Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
Closed Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 172

Thread: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Elmer Ray- you could have given the excuse that Charles was on leave from the service when he took the fights with Bivins and Marshall, although that's not really fair to Bivins and Marshall (not their fault). He avenged them both when he returned after the war (plus he has two wins over a prime Charley Burley, when Charles was 20 years old). Also, Charles fought everyone while tunney drew the color line. I don't know what source people on this site use when they state that Wills ducked Tunney; in Roger Kahn's book on Dempsey, Kahn, using a letter from Tunney to a New York promoter basically stated that he shouldn't have to fight Wills before fighting Dempsey.
    Wills fought the dangerous Firpo to get to Dempsey, why would he fear a Light Heavy ? Plus, it isn't as though Wills is making very much money fighting black fighters. Thing is Wills is shot by 1925. As I said, much of Tunney's success is due to the fact that he was one of the first fighters to use lateral movement and use a jab-straight right combo. That's not that big of a deal in the 1940's. Plus Tunney holds his hands very low, not that other boxer's don't but it's not as though he has a long reach. The reason I'd take a PRIME Marciano over a PRIME Dempsey is that Marciano, like Frazier, carries his power late into the fight. So if Dempsey doesn't get him out of there by the 5th round, he's in big trouble. Marciano's also physically stronger than Dempsey and that should be a factor with two guys who like to get inside. Like Frazier, Marciano will often lose early rounds because the opponents can hang with them at that pace, by they can't hang at that pace for long (Frazier puts even more pressure on his opponent than Marciano).

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    edited
    Last edited by Elmer Ray; 03-26-2006 at 03:16 AM.

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    were comparing a far past his prime dempsey with a prime marciano. this will be a clear win for marciano and i think inside of 5 . same thing with comparing a far past his prime marciano vs demsey. no contest. no way dempsey of the tunney fights will be able to survive marciano fighting like that. perhaps we share different opinions, but i feel prime for prime they were pretty much even and i see it 50/50



    - one myth that I would like to officially bust about marciano is "cutting", marcian was NOT a bad bleeder. guys like chuck wepner, henry cooper, quarry were, NOT MARCIANO.

    * out of rockys 49 fights, ONLY 6 fights did rocky suffer bleeding cuts. rocky NEVER HAD A FIGHT STOPPED ON CUTS. the johnny skhor(headbutt), ezzard charles II(elbow), Keene Simmons, Walcott I, were 4 of the 6 fights rocky suffered cuts.

    * the 2nd charles fight was not going to be stopped in the next round like the legend tells it. it was a myth that newspapers made up to give a spice to the fight. in reality, the cut was HORRIBLY gruesome but the doctor never implied he was going to stop it in the next round.

    * be realistic, the charles cut was defintley an elbow. I mean, in history of boxing have u ever seen a punch do that do a fighters nose??

    - it appears rocky is not the bleeder everyone makes him out to be, if only he only suffered cuts in a few of his 49 fights and the only time he was on verge of getting stopped on cuts was simmons I and charles II.

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by The Shoemaker
    Elmer Ray- you could have given the excuse that Charles was on leave from the service when he took the fights with Bivins and Marshall, although that's not really fair to Bivins and Marshall (not their fault). He avenged them both when he returned after the war (plus he has two wins over a prime Charley Burley, when Charles was 20 years old). Also, Charles fought everyone while tunney drew the color line. I don't know what source people on this site use when they state that Wills ducked Tunney; in Roger Kahn's book on Dempsey, Kahn, using a letter from Tunney to a New York promoter basically stated that he shouldn't have to fight Wills before fighting Dempsey.
    Wills fought the dangerous Firpo to get to Dempsey, why would he fear a Light Heavy ? Plus, it isn't as though Wills is making very much money fighting black fighters. Thing is Wills is shot by 1925. As I said, much of Tunney's success is due to the fact that he was one of the first fighters to use lateral movement and use a jab-straight right combo. That's not that big of a deal in the 1940's. Plus Tunney holds his hands very low, not that other boxer's don't but it's not as though he has a long reach. The reason I'd take a PRIME Marciano over a PRIME Dempsey is that Marciano, like Frazier, carries his power late into the fight. So if Dempsey doesn't get him out of there by the 5th round, he's in big trouble. Marciano's also physically stronger than Dempsey and that should be a factor with two guys who like to get inside. Like Frazier, Marciano will often lose early rounds because the opponents can hang with them at that pace, by they can't hang at that pace for long (Frazier puts even more pressure on his opponent than Marciano).


    I agree with most of what u wrote, and I am still undecided on a prime for prime dempsey marciano match.

    - you make a great point about dempseys late round power, though dempsey showed in the 2nd brennan fight he had his late power, and it was in a very close competitive fight. i believe after 10 rounds, brennan had been winning. however, it also must be noted dempsey was an extremeley fast starter and knocked most guys out early so he wasnt having to prove himself later in the fight.

    - the gibbons fight u can say dempsey didnt finish him, but this happened in 23 and some papers at the time reported jack wasnt the same "hunry lion" he once was. also gibbons was quite durable and hard to knockout cause of his defense and ring savvy.




    - tunney could have fought a still very good wills anywhere from 1922-24. tunney never fought a big poweful heavyweight let alone a skilled big powerful heavyweight.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,890
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Historian Herb Goldman stated in Boxing Illustrated that Wills turned down offered fights with both Tunney and Gibbons. Goldman's pretty meticulous, so I would accept his conclusions unless other evidence were introduced.
    I sincerely doubt that Marciano was physically stronger than Dempsey, and I don't think he had faster hands or a better chin. He certainly didn't have the movement that Dempsey could employ when young and fit (pre-layoff and Hollywood adventures). If Walcott's left hook could drop a prime Marciano like a sack of potatoes and hurt him repeatedly (look at round eleven of their first fight -- it's agonizing), Dempsey's hook would do even more damage.
    Marciano cut in six fights. To the best of my knowledge, Dempsey never cut during a bout. We've all read the story of his bathing his face in beef brine, so maybe the benefits of that activity were real.
    In Dempsey you have a naturally larger man who hit just as hard or harder than Rocky, a man whose toughness was goldplated when he went the distance twice with Tunney though athletically finished, knocked out a very good Brennan in the twelfth when he was undertained and overconfident, and clearly out-pointed one of the trickiest boxers ever to ply his trade in the division over fifteen fast-paced rounds. Not to mention coming back from a severe beating in the early rounds to blast out Sharkey with one punch. He certainly didn't have to win his fights early.
    Head to head, I find it difficult to see how Rock wins this one. But I'd love to see the collision of the two bulls. PeteLeo.

  6. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    I sincerely doubt that Marciano was physically stronger than Dempse

    I think marciano was stronger than dempsey and a lot of other heavyweight champions. Marcianos strength was one of his greatest attributes. people talk too much of marcianos stamina, and not enough about his strength.

    archie moore who fought many 220+ heavies in his career said "marciano was far and away the strongest man i ever fought, and believe me i met some tough ones."

    ezzard charles also said "marciano was the strongest i ever faced."


    -almost all of marcianos opponents and sparring parnters have said the same thing.

    - i think marcianos strength is VASTLY underated by many people today. I constantly hear people say frazier was stronger and they base it all on frazier being 15-20lb heavier when in fact frazier had 20lb more fat than marciano. marciano was regularly well over 200lb, and he had to train himself FANATICALLY down to make 185lb.





    - dempsey defintley has the bigger edge in speed, no question. he had faster hands, and he defintley had faster footspeed and cut off the ring better



    - chin? i think its close but i see marciano as being the more durable of the two.




    If Walcott's left hook could drop a prime Marciano like a sack of potatoes and hurt him repeatedly (look at round eleven of their first fight -- it's agonizing), Dempsey's hook would do even more damage.

    you cant say this. this is picking apples and oranges.


    its like me saying if cooper's left hook could drop and nearly KO ali, listons, foremans, fraziers hook would defintley ko ali .


    or like me saying


    if firpos could drop dempsey 2x and then knock him out of the ring and nearly out(if it werent for ringsiders help) , what do u think marcianos punches would do to dempsey?
    Last edited by Elmer Ray; 03-26-2006 at 03:55 AM.

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    walcott was a big puncher. in RING magazines top 100 greatest punchers, they rated walcott # 66. That left hook walcott knocked marciano down with in the first was a carbon copy of the same one that recentley knocked ezzard charles out cold! except rocky was only down for a quick 2 count. walcott said he could not believe he turned his head to see that marciano had gotten up.

  8. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Pete-I'll get you Khan's source on Tunney-wills, when I can find the book. The reason I think Marciano's physically stronger than Dempsey is "look at their builds". Marciano has huge forearms, big thighs, and a big ass (in perportion to his height and weight). Like i said, Marciano's walking around weight is over 200 llbs, it was just that he was a fanatical trainer that he dropped below 190 for his fights. Plus he used his strength in fights to wear down opponents, physically move them, and throw them into corners far more often than Dempsey did. And, practically everyone who fought Marciano talked about his strength and how he wore them down. I never said Dempsey wasn't in shape, it's just that Marciano was a freak in regards to physical conditioning (most people would overtrain if they followed his regiment), the only fighter that comes close is Frazier. I doubt if Brennon or Gibbons are going to fight him at the pace Marciano will fight him at.

  9. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Sorry Elmer- I didn't read your post on Marciano's strength, so I wound up repeating what you said. The guy was built like a fire Hydrant. I disagree with you on Frazier, I think 205 was perfect for him. I think he'd be overtrained and weak if he dropped down under 190 (he trained like crazy for Ali in "71"). Remember, 99% of the fighters can't train like Marciano or be effective that far below their natural weight that's just in his genes. Then again roids will allow athletes in other sports to overtrain, but then again, steroids usually put weight on people.

  10. #40
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by Elmer Ray
    its like me saying if cooper's left hook could drop and nearly KO ali, listons, foremans, fraziers hook would defintley ko ali .


    or like me saying


    if firpos could drop dempsey 2x and then knock him out of the ring and nearly out(if it werent for ringsiders help) , what do u think marcianos punches would do to dempsey?
    Bad logic.

    The valid comparisons are championship bouts straight up when generally the fighters are at their best. Clay was young and unfocused against Cooper in a non title bout. A valid point would be that Ali could be hit with a damaging left hook all through his career and sometimes struggled against quick prime fighters or big strong fighters.

    Firpo is also a much larger, yes, stronger man than Rocky, and yes, he hit harder, it was all he had. Did Rocky ever face a really big guy who could crack like Firpo who, today, would be a larger version of Corrie Sanders? BTW, it was a push that propelled Jack out of the ring after he was knocked off balance by a right hand.

  11. #41
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by The Shoemaker
    Pete-I'll get you Khan's source on Tunney-wills, when I can find the book. The reason I think Marciano's physically stronger than Dempsey is "look at their builds". Marciano has huge forearms, big thighs, and a big ass (in perportion to his height and weight). Like i said, Marciano's walking around weight is over 200 llbs, it was just that he was a fanatical trainer that he dropped below 190 for his fights. Plus he used his strength in fights to wear down opponents, physically move them, and throw them into corners far more often than Dempsey did.
    Here's the IBHOF TOT for both. They didn't include "ass" measurments.

    Ht..5-10¼ 6-0¾
    Wt..184 187
    Reach..68 77
    Chest..39 42
    Exp...42 46
    Waist..32 33
    Bicep 14 16¼
    Neck..16¾ 161/2
    Wrist..7½ 9
    Calf..14¾ 15
    Ankle..10 9
    Thigh..22 23
    Fist..11½ 11¼
    Forearm 12 Jack 14½

    Now, I'm not gungho on validity of ancient TOT measurements which have never had any official guidelines or directives, but it appears that Jack has a significant advantage in every category save the ankle and presumably the "ass". The neck/calf sizes are almost identical.

    Don't think you make a good case for Rock's strength advantage. Jack handled the much bigger stronger fighters, and I doubt Rocky could ever come out of the gate as fast as Jack and maintain his form down the stretch like Jack did, so I really don't see a stamina advantage either.

    It seems to me that Rocky trained down to his optimal size, which suited his paced pressure style based on stamina. Let's not make it any more than it is which is what you are doing. He was not this tremendous physical speciman who cut himself down. He was losing body fat.

  12. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,356
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Why perpetuate the myth that Holyfield was not a natural heavyweight? It's not true. prior to the birth of the Crusierweight class, Holyfield was a heavyweight his whole career. Even with Crusierweight, he was above 200 lbs. before his 20th fight. Hell, Muhammad Ali fought at light heavy in the Olympics too and was light early in his career. Still a heavyweight. Holy was a small heavyweight; not an unnatural one. Guys like Moore started at middleweight so to compare that to Holy is stupid.

  13. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    A bout between Dempsey and Marciano wouldn't, I don't think, be settled by a determination of which one was physically stronger.

    Not for one second do I pan Marciano's potential victory in this as a possibility. Still, I do not think Dempsey is one of the prospective fanatasy opponents that would be right in Rocky's wheelhouse.

    If Marciano would defeat Dempsey, would it hinge on if he was stronger or not..to the point that if he wasn't, in fact stronger, he would THEN be a likely loser?

    His stamina and punch rate would be effective against Jack. But for sheer physical strength as it makes one a winner over another...maybe in some Superstars competition.

  14. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Firpo is also a much larger, yes, stronger man than Rocky, and yes, he hit harder, it was all he had.
    disagree, marciano defintley hit harder than firpo, though firpo could wack.

    - pre 1954 rocky was one of the hardest p4p hitters who ever lived.


    - marciano was buil like a fire hydrant, i forget who said it. take a look at his forearms, his legs, etc he was incredibly thick and big boned. archie moore faced big strongest sluggers like 6'3 215lb nino valdes yet he called 188lb marciano far and away the strongest man he ever fought.
    Last edited by Elmer Ray; 03-26-2006 at 04:19 PM.

  15. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    As far as "Tale of the Tapes" or physiques as a guage to describe someones "functional strength" in the ring; I am sure Mike Tyson or Mike Weaver's numbers would blow Dempsey and Marciano's out of the water. But in funtional strength in the ring, it's not even close. Tyson, like Dempsey, didn't rely on physical strength to win fights, it's not that big of a deal; their fights were won because of their speed, and ability to get inside on bigger fighters and kill them with accurate combinations. Both fighters do get tied up a lot (Dempsey-Gibbons, is a bore to watch as Gibbons ties Jack up continuously) . Marciano on the other hand, depends on his strength, it's arguablly his biggest weapon. There are different ways to use strength in the ring, you can grab, hold, and force your opponent to the ropes like Fullmer, Jack johnson, or John Ruiz (I know it's blasphemy to put Ruiz in their class, but the guy does use his strength to win fights-he also weighs 240-doesn't look it), or you can use your upper body strength like Foreman to shove swarmers off of your chest (where they can do damage) and force them back outside where they have to run the gauntlet to get back inside. Marciano's pressures' different, he doesn't tie up much, instead he uses his legs and lower center of gravity (like I said, it's like trying to push on a fire hydrant) to drive his opponent to the ropes. Because when their opponent's back is on the ropes, not only are they easier to hit, but most of them arn't as dangerous with their back on the ropes, they don't have any leverage or room to throw (unless they are great in-fighters, or they're used to fighting off the ropes, which few fighters are), so Marciano is much safier if his opponents on the ropes and his opponent has to fight him out of a phone book, with no leverage. Thing is, Marciano's opponents either have to push back with their legs (against someone who is lower than them), go to the ropes, or move. Either way they are expending energy. Next point: In a Marciano-Dempsey match up, everyone thinks that Dempsey will nail him with a big right hand ala George Foreman. Dempsey has the same style as Marciano, he wants to get inside. a lot of times when two swarmers meet people predict early KO's, that's not always the case. A lot of times both fighters are "safe in the pocket" and because of that they don't land bombs. I think a big key to that fight would be strength and conditioning (and Marciano has a better uppercut than Dempsey, which will come into play with two swarmers). Now, you have one fighter who's whole fight plan is predicated on using his physical strength, the other uses his hand speed and ability to throw combinations (which was a big deal in the 1920's). As far as Dempsey muscleling Firpo or Willard, I didn't see that. I saw a guy get inside by slipping their roundhouse right hands (neither of the "Giants" -Firpo was 6-3 1/2 had much of a jab) then killing the longer-armed fighters with combinations. Then after dropping them, he got behind them (no neutral corner back them) and sucker punched them back down again and again (not Dempsey's fault that was the rules back them).

  16. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    I meant to say that Tyson and Dempsey both are easier to tie up than Marciano (Tyson, despite his size, was real easy to tie up). Of coarse Tyson is fighting 240 llbe'rs, so I doubt if too many 180 llber's are going to tie him up

  17. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    121
    vCash
    500

    Unnatural?

    You mean fighters who fought below todays minimum weight for Heavy weights?

    Bob Fitzsimmons and Sam Langford were two of the best.

    Some observers of the time believed Langford was at his fighting peak during his Welterweight days. However, he had the nessecary frame to add weight.

    He was a special fighter. Not only would Sam prove a real danger to the likes of Tunney, Louis and Marciano -- men around his size, but I'd bet he'd have a few surprises in him vs. the big Heavy weights of more modern times.

    Jim Flynn expressed that Langford hit him harder than Dempsey had. His left hook, right uppercut combination was sizzling. His record showed he could destroy huge men.

    Fitzsimmons, again, had that frame. These men were not really what you would call small, but rather 'special cases'. He used those lanky arms and patented shifts to create that power of his.

    Champions today, both of them.

  18. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    There are different ways to use strength in the ring, you can grab, hold, and force your opponent to the ropes like Fullmer, Jack johnson, or John Ruiz (I know it's blasphemy to put Ruiz in their class, but the guy does use his strength to win fights-he also weighs 240-doesn't look it), or you can use your upper body strength like Foreman to shove swarmers off of your chest (where they can do damage) and force them back outside where they have to run the gauntlet to get back inside. Marciano's pressures' different, he doesn't tie up much, instead he uses his legs and lower center of gravity (like I said, it's like trying to push on a fire hydrant) to drive his opponent to the ropes. Because when their opponent's back is on the ropes, not only are they easier to hit, but most of them arn't as dangerous with their back on the ropes, they don't have any leverage or room to throw (unless they are great in-fighters, or they're used to fighting off the ropes, which few fighters are), so Marciano is much safier if his opponents on the ropes and his opponent has to fight him out of a phone book, with no leverage. Thing is, Marciano's opponents either have to push back with their legs (against someone who is lower than them), go to the ropes, or move. Either way they are expending energy. Next point: In a Marciano-Dempsey match up, everyone thinks that Dempsey will nail him with a big right hand ala George Foreman. Dempsey has the same style as Marciano, he wants to get inside. a lot of times when two swarmers meet people predict early KO's, that's not always the case. A lot of times both fighters are "safe in the pocket" and because of that they don't land bombs. I think a big key to that fight would be strength and conditioning (and Marciano has a better uppercut than Dempsey, which will come into play with two swarmers). Now, you have one fighter who's whole fight plan is predicated on using his physical strength, the other uses his hand speed and ability to throw combinations (which was a big deal in the 1920's). As far as Dempsey muscleling Firpo or Willard, I didn't see that. I saw a guy get inside by slipping their roundhouse right hands (neither of the "Giants" -Firpo was 6-3 1/2 had much of a jab) then killing the longer-armed fighters with combinations. Then after dropping them, he got behind them (no neutral corner back them) and sucker punched them back down again and again (not Dempsey's fault that was the rules back them).


    very interesting post shoemaker






    crold,


    in holyfields book, it states hes naturall 195lb and had to bulk up vs bryd.

  19. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,890
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    I still think you guys are dismissing Dempsey's combo speed and deceptive reach (77' or 78"). At his best, he could fire off volleys that seemed to come from too far away to reach his opponent -- until said opponent was looking up at him from the canvas. He wasn't a slickster like the best Walcott, true, but his hook was harder (according to many -- Sugar stated on "Ringside" a couple of months ago that he rated Jack's hook the best of all, better than Frazier's or Louis') and just as quick. An over-the-hill Jersey Joe consistently nailed a prime Marciano with that shot, leading me to think that sooner or later, the impact from Dempsey's blows would be just too much for even the Rock. PeteLeo.

  20. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Elmer Ray- I should have used a more textbook fighter like Joe Louis than George Foreman. My point was that I doubt that either Marciano or Dempsey are as versitale as Louis, who will set, and nail a slugger comming in (baiting them with his half-step back stlye). I'd argue since both of them (Marciano and Dempsey) live and die by getting inside, they are both going to be moving forward at each other rather than setting up. Obviously, it's not etched in stone one or the other can nail the other one comming in, but I think the majority of that fight would be fought on the inside, since that's where both of them want to be. Since both are tough-minded, and have strong chins, the fight may last longer than people think. It's not as though either of these guys have a plan B. I think it comes down to who's stronger and in better condition, two traits that are not only Marciano's strengths, but also what his style is based on.

  21. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Unnatural?

    Ted Spoon: Bob Foster was also tall and lanky and could hit when he was fighting people near his weight (I don't count Doug Jones, that was early in his career). trouble was his shots didn't do anything Frazier, Ali, or Terrelle - Wonder why ? I've seen Langford 2-3 times on film. he's 5-7, 175 llbs, comes straight in, no head movement, no crouch. fortunatly, his opponents are fighting in that antiquated style of fighting off their back foot, with their left arm out. they can't snap a jab off, and the majority of their fights are quasi-wrestling matches. You guys bitch about Ruiz, he ain't 1/1000 as bad as those guys in regards to holding and wrestling. Of coarse you're looking at Ruiz objectively (or over-objectively) while the old timers are viewed with star's in your eyes. Yes, Langford does go to the body, in fact he's one of the first fighters to base his attack off of the body (doesn't say much for the fighters that preceeded him). It also doesn't say much about Jim Corbett, when he got KO'ed by a body shot-which once again, was a big deal back then. I don't care how bad the fighters are today at heavyweight, Bob Fitzsimmons at 165 llbs is NOT winning a title (especially with his extinct style), neither is Langford at 175 (especially if he's going to walk straight in face-first). Often times the fighter with more boxing skills still gets beat at heavyweight, physics (and power) come into play. Two points: There hasn't been a heavyweight contender under 190 llbs in 40+ years-why not? Secondly, How come that no fighter in 80+ years has fought in that stupid, archaec pre- WWI style (Schmelling and Burley fought off their back foot but they wern't as exaggerated as that) ? Maybe because fighters like Dempsey made it obsolete. In both cases, remember that boxing is a multi-million dollar sport, so if there were sub 190 llb heavies who could contend they would. Same with that stupid style of the pre-WWI era. If it worked they'd use it.

  22. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteLeo
    I still think you guys are dismissing Dempsey's combo speed and deceptive reach (77' or 78"). At his best, he could fire off volleys that seemed to come from too far away to reach his opponent -- until said opponent was looking up at him from the canvas. He wasn't a slickster like the best Walcott, true, but his hook was harder (according to many -- Sugar stated on "Ringside" a couple of months ago that he rated Jack's hook the best of all, better than Frazier's or Louis') and just as quick. An over-the-hill Jersey Joe consistently nailed a prime Marciano with that shot, leading me to think that sooner or later, the impact from Dempsey's blows would be just too much for even the Rock. PeteLeo.
    jersey joe was not "over the hill" when he fought marciano. Walcott was undeniably a late-bloomer as a fighter. Walcott had just overcome his arch-nemesis, Charles, twice in his last two fights. Now, does anyone, when discussing Charles' legacy, say "Charles was beaten by a past-prime Walcott"? I'm afraid not. Those two wins were the biggest victories Walcott ever put together, and they were his last two fights before he fought Marciano, only a few months prior. Ridiculous to think he was in his prime? No, to the contrary, I see no reason to think he suddenly became an old, washed-up fighter the night he faced Marciano simply to fulfill the detractors' attempts at discrediting him. Walcott was hard as nails when he fought Rocky, he was fast, sharp, confident, focused, and in no way fought like an old man. Many historians and Ringsiders consider this one of or if not walcotts best preformances of his career. IMO it was walcotts 2nd best preformance on film, the first one being the louis robbery. walcott never let his hands go as much as he did in the marciano fight, nor did he ever display the aggresiveness he showed in the marciano fight before.

    Jersey Joe Walcott said of the 1st marciano fight " never before have I felt better or more confident."


    -I never hear anyone say walcott was past his prime during the charles-walcott series, YET 3 of their 4 fights was taken place LESS THAN A YEAR AWAY from the marciano 1st fight.




    walcott hit marciano with a left hook almost a carbon copy of the charles knockout and marciano took it and was up at 2. now difference between dempsey and walcotts left hook is walcotts left hook thrown at a different angle(more of an uppercut) than dempseys and was trickier, making it more unpredictable and harder to see. walcott had more accuracy in his left than dempsey, slightly more speed, and better timing with his punch, so this was another big reason jersey's left hook landed more than jacks might. dempsey no doubt had a better and harder left hook than walcott, but dempsey will not land his left hook on marciano as much as walcott would. dempsey was a competley different fighter than jersey joe and threw punches differently than jersey joe. dempsey defintley will land his left hook on marciano, and it will hurt him and defintley could drop him if placed properly, as with the same of marcianos punches.





    what is your thoughts about jack dempsey being able to avoid marcianos right hand? brennan, firpo, carpentier, and others all staggered dempsey with right hands. dempsey had a better defense than marciano, but he will be slugging it out with marciano and when he got overaggresive he became wild and flaily like vs willard and firpo which he will have to compose himself not to do vs rock. dempseys chin was dentable and i dont think he had as good as a chin as rocks, so i think rocky can take jacks punch a little better. dempsey did face bigger punchers than rock faced, but he was also floored and staggered by less ones and was knocked down more.


    - firpo may have pushed dempsey out of the ring but right before he did he landed hard punches on dempsey and when dempsey was pushed out, he was already out on his feet from firpos punches. dempsey barely managed to beat it(some say if it werent for the ringsiders helping jack up) . marciano is a much better all around puncher and finisher than firpo, so you gotta wonder if jack gets put in that position vs rocky, will he be able to survive it?
    Last edited by Elmer Ray; 03-26-2006 at 08:07 PM.

  23. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by Elmer Ray
    mr. e,


    with all due respect how can u say this and keep a straight face, considering charles faced far greater competition at both 175 and heavyweight during his career and fought a lot more depth, and wider range of size, style than tunney. obviosiosly ur going to be far more consistent if your fighting the fighters tunney fought.
    Disagree. Gibbons & Greb were pretty dang close to Moore & Bivins, I'd say. Sure hate to live on the difference. Walcott may have been better than anyone Tunney ever beat, except Dempsey, but Charles only went 2-2 against him. Marciano may have been better than the version of Dempsey whom Tunney beat, tho' not better than prime Dempsey, but Charles was 0-2 against Marciano.

  24. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteLeo
    Sharkey tried to knock out the shot Dempsey, including hitting him several times clearly after the bell, but he couldn't do it. I think we tend to underrate Dempsey's chin due to the knockdowns that Firpo scored against him, but Jack was never that hurt even in that bout (the through-the-ropes moment was a shove, and when he made his way back into the ring, Luis was unable to capitalize on his condition). Marciano might -- and probably would -- eventually whip the Dempsey of the Sharkey fight, but I don't think it would come in just three rounds, and I do feel that Rocky would carry a lot of residual damage out of the bout himself.
    One alleged low blow that can't even be confirmed by the only surviving film is enough to conclude that Dempsey beat Sharkey by cheating? Believe me, Sharkey was giving as good as he got in the questionable tactics department, including below the belt, behind the head and back, and after the bell. The truth seems to be that after an awful start, the aged, rusty Dempsey had gritted his teeth and was slowly working his way back into the fight on the scorecards. He might even have won a decision. Sharkey had his chance to take out the old man in the first couple of rounds, and he couldn't do it. Dempsey was as tough as a pine knot, even at that point, tough enough to go to war with the Rock for a good six or seven rounds, I think. Who knows what would have happened in those rounds? There is no doubt which of the two was by far the more frequent bleeder. PeteLeo.
    Right. I've often wondered how apocryphal that story was-- film certainly doesn't show any blow that was clearly low, but it does show the Mauler taking it to him during the 6th and 7th rounds.

    Marciano would have had trouble with any version of Dempsey because he was so easy to hit. Yes, his defense was better than people often credit, but no one can deny that he was hit early and often in every fight he ever fought.

  25. #55
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr E
    Disagree. Gibbons & Greb were pretty dang close to Moore & Bivins, I'd say. Sure hate to live on the difference. Walcott may have been better than anyone Tunney ever beat, except Dempsey, but Charles only went 2-2 against him. Marciano may have been better than the version of Dempsey whom Tunney beat, tho' not better than prime Dempsey, but Charles was 0-2 against Marciano.

    - tunney easily decisioned dempsey twice, thats how far gone dempsey was. tunney wasnt better than walcott at heavyweight. sharkey was taking dempsey to school.

    -walcott 15 unanimous 1927 dempsey WIDE DECISION


    - tunney beat a far past his prime tommy gibbons in gibbons last fight, in comparison charles beat a PRIME archie moore. THIS VICTORY MEANS A LOT MORE. also any version of gibbons would be knocked out by archie moore. also, IMO moore was BETTER THAN TUNNEY

    - tunney LOST TWICE to greb going 3-2 vs greb. in comparsion charles had a better win loss/ratio charles beat moore 3 out of 3 and bivins 4 out 5. it ALSO must be noted harry greb was a middleweight who weighed 162lb for the tunney fights.

    - greb was an all time 160lb, but he was not better than moore at 175lb



    - ezzard charles also beat harold johnson, but he was robbed. harold johnson is argueably a top 10 light-H of all time


    at 175lb

    moore KO 4 1925 tommy gibbons
    moore 15 unanimous 162lb harry greb
    moore 15 split gene tunney
    Last edited by Elmer Ray; 03-27-2006 at 01:41 AM.

  26. #56
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by Elmer Ray
    I think marciano was stronger than dempsey and a lot of other heavyweight champions. Marcianos strength was one of his greatest attributes. people talk too much of marcianos stamina, and not enough about his strength.

    archie moore who fought many 220+ heavies in his career said "marciano was far and away the strongest man i ever fought, and believe me i met some tough ones."

    ezzard charles also said "marciano was the strongest i ever faced."


    -almost all of marcianos opponents and sparring parnters have said the same thing.

    - i think marcianos strength is VASTLY underated by many people today. I constantly hear people say frazier was stronger and they base it all on frazier being 15-20lb heavier when in fact frazier had 20lb more fat than marciano. marciano was regularly well over 200lb, and he had to train himself FANATICALLY down to make 185lb.





    - dempsey defintley has the bigger edge in speed, no question. he had faster hands, and he defintley had faster footspeed and cut off the ring better



    - chin? i think its close but i see marciano as being the more durable of the two.







    you cant say this. this is picking apples and oranges.


    its like me saying if cooper's left hook could drop and nearly KO ali, listons, foremans, fraziers hook would defintley ko ali .


    or like me saying


    if firpos could drop dempsey 2x and then knock him out of the ring and nearly out(if it werent for ringsiders help) , what do u think marcianos punches would do to dempsey?
    I wouldn't be surprised if Dempsey and Marciano were the 2 strongest champs ever, pound-for-pound, but if I had to guess, I'd give the edge to Dempsey. He looks amazing moving Firpo and Willard around-- and nobody ever moved him. Definitely think Dempsey took AT LEAST as good a punch as Marciano. The only class-A banger Marciano ever fought was a dead-shot Louis. Say what you want about the over-all skill level of guys like Fulton, Morris, Willard and Firpo, they were all big strong guys who specialized in powere punching and Firpo was the only one who ever even made Dempsey blink. Brennan was mobbed up, we all know that, so half his losses and half his wins probably don't count. But ALL those KOs can't have been set-ups-- he was a banger. And a damn good one, too-- the films of the second Dempsey fight show that, when they took the hand-cuffs off him, he was a really good fighter. Good enough to have beaten either Roland LaStarza or Don Cockell. I betcha.

  27. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Marciano would have had trouble with any version of Dempsey because he was so easy to hit. Yes, his defense was better than people often credit, but no one can deny that he was hit early and often in every fight he ever fought.
    Mr E is online now Report Bad Post Reply With Quote

    its tough not to get hit when ur facing master boxing sharpshooters who have incredible speed, timing, and accuracy in there punches like moore, charles, walcott

  28. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr E
    I wouldn't be surprised if Dempsey and Marciano were the 2 strongest champs ever, pound-for-pound, but if I had to guess, I'd give the edge to Dempsey. He looks amazing moving Firpo and Willard around-- and nobody ever moved him. Definitely think Dempsey took AT LEAST as good a punch as Marciano. The only class-A banger Marciano ever fought was a dead-shot Louis. Say what you want about the over-all skill level of guys like Fulton, Morris, Willard and Firpo, they were all big strong guys who specialized in powere punching and Firpo was the only one who ever even made Dempsey blink. Brennan was mobbed up, we all know that, so half his losses and half his wins probably don't count. But ALL those KOs can't have been set-ups-- he was a banger. And a damn good one, too-- the films of the second Dempsey fight show that, when they took the hand-cuffs off him, he was a really good fighter. Good enough to have beaten either Roland LaStarza or Don Cockell. I betcha.
    - please don't use the term "shot". if louis was shot, then he would never have been able to rack up 8 victories in a row, make charles face look like he been hit with a telphone pole, or have been able to be the # 1 contender like he was when he fought rocky. shot fights dont accomplish these things. I happen to think even a 1950s version of joe louis was one of top 10 heavyweights of the 1950s. only great fighters like charles, marciano were able to beat him. 1950s louis still had the best jab in boxing, was stronger 215lb, more experienced, still had some power left, great ring smarts, solid boxing skills. he was nowhere near the prime joe louis, but he was still a formidable fighter. a shot fighter is one who is not able to compete on the world class fighting level anymore. this is not the case with joe louis in 1950. joe louis even knocked out big nino valdes in an exhibition, valdes as u know was a top contender in the 1950s.

    i would say walcott was a banger too class A. he was rated # 66 on rings top 100 greatest punchers list. walcott had a powerful left hook as well as a hard sneaky right that put louis down 3 times. walcott knocked down many world class fighters and most were just with 1 punch, but he lacked the agressiveness and finishing touch. the only time he showed his true aggresive self was the 1st marciano fight. walcotts famous one punch KO of ezzard charles should not be forgetton. this was the only time a prime charles was ever knocked out.

    -Curtis Sheppard stated that Moore was the hardest hitter he ever fought. Sheppard was in with just about every top heavyweight of the '40s, including big, hard-hitting contenders like Lee Q. Murray and Lem Franklin, and still alled Moore the hardest hitter he ever faced. Tiger Ted Lowry, who fought nearly every top heavyweight of the late '40s through mid '50s, said the same thing. And these guys fought Moore in the '40s, before he'd reached his heavyweight prime.


    i do agree dempsey faced big powerful punchers, but willard, and defintley fulton never landed anything on dempsey so he never got his chin tested in these fights.
    Last edited by Elmer Ray; 03-27-2006 at 02:01 AM.

  29. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    brennan would have defintley beaten cockell . but not lastarza. lastarza was much better than cockell, and better than brennan. brennan showed in the billy miske fights he couldnt deal with a slick boxer, lastarza would outbox brennan en route to a UD.


    - throw out lastarzas record post marciano fight 1953, he got completley ruined in the marciano fight where he suffered broken bones in his arms and permanant physical damage. a prime lastarza would have taken cockell too school IMO
    Last edited by Elmer Ray; 03-27-2006 at 01:57 AM.

  30. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    btw,

    i rate dempsey 3rd on my all time heavyweight list, and marciano 5th. where do u rate these 2 legends?

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Home