 PM
And, I think Frazier was an awesome heavyweight. One of the very very best of all-time..and a good bet, against Larry Holmes, to disprove that there really cannot be an even fight.

Yet, recording this before I lose my faculties (yes I have them intact though perhaps they reflect poorly) my belief that Dempsey is better than him is a statement.

The feeling it is rapping Frazier is an emotional tag applied to it..or further, that such a statement is impossible to make without motivation that is either dishonest or wildly askew of reality is a further tag the reader applies to it.

I haven't even had any coffee today. Imagine.

Ted Spoon
03-31-2006, 12:59 PM
This recycled perception of modern fighters being superior in all aspects of their game is not to be blamed on the individual writing for they are only reiterating the vibe your average encyclopaedia gives off.

Find the written history of boxing and locate the Sullivan/Corbett era.

Supposedly there was this huge leap in ring craft out of nowhere, cue a number of bold statements -- Corbett invented the left hook, utilized superior (new found?) ring craft.

At this crucial stage Sullivan often single handily represents the 'primitive' Bare Knuckle era when it was infact he who was the crude brawler. Previous Bare Knuckle legends -- Mendoza, Belcher, Sayers were all better rehearsed in Corbett's implemented 'ring craft'.

That commonly misinterpreted transition sets the scene, then you have a handful of random, incomplete and very poor quality film to go off -- consisting of different rules.

Boxing being labelled a 'sport' and the numerous myths leads the way for poor judgement time after time.

hawk5ins
03-31-2006, 01:02 PM
to these conversations about Dempsey.

I think ALL fighters are open to critiques and questions about what they brought table and how they would fair agianst others.

I think Jack is a great fighter and really have no issue with anyone who states that they think he was one of the greatest of all time, not only at heavyweight, but Pound for pound as well.

I am of the opinion, that there were a handful of heavyweights that were superior to Jack. Among them Larry Holmes AND Joe Frazier.

I don't immediately lose my mind when one states that Jack is superior to Joe. Though I have disagreed with such statements.

However I have found that when I make the comment that I feel Joe was superior to Jack, The earth opens up, Hell fire shoots out of the openinings, demons crawl out from hell and inherit the earth.

Not only am I out of bounds for ever making such a proclamation, I am immediately among the stupidest people to have ever walked the planet.

Now the Opposite has happened to me on plenty of occasions as well. The minute I ever suggest that some relic out of the eons ago 60's such as Muhammad Ali would beat the Modern master of all who ever laced up a pair of gloves in Mike Tyson, it has happened that I have been treated with the same disdain. And how I could ever suggest that Jack Johnson would defeat a Riddick Bowe or Lennox Lewis or any Indestructable giant of today.

My point that I am trying to make here, is that NO one is above criticism. The fact that my comments that I made about the palcement of Jacks hands in the sparring footage has elicited such passion, I find rather humorous. How dare I criticize Dempsey?

And I thought I qualified my comment rather well "I know this was just sparring and possibly the low hands were purposeful (spider to the fly tactic), but those hands have to come up when facing a Holmes or Liston or Ali jab or even a Foreman jab."

Yet somehow by making my comment, Immeidiately, I didn't understand that this was JUST sparring, that I didn't realize that Jack had 50 pound weights in each hand and some how that i didn't get the memo on slip/duck rates of the early 1900's.

I tend to react better to thorough, detailed, well thought out responses better than I do passionate overreactions. (I'm directing this at NO ONE inparticular, so there is no need for any defensive responses.)

Not EVERYONE that critcises Jack Dempsey or a fighter from his era, is dismissing him/them simply based on the time they fought in. And likewise, newer does NOT automatically mean better.

Hawk

The Shoemaker
03-31-2006, 01:22 PM
Kid,
I wasn't bad rapping Bare Knuckle fighters or saying that the old fighters were stupid. Geeze, their were 19th century bare knuckle fights that guy's eyeball were popped out and the guys kept fighting. And I am not saying that they were dumb. it's just that boxing was in it's embryonic (spelling) stages back then and they were in the process of converting from bare knuckles style to a modern style. back then you had two guys leaning back, wrestling, and throwing roundhouse punches. I shouldn't have said that Langford was the first to work the body as a main function of his attack, but he was probably the first guy to get a reputation for doing it. Yes, they hit each other in the body, but Fitzsimmon's KO over Corbett with a body blow was a big deal- it shocked a lot of people especially Corbett. In my opinion Dempsey in many ways made that style obsolete. He came in with head movement, took risks, and most importantly, was in posistion to do damage with his punches. He worked the body and threw combinations. I think that he's the one who made the old lean back style obsolete (they're giving him the body). Yes, there were swarmers like Ketchel and others, but from what i've seen they more or less come in face-first with their heads back and throw more or less roundhouse bombs. Again, i am not saying the fighters or trainers were stupid, that's what they knew. It's kind of like the single wing in football or the 7 man defensive line becoming obsolete over time. What i do dispute is these guy's bad rapping a modern fighter like Larry Holmes, because "he returned his left hand 1/32 too low after he jabbed", then turn around and marvel at two guys fighting at the Turn of the Century with their heads back pawing at each other (see Jim corbett-Courtney ? exibition).

Sharkey
03-31-2006, 01:24 PM
I experience similar opposition when I state I feel Dempsey superior to Frazier and likely to beat Holmes head to head. Perhaps Holmes and Frazier and Louisites are not less open-minded or protective of their boxing heirarchy maintaining it's particular order.

I knew HAwk5ins was viewing only was on the screen and thinking aloud. My observation about such was that it fell in line with earlier critiques disparaging his fighting abilities morophed into a fantasy fight or two. the line was drawn to connect. I drew my own connecting line to shed some light on how this can be doen similarly to other fighters. This should not be the ground opening up. It is merely applying the same principles. Correct?

I do not believe Dempsey's advocates are more obtuse..they would have to be to fit your description. I do think the criticsm of Dempsey by those levying it is usually more definitively judgmental and formed.

Of all the 'great' fighters, Dempsey is prone to the most hyperbole and viewed as the easiest puzzle to figure out by those who view him lacking from what I have seen and read whenever his name comes up.

Vociferous and reasoned praise of Dempsey's ultimate fighting ability from this corner seems no more prone to blinders than the copious amount of touting other heavys get by their backers. If anything it seems the view by many is that any touting of Dempsey MUST be romantic. Or given merely to protect his legend.

That makes my earth open up..the footing of conversation replaced by a sea of being pegged biased for bias sake.

No one indeed is above criticism. No particular point is similarly above critique. And critique is not on its face combativeness. Is it?

hawk5ins
03-31-2006, 01:42 PM
Who thought that we (me and the Sharks) were of the same mind and viewpoint....HA!

This is why I love the man. He can bring it all back in and make sense of it all. He has the unique abilty to smooth out the rough edges of my points.

Critique does not Have to equal combativeness. Unfortunately, it does lead to that far too often.

Ah the good ole days Sharks.....

Hawk

The Shoemaker
03-31-2006, 01:57 PM
Sharkey,
I do respect your opinions (along with Hawk, Elmer Ray, and a ton of others that I've argued with) and I have a ton of respect for Dempsey, I think him and Tunney in many ways changed the game and got it out of the maul and brawl wrestling matches of the Pre WWI, era. And, i didn't mean to imply that no one knew how to box before the 1920's. it's just that I think if you fight in a conventional stance you can "capitalize on your physical tools" better than the old time fighters (I probably didn't word that correctly). Case in point-notice how Joe Choynkski at 168 can fight a 20 round draw with Jeffries, or that Langford at 140 can go the distance with Johnson ? That stuff doesn't happen any more. George Foreman- Carlos Monzon isn't going one round. Neither is Louis-Zale, or Sugar Ray Leonard -Michael Spinks. My point is that when you have two guy's leaning back, wrestling each other and winging roundhouse punches, there's less risks and the ability to force your will on a smaller fighter lessons (bad choice of words-I can't phrase it better-but i think you know what i mean). yet some people think Bob Fitzsimmons can hang with the bigger modern fighters (Foreman would shove Fitz's scrawney ass in the corner and start ripping- the over/under would be in seconds not rounds). My point about Joe frazier is that everyone bad raps him
because of foreman- they all think he doesn't have a chin- while Dempsey walks on water. I'd favor Joe, but I'll admit that Dempsey's a fast starter while Joe's a slow starter, so it wouldn't shock me if Dempsey won. My point is that it's like blasphemy on this site to even make that comparision. it's like I go from one extreme- arguing with the Mike Tyson-Roy Jones' idiots on Eastside (who have a thousand excuses everytime thier fighter losses) to here where the old geezers trash me for pointing out obvious physical changes in humans over the past 80 years, and for having the audacity to state that there hasn't been a power puncher in the heavyweight ranks at Dempsey's size in 40 years. Did you ever think that maybe the fat Somoan David Tua, might be able to take a 185 pounder like Dempsey's punches ? Nah- I am sure he'd blast the iron-chinned Tua in one round. Of coarse, not that they'd ever fight, since I am sure Rickart would be adding Samoans to the color line.

Mr E
03-31-2006, 02:02 PM
Great clip. Dempsey's very nimble, light on his feet-- real good spring. Love how he keeps that chin on his chest, behind his shoulder. No wonder sharp-shooting speed-demons like Gibbons & Tunney complained that it was nearly impossible to hit him on the point of the chin.

I gotta think that crowding style w/ the big right hand over the top would play Hell with Holmes. Bobick, Kevin Issaac, Weaver, Shavers, Snipes, Witherspoon and, of course, Tyson all caught Holmes with that same shot, right hand thrown over the jab. What a great fight, though-- Holmes was one tough mutha and he had some weapons of his own. Close call, but I like the Mauler by a whisker.

I do think Dempsey beats Frazier, though. Too quick, IMO, and too many guns. I see Dempsey jumping on him early and consistently beating him to the punch. Just my opinion, gents.

Ted Spoon
03-31-2006, 02:08 PM
but from what i've seen

...and what is it you're seeing? Poor quality footage that is minimal in its quantity and random in its timeline.

Reading the papers on Ketchel for example paints two pictures -- one we can view and the other is invisible.

His fourth fight with Papke is a 20 round snore whereas (by all accessible accounts) his previous fight with him was a brutal dismantling job -- better showcasing his punch variety, angles of attack and punctuating all that created his slugging legend.

To start with you are not getting a fair representation of what these men were vaunted for.

I've explained this before -- take Lennox Lewis' fights with Ruddock/Golota -- send them back 100 years and see what picture is painted.

Reading archived fight reports is essential in making fairer (more accurate comments) towards the oldies and their in ring ability.

hagler04
03-31-2006, 03:16 PM
Sharkey,
I do respect your opinions (along with Hawk, Elmer Ray, and a ton of others that I've argued with) and I have a ton of respect for Dempsey, I think him and Tunney in many ways changed the game and got it out of the maul and brawl wrestling matches of the Pre WWI, era. And, i didn't mean to imply that no one knew how to box before the 1920's. it's just that I think if you fight in a conventional stance you can "capitalize on your physical tools" better than the old time fighters (I probably didn't word that correctly). Case in point-notice how Joe Choynkski at 168 can fight a 20 round draw with Jeffries, or that Langford at 140 can go the distance with Johnson ? That stuff doesn't happen any more. George Foreman- Carlos Monzon isn't going one round. Neither is Louis-Zale, or Sugar Ray Leonard -Michael Spinks. My point is that when you have two guy's leaning back, wrestling each other and winging roundhouse punches, there's less risks and the ability to force your will on a smaller fighter lessons (bad choice of words-I can't phrase it better-but i think you know what i mean). yet some people think Bob Fitzsimmons can hang with the bigger modern fighters (Foreman would shove Fitz's scrawney ass in the corner and start ripping- the over/under would be in seconds not rounds). My point about Joe frazier is that everyone bad raps him
because of foreman- they all think he doesn't have a chin- while Dempsey walks on water. I'd favor Joe, but I'll admit that Dempsey's a fast starter while Joe's a slow starter, so it wouldn't shock me if Dempsey won. My point is that it's like blasphemy on this site to even make that comparision. it's like I go from one extreme- arguing with the Mike Tyson-Roy Jones' idiots on Eastside (who have a thousand excuses everytime thier fighter losses) to here where the old geezers trash me for pointing out obvious physical changes in humans over the past 80 years, and for having the audacity to state that there hasn't been a power puncher in the heavyweight ranks at Dempsey's size in 40 years. Did you ever think that maybe the fat Somoan David Tua, might be able to take a 185 pounder like Dempsey's punches ? Nah- I am sure he'd blast the iron-chinned Tua in one round. Of coarse, not that they'd ever fight, since I am sure Rickart would be adding Samoans to the color line.

Tua's chin could probably take Dempsey's shots . . .but over time his body wouldn't.

Could Tua land many clean shots on Dempsey? . . .no way.

thumper3852
03-31-2006, 04:34 PM
it's like I go from one extreme- arguing with the Mike Tyson-Roy Jones' idiots on Eastside (who have a thousand excuses everytime thier fighter losses) to here where the old geezers trash me for pointing out obvious physical changes in humans over the past 80 years, and for having the audacity to state that there hasn't been a power puncher in the heavyweight ranks at Dempsey's size in 40 years.


AH yes...the classic "back door" approach.............

Sharkey
03-31-2006, 05:08 PM
. My point is that it's like blasphemy on this site to even make that comparision. it's like I go from one extreme- arguing with the Mike Tyson-Roy Jones' idiots on Eastside (who have a thousand excuses everytime thier fighter losses) to here where the old geezers trash me for pointing out obvious physical changes in humans over the past 80 years, and for having the audacity to state that there hasn't been a power puncher in the heavyweight ranks at Dempsey's size in 40 years. Did you ever think that maybe the fat Somoan David Tua, might be able to take a 185 pounder like Dempsey's punches ? Nah- I am sure he'd blast the iron-chinned Tua in one round. Of coarse, not that they'd ever fight, since I am sure Rickart would be adding Samoans to the color line.

Blasphemy? Disagreeing with you is akin to calling you a blasphemer? Maybe "they" (I am 32 and thus not a geezer I don't believe) just don't agree with you and use the same energy you employ towards your own points. Maybe.

I believe lumping people into a group and characterizing otherwise competent behavior as off-track or rabid is a common tactic in attempting to cast a large net of illegitimacy and discredit.

The Shoemaker
03-31-2006, 09:35 PM
Thumper,
My apologies for lumping people into the old geezer catagory. That is derogatory (not that i would know the age of ages of any of the poster). Let me rephrase it to "the old geezer mentality" where everything in the past was better and everything today (or in the last 20 years) sucks. I'd call it the Nat Fleischer syndrome. Fleischer's ratings were biased towards his era, he always bad rapped Ali, Frazier, Liston, ect. He had James Corbett over Joe Louis, Fitzsimmons over dempsey and all sorts stuff that MOST people today would laugh at (no Charles or Archie Moore at Light Heavy, ect). Yet Fleischer carried all of this clout in the 70's, because he "saw them all". Same mentality with Bob Feller, when Nolan Ryan eclipsed his MPH record on the fastball, he bitched up a storm, had a 100 excuses ect. I gave examples of Tunney saying Louis would get KO'ed by Dempsey in one round, and on and on. I've brought up size, reach, and more fluid big men in the last 40 years (Ali, Holmes, Bowe) as obstacles that small heavyweights of the past would have to overcome. I think that's a valid point. But apparently, Sam Langford at 5-7, 175, won't have the same obstacles that the modern fighters his size have, trying to beat a 6-5, 225 fluid heavyweight, with a one foot reach advantage. Same with fighters Dempsey's size not generating enough power to compete at heavy, but because Dempsey's from the "Golden Age", he gets a free pass. Same with fighters fighting out of obsolete ridiculous styles during the teens, styles that Dempsey (IMO) helped make obsolete. Yet, when these fighters are matched up in arguments over who's better-no one factors that in. Like i said, it's human nature to be biased towards the past (I probably overrate the 1970's heavyweights), but at least i can look at some things semi-objectionably.

HE Grant
03-31-2006, 10:38 PM
I find it funny to see how many here write off Sam Langford as having no shot at today's big men when an old, pig fat James Toney with much less power and overall skill than Langford but about the same size is still making "real" heavyweights look pathetic.

I have had my eyes opened quite a bit in the past few years regarding the smaller man of years ago vs the big men of today. My first observation is that the big men are hugely overated. The best by far was Lewis and he could not land solidly on a less than elusive, old Holyfield over 24 rounds. If Evander punched like Louis or Dempsey he would have knocked out the much bigger Lewis. I think far less of Bowe, Klit Sr. or Jr., Rachman or any other of the superheavyweights of the past 15 years. They are mostly either pumped up with juice which a Louis or Dempsey could have taken today as well and gotten that much bigger , stronger and fatser or simply still too slow or limited to hit let alone hurt better fighters.

It all comes down to styles. Certain fighters would not match up well time in and time out while others would do great. A rock hard 220 pound Joe Louis or a 215 Jack Dempsey would do incredibly well today based on their size, speed and power. Marciano , too small and slow would always be dangerous but would not do as well.

The more I see the more I believe that many of the men from the past would have kicked major as today.

Roberto Aqui
04-01-2006, 12:32 AM
Oh, Sam could shake up some glass jaws in the modern division a bit, but like you said, it's all about style, and Toney has a frustrating style does Ruiz.

Moreover, you've completely ignored that Toney has only had a few fights in the division. It's pretty obvious he ain't gonna last long with his style. Neither would Sam with his size and style.

It's basic common sense. I'm confident that you will notify us when a 5-6 heavyweight wins a modern belt. Now, how long are you gonna hold your breath?

Elmer Ray
04-01-2006, 07:12 PM
It all comes down to styles. Certain fighters would not match up well time in and time out while others would do great. A rock hard 220 pound Joe Louis or a 215 Jack Dempsey would do incredibly well today based on their size, speed and power. Marciano , too small and slow would always be dangerous but would not do as well.

totally disagree. first of all, marciano was just as big as dempset both 185lb. marciano naturally weighed well over 200lb and had to trim down. he will easily be able to carry 205lb of muscle to his frame.

-marciano was stronger than dempsey, had better chin, had more stamina, and marciano was very ackward. these traits will enable rocky to do just as well vs the big men today as dempsey would. marciano had the strength and power of a much bigger men. chin and stamina are factors that should not be overlooked. marciano made up the lack of speed with high workrate and volume of punches, stuff dempsey never had. marciano was also very ackward, hard to hit. he is a very hard man to fight and is very unpredictable. last but not least, no big heavyweight of the modern era could keep up with rockys workrate. he will tire them all out. marcianos stamina and workrate is a big thing dempsey does not have to offer against the big men. simply put, no big man could last at rocky marcianos pace.


IMO both dempsey and marciano do equally as well vs the big men

Roberto Aqui
04-01-2006, 11:05 PM
first of all, marciano was just as big as dempset both 185lb.

I already posted the TOT stats showing that Jack was significantly bigger than Rocky in most all but his thighs and presumably his ass. Pictures of 60 yr old Jack in a training session with Rocky reveal a significantly larger frame compared to Rock.

I have no idea why Rocky supporters cannot accept the simple fact that Rocky was not a big man. Must be something in the garlic.

Elmer Ray
04-01-2006, 11:32 PM
I already posted the TOT stats showing that Jack was significantly bigger than Rocky in most all but his thighs and presumably his ass. Pictures of 60 yr old Jack in a training session with Rocky reveal a significantly larger frame compared to Rock.

I have no idea why Rocky supporters cannot accept the simple fact that Rocky was not a big man. Must be something in the garlic.

no one is saying rocky was a big man, he was not. however its funny when people claim a prime dempsey was 195lb when in fact he was around 185lb in his prime. in his peak fight vs willard, he weighed in under 180lb but put weights in his pockets.

tale of the tapes are misleading. some of the calculations are 100% correct. but take a look at rocky, hes very bulky, very big boned, his wrists and ankles are incredibly thick.

larry merchant said of marciano " you know hes not that small when u see him in real life."

rocky was naturally well over 200lb. he had to vigorously train himself down to 185lb. i got film of patterson vs slade 1954, and it was shown as a special on the rocky marciano show and this was shown sometime before the ezzard charles fights, and rocky looks HUGE. He has to be around 210lb + on this show and its not exsessive fat, and this show took place while he was champion show it goes to show u how much rocky trimmed down between fights. . its amazing how people tend to think he was a natural 185lb man, he was not.

last but not least, size is not the issue. strength is. rocky marciano was incredible strong, and as strong as jack dempsey was, he was not stronger than rocky.





Pictures of 60 yr old Jack in a training session with Rocky reveal a significantly larger frame compared to Rock.




ur basing claims off a 60 year old man? well then why dont u take marciano at 46 years old when he was 270lb, ull see he has a much bigger frame. why dont u take rocky when he is not in training, he looks a lot bigger. rocky was naturally well over 200lb. rockys brother peter told me personally during rockys fighting years, he naturally well over 200lb.




even if dempsey is bigger, bottom line is both had frames to carry extra weight, and both would slaughter the big men.

Kid Achilles
04-02-2006, 03:31 AM
Both guys trained down to under 200 pounds. I would give Dempsey the edge in size with height, broader shoulders, and larger fists. Strength would likely be about equal; each had undeniable functional strength for his size.

The Shoemaker
04-02-2006, 06:28 AM
Elmer Ray: As far as "raising Dempsey's weight up to 195: that's the latest stunt by the same people that claim that weight doesn't matter, or size doesn't mean a thing. They'll add a few pounds to their prefered fighter (usually late in their careers) then they'll lower the weight of the modern fighter (usually early in their careers. So dempsey becomes 195 and Liston becomes 205. Now the newest one is "if they had the modern training, diet, supplements, steroids, ect, they'd weigh 230 or what ever (Foreman would go 260 and he'd be illegal). Fact is, they didn't, which is part of my argument
that since Liston ,the 185 llb heavy's have been phased out (like the 240 llb NFL Lineman of the 1950's and 60's) and they probably ain't coming back. I've always made an exception for Rocky, who is the only sub 200 llber in my top ten, but I could be wrong.
I look at him on film and think that "there is no way he weighs 185". Obviously he does, but Foreman sure as hell doesn't look 217 vrs Frazier, who was 215. It looks like Foreman has a 30 llb weight advantage in that fight. Hey, someone did produce a tale of the tape with Rocky and dempsey and made a case that dempsey was bigger framed- maybe, but it sure doesn't appear that way to me. One interesting thing (at least to me) is that Dempsey and Frazier are faster paced swarmers- (excuse me for demeaning the great Jack Dempsey by lowering him to the "swarmer status") while Rocky's pace isn't as fast as those two. It's also interesting that swarmers like Dempsey and Tyson are fast starters, while Rocky and Joe are usually slow starters (they almost always lose the first round). I'd argue that Dempsey and Frazier would have a better chance of beating Ali (not saying Rocky can't beat him), while Marciano has a better chance of beating Louis. Most boxers (Ali and Holmes) don't mind pressure (they're used to it), but they don't like fast pressure (they can't rest); while Louis loves fast pressure. He wants to nail you coming in. That's the whole bases of Blackburn's "half-step back" style he wants to bait the guy to come forward so he can add power to his punch by catching them moving forward. swarmers already provide that for him (plus Louis can fight on the inside as well). Of coarse Dempsey will go in and out, and unlike Frazier, he has the sense to get out or hold if he's shook or hurt, while Joe just keeps coming forward.

mike
04-02-2006, 01:41 PM
shoemaker- since when did i ever say no one gives dempseya good fight-get your facts straight. that i thought dempsey was the best ver heavy- yes i dont give a damn what you anyanybody else thinks of that, NOW, complete fights-hell alot of people have complete fights from gans and nelson to present. the slps rates are only,at most indications of what a fighter may or may not do-thats it. that dempsey had the highest slip rates- i defy any to find in complete fights-anyone who slipped/ducked more-PLEASE someelse do it besides that ibro guy. dempsey was intuitve in both punching and aviding them.thans see you in a few days.

HE Grant
04-02-2006, 03:33 PM
I see Bucket closing this one down soon.

PeteLeo
04-02-2006, 03:56 PM
Why? It's good back-and-forth, facts mostly on top of some speculation, no one's calling anyone else stupid, and it's largely about Dempsey, the bigger name in the title. Conflicting opinions don't necessarily mean the topic shouldn't be explored, unless we're committed to a "touchy-feely," Oprah "girlfriends" massage-athon across the board.
As for the "steriods are only an excuse thrown around by those trapped in the past and they don't mean much in performance," let's step outside this partciular sport for a moment and note that baseball is launching a MAJOR investigation into that type of abuse, and there's the real possibility that the records recently rung up by men like McGuire, Sosa, and Bonds may be ignominiously removed from the books. For years puppet doctors swore that steroids had NO effect on performance, but that's been exposed as complete bs. Take the chemical enhancements away from Holyfield, Morrison, Toney (post-light heavy), Lewis, and most of the "awesome giants," and I think the heavyweight picture of the past couple of decades would have been very different. Ask Ben Johnson what he thinks about 'roids and performance. And I still think a 190lb. Dempsey or a 200lb. Louis pulps 'em all. PeteLeo.

thumper3852
04-02-2006, 04:21 PM
HE...so do I...same crap different thread...thats what I meant about the back door approach...I think someone just wants a place to flame

Elmer Ray
04-02-2006, 04:38 PM
Elmer Ray: As far as "raising Dempsey's weight up to 195: that's the latest stunt by the same people that claim that weight doesn't matter, or size doesn't mean a thing. They'll add a few pounds to their prefered fighter (usually late in their careers) then they'll lower the weight of the modern fighter (usually early in their careers. So dempsey becomes 195 and Liston becomes 205. Now the newest one is "if they had the modern training, diet, supplements, steroids, ect, they'd weigh 230 or what ever (Foreman would go 260 and he'd be illegal). Fact is, they didn't, which is part of my argument
that since Liston ,the 185 llb heavy's have been phased out (like the 240 llb NFL Lineman of the 1950's and 60's) and they probably ain't coming back. I've always made an exception for Rocky, who is the only sub 200 llber in my top ten, but I could be wrong.
I look at him on film and think that "there is no way he weighs 185". Obviously he does, but Foreman sure as hell doesn't look 217 vrs Frazier, who was 215. It looks like Foreman has a 30 llb weight advantage in that fight. Hey, someone did produce a tale of the tape with Rocky and dempsey and made a case that dempsey was bigger framed- maybe, but it sure doesn't appear that way to me. One interesting thing (at least to me) is that Dempsey and Frazier are faster paced swarmers- (excuse me for demeaning the great Jack Dempsey by lowering him to the "swarmer status") while Rocky's pace isn't as fast as those two. It's also interesting that swarmers like Dempsey and Tyson are fast starters, while Rocky and Joe are usually slow starters (they almost always lose the first round). I'd argue that Dempsey and Frazier would have a better chance of beating Ali (not saying Rocky can't beat him), while Marciano has a better chance of beating Louis. Most boxers (Ali and Holmes) don't mind pressure (they're used to it), but they don't like fast pressure (they can't rest); while Louis loves fast pressure. He wants to nail you coming in. That's the whole bases of Blackburn's "half-step back" style he wants to bait the guy to come forward so he can add power to his punch by catching them moving forward. swarmers already provide that for him (plus Louis can fight on the inside as well). Of coarse Dempsey will go in and out, and unlike Frazier, he has the sense to get out or hold if he's shook or hurt, while Joe just keeps coming forward.

i agree with most of this, very interesting post. i likewise think frazier dempsey do better vs ali, but i think rock does better vs louis, liston.

The Shoemaker
04-02-2006, 05:14 PM
Pete,
I never said (or meant to imply) that steroids don't improve performence,
obviously they do; I just said that it's a convenient excuse for people who glorify the past, to lump all the modern athletes as steroid users. Probably the majority of them arn't on roids, it's just that they became bigger, stronger and faster by having better genes, better diets, better training, and most of all-HARD WORK. In boxing, outside of heavyweights, I can't see that much advantage in taking them, because a fighter still has to make weight ( I know there are lower weight guys who got nailed for them). The only advantage in boxing, might be the ability to get away with over training- which is an advantage. But they still have to come off the stuff to past drug tests (I am not sure how good boxing sanctioning bodies drug testing proceedures are, but guys have been nailed for masking agents). Certainly, guys like Hollyfield, toney, Spinks and others have made the jump to heavyweight under suspecious circumstances, and in that case roids would help them in gaining "functional" weight, but I don't think that the roids add THAT much to their punching power (I could be wrong). Plus a lot of these roid users :Toney, Klitschko, Tyson, ect, bodies start breaking down. And that goes in all sports. 25 years ago, bicept tears rarely occured, now that's all you ever see (along with a whole assortment of injuries). Still, I seriously doubt if Liston, Ali, Holmes, or Foreman ever used steroids (99.9 % sure), and they all present physical and athletic match up problems for "Golden Era" boxers (no Bill tate does not have a Larry Holmes/Ali Jab and Luis Firpo doesn't even jab or throw straight punches, certainly his jab is no where near as powerful as Foreman/Liston's). Of coarse Jack's going to be faster (maybe not with Ali), but so are practically all guys who are noticibly smaller and lighter than their opponents, even today, Antonio tarver is going to embarrass
these stiffs at heavyweight today, but they are still going to easily beat him. I'd still take a shot, and mentally beaten down Tyson over Tarver.
Another point no one makes: The 1920's were really the first era where the majority of Americans had money and TIME for leisure. Interest in sports grew like crazy. And part of the reason for the growth in interest was because sportswriters like Ring Lardner, Grantland Rice and others made these guys into "living Gods". Did you ever think that maybe Dempsey benefitted from the hype of the era ?

Elmer Ray
04-02-2006, 05:29 PM
shoemaker, it seems u believe joe louis era was the first real start of modern style in the heavyweight division?

since u inlude louis and marciano in ur top 10, u feel they have more modern styles or beat better modern style opponents than jack johnson, jack dempsey, jim jeffries?


let me ask you,

do u think had evander holyfield fought at 190lb at heavyweight like he did in late 80s, you think he would have been as succesful? cause a 190lb holyfield looked much faster and better

mike
04-02-2006, 06:06 PM
first off-SHOEMAKER- i never said any fighter was unbeatable. i just believe p4p robison would have been beaten less by fighters of the past andor future than any one else.in the heavys- dempsey for the same reasons. its all fanatasy and i may be a little surprised but never have a heart attack about if i was far from right.ANYHOW, all these slip and duck rates are only in perspective.that ali threw alot of punches- sure. that dempsey did for 10 12 of 15, provably true- and slipped alot also.NOW, of all the heavyweight champions next to dempsey who had the highest slip rates FRAZIER did- in his PRIME tyson was about 10 per round- dempsey 22-frazier 14 appoximate.NOW lets get to some brass tacks. if your fighting dempsey ther is a definate pshchological barrier you must inferr from some of these stats.one,if you throw a combo to the head for one or 15 rounds, most likely you will not be hiiting a head, cheekbone, chin, orrrr-glove- it will be air- and THENN- get slammed, realleySLAMMED REPEATEDLY from anyside, distance,hand or angle in UNPREDICABLE fashion. pscholically, its after a few rouds, almost fritless. if you DO NOT throw punches- you are dead. anyhow could frazier have decimated dempsey- sure he could- just appreciate them ALL> thanks ,wont be seeing this for a while- i dont have the interent.

mike
04-02-2006, 06:28 PM
now SHOEMAKER-if you want to pickk apart some of this fine- and if you reaaley think fightes are won diring wegh ins- then franly, you do not know what the hell you are talking about and im far from a fool to try to impart any boxing wisdom on someone who never spent more than a month in boxing gyms- of if had- SHOULD KNOW better.bye

The Shoemaker
04-03-2006, 02:18 AM
Mike,
There are so many varables in counting how many punches a fighters slips, mainly, who the opponent is (acuracy, power, ect). Obviously, guys like Dempsey and Frazier are going to slip more, but they are also taking risks themselves, mainly getting hit coming in, which at times magnifies the power. Dempsey was dropped twice by Firpo and nearly KO'ed; he was also stunned by Brennan. I wouldn't call Firpo and Brennan precision punchers (niether one even jabs). Unlike Joe Louis, who throws text book punches and is a master at catching opponents coming in, Firpo and brennan were brawlers, who basically winged punches. another problem for Dempsey would be Foreman. Not only did Foreman have freakish power, he also had freakish strength, AND KNEW HOW TO USE IT AGAINST SWARMERS. Anytime Frazier got inside (which is where he wanted to be against Foreman) he got shoved back outside or tied up. so he has to run the gauntlet again and again. Dempsey also fought in an era where a large majority of his opponents leaned back and fought with all of their weight on their back foot-basically giving him the body
I've praised him for having an impact on making that style obsolete. If you don't feel that size and weight (functional) have no impact on a boxing match
that's your opinion. i disagree. And my evidence is that there hasn't been a power punching fighter of Dempsey's size and weight that has contended in the heavyweight division over 40 years.

The Shoemaker
04-03-2006, 03:03 AM
Elmer Ray,
Yes, i probably think the late 40's is the best era in boxing, because it's still the #2 sport in the country. i think that Television in the 1950's started wiping out the fight clubs, plus football and basketball were begining to gain in popularity and they were taking away a lot of good athletes. Actually, stupid as this may sound Walcott is the first heavy that really wows me with his head movement and style. i'd argue the 20's are more of a transition period, where the lean back style starts to die out and more fighters figure out the importance of a jab. I think Dempsey and Tunney have a huge impact (Grebb probably does as well, but I've never seen him on film) of changing boxing. The reason I think that dempsey would destroy Johnson, Jeffries, Burns, Hart, Fitz, Corbett, and Sullivan is that they are tailor made for his style. Yes, they could slow him down by grabbing and mauling, but he looks so much faster than they do, and like i said, they are giving him the body by leaning back. i read somewhere that Jeffries' strategy against corbett, was to get in a crouch, lean way back, stick his left arm straight out and use it as a "battering ram". I have no doubt that Jeffries was a beast, especially considering his size during that era, but most of those fights are quasi-wrestling matches (that's the era). I've raised the point that everyone screams about John Ruiz for holding and mauling, while if Jack Johnson does it, it's "brillant in-fighting"
I've also pointed out that heavyweights often do get away with cutting corners more than other divisions. Tony Galento was a little fat guy with little skills, but he had a devestating left hook, which was his equalizer.
As far as Hollyfield's pre-steroid days. Hawk did nail me on that. Hollyfield did have a hell of a chin, and he probably would have contended in his era and definatly won one of today's heavyweight belts at 190 llbs. But he is a versatile fighter, who can box and punch. Although I could bring up the fact that Hollyfield and/or Duva, obviously felt that Hollyfield needed to gain the weight to compete at heavyweight. Maybe being stronger helped. i don't think the weight gain helped his punching power that much (I know the counter shot on Douglass was nice, but that dumbass tried to throw an uppercut from the outside-hey it worked against the swarmer Tyson). i could also argue that Hollyfield wasn't a power puncher at 190 or 215.

PeteLeo
04-03-2006, 03:06 AM
Watch Foreman-Lyle. I certainly think Dempsey hit harder and faster than Ron Lyle. Watch little Greg Peralta make a monkey out of Foreman for much of both their bouts. Watch Dempsey fade easily out of Willard's long, strong arms while getting his bearings against a man who he thought could hurt him, even though he was desperate for a first round KO. Dempsey was a much more versatile athlete than Frazier, whom you apparently feel to be Jack's identical twin because Foreman pushed him around the ring like a soccer ball. Dempsey could abandon all pretense to defense when he felt safe enough to go for the kill (Firpo), and he could come in disinterested, over-confident, and undertrained (Brennan), something I'm sure wouldn't happened against a Foreman or a Liston.
Jerry Quarry was in a league several flights below Dempsey, yet he did very well in the 195lb. range, while being shorter and slower afoot than Jack (with a shorter reach, to boot). Would he have beaten Foreman at his best? Probably not, but I wouldn't call it impossible.
What would Dempsey have done against Lamon Brewster last night? Against a Rahman who was destroyed by Maskaev? Against that Russian Bigfoot who holds Ruiz' hereditary title? (Dempsey, in fact, wrecked a 7'2", 250lb. pro heavy in about thirty seconds of a sparring match.)
Genes don't change significantly over two or three (or four) generations. Evolution takes its own good time. And to dismiss the undeniable difference in equipment and participation surfaces in track and field simply because it explains much of the "superiority" of modern athletes isn't very fair, in this opinion.
Where were the 6'6" to 7'0" super-athletes of eighty years ago? Well, they weren't playing pro basketball. And maybe they weren't boxing because they regularly got their asses handed to them by "small" fighters when they tried the sport. You know, like "superior giants" such as Michael Grant (hell of a b-ball player, they say), Goofi Whitaker, and Jameel McCline. Heavies today pack on the wieght because they think they're supposed to so as not to be at a disadvantage -- 6'6" Kevin McBride won a fight last night at over 280 POUNDS, and he explained that he was "bulking up" for a possible shot against 300+ lb. Valuev.
Even "superior giant" Lewis couldn't convincingly dominate (and should have lost to in the second fight) a man with almost the exact physical dimensions as Dempsey aside from a few steroided pounds of muscle, Evander Holyfield.
There's a good reason for weight classes in boxing, but once you hit the six foot two hundred pound (give or take a few) mark, you have a heavyweight capable of competing with anyone in the division if he has the talent and commitment. Those were not my words but those of Hall of Famer Gil Clancy. And what was Teddy Atlas chiding Shannon Briggs about on Friday? His weight. What did Buddy McGirt TRY to get Brewster to do? Drop some weight. Take away the steroids and introduce a platoon of dedicated, hardass heavyweight fighters, and I'll bet you would come up with a lot more Dempseys and Louises than McClines and McBrides.
And they'd probably have better chins than "superior giants" Grant and W. Klitschko. PeteLeo.

The Shoemaker
04-03-2006, 04:30 AM
Pete,
I am not so sure that Lyle doesn't hit as hard or harder than Dempsey (obviously Dempsey's faster ,but so are practically all 185 llbers). In defense of Foreman, he hadn't fought in about 16 months before taking on Lyle and was woefully out of shape. He also had Clancy, who was trying to convert him into fighting at a measured pace (stupid move by Clancy, Foreman was better off being a killer) and he got rocked. I thought that fight showed a ton of heart on Foreman's behalf, and he was the only person to KO Lyle by going through him. As far as Peralta; you've got to be able to see the improvement that Foreman made between 1971 and 1973-74. He was a raw kid, who I don't think had even laced on a pair of boxing gloves 15 months before he won the Gold in Mexico City. He was still so raw early in his career (talk about clancy screwing up, at least Gil was a professional. compared to sadler who was a joke). Peralta had a bout 70 fights and had been fighting for about 13 years when he fought Foreman. Peralta also had a concrete chin, in fact Foreman is the only fighter to KO him (Pastriano stopped him on cuts). BTW- if you have Foreman-Peralta II on video, I'll buy it. As far as foreman muscling Dempsey, Dempsey would look like a pipsqueak next to Foreman and Foreman was ungodly strong at over 220 llbs for most of his career, so throwing around a 185'er shouldn't be that hard of a task, of coarse when we are dealing with "Legends" such as Dempsey why deal with reality. Same with dempsey's KO loss to Flynn, "it was fixed" or "Jack hurt his right hand in a bowling alley" or "Jack wasn't warmed up properly". I'd know a little more about Jack's chin had he fought Langford in 1917, but he wanted no part of him (Dempsey admitted in one of his biographies that he feared Langford), even though Langford was basically shot. He also drew the color line with Wills during the early 20's- he could have broke away from Rickart and fought him-but he chose not to (actually, I think that Dempsey would have beaten Wills and Langford, not entirely certain though). Not questioning Dempsey's chin, but is it granite like some of his supporters claim ? Of coarse listening to a lot of them, Dempsey has this granite chin, can't be hit coming in, hits harder than Foreman/Shavers, and has faster hands than Robinson. Jeeze, i am surprised anyone lasted a round with him.
as far as size in dempsey's era. Like i said, the average shoe size was a size 6, and the average height and weight in the US was 5-6, 140 I believe. Luis Firpo at 6-3 1/2 was considered a Giant. There were 6-3, to 6-5, Fluid heavyweights with anywhere near the skills of Ali, Holmes or Bowe. Not that it would have mattered in Dempsey's era, since they wouldn't have gotten title shots anyway, since they were excluded because of their skin color (doesn't say much about the "Golden Era" when you exclude black fighters from title shots). as far as the stiffs of today, I've never said that they are any good (everyone puts those words in my mouth). But that 7 foot Russian stiff, still presents problems to some opponents, because he can jab. it's not like there hasn't been size and no skill fighters that have won in the past. Jim Jeffries won a title in his 13th fight, Jess Willard was pulled off the farm and didn't start boxing until he was 29 years old, and he won a title. Not everyone of Carnera's fights were fixed, he was 6-5 with a jab. Same with Abe Simon, he was the #3 ranked contender in the world at one time, and beat other contenders of his era because of his size (he took Louis 13 rounds)
Yes, most of these guys today are lazy asses and should lose some weight. But if you can find any 200 llb'ers out there that can beat them-good luck. And as pathetic as today's fighters are, at least the champion(s) don't hide behind the color line (I know Dempsey wanted to fight Wills in 26, because his wife had blown all his money, but he wasn't doing it for less than one million)

Mr E
04-03-2006, 12:02 PM
The weight issue between Dempsey and Marciano shouldn't be an issue since both fighters' weights in their main fights have been well-recorded.

Dempsey was 190 for Fulton, 187 for Willard, 188 for Gibbons, 192 1/2 for Firpo.

Marciano was 184 1/2 for Walcott (both times), 187 1/2 for Charles I, 187 for Charles II, and 188 1/2 for Moore.

Contrary to popular lore, I think Dempsey's peak was probably against Firpo. He was 28, hadn't, to that point, ever taken any significant time off from training and really was razor sharp, having just gone a fast 15 rounds w/ Gibbons a few months before.

I think Rocky's best night was in the Charles rematch, which he dominated, split nose notwithstanding.

So, IMO, peak weights were roughly 192 1/2 v. 187, or 5 1/2 pounds for Dempsey, which is insignificant. If you're a Marciano fan and want to put Jack's lowest weight against Rocky's highest, you get a pound and a half (188 1/2 v. 187) in favor of the Rock, which is also insignificant.

Both men walked around much heavier. Dempsey, for example, was 204 -- and in great shape -- a couple weeks before the Gibbons fight, but he worked hard to boil off every ounce of fat in order to increase speed.

Today, both men would be fighting in the 210-215 range-- and, in my humble opinion, simply cleaning out the division.

But to my man Elmer Ray, who knows a tremendous amount about the sport for one so young, I have to say that I respectfully disagree that Marciano was either stronger than Dempsey was or had a better chin than Dempsey did. My personal view is that the contrary is true.

mike
04-03-2006, 01:10 PM
as far as the average height and weight of americans i dont know of the first ww- but the civil war it was 5 8 and quarter and 142- from what i understand, historians have said that the waist measuements were smaller with wider shoulders than now for comparable height. the foreman-dempsey thread had been done-id pick dempsey 8 of ten times.one thing about dempsey- he was fantastic at slip and couter- with ligtening speed,facility, and great ASSURDENESS. now as far as weight- once the man has great talent at 180 or more-thats it for me. INDIVIDUAL greatnes- not some ERA or some SUPPOSED optimal heavyweight weight standard. myagenda has always been-research,objectivity,and more research and objectivity.one other thing,ALL great fighters,not just punchers,are born. no man can be trained to have GREAT insticts,feel,intuition, timing,unconcious reactions to crisis unless he was born with the great,great and rare genetics involved. as shoemaker and iagree on all these puch and slip rates are a good to only some degree, obviouly. finally, anyother thing dempsey was fantastic at was slipping and COUTERING- thats obvious- lighttening fast on the slip with fantastic facilaty and ASSUREDNESS. anyhow -agree to disgree! thaks

Elmer Ray
04-03-2006, 01:12 PM
Contrary to popular lore, I think Dempsey's peak was probably against Firpo

i respectfully disagree. this was one of dempseys worst fights because he came in wildly with his guard down and because of it a one dimensional slugger like firpo almost knocked him out.

i think his peak was probably the willard or fulton fights where he was a young hungry lion hungry for the title. dempsey said his peak was the willard fight.



as for marciano, i think his peak was the roland lastarza rematch in 53. i think its his best fight on film. marciano not only displays devastating punching power(see 11th round) he also displayeys very good defense and he dominates rounds 7-11 totally outpunching and outfighting lastarza, a highly schooled defensive boxer.

if not i would say marcianos other peak fights were charles I, or walcott I. in the firsst charles fight, he demonstrated accumaltive punching, and stamina and workrate we never seen before. in walcott I, he demonstrated inside fighting, punching power and courage we never seen before. he was also younger 29 when he fought jersey joe.


* ezzard was a much better fighter in the first fight than 2nd, he pushed marciano to the limit in the first fight and charles took a horribly beating. charles was ruined in this fight.

PeteLeo
04-03-2006, 01:15 PM
None of the explanations offered for Dempsey-Flynn 1 is worth a second thought, yet Foreman looked so lousy in the first Peralta match because he was young & inexperienced.
Lyle could hit harder than Dempsey, but he only "rocked" Foreman (two crunching knockdowns, the second leaving George facedown in a smear of his own blood and reeling drunkenly upon arising at the bell), who was rusty, ill-trained by Clancy, and a dozen other excuses.
Steroids are ony an excuse used by close-minded, self-deluded oldtimers, and, well, maybe steroids do improve performace.
Today's giants are just too much man for Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano, but today's giants are lazy never-will-be's who basically suck.
Gosh, it's hard to keep the perimeters of reality in focus sometimes when things mean only what one wants them to at the moment of utterance, isn't it? PeteLeo

mike
04-03-2006, 01:19 PM
dempseys best-probably without much confidence- the 1918-threw 21.the fipo fight again DISPLAYED his savagery and ustoppable will to kill- but im not sure that have have occurd to dempsey when he was sharper and a shade hungrier,more focused- but not reaaley sure.

mike
04-03-2006, 01:28 PM
well pete-we are the deluded ones-the size,endurance,toughness,skill the utterly fantastic talent- my god- dempsey,louis,marciano would be trembeling for a super,duper weight class as they of course were only human and tiny things at that-and i know their courage ,skill,toughness,power were vastly overrated-sometimes i get a good laugh but in all seriousness-who knows.

Elmer Ray
04-03-2006, 01:42 PM
dempseys peak was defintley not firpo, it was one of his worst and most sloppiest fights. however it did prove he had a good chin, he took a flush firpo right hand and only touched his gloves despite taking it flush.


- i think dempsey hit harder than lyle. dempsey had one of the most devastating left hooks ever. however shoemaker, im not gonna argue because lyle could bang himself. he was the only one to legitley floor foreman during his first career. foreman went down because of lyles punches, not cause of fatigue.


even if dempsey couldnt hit harder, he was easily the greater all around puncher than lyle. i rate dempsey 3rd greatest heavyweight puncher of all time.

The Shoemaker
04-03-2006, 02:39 PM
Pete,
I said, "I am not so sure that Dempsey hit harder than Lyle" . To me that's far from unequivically stating that I know that Lyle hits harder. hard to say, Ron Lyle was a big guy who could hit and it's not easy going through him
(If I had to guess, I'd say that Lyle was heavier-handed than Dempsey, but Dempsey way more dangerous- hand speed, accuracy, ect- but I don't know)
My point was that Foreman hadn't fought in 15 months and got rocked in the first round, which definatly took a lot out of him. My point was that everyone bad raps Foreman off of that fight, but i think he showed a ton of guts in that fight, getting off the canvas and KO'ing Lyle. How many times have you seen a fighter land face first on the canvas and not only beat the count but come back and KO the guy ? Especially when you are gassed. The Lyle fight should show you the mis-mangement of Foreman right there. That's not the guy you want to start your comeback against, especially if you hadn't fought in 15 months and had your "Bad Ass" confidence shot by losing to Ali. Dempsey looked like crap against Gibbons (a lot of that had to do with Gibbon's holding) because he fought him after a two-year lay off. Dempsey, himself said had he fought Firpo in that kind of shape he'd have knocked out.
As far as Roids in today's game. I don't know how many of these guys are on roids; i think they use the same drug testing as the Olympics, which ain't easy to beat (James Toney). Plus in defense of today's fighters, the best one (Ibeabuchi) is in jail (probably the right place for him). Those who state that "if Dempsey fought today with steroids and modern conditions, he'd weigh 200 llbs", are indirectly stating that size and functional weight do matter, which endorses my opionion that an 6-1, 185, swarmer would have problems fighting in the past 30 -40 years. The Dempsey supporters are in two camps, one state that size and weight mean nothing in boxing and if you took Dempsey right out of the 1920's at 185 llbers, he'd dominate in any era. the other faction state that "if he was around today, he'd weight 200-210". Hey, I'll argee on one thing, if he hits harder than Shavers, is faster than Ali, has Foreman's strength, Hollyfield's chin, and is almost impossible to hit while coming forward, all at 6-1, 185 llbs, then yes, he'd clean out any era. In fact i don't see any fighter in any era getting to the 3rd round against that superhuman.

Elmer Ray
04-03-2006, 03:13 PM
shoemaker, do u rate dempsey in ur top 10 heavyweights? what are ur top 10 heavyweights, im interested in hearing.

thumper3852
04-03-2006, 04:08 PM
Kind of like the old geezer posters trying to go up against you, right? I mean everyone should realize the vast difference between 194 pounds and 189 3/4 right? Not that this tread was about that...............

Sharkey
04-03-2006, 04:43 PM
talk about romanticizing the past..making logical leaps and assumptions and distorting a legacy!

Ibeabuchi is the best heavyweight of the past decade..but in jail? I guess getting a duke over Tua (which I thought Tua actually deserved) and beating Byrd senseless like Wlad did makes Ike a guy who's legend never had time to flourish...the best guy out there..but for his being a total nut.

If thinking Dempsey at 190 could blast guys today is silly..what is thinking a guy with two major wins as the best heavyweight of the current era (1995-present I assume)?

Ike v. Louis thread coming soon?

hawk5ins
04-03-2006, 06:02 PM
I think there are many things that you are saying with regards to fighters of earlier era's that we ultimately agree upon. The difference is in how we get there. And what get's dismissed and what is appreciated.

And unfortunatley your blanket conclusion that newer is better, is equally as flawed as those who you feel are sying everything older or classic is better.

I've also read where you dismiss the CURRENT crop of heavies becuase of Athletes choosing other career directions. Basketball, football and baseball have been widely avaialble to "modern athletes" for the past 20 to 30 years. But the reason there were better heavies 5 to 7 years ago is NOT the SOLE result of athletes who WOULD have been fighters NOW choosing another path.

Bad era's come and go. This particular Heavyweight crop is putrid. Possibly the worst we HAVE ever seen. But to state that this is the case goes agianst the grain of newer=better. So losing fighters to other sports HAS to be the reason.

But why does this ONLY affect the heavyweight division? I hear it argued that Floyd Maywether is as good as any fighter from any previous era. And because he IS modern, he's actually superior to SRL, Duran, Napoles, Ike Williams, Ross, Canzoneri, Arguello etc. He supposedly does things they can't. Roy Jones. Same thing.

So how could this "explanation" for the heavies (going to other sports) ONLY affect them? It can't.

Seeing you reach for Ike Ibeabuchi as having been our missed/lost savior is futher evidence to this narrow minded thinking. Ike "looked" like what a modern heavy should look like. And if someone "modern" sports that physique and can hit like he does, it BOLSTERS the arguement for the newer is better.

The thing is, as Sharks points out, that too is flawed. Many thought Tua actually deserved the victory. And in no way can anyone state it was clear one way or another. So if Tua is on equal footing with Ike, how come he didn;t become our savior? And the pasting of Byrd? If Wlad can do it, and Wlad certainly does not impress too many, nor should he, Why the fuss that Ike did it?

Becuase it fits the argument. The fact that Ike went away before any warts or evidence of truly being special were surfaced (or exposed), we can mythologize him much like the Tysonites do with Mike, in their "If Rooney had stayed Mike never loses focus, never gets in trouble and never loses" blah blah blah.

At least THEY have a bit of a foothold to stand on. Mike Actually DID something with which it can be analyzed and argued about.

Ike? Well resorting To Sharks sarcastic suggestion of fantasy fights my be the way to go as there ain't much ACTUAL substance to base anything on.

Some of your end conclusions I can get behind. But the basison how you have come to these conclusions: older inferior, newer better (and if Newer isn't better there are reasons for it, such as no one want to play these reindeer games and those that REALLY are the creme of the crop are Barely proven, nut job whackos who sit in a jail cell), does not sit well with me.

Nor does someone trying to make exscuses for the seeming ineptitude of a Jess Willard who fought some 80 to 90 years ago.

There are good and bad fighters in every era. Some era's are stronger than others. Some divisions are bettter in certain times than other. Blanket reasoning and conclusions don't address anything. Blankets only cover things up.

Hawk

Sharkey
04-03-2006, 06:56 PM
The racial 20's. Russian giants. Superhuman the only word to explain a timeless talent?

Where is the Focus.

PeteLeo
04-03-2006, 08:22 PM
One man's opinion:
Herbert Goldman, generally recognized as a scrupulous and scholarly student of boxing, in his description of Dempsey stated that Jack hit as hard as Earnie Shavers.
Add to that power Dempsey's speed, toughness, and heart, and you have one hell of a heavyweight fighter, whether he was 185lbs, or 250. PeteLeo.

Sharkey
04-03-2006, 08:35 PM
I don't think it matters if he could be equated to any particular fighter in terms of power. We start talking about 'hits as hard as Shavers' and then we will soon be asking if Larry survives Dempsey's follow up. Many is the time debates circle around: "Foreman had a better chin than Firpo and hit harder. If Firpo knocked him out of the ring..........." as if we freeze time and sub George for Firpo.

Jack Dempsey hit harder than Roy Jones, James Toney, Pink Thomas, Mike Dokes, Gerrie Coetzee, Holyfield, Mercer, Spinks (either), Holmes, Tate, Quarry, Bonavena, Norton, Frazier, Ali, Weaver... or maybe he didn't.

Oh, and assorted other men some who weighed more than he did.... or not.

Point of being is that at 190 pounds he would be my pick over any other fighter that ever maxed out at that weight off the top of my head. Period. Including Charles.....and the likes of him.

Prime Dempsey at 190 or whatever...(maybe coaxed to add 15 pounds..seeing he is larger than Holyfield or Tyson on top) cleans the division of today. Superhuman? How about just great amidst sucks.

Elmer Ray
04-03-2006, 10:41 PM
Point of being is that at 190 pounds he would be my pick over any other fighter that ever maxed out at that weight off the top of my head. Period. Including Charles.....and the likes of him.

i agree, though im still undecided on who would win between him and marciano. dempsey and marciano are the two clear best at that weight

The Shoemaker
04-04-2006, 12:59 AM
I've got a bunch of responces to get caught up on, so I'll try to go in order:

Elmer Ray: You asked me for my top ten (why i have no idea). first off, I'll at least admit that I am bias towards the post WWII fighters. I'll do them in bunches, since styles make a huge difference, like I think that Frazier at around #7 would beat Larry Holmes (close fight) and Tua, who isn't in my top 20 would beat a prime Mike Tyson. and on and on. These are based on what they were; not "if they fought with today's conditions, they'd weigh 235".

1)Ali (pretty much by himself-not that he couldn't be beat)
2-5 can all beat each other, in fact you can shake them up and put them in any order but I'll go with"
2)Foreman-Definatly flawed
3)Holmes
4)Liston
5)Louis- I have no arguement with him at #2
Next bunch:
6)Hollyfield
7)Marciano
8)Frazier
Like i said, same deal with the other group, some days Marciano's #6, somedays Frazier's #6
Last group, I'll extend it to 11
9)Lewis-I know his chin worries me, but getttiing to it is easier said than done
10)Tyson
11)Bowe-Tyson and Bowe have top 5 physical tools, but they're dogs
I'd probably put Dempsey in the next group with Charles and Walcott. Their definatly top ten in skills, but size goes against them (I'd be worried about Walcott's chin). So put Jack at #12, which with my bias is a hell of an accomplishment- it's kind of like Nat Fleischer putting Elder Joffre (a post 1960 fighter) in his top 10. Whether I'd bet on him at 185's another matter.

Mr E
04-04-2006, 01:24 AM
dempseys peak was defintley not firpo, it was one of his worst and most sloppiest fights. however it did prove he had a good chin, he took a flush firpo right hand and only touched his gloves despite taking it flush.


- i think dempsey hit harder than lyle. dempsey had one of the most devastating left hooks ever. however shoemaker, im not gonna argue because lyle could bang himself. he was the only one to legitley floor foreman during his first career. foreman went down because of lyles punches, not cause of fatigue.


even if dempsey couldnt hit harder, he was easily the greater all around puncher than lyle. i rate dempsey 3rd greatest heavyweight puncher of all time.


Disagree, amigo. Sloppy? Nah. He ran into a beaut, no question about it, but that even happened to Willie Pep. Doesn't mean he wasn't on his game. I'm just guessing by age, etc., that Dempsey might have been at his best in that fight-- circumstances suggest so, at any rate.

Shoemaker, did you read Bob Soderman's article in the IBRO Journal last year about Dempsey-Flynn? IMO, every boxing historian needs to be ACUTELY AWARE that a TON of fights were fixed in the 1910-1960 era. Anyone who doesn't believe that is, in my view, simply blind to reality. Soderman makes a convincing case that Dempsey-Flynn I was one of the multitude. Hunt it down, man-- you'll enjoy the read.

The Shoemaker
04-04-2006, 01:25 AM
Sharkey,
You're partially correct about Ibeabuchi. I thought I said that the best fighter today is PROBABLY in jail. When I looked back at the post, i saw where I forgot to add probably. But let me tell you this about the kid. He did defeat two fighters that were 180 degree's different in Tua and Byrd. I agree with you in that I had Tua winning, although I can't say he was robbed. but that fight showed me that the kid had the chin and toughness to beat Tua at his own game, that's not easy, and tua was a huge step up in class. On Chris Byrd: Knocking out Chris Byrd isn't easy, in fact most fighters get drawn into trying to KO Byrd and wind up losing. Now if your 6-7 like the klitschko's and just stick a jab in his chest and be content with a decision, you'll beat him (or if you're a swarmer like Tyson, then Byrd's tailor made for you). lotierzo hit it right on the head in an article when he said that Ibeabuchi did an excellant job of cutting off the ring, taking away one of Byrd's escape routs, and having the patience to go to the body, he slowed byrd to a walk, and took him out. maybe he got lucky, but Byrd's not an easy fight for an inexperianced fighter (see what he did to the brain dead Tua). And that was a prime chris Byrd. Byrd's kind of like Jimmy Young, looks easier than it is. i'll tell you one thing the kid showed me that unlike Dempsey vrs Tunney and Hagler vrs Leonard, the kid excuted a game plan and did a nice job of cutting off the ring and slowing down his opponent. i know Jack was past his peak for Tunney, but all he does is follow Gene around the ring, never at least taking away an escape route, or at least going to the body early. Same with Hagler vrs Leonard. What did those guys think that Tunney and Leonard were going to stand there and trade. No, I can't say for sure if Ibeabuchi would have been great, but i can make an educated guess that the kid did have a jab, did have power, did have a chin, and knew how to cut the ring off and show patience vrs a clever fighter, so I think I'd bet that he would have at least won one of the titles out there. Saying that he would have been the best post-Lewis fighter isn't exactly a stretch (nor is it saying much). Of coarse i thought that Tua was a can't miss after his destruction of Ruiz. My main point was that if you take the best fighter out of most era's, the era often will look pretty bad. Can you imagine no Joe Louis in the 30's and 40's ? Then keep the color line, and have about 5 different champions. I'll guarentee you that Abe Simon would have a title.

Mr E
04-04-2006, 01:42 AM
I've got a bunch of responces to get caught up on, so I'll try to go in order:

Elmer Ray: You asked me for my top ten (why i have no idea). first off, I'll at least admit that I am bias towards the post WWII fighters. I'll do them in bunches, since styles make a huge difference, like I think that Frazier at around #7 would beat Larry Holmes (close fight) and Tua, who isn't in my top 20 would beat a prime Mike Tyson. and on and on. These are based on what they were; not "if they fought with today's conditions, they'd weigh 235".

1)Ali (pretty much by himself-not that he couldn't be beat)
2-5 can all beat each other, in fact you can shake them up and put them in any order but I'll go with"
2)Foreman-Definatly flawed
3)Holmes
4)Liston
5)Louis- I have no arguement with him at #2
Next bunch:
6)Hollyfield
7)Marciano
8)Frazier
Like i said, same deal with the other group, some days Marciano's #6, somedays Frazier's #6
Last group, I'll extend it to 11
9)Lewis-I know his chin worries me, but getttiing to it is easier said than done
10)Tyson
11)Bowe-Tyson and Bowe have top 5 physical tools, but they're dogs
I'd probably put Dempsey in the next group with Charles and Walcott. Their definatly top ten in skills, but size goes against them (I'd be worried about Walcott's chin). So put Jack at #12, which with my bias is a hell of an accomplishment- it's kind of like Nat Fleischer putting Elder Joffre (a post 1960 fighter) in his top 10. Whether I'd bet on him at 185's another matter.

I like it that you express less than a 100% conviction in your rankings. This is all speculation, so I am always skeptical of people who are absolute in their opinions.

For the record, IBRO recently came out with the following all-time top 20:

1-Joe Louis
2-Muhammad Ali
3-Jack Johnson
4-Jack Dempsey
5-Rocky Marciano
6-Larry Holmes
7-Jim Jeffries
8-George Foreman
9-Sonny Liston
10-Joe Frazier
11-Gene Tunney
12-Lennox Lewis
13-Mike Tyson
14-Evander Holyfield
15-Sam Langford
16-Jersey Joe Walcott
17-Ezzard Charles
18-Harry Wills
19-Jim Corbett
20-Bob Fitzsimmons

Just missing the cut: Riddick Bowe, Max Schmeling, Joe Jeannette, Peter Jackson, John L. Sullivan, George Godfrey, Max Baer, Ken Norton, Sam McVey & Jack Sharkey

The Shoemaker
04-04-2006, 02:03 AM
Hawk,
In some ways, newer is better. i could make an arguement that Dempsey was an innovater. At least from what I've seen on film, i don't see any heavyweights give the head movement coming forward, he gets inside against a lean back fighter and eats them up. Langford doesn't show me that, he comes in basically face-first with little head movement. Same with Ketchell, who just wings them. I think that a lot of swarmers adopted Dempsey's style, and I could make an argument that Frazier and Quawi give you both up and down and side to side as opposed to dempsey and Tyson's peak a boo-which is side to side. i also think they hold their hands up higher than Dempsey did. (as do boxers when compared to Tunney-Tunny's hands are below his chin, I know he's usually out of range, but it's not like Tunney's 6-5, with an 85 inch reach). Am I crazy for thinking that possibly Tyson at 225 might pack more of a wollop than the 185 dempsey ? Tyson's also fast handed, throws combo's, and is accurate, to me he's more of freak then Dempsey. You can criticise my opinons all you want, but I think that i've at least raised arguements many of which havn't been adecuatly answered.
Like why hasn't any 185 llber provided any power at heavyweight in the past 40 years- you'd think someone would come along. Hey, the 185'ers of today are way faster than the heavies are of today, so why don't they go up and kick ass ? I mean the heavyweight championship's worth millions. Would you at least think that it is plausable that a 185 llb swarmer might have problems during the post 1960 era. Especially when you factor in that the majority of his opponents were not only his own size, but they were fighting out of antiquated styles that were tailor-made for him. at least the post WWII fighters realize the importance of the jab.

The Shoemaker
04-04-2006, 02:10 AM
Pete Leo,
Unless Herb Goldmen was cracked upside the head by Shavers and dempsey, I doubt if he would have any idea who hit harder. another point:
Not everyone of that era feared Dempsey. Harry Grebb had unbelievable confidence that he could beat Dempsey- he stated that "Dempsey checked his brains at the door, before he fought". Grebb did kick his ass in a sparring session. Not that that means everything (Jerry Quarry destroyed Frazier in a 1966 sparring session). But grebb definatly did not fear him. In fact, supposidly grebb bet a ton on Tunney in the first Dempsey-Tunney fight. Tunney was also confident before their first fight.

Elmer Ray
04-04-2006, 02:18 AM
thanx shoemaker! since ur not too sure on walcotts chin, would u like me to post my arcticle regarding why walcott has a better chin than people think?

btw, u make very interesting points regarding ur reasons. i also like the fact u think higher of walcott and charles than corbett and tunney.


shoemaker, one heavyweight u need to take a deeper look at is harry wills. he was a very skilled big man, im talking modern skilled big man. he was a great all arounder fighter, way ahead of his time and he was also a deadly puncher. i rate wills # 18 on my all time heavyweight list. the way u think, i think u would really like harry wills

Mr E
04-04-2006, 02:20 AM
Pete Leo,
Unless Herb Goldmen was cracked upside the head by Shavers and dempsey, I doubt if he would have any idea who hit harder. another point:
Not everyone of that era feared Dempsey. Harry Grebb had unbelievable confidence that he could beat Dempsey- he stated that "Dempsey checked his brains at the door, before he fought". Grebb did kick his ass in a sparring session. Not that that means everything (Jerry Quarry destroyed Frazier in a 1966 sparring session). But grebb definatly did not fear him. In fact, supposidly grebb bet a ton on Tunney in the first Dempsey-Tunney fight. Tunney was also confident before their first fight.

I doubt any top fighter "feared" Dempsey's power, as I doubt very many pro fighters fear much of anything. But you better believe they all respected it, Greb included. I've heard the story many times that Greb turned down a fight w/ Dempsey in 1918 and flat-out refused to fight him at anything beyond 6 rounds. The quote goes something like, "I'd box him dizzy for 6 but after that he'd kill me." I think he was right.

Further, I submit that Greb's staying out of Dempsey's reach for a round (or 2 rounds, depending on which 2nd-hand hearsay you happen to have read) wearing 16 ounce gloves and headgear hardly constitutes 'kicking his ass.'

Mr E
04-04-2006, 02:23 AM
thanx shoemaker! since ur not too sure on walcotts chin, would u like me to post my long report regarding why walcott has a better chin than people think?

btw, u make very interesting points regarding ur reasons. i also like the fact u think higher of walcott and charles than corbett and tunney.

I question not only Walcott's chin but his stamina as well. Strong, quick, coordinated, agile and clever, but he had a few flaws too.

Elmer, do you think Marciano-Walcott II was on the level?

The Shoemaker
04-04-2006, 02:40 AM
Mr E,
I'll try and read it when I get the chance. It definatly wouldn't shock me if it was fixed, since "why would his ex-wife bring that fight up, I doubt if she was a boxing fan, since she had other "business" to attend to) ?" Although you would think that he'd foul out rather than getting KO'ed, since a KO would hurt his status (unless they got big odds on a 1st round KO- like when Kearns screwed Dempsey by betting his purse on Jack KO'ing Willard in the 1st round). Then again, flynn was a huge step up in competion, and Dempsey made huge improvements within the year (KO'ing Flynn a year later). hey, if dempsey's starving I could see it, or if he had to do it to get a title shot (LaMotta-Fox), but in his case I'd think it would put his career back
but if he's starving ... As far as the IBRO poll. I've seen some top ten polls from the past (I can't remember the web sites), and it's interesting how they change through the years. Like Foreman vanishes during the polls of the 70's and 80's. Liston's another one who goes up and down, some love him or hate him. I think that you'll get more arguments on Tyson, Foreman, and Liston than anyone. Probably because some people hate them because they made asses out of them, when they said that they were unbeatable. So they either have to admit that they were wrong (Hank Kaplin had the guts to admit he was wrong about Tyson- and it's easy to blow it on tyson, he may be the most impressive heavyweight hitting a heavy bag, or destroying inferior opposition) or come up with excuses. It seems like Johnson, Dempsey,
Louis, and Ali, always seem to at least hold their rankings in the last 20 years or so. Although I'd argue that Ali will probably pass Louis up in most polls in ten years (younger voters). I think that Ali received more first place votes than Louis did in the IBRO voting, but Louis won it based on more seconds and thirds. My big arguement was Tyson over Hollyfield and Moore over Charles at light heavy. I realize that head to head isn't everything but come on. Tyson's biggest win was probably Toney Tucker- that's not exactly a awe inspiring feat.

The Shoemaker
04-04-2006, 02:57 AM
Mr E,
Most of my stuff on Dempsey-grebb were from Roger Kahn's book on Dempsey. although I did read two other biographies years ago. I'd be surprised that Greb wouldn't at least fight him for the money (he'd fight King kong if they paid him enough). Plus grebb didn't appear to be all there. From what I've read the Carpentier-Dempsey fiasco is what killed Dempsey-Grebb. Rickart bullshitted the public into buying into the fight, then dempsey destroyed him. So trying to sell a middleweight beating Dempsey AFTER he destroyed the Light Heavyweight champion isn't an easy sell.

The Shoemaker
04-04-2006, 03:18 AM
Elmer Ray,
Yes, i'd definatly like to see the Walcott article. I realize that getting KO'ed by Louis and Marciano was no discrace, he got gready against great fighters who carried their power. Now he did get KO'ed in earlier bouts. i realize he had managerial problems, Typhoid, and wasn't a full time fighter, but I'd at least question his chin (not saying he has a glass jaw). Simular to Mr. E, I think that walcott's an enigma. I'd hate to use the word underacheiver, but man, did he have some skills. he could box, he could punch
you'd think he'd be an all time great, it just seems like he's missing something.And like Charles, he's stuck in between two great fighters (Louis and Marciano). Too bad we were denied Wills-Dempsey, although Wills' peak was probably around the early 20's. By he time the fight was nearly a reality Wills was slipping. That fight would have been up there with Frazier-Ali, and Louis-Schmelling, in terms of interest. It's Johnson-Jeffries X10, since advertising and BS was such a big part of the 20's. Obviously, the Federal governement did not want that fight- because of the potential race riots. Plus from Rickart's point of view, if Wills wins, he goes from a multi-million dollar attraction in dempsey to a black heavyweight champion, who isn't going to draw flies. Unfortunatly, the only clip on Wills was him getting KO'ed by Ucedan at the end of his career (actually 1927)

PeteLeo
04-04-2006, 03:20 AM
Goldman can't say that Dempsey hit as hard as Shavers because Herb hasn't been hit in the head by Earnie, but you can state without hesitation that Tyson hit harder than Jack?
Excuse me, but when were you in the ring with those two fellas? PeteLeo.

The Shoemaker
04-04-2006, 04:09 AM
Goldman can't say that Dempsey hit as hard as Shavers because Herb hasn't been hit in the head by Earnie, but you can state without hesitation that Tyson hit harder than Jack?
Excuse me, but when were you in the ring with those two fellas? PeteLeo.
Pete,
You need a reading comprehension class. My quote was: "Am I crazy for thinking that POSSIBLY Tyson at 225 MIGHT pack more of a wallop than Dempsey at 185 ?" Where do you get that I KNOW for certain that Tyson hit harder than Dempsey based on that quote ?

hawk5ins
04-04-2006, 08:01 AM
I read and enjoy Herb as much as the next guy.

But, like everyone, his word at times needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

At one time Herb was telling us that Oscar de la Hoya was the 4th greatest welterweight of all time, behind only Robby, SRL and Hearns and that the Golden boy was ALSO the 12th greatest fighter pound for pound EVER.

That little piece alone, is enough for me to question Herb's word, re, well just about anything.

And Shoe, you keep asking the question over and over and over about why a fighter at 185 hasn't challenged for Heavyweight supremacy. I think Sharks answered this days ago in his football response: becuase the mentality is forced upon heavies and other athletes that they NEED to weigh more.

You keep being told you need to be bigger, you will keep trying to. 6'3" men weighing in and around 185, didn't all of a sudden fall of the planet.

Hawk

hawk5ins
04-04-2006, 09:45 AM
One request:

PARAGRAPHS!!!!!!!!!!!

PeteLeo
04-04-2006, 12:37 PM
I think Goldman's opinions on fighters whose careers can be examined in their entireties (like Dempsey and Shavers, not the still active De La Hoya) carry a lot of weight. He's well-respected as an historian in the boxing community. Conclusions drawn while a man is still active (the pre-Trinidad Oscar, for instance) are certainly subject to revision and evolution when the man's final tally is available.
Carefully parsing one's words ("Am I crazy for thinking . . . ?") doesn't make one invulnerable to questioning further down the line. When a person states repeatedly, incessantly that "oldtime small" heavyweights like Dempsey and Louis couldn't compete with more modern "giants" due to weight and power and then dismisses another man's assertion that Dempsey hit as hard as Shavers because that man never took a punch from either of them, it's completely reasonable to ask how the first man can reach his own conclusions about power comparisons, since that man obviously never competed with the fighters, either. My, I must re-up my comprehension classes, though. PeteLeo.

hawk5ins
04-04-2006, 01:00 PM
but if his methodology for rating and ranking ACTIVE fighters shows Serious flaws, there is no reason for me to think that his methodology for ranking a fighters completed career is not ALSO flawed.

Herb certainly is a credible source to utilize, but I wouldn't hold his word as gospel. Nor would I with any historian. We all have different viewpoints and opinnions. And no two lists or evaluations are ever going to be the same.

However, when taking into consideration how long and how indepth Herb has been doing this, you at least should listen to what he says. Then one can analyze it and see if it truly makes plausible sense.

I would tend to disagree with the notion that Dempsey hit has hard as Shavers with a single shot. I don't come to this conclusion based on any belief that bigger or newer is better. I beleive Jack is a superior TWO handed puncher. And I would disagree with Herbs other comments on Oscar that I previously listed. But I would not hesitate to use Herb as a resource when researching the sport. And I wouldn't dismiss him as a man trapped in one era either.

Hawk

Mr E
04-04-2006, 01:12 PM
Mr E,
I'll try and read it when I get the chance. It definatly wouldn't shock me if it was fixed, since "why would his ex-wife bring that fight up, I doubt if she was a boxing fan, since she had other "business" to attend to) ?" Although you would think that he'd foul out rather than getting KO'ed, since a KO would hurt his status (unless they got big odds on a 1st round KO- like when Kearns screwed Dempsey by betting his purse on Jack KO'ing Willard in the 1st round). Then again, flynn was a huge step up in competion, and Dempsey made huge improvements within the year (KO'ing Flynn a year later). hey, if dempsey's starving I could see it, or if he had to do it to get a title shot (LaMotta-Fox), but in his case I'd think it would put his career back
but if he's starving ...

I think in those days, riding the rails, bouncing from town to town, he wasn't really thinking in terms of how the loss would look on his record when he was the heavyweight champion. According to Soderman's sources/research, the fight was held up 45 minutes whilst Dempsey's then-manager (the same guy who arranged Fred Fulton's dive to Tony Puente in Calilfornia, for which Fulton did jail time) and the promoter haggled over the particulars. Ultimately, it was settled that Dempsey would get $500, after which he went into the ring and basically went down during the instructions. He was blackballed in Salt Lake City after that (Murray, Utah, where the fight was held, is basically a suburb of SLC). Maxine got the story right when she testified (under oath) @ the slacker trial. Importantly, Dempsey never denied the story under oath (he was never asked that direct question at his trial). I don't do it justice, though-- you should get the article if you can. Soderman was a Class-A historian.




As far as the IBRO poll. I've seen some top ten polls from the past (I can't remember the web sites), and it's interesting how they change through the years. Like Foreman vanishes during the polls of the 70's and 80's. Liston's another one who goes up and down, some love him or hate him. I think that you'll get more arguments on Tyson, Foreman, and Liston than anyone.

I've been collecting all-time rankings of for a while now and I notice many of the same trends. W/respect to Liston & Foreman, I think both suffered and decade and a half or so of contempt after their immediate falls from grace. Liston is completely absent from all-time rankings that I've seen until about 1980, give-r-take, whereupon people started calling him "under-rated." Then he sort of picked up steam. You don't see Foreman really start to appear until after the Holyfield fight, but now he's picked up steam too. Interesting phenomenon.



Probably because some people hate them because they made asses out of them, when they said that they were unbeatable. So they either have to admit that they were wrong (Hank Kaplin had the guts to admit he was wrong about Tyson- and it's easy to blow it on tyson, he may be the most impressive heavyweight hitting a heavy bag, or destroying inferior opposition) or come up with excuses.

Tyson presents a tough question, I agree. Personally, I subscribe to the camp that says he's over-rated: IMO, he hadn't the mental toughness to dig down deep to win tough fights.



It seems like Johnson, Dempsey,Louis, and Ali, always seem to at least hold their rankings in the last 20 years or so. Although I'd argue that Ali will probably pass Louis up in most polls in ten years (younger voters). I think that Ali received more first place votes than Louis did in the IBRO voting, but Louis won it based on more seconds and thirds.

Ali totally took over from Louis (who had taken over from Dempsey) for quite a while, but I note that he's suffering something of a backlash of late. In first place votes, the IBRO poll went like this:

1-Ali (15)
2-Louis (14)
3-Dempsey (6)
4-Johnson (5)
5-(tie)-Jeffries, Marciano (2 each)

No one else received a 1st place vote.


My big arguement was Tyson over Hollyfield and Moore over Charles at light heavy. I realize that head to head isn't everything but come on. Tyson's biggest win was probably Toney Tucker- that's not exactly a awe inspiring feat.

Well, I put Holy ahead of Tyson and Charles ahead of Moore on my personal ballots, so I agree with you. On the other hand, wasn't Charles already over the 175 limit by the time he was beating Moore? [I should probably check that on boxrec before popping off, but I'm too lazy.] IMO, Charles and Tunney both get too much credit as light-heavyweights for fights they won in which they weighed more than 175. IMO, both should really be rated at cruiser. Moore was a legit light-heavy.

mike
04-04-2006, 02:01 PM
hello

mike
04-04-2006, 02:28 PM
trying to submitt reply- i lossed some respect for shoemaker or frank? in such a low rating of dempsey- flies in the face of nearly every fighter or trainer who saw him.outside of louis-no fighter or trainer i know of who saw foreman- nor tyson or lyle ever picked them to hit with the authority of dempsey- in fact very few fighters or trainers who saw dempsey -picked louis or marciano either.

mike
04-04-2006, 02:38 PM
aso-fleischer in a 1970 special picked dempsey as the all time power guy-while dempsey called it tie betwenn louis and marciano-liston thrid above franks friend joe f. lou stillman must have been with along with sharkey who told me personally dempsey definately hit harder than louis-stillman had the termerty to think dempsey was the top heavy-all must have been blindly biassed as well as blind. by fighters and trainers who saw dempsey -tyson-dempsey was consistantly picked as number one. certainly that does not make it so and shoemaker has his opinion- but when expert opinion is given when doing historical research of any kind- it must be consisederd. dempsey and my second choice ali, were beatable and were beaten.that low of rating strikes me as not great judgement,imo only.thanks

mike
04-04-2006, 02:49 PM
sharkey nailed it -dempsey was a timeless talent-and it was his natural born talent that made him such not his weight or lack off it. enough of dempsey-soon ali will be considered too light and soft hitting.

hawk5ins
04-04-2006, 03:11 PM
"Is Rocky Marciano a great fighter who can take his place as one of the ten ranking heavyweights of all time?

Based on the above analysis, the answer is no. He's one of the greatest since Corbett defeated Sullivan in hitting power only. Beyond that, he lacks the essentials that add up to Greatness."

Two things:

1- Less than 3 years later after Fleisher wrote this piece, Marciano was listed in the # 10 spot in his heavyweight list.

2- To compare Marciano's power to Corbett? Holy Crap! If Jim Corbett is the standard or benchmark with which punchers are supposed to be compared to.........I dunno even know what to say.

Compared to Fleischer, Herb Goldman is the most unbiased, historically accurate and knowledgable persons to EVER walk the face of the earth.

In case you haven't guessed, I don't hold Nat's "word" as gospel or even in very high esteem. His PERSONAL bias clouded virtually everything he ever wrote.

Hawk

Elmer Ray
04-04-2006, 03:27 PM
herbert goldman rated elmer ray in his top 20 heavyweights, something i always found very interesting. i rate elmer ray # 29 all time on my heavyweight list.



nat fleischer was always a bit unfair to rocky except when it came to punching power, he rated rocky right up there with louis and dempsey as the hardest punching heavies of all time. however, nat refused to give rocky any credit when it came to skill or ring technician which is very unfair to the rock. he was no jack johnson, but he was a very good technician with his own style.


- i though big bill tate looked good. he was a pretty good big man, dempsey however looks incredible too. his defense is impecable. jack is truelly one of the best heavies of all time IMO

hawk5ins
04-04-2006, 04:13 PM
Which Rankings iteration did Herb do this in?

The last set of rankings that I saw Herb do in the old Boxing Illustrated (later the putrid IBD), did not include Elmer Ray in his top 25.

In order form Herb (not MINE!)

Ali
louis
liston
Tyson
Holmes
Johnson
Dempsey
Foreman
Marciano
Frazier
Bowe
Holyfield
Wills
Walcott
Jeannette
Jeffires
Baer
Schmeling
Godfrey
Lewis
Witherspoon
Paterson
Cooney
Norton
Corbett

Hawk

Sharkey
04-04-2006, 04:19 PM
First off, let me say that the film footage is so brief and truncated...and decidedly NOT a true fight or even a semblance of one, that any takeaway beyond proof that Jack Dempsey actually existed is difficult for me to get behind.

As for Goldman..was he not the man who rated Cooney in the top 25 of all-time heavyweights..at a time when Cooney had accomplished virutally his entire career save the Spinks and Foreman fights which if they were to be held against him speaks poorly for any historians' criteria. If Cooney was in his top 25 (I am sure he was but exactly at what placement I am not) for what he did or didn't do up until 1987, anything after wouldn't hurt his standing one wouldn't think. The point? What is the criteria people use..even those among us whose eyes are the most keen? Application seems to suffer far more often than the peepers. Ray Floyd was better than Tom Watson is something I am sure someone could say, and if they were respected, their explanation would still be hard to reconcile if they touted Gary Player better than either with the explanation solely based upon his major victories. So where one has Dempsey or Ray or Cooney or Gary Mason on his all-time ledger is for him to figure out and for us to take with as much salt as we care to. The reasons wil lbe as varied as the names themselves usually.

Nat Fleischer to me saw standards, and compared everyone to those standards....so if they were not exactly matching they were lacking. All humans do the first part to a degree. Crafting an "empire of knowledge" few are privvy to; to the tune of "You think Marciano is something? Please!!" seems a common element of Fleischer. Yet, I have no proof Nat F. was attempting to do this, nor can I be sure he wasn't exactly on the money.


-------
Hawk beat me to the Cooney punch so to speak.

Mr E
04-04-2006, 04:21 PM
Which Rankings iteration did Herb do this in?

The last set of rankings that I saw Herb do in the old Boxing Illustrated (later the putrid IBD), did not include Elmer Ray in his top 25.

In order form Herb (not MINE!)

Ali
louis
liston
Tyson
Holmes
Johnson
Dempsey
Foreman
Marciano
Frazier
Bowe
Holyfield
Wills
Walcott
Jeannette
Jeffires
Baer
Schmeling
Godfrey
Lewis
Witherspoon
Paterson
Cooney
Norton
Corbett

Hawk

With respect to Goldman's ratings referenced above, which come from the Nov.-Dec. 1997 issue of "International Boxing Digest," you should note that Goldman rated Gene Tunney, Sam Langford and Ezzard Charles 1-2-3, respectively, in the light-heavyweight division and so did not rank them as heavyweights.

Mr E
04-04-2006, 04:23 PM
In case anyone's curious, here's how Goldman saw things a decade earlier:

Herbert G. Goldman (1987)
Quoted in: The 1986-1987 Ring Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia, edited by Herbert G. Goldman (p. 1070)

1-Muhammad Ali
2-Sonny Liston
3-Larry Holmes
4-Jack Johnson
5-Jack Dempsey
6-Joe Louis
7-Rocky Marciano
8-Harry Wills
9-George Foreman
10-Joe Frazier
11-Mike Tyson
12-Joe Jeannette
13-Jersey Joe Walcott
14-Max Baer
15-Max Schmeling
16-George Godfrey
17-Elmer Ray
18-Jim Jeffries
19-Sam McVey
20-Gerry Cooney
21-Ernie Terrell
22-Cleveland Williams
23-Jim Corbett
24-Floyd Patterson
25-Jimmy Young

Note: As with his 1997 rankings, Goldman rated Gene Tunney, Sam Langford, and Ezzard Charles 1-2-3 in the light-heavyweight division. He did not, therefore, consider them for his heavyweight rankings.

hawk5ins
04-04-2006, 04:31 PM
I have the last installment of the Ring record book as well. One well worn out book I must say.

Didn't even think to check that.

Thanks

Hawk

Side note:

In a 1984 article by Herb Goldman in the Ring, he matched Holmes with every Heavyweight in history and concluded that he would only lose to Ali. I guess the back to back losses to Spinks in 85 and 86' when Holmes was 36 years old (and screwed rather royally in the rematch I might add) convinced Herb that Larry could not beat Liston. I mean with all of the similarities that Spinks and Liston shared, how could he not have changed his mind 3 years later?

Theres that sarcasm agian.....

Hawk

Mr E
04-04-2006, 04:38 PM
I have the last installment of the Ring record book as well. One well worn out book I must say.

Didn't even think to check that.

Thanks

Hawk

Side note:

In a 1984 article by Herb Goldman in the Ring, he matched Holmes with every Heavyweight in history and concluded that he would only lose to Ali. I guess the back to back losses to Spinks in 85 and 86' when Holmes was 36 years old (and screwed rather royally in the rematch I might add) convinced Herb that Larry could not beat Liston. I mean with all of the similarities that Spinks and Liston shared, how could he not have changed his mind 3 years later?

Theres that sarcasm agian.....

Hawk


Actually, that's a pretty good article, analysis-wise. I think if you take another look, he did have Holmes struggling w/ Liston. It's been a while since I read it, but my memory is that he struggled w/ the Holmes-Liston analysis.

I think it's interesting that, in 1987, Goldman had Louis below Johnson, Dempsey, and Liston, but that, 10 years later, Louis had surpassed them all.

Sharkey
04-04-2006, 04:41 PM
Dempsey dying before 1984 obviously played a part in his loss to Holmes in the fantasy-fight.

hawk5ins
04-04-2006, 05:22 PM
E, Goldman did state that it would be a "ferocious" fight and concluded that "Holmes on points-if he manages to avoid a knockout." He also pointed to "Holmes being vulnerable to Rights, but the left was Sonny's best weapon".

The subtitle for the article was "Ring Historian Herbert G. GOldman Picks Holmes over Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Tunney, Marciano and Liston".

I have no issues with anyone changing their minds about who they think is better than who or who could beat who. But I would hate to think that losing to Spinks at 36, would have an effect on where Herb rates Holmes historically and how he saw a Holmes Liston bout playing out.

The thing is, obviously it did as the 1987 ratings from the Ring record book reflected.

Hawk

Sharkey
04-04-2006, 05:45 PM
I am not sure that can be stated accurately.

We all are prone to changing our minds. Watching tape, being further from the midst of Holmes' reign might have something to do with it.

Trying to figure it out is what drives me nuts. I won't dismiss that Goldman changing his mind may have something to do with Spinks-Holmes I and II.

How then, though, can you explain him elevating above Dempsey and Louis given he fell relative to Liston? What was the straight-line causal trigger? Which is why I am not so sure the Spinks losses are what did it all to themselves.

I used to think Larry was likely to beat "everyone ever" (which of course completely ignores styles and other things, and that one can have a guy they lose to but relatively they are superior to the others on the list..which is why such lists drive me bananas) save Ali. Being a huge fan of his was more due to rather than explanative of my high regard for him. Now, I don't think he is indeed the second best heavy ever. And nothing really happened to cause that except thinking.

Well, the Maurice Harris fight didn't help.

hawk5ins
04-04-2006, 05:47 PM
"Nat Fleischer to me saw standards, and compared everyone to those standards....so if they were not exactly matching they were lacking. All humans do the first part to a degree. Crafting an "empire of knowledge" few are privvy to; to the tune of "You think Marciano is something? Please!!" seems a common element of Fleischer. Yet, I have no proof Nat F. was attempting to do this, nor can I be sure he wasn't exactly on the money." - Sharkey

Nat had THESE standards:

1-Ability to otbox boxers, to out punch punchers.

2-Ring generalship

3-Durability.

And this is how he used those standards as the applied to Marciano:

"Marciano can not outbox anyone. he must rely entirely on durability to outlast smarter and frailer opponents. He's too easy to hit, too easy to cut.

His arms are too short for him to be a boxier. he knows nothing about the art of feinting and counter punching, assest possesed to a high degree by such masters as Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney and Tommy Loughran.

He has faced very few real punchers during his career. The two best Walcott and Moore-Both 38 at the time had Rocky on the canvas. Joe Louis is not included since when he met Rocky, the Brown Bomber had since lsot his once devastating punch.

The calibre of opponents is most important in evaluating greatness.

A Billy Graham or a Lulu Constantine looked like Great boxers agiasnt lesser opponents but ppitted aganst the top men of their class, their short comings in other assets were shown up and their bosing ability alone was offsett by the attributes of other, better opponenets of theirs possesed.

Is Rocky Marciano a great fighter who can take his place as one of the ten ranking heavyweights of all time?

Based on the above analysis, the answer is no. He's one of the greatest since Corbett defeated Sullivan in hitting power only. Beyond that, he lacks the essentials that add up to Greatness."

I dunno about you, but there seems to be more than a few holes in this analysis of Nat's that would prompt me to question his word as " the unquestioned authority on the sport".

That's just me. I could be wrong.

hawk

Colin Maclaurin
04-04-2006, 05:50 PM
hawkins,

seems to me you are misunderstanding what nat f is saying. i believe he is saying that marciano is in that top echlon of power punchers in the post corbett-sullivan era. correct me if i am wrong.

Sharkey
04-04-2006, 05:55 PM
Thus the application of standards is the problem. As always. There is no consistancy but conjecture rather.

One can easily state what their standards are. That's easy to do. They are always presented as objective. They never are nor can they be truly.

What can be objectively done is to emphasize that if competition is key, that the competition is scrutinized to the same degree as the subject at hand...and that doing THAT and the very exercise itself, is so riddled with flaws, that it is in essence an attempt to get more a feel than draw a conclusion.

that would of course, admit up front that we can only hope to analyze well data that is at best jumbled.

Doesn't seel magazines nor allow one to claim exclusive knowledge.

Elmer Ray
04-04-2006, 05:58 PM
he knows nothing about the art of feinting


funny nat, because i remember seeing rocky feint all the time in his fights, in fact he used it quite well to get inside.



the fact he gives rocky no credit for the louis victory is a crock of shit, considering even the 1951 version of louis was still a formidable fighter and a dangerous # 1 contender. louis was far past it, but not shot by any means.

hawk5ins
04-04-2006, 06:01 PM
Missed that one of yours:

"How then, though, can you explain him elevating above Dempsey and Louis given he fell relative to Liston?"

Well I beleive it had to do with Herb thinking that Holmes would have an easier time with Both Dempsey and Louis than he would with Liston.

As E pointed out, Herb thought Liston Holmes would be a vvery tough bout and what i previously quoted of Herb backs that up.

Conversely, this is what he said about Holmes Louis: "Joe had trouble with the boxwers-Men like Bob Pastor and Billy Conn_ and neither Bob nro Billy had Holmes' Jab, combinations, speed and size. Edge to Larry Holmes agian"

And Dempsey: "Dempsey's size 6' 1" and 190 pounds would have been agianst him, But Jack always specialized in destroying the big boys. Hlmes, however, was a boxer, and one with a jab the likes of whihc Dempsey never saw."

And to throw in: "Larry vs. Rocky Marciano? No Contest......Larry by Tko inside of 10."

Agian, Herb's words, and some of them with whihc I agree with.

That said, Herb's made severl comments with which I feel that his words, like most every other historian, should be taken with a grain of salt at times. ANd rather than knee jerk and state :"Well Herb said it so it MUST be acccurate", I think one should take his opinion and use that to help one do their OWN research.

Many times. Herbs word are very helpful. Many times......not. I think it is up to each individual to make the decision when those times are.

Hawk

hawk5ins
04-04-2006, 06:04 PM
hawkins,

seems to me you are misunderstanding what nat f is saying. i believe he is saying that marciano is in that top echlon of power punchers in the post corbett-sullivan era. correct me if i am wrong.


Colin you may very well be correct. WHich is why I quoted the rest of Nat's piece to give a cleaer picture of his opinion about Rocky's overall talents and not just his power. (Heck I hope i'm misinterpretaing the Corbett line!)

Hawk

mike
04-04-2006, 06:07 PM
hawk-yep- as with anybody- me ,you ,shoemaker-frank-there is knowldge often alot- much to agree on usuallu- some definatly not to -as we all are indivual thinkers and researchers- as for me - i hope to continue to learn until i go to the hot country.

Roberto Aqui
04-04-2006, 08:04 PM
I think it's interesting that, in 1987, Goldman had Louis below Johnson, Dempsey, and Liston, but that, 10 years later, Louis had surpassed them all.

Goldman sounds like a French Farce if you'll pardon my French.

I can understand perhaps rating Ali over Louis, just barely understand, but perhaps Goldman is the poster boy for the idiocy of ranking fighters. At least old Nat was consistant in spite of his bias.

Mr E
04-04-2006, 10:01 PM
Goldman sounds like a French Farce if you'll pardon my French.

I can understand perhaps rating Ali over Louis, just barely understand, but perhaps Goldman is the poster boy for the idiocy of ranking fighters. At least old Nat was consistant in spite of his bias.


Oh, I don't know. Could be he just studied Joe Louis's films a bit more and decided he'd under-rated the great Brown Bomber in the past. I wouldn't hold that against him.

The Shoemaker
04-05-2006, 01:02 AM
Mike,
What are you talking about Shoemaker-Frank ? Far as I know Lotierzo's always rated Dempsey high, in fact I've had a few E-mail arguments with him over Dempsey (same shit as here, I don't think he's big enough, he thinks weight's overrated). I havn't seen his IBRO top ten ballot, but I am almost positive Dempsey's on it (I'd guess around #6-7 ?)
As far as useing Sharkey as evidence in regards to who hits harder between Louis and Dempsey. Excellant fact in supporting your theory. But, i would caution that it is human nature to view your own era (or a previous era) psycologically different than the next generation. Like I said, Gene Tunney stated in a 1950's interview that Dempsey could beat Marciano, Charles, and Walcott, all on the same night. I did see a 1954 (?) interview with Sharkey where he stated that he fought Dempsey while Dempsey was on his way down and fought Louis when Louis hadn't reached his peak. He said that he'd pick Dempsey, but Louis' right hand could change the fight in an instant (I read the quote in one of the Louis-Schmelling books that came out) Of coarse, i used the same arguement when i quoted Braddock saying that Baer hit harder than Louis, and someone jumped on me stating that boxers tend to get jealous and give more praise to fighters they beat as opposed to the ones they get destroyed by. It's weird that it appeared that Dempsey's shots didn't appear to be damaging Sharkey, while Louis' crushed him. But he did fight both of them.

The Shoemaker
04-05-2006, 01:46 AM
Hawk,
In regards to your support of Sharkey's belief that the "bigger is better mentality" is what wiped out the 185 llb heavies; I'd disagree. I think it is more of a case of there being more fluid 200+ llb fighters that have come on the scene since Liston. Ali, Liston, and even Terrelle helped phase out the quasi Light Heavy/heavies that had existed since the 1900's. I don't think they were forced to put the weight on by a mentality or a fad, i just think that they were naturally that big, and as long as they were fluid they had size advantages (reach, height, weight, and power). By the end of the 60's, the Doug Jones' were gone (beaten by an inferior fighter in Terrelle who had a size advantage, and blasted out by Frazier). By the end of the 70's the sub 200 llb'ers are about gone and so on. Bob Foster's left hook is deadly to a 175llber, and it will knock out some 200+ llb stiffs (Foster did beat many lower tier heavies) but the upper echelon ones, with decent chins-he's not making a dent on. Even though Foster's fighting them at 185 llb (which is probably his natural weight).
Yes, most people are correct, when they state that most heavies fighting today should drop about 20 llbs (although I remember Foreman on his comeback stating that he felt more comfortable at a heigher weight with a slight gut, than he did when he fought Quawi- in the 230's), but that would still put most of them in the 220's. They ain't dropping below 200. Of coarse Buster Douglas probably felt most comfortable at 300 llbs.

The Shoemaker
04-05-2006, 01:48 AM
Hawk,
I indented my paragraphs, but they didn't come out that way when it got posted. I'll try and double space in between paragraphs.

mike
04-05-2006, 03:38 AM
shoemaker- as far as sharkey is concerned, i knew him for ten years and once he got to trust you, he was pretty up front with his opinons-but also matter of fact- just calm and reasonable about it. he said dempsey was the superior fighter and harder hitter between louis and dempsey-and dempsey the most murderous puncher he ever fought or saw and best heavy. of course, i was not that obliged to argue with the champ about two guys he got hit by-although i tried a little- but in his own mind he was quite sure of all this. also,i catch your drift as far as fighters from their own era,etc, but i do wish you could have heard the manner in which he said it- because normally i too would be suspiciuos, but much less so with sharkey. but that was his opinion and it has been in the ny papers aat least twice-once interviewed by gallo in around 88.thanks

mike
04-05-2006, 03:57 AM
oh yeah-dont know if you caught hell for it about baer- but schmeling thought baer hit harder than louis did- or anybody else for that matter-at least with his right.in a ring mag interview early 90s i think. dont know if he said other things at other times. i tend to go with baer in the right hand over louis.

mike
04-05-2006, 04:51 AM
damn-missed out on the unnatural heavy tread. gotta go with mr e onmost of this.one-willard vastly underrated.two on best night-sharkey best of group mentioned. three-dempsey tougher and harder hitter than marciano.4-thought baer hit harder with his right than anyone except dempsey-even baer said that and sppared with dempsey at least 3 times-but baer was no great-some disagreemnt with mr e here 5-glad to see holmes up there in his top fighters-i dont realley agree with that high a spot but larry had a great,great jab and fast as hell straight punches-a pleasure to watch6 dempsey was definately getting to sharkey and would have probably put him away.

mike
04-05-2006, 06:48 AM
well, i hope the kid could find the original dempsey-willard footage that this tate session came from-because it will be the first time 99 percent of you will see the willard fight in real time-all the dempsey-willard footage you guys have seen -is slow- ive timed it the real time footage from the original fight pictures are rarely shown-but real time- ive timed that -if you thought dempsey looked good and or fast here- hell-hopefully youll see the original dempsey willard bout.

hawk5ins
04-05-2006, 07:38 AM
Nat was not really that consistent and indeed contradicted himself on multiple occasions and made such declarations about Marciano and only a few years later, added him to his top 10. It can be added that Rocky and Nat's relationship grew over this time as well. Coincidence?

Herb is NOT a farce. He knows his stuff quite well and he like all of us, has drawn conclusions that we tend to beleive very deeply. There are pieces of his lists and commentary that I flat out disagree with. Passionately.

But that doesn't make him a farce or unkowledgable.

None of are going to agree on everything. Historians included. Just reread and article about Duran just after he beat SRL, and Brenner, Dunphy, and D'mato and Bromberg and others commented on how Roberto Duran fared with the Great lights of the past and they almost unanimously stated that he didn't measure up (Arcel chimed in but as his trainer, well bias and all). Should they all be dismissed for this? Call them farces? Ignore what ever they have to say? Of course not.

Herb's work and opinion IMO is a must to read. That said, his word should not be held as gospel either. Read and draw your own conclusions. And learn along the way.

Hawk

greek1237
04-05-2006, 03:38 PM
Do you think Rocky's death in a plane crash, put Rocky in Nat's top ten list?

hawk5ins
04-05-2006, 04:10 PM
He put Rocky in his top 10 list in 1958. The article I reference, in whihc he criticizes Rocky so much and said he didn't belong in the top 10 was on the heels of the Moore bout in 1955. Rocky didn't die in the crash until 1969.

Hawk

greek1237
04-05-2006, 05:55 PM
Was sure he put Rocky in the top ten in 1971.

When he rad on about Ali not being so great. and all. right after the FOTC.

Mr E
04-05-2006, 07:24 PM
He put Rocky in his top 10 list in 1958. The article I reference, in whihc he criticizes Rocky so much and said he didn't belong in the top 10 was on the heels of the Moore bout in 1955. Rocky didn't die in the crash until 1969.

Hawk


Fleischer's top 10 list first appears in his 1958 autobio, "50 Years At Ringside":

1-Jack Johnson
2-Jim Jeffries
3-Bob Fitzsimmons
4-Jack Dempsey
5-Jim Corbett
6-Joe Louis
7-Sam Langford
8-Gene Tunney
9-Max Schmeling
10-Rocky Marciano

He criticized Rocky severely on a few occasions, mostly in response to other folks calling him the greatest. However, I don't recall ever reading an article by Nat in which he actually, affirmatively stated that Rocky did not belong in the top 10, so placing Rocky in the number 10 spot does not strike me as having been inconsistent.

What strikes me as odd is that Nat omitted Peter Jackson and John L. Sullivan -- 2 many he consistently and repeatedly praised as being great fighters -- from his ratings altogether, which causes me to wonder whether he regarded them as 'bare knuckle' fighters primarily and so excluded them on that basis... ?

hawk5ins
04-05-2006, 08:37 PM
MULTIPLE times here, first appeared in the December 1955 issue of RING magazine and can be seen reprinted in the Stanely Weston's book "The Best of the Ring" which was published in 1996 and appears on page 156-157 of that book.

I would never expect anyone to simply take my word when reprinting quotes such as I have done here. Rather I would encourage anyone who reads my posts to inquire where I obtained the information that I did, so that they themselves can validate it's veracity.

One thing that does strike me curious Mr. E, is your comment about Fleischer's severe criticism of Marciano. Was that from Nat's book? I ask becuase all that I can really recall Nat saying about Rocky in that book was "We can not compare Rocky with Louis or Dempsey, except as a puncher." Page 280. Or was it from a Ring magazine article like the one I quoted from?

Just curious.

Hawk

Elmer Ray
04-05-2006, 11:33 PM
ya, the moore bout really helped rockys legacy, it was an important fight since moore cleaned out all the other best heavyweights in division. with marcianos dominating win over moore, perhaps nat changed his mind a bit about rock.

- then again nat made fun of rock on other occasions for beating a "38" year old moore. ya 38 going on 28. funny how he never critisised jeffries for beating a 37 year old fitzimmons, he always praises jeffs win over fitz.

Elmer Ray
04-05-2006, 11:38 PM
september 1953 issue from THE RING

DEMPSEY AND LOUIS SUPERIOR
By NAT FLEISCHER
Whenever a sockologist comes to the fore, comparison of that slugger with the famous hitters of the past in this division becomes a subject for general discussion.
Is Rocky Marciano as good a hitter as was Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey in their prime? How is he compared to those top heavyweights in all-around ability?
Those queries were fired at me by many newspapermen in London and Paris followigng Rocky's recent one-round knockout of Jersey Joe Walcott, and as usual in such comparisons, there is a wide variation of opinion, especially when one had not seen the Manassa Mauler or other noted heavyweights who could toss puches with considerable power.
In the record of Marciano we find only a few top ranking fighterrs as his opponents and only one slugging battler among the lot. The hardest hitter Rocky fought was Jersey Joe Walcott and the aged New Jerseyite dropped Marciano, yet Jersey Joe was far from being a Dempsey or a Louis. It is notable that during the build-up of Rocky, Al Weill, his manager, made certain that the Brockton Blockbuster wasn't steered agaisnt any topnotch heavwyeights. He avoided, particularly, the hard hitters.
I mention the above to show that Marciano went to the top the easy way, not as did Dempsey and Louis, who were forced to battle the best in their division to gain recognition.
Had Rocky faced Joe Louis when Joe was at his best, I doubt that Marciano would have gained a points decision, and as for a knockout victory, I cannot conceive such happening to the Louis we all knew as the Brown Bomber. Rocky's crudeness would have had him look silly against the clever, hard punching, sharp hitting Joe Louis.
They call Marciano a second Jack Dempsey. He may eventually fit that appelation, but certainly not at this stage of his career. The Manassa Mauler, like Marciano, possessed a fist of iron. But he had more than mere hitting power.
In his fight with Harry Matthews, Marciano displayed a fine left jab, which he used to keep Harry off balance and then double hooked him with lefts to end the fight. Louis was an expert in that line. Rocky's jabs are effective, but not as effective as were those of Louis. Very few fighters in the heavyweight division could accomplish what Louis did during his wonderful career. He was an excellent all-around fighter, something we cannot say of Marciano. Rocky must depend wholly on his knockout punch to win whereas Dempsey and Louis carried far more than a mere T.N.T. blow into their ring warfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:
"I think that in the years following this write-up, Marciano proved he had far more than a "mere T.N.T. blow," as Fleischer would put it, himself. Rocky may not have been as well-rounded as a Louis or Dempsey, but his stamina, durability, heart, workrate, and consistency were all top-tier, and in some cases flatly unmatched. Unfortunately, looking ahead, it seems Fleischer stubbornly refused to change his opinion, despite Marciano's continuing to rack up big win after big win and display more and more strengths as a fighter. Anyway, the next segment is a bit more positive:"- my friend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARDEST HITTER OF ALL
By AL BUCK
Of all the heavyweight kinds, Rocky Marciano, the current heavyweight champion, is the hardest hitter.
This is not only my opinion. It is shared by many others. Jack Dempsey has called Marciano the best one-punch fighter he has ever seen.
Rocky's arms are short, but they are big and powerful. He has the sloping shoulders of a puncher.
The short arms are a handicap in that Marciano has to bore in to get within punching range. As a result he gets hit more often than he would otherwise. There is nothing fancy about Rocky. He isn't a master boxer, and perhaps not even a good one.
He has adopted a style that fits him physically. Once he gets his shot- and he only has to get one- Marciano becomes a destructive force.
Marciano is a one-punch fighter with his right hand. He is the best one-punch fighter I have seen. Joe Louis was a great finisher. Once he had an opponent hurt he hit quickly and with tremendous force. The result was a long string of sensational knockouts.
Rocky Marciano doesn't have to finish off an opponent. One smash and the referee counts ten.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BOY CAN SOCK
By DAN DANIEL
After the Hoax of Chicago, the less than one-round appearance of Jersey Joe Walcott against Rocky Marciano, most of the fight experts proceeded to do something thoroughly inexcusable. They put the cart before the horse, and as is usual in such cases, they found themselves in an uncomfortable position.
The dopesters threw the burden on Walcott for having failed to get to his feet before the count of ten.
The fact was that Walcott could not stand up. There was a corrolary. Walcott could not arise at ten because he had been knocked out by one of the hardest hitters in the history of the ring.
The conclusion should have been, "Here is a guy with a ripping uppercut in the right hand and a tearing hook in his left. Here is a blaster who can stop a heavyweight with either hand, in the first round, in the thirteenth, in the Springtime or in the Fall."
I doubt if anybody, Marciano among the group, has any illusions about Rocky as a scientist.
I would say that he is about as tough a socker, and unschooled a boxer, as we have had in the top divisions of boxing since Al McCoy happened to stop George Chip for the middleweight championship.
However, as Marciano's confidence grows with possession of the championship, his punch becomes deadlier, and his ability to learn fast makes him increasingly adroit as a maneuverer in the ring.
Marciano not only can dish it out, he can take it. He certainly proved that in the first engagement with Walcott.
Being able to assimilate punishment, Marciano takes chances which a less rugged fighter, with a less powerful constitution, and with something less than Rocky's gameness, would not gamble on.
Marciano misses too many punches to be rated a classic fighter.
But when he doesn't miss, it hurts- and how. It is too bad that he is already 29, six years older than Joe Louis was when he beat Jim Braddock for the title.
Within a couple years, Father Time will begin to take those insidious socks at Rocky.
But, in the meantime, America may be proud of the fact that the heavyweight title is held by a hard hitter, a grand guy, and an Army veteran.




here are some old ring magazine articles for you a friend gave me

hawk5ins
04-06-2006, 07:56 AM
The Moore bout DIDN'T change his mind. The article from which I am reffering to was FOLLOWING the Moore bout.

So between when Nat wrote his rather unflattering comments on Rocky in that December 1955 issue and stated he did not deserve inclusion in any heavyweight top 10 and when he THEN inserted him in his list from his book in 1958, Rocky had ZERO fights (coulda sworn I had pointed this out. From Nat: "He has faced very few real punchers during his career. The two best Walcott and Moore-Both 38 at the time, had Rocky on the canvas." & From me: "and {Fleischer} said he {Rock} didn't belong in the top 10 was on the heels of the Moore bout in 1955.")

And before anyone can make issues with Magazine cover dates not being in line with actual dates (besides the above quote whihc seems to make that clear.), From the SAME article: "Granted that he finally clouts his adversary into submission, do they take into account the fact that in the bout with Moore (that is Archie Moore, the Old Mongoose, Old Man River), for example, he missed almost two thirds of the fifty odd punches he tossed when he had Archie (agian Moore, Archie Moore) agianst the ropes, a perfect target for the kill?"

So NO. It does not appear that Nat was so impressed with Rocky's dominating win over Moore. And the bout certainly didn't change his mind about Rocky.

Geez, maybe if I reprint the entire article...........

Hawk

Mr E
04-06-2006, 11:46 AM
MULTIPLE times here, first appeared in the December 1955 issue of RING magazine and can be seen reprinted in the Stanely Weston's book "The Best of the Ring" which was published in 1996 and appears on page 156-157 of that book.

I would never expect anyone to simply take my word when reprinting quotes such as I have done here. Rather I would encourage anyone who reads my posts to inquire where I obtained the information that I did, so that they themselves can validate it's veracity.

One thing that does strike me curious Mr. E, is your comment about Fleischer's severe criticism of Marciano. Was that from Nat's book? I ask becuase all that I can really recall Nat saying about Rocky in that book was "We can not compare Rocky with Louis or Dempsey, except as a puncher." Page 280. Or was it from a Ring magazine article like the one I quoted from?

Just curious.

Hawk

Shortly after Marciano beat Dempsey in the final of the Murray Woroner computer tournament (circa 1969, I believe) Fleischer wrote an article to the general effect that Marciano was nowhere near the greatest of all-time and that Fleischer's 10th-place rating of him was just about right. My personal characterization of the article was that Fleischer was unfair in the severity of his criticism of the Rock.

Sharkey
04-06-2006, 12:30 PM
One could allege that the programmer of that computer similarly was overly generous to Rocky..could they not?

hawk5ins
04-06-2006, 12:47 PM
But in the article (the December 1955 article), Nat ALSO made it VERY clear that Marciano did NOT belong in the top 10.

In FACT, he used those EXACT words.

"Is Rocky Marciano a great fighter who can take his place as one of the ten ranking heavyweights of all time? Based on the above analysis, the answer is NO."

It does NOT get any clearer than that, what Nat Fleischer's position was as it pertained to Rocky Marciano.

Does he have the right to change his mind? Yes. We all do. But he shouldn't, as he has, pass it off as though his original opinion of Marciano after his last professional fight, never existed. And neither should anyone else.

Hawk

The Shoemaker
04-06-2006, 01:30 PM
Murray Woroner's computer was the rage for a while (Ali-Marciano) until it picked Bob Foster to knock out Joe frazier in their 1970 meeting. Worner should have stuck to Fantasy fights, that way they'll never check your accuracy.

Interesting that after Rocky's death, Fleischer stated that he couldn't justify putting Ali in his top ten because :"I can't move him ahead of Rocky" Along with a bunch of other stupid reasons. Of coarse he bad rapped Liston, Frazier and anyone else born after 1920. He commented after the Ali-Frazier I fight, that "if Frazier hit so hard, why couldn't he KO Ali" completly ignoring Ali's toughness, ability to take a punch, and ability to survive after being hurt.

Even if you had bias towards the past or your own "Glory Days", rating Jim Corbett higher than Joe Louis was such a joke give his opinions no credibility. His lower weight ratings are even worse. It's as if the pre-WWI era of fighting off your back foot, wrestling, and throwing roundhouse punches, was the Golden Age of boxing. No Charles or Moore at Light Heavy (Carpentier's a joke), Robinson's not listed as a welterweight, no Ike Williams at Lightweight, and on and on.

Thing is, despite his obvious bias, Fleischer carried a ton of clout when he was alive. He was boxing and many writers of his era were either in awe of him or intimadated by him. As was anyone associated with boxing (look at Walcott's actions during the Ali-Liston II fight). Fleischer's opions carried a lot of weight and influence even after his death.

I think what forced boxing writers and historians to rate Ali high was his victory over Foreman. a lot of ex-champs were in awe of Foreman's power, which was rare for them to give praise to any modern fighter. Same with some of the writers who picked foreman to destroy Ali (even though surprisingly, many of the writers at press row in Zaire, picked the 3:1 underdog Ali to win). After Ali's victory they were sort of stuck, they either had to admit that they blew it on Foreman (which some of them did) or they had to admit that they underrated Ali. The 1960's arguement questioning Ali's toughness and ability to take a punch- sort of went out the window.

Sharkey
04-06-2006, 01:49 PM
My post was meant to illustrate this point: Each and every opinion is biased when viewed by others who disagree with it.

The severity of such is related to how far it differs from those who disagree with it. Marciano winning an all-time tourney is bias unduly favoring Rocky. Sez me. If I rated him 13th of all time am I unfair? 5th am I critical to those who have him 2nd? How about to those that have him 10th or 12th?

If Nat was unfair in his criticism of Marciano, and severely at that then I ask what fair would be? For me it would be putting him below several other heavyweights. He thinks Corbett was better. Does that make him wrong or worse a lover of oldsters? Maybe he felt they truly were better and maybe he was correct. Maybe Nat Fleischer wasn't about to expose himself to revealing a supposed exact science to how he rated fighters...down to the minutae, therein opening himself up to criticism regarding inconsistancies. The rough outline was fien for him since it itself is open to more interpretation than a Klingon Wedding.

I am sure there will be a time in the mid 2030's when I will change my view of someone. If we are looking for Nat to have written an article where he penned to his readers how he once rated Marciano out of the top 10 and now rated him within it in order for us to understand him and his thinking, maybe we are overestimating how important he felt it was to be understood. And moreso overestimating the 'science' of rating fighters in the first place...and its significance.

Elmer Ray
04-06-2006, 01:54 PM
do they take into account the fact that in the bout with Moore (that is Archie Moore, the Old Mongoose, Old Man River), for example, he missed almost two thirds of the fifty odd punches he tossed when he had Archie (agian Moore, Archie Moore) agianst the ropes, a perfect target for the kill?"


hey nat,

u ever wonder to think rocky was facing one of the smartest and best defensive fighters of all time? perhaps thats why he missed so much. furthermore, even if he did miss all those punches, he still battered and beat the shit out of moore knocking him down 4 times. even if he did miss, he was still very effective. part of wut made rocky so great was his volume of punches, if u never stop throwing punches the greater the chance you have to land at least one big one. it also neutralises the other guys superior handspeed.

Elmer Ray
04-06-2006, 02:03 PM
One could allege that the programmer of that computer similarly was overly generous to Rocky..could they not?


of course, but look who rocky had to beat to win the tournament? gene tunney, max baer, james jeffries, jack dempsey. realistically, these are all winnable matches. its not like the computer had rocky beating ali or louis.

i think jeffries beating ali and baer beating johnson were far more ludicrous than marciano winning it, considering who rocky matched up in the tournament.

hawk5ins
04-06-2006, 04:04 PM
when I first discussed Herb Goldman and then Nat Fleischer, was that just because they said something or held a particular opinion, it doesn't necssary mean it's gospel.

I gave a few examples that I knew the majority would read and they would scratch their heads after absorbing it.

Sharkey makes a very good point here: EVERY opinion is biased when read by others. And a good thing to take away from this is that JUST becuase a Nat Fleischer or Bert Sugar or Herb Goldman or Gil Clancy or Ray Arcel or Jimmy Cannon says something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is so or beyond questioning.

That point kinda got lost along the way here.

Hawk

Sharkey
04-06-2006, 07:12 PM
focusing on who he had to beat in the tournament presupposes the tournament is based on fact. Winnable matches against perhaps similarly imperfectly calibrated apptitudes of fighters is itself missing the point that human-fed data into a computer is crap in and crap out to a degree. The 01010101 that represented Tunney's defense is determined by whom again?

As for not beating Ali or Louis, who says they are the standards? People do, but is it fact?

Hawk makes a very salient point. It is possible to know so much about something and yet be after-all, human.

jim
04-07-2006, 03:11 PM
SAw this post. Seems Mr. E, Ted,and Mike made alot of sense. Mr. Shoemaker very biased and too much the know it all; kind of a wise guy.Good post, though.

Mr E
04-07-2006, 05:39 PM
of course, but look who rocky had to beat to win the tournament? gene tunney, max baer, james jeffries, jack dempsey. realistically, these are all winnable matches. its not like the computer had rocky beating ali or louis.

i think jeffries beating ali and baer beating johnson were far more ludicrous than marciano winning it, considering who rocky matched up in the tournament.

In case you fellas don't have it in front of you, here's how that tournament played out:


Murray Woroner’s Computer Tournament (1967)
Printed in: The People’s Almanac, David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace (pp. 1144-1147)

Round 1:
Jack Dempsey KO7 Jim Corbett
John L. Sullivan W15 Jim Braddock
Joe Louis KO15 Jess Willard
Bob Fitzsimmons W15 Jack Sharkey
Max Baer W15 Jack Johnson
Rocky Marciano W15 Gene Tunney
Jim Jeffries KO10 Jersey Joe Walcott
Muhammad Ali W15 Max Schmeling

Quarter Finals:
Jack Dempsey KO7 John L. Sullivan
Joe Louis TKO10 Bob Fitzsimmons
Rocky Marciano TKO13 Max Baer
Jim Jeffries W15 Muhammad Ali

Semi Finals:
Jack Dempsey W15 Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano TKO14 Jim Jeffries

Final:
Rocky Marciano KO13 Jack Dempsey

[Most interesting to me is the selection of the field -- in particular, the omission of Sonny Liston & Ezzard Charles.]

mike
04-07-2006, 07:26 PM
one thing about the radio broadcasts- they were excellant - alot of minut details- the outcomes almost just don matter- great job.

Elmer Ray
04-07-2006, 09:08 PM
i am very upset they left out ezzard charles and sonny liston, both men were far better than some of the guys that were in the tournament

hawk5ins
04-08-2006, 03:06 PM
If I were Ez or Sonny, I'd be just as happy they didn't include me.

Hawk

mike
04-12-2006, 12:43 PM
some of these new guys here remind me of doobie or deegle- the same tiring bs from guys who never spent much time in a gym - or they woulndt be so stupud . go to the modern boards and leave us to our rocking chairs- leave the old folks alone sonny ifin you know whats good fer ya.

hawk5ins
04-12-2006, 01:03 PM
(nor should it really matter).

But it certainly does make one feel welcomed here that's for sure.

Hawk

Elmer Ray
04-12-2006, 01:45 PM
some of these new guys here remind me of doobie or deegle- the same tiring bs from guys who never spent much time in a gym - or they woulndt be so stupud . go to the modern boards and leave us to our rocking chairs- leave the old folks alone sonny ifin you know whats good fer ya.


am i one of the new guys u are implying?

Mr E
04-12-2006, 01:57 PM
i am very upset they left out ezzard charles and sonny liston, both men were far better than some of the guys that were in the tournament


It is interesting, though. As I recall, they got some 200 real experts-- sportswriters, trainers, other boxing folks, to fill out survey cards re strengths and weaknesses, etc., and Woroner used those to create the field and program the computer. Very thorough job. Just goes to show how much the Ali debacles had crippled Liston's credibility circa 1969. And it also shows just how severely Charles was under-appreciated by even guys who really knew and understood the sport. If it were up to me, though, Liston & Charles would have replaced Sullivan & Braddock in the field.

mike
04-12-2006, 02:34 PM
nope

greek1237
04-12-2006, 04:42 PM
I think I keep Sullivan base on historic factor and all, he was the first heavyweight champ. and was a GREAT fighter in his day. Sullivan is down to the point were people dont think real high of him. He was not a bar room brawler like myth would have it. And he did show some nice feits with Corbett in that mock sparing. And of couse reports on his speed.

Of couse there is NO film of Sullivan in action. But I feel he has a good chance of beating almost anyone on a giving day.

Capslock
06-29-2006, 11:37 PM
"Langford's about the first one to actually work the body, that doesn't say much for his predecessors"

And here I thought Bob Fitzsimmons won the heavyweight title with the "solar plexus" punch

and Jim Jeffries broke the ribs of three opponents in title fights---Corbett, Ruhlin, and Sharkey.

And I guess Terry McGovern, Kid Lavigne, Joe Walcott, Bat Nelson, Frank Klaus, Jack Dillon, Billy Papke, etc. didn't throw body shots.

Thanks for setting us straight on that.

Capslock
06-29-2006, 11:41 PM
How big was Jess Willard?

How did Willard lose his title?

Capslock
06-29-2006, 11:46 PM
Yeah, Dempsey sure had an awfully slow "workrate" in the first round of his fight with Willard. Have you seen it?