Dempsey V Marciano...

[Mr E]

Two points: Regarding why Dempsey never fought a black contender, it is easy to forget that, just 9 years before Dempsey became champion, race riots broke out and people were actually killed as a result of that fight between Jeffries and Johnson. I don't think that's the only reason, but I think the fear of a repeat played a role in the decision to keep Wills away from Dempsey. (By the way, I don't think Dempsey was afraid of Wills on a personal level; I don't think Demspey was afraid of anyone.)

Regarding the years of activity, one must remember that boxing was unregulated in those days, and nobody could force a champion to defend his title. In those days, a heavyweight champion was a god. He could make a ton of money through vaudeville, movies, and personal appearances without ever having to put his title on the line. Dempsey, I suspect, was making plenty of money - why put the title on the line and risk losing it? I recall in 1902/1903, somebody asking Jeffries why he didn't sign for a title defense against Corbett. He said, basically, "I'm making $1,000 a week in vaudeville. Why risk the title for a $20,000 or $30,000 purse?" I suspect that was Dempsey/Kearns mindset, too: "We're making plenty of money now? Why take a chance of blowing the title and missing out on all the dough that comes with being champion?"

Regarding Greb, was there an outcry for Dempsey to fight Greb? Its not a rhetorical question; I just don't recall anyone calling for that fight.

Well, another thing to consider about Dempsey's famous lay-off was that he was in a contract dispute w/ Kearns. He basically retired until the contract expired. Not fair to the contenders, true, and maybe it wasn't a good reason -- but there WAS a reason.

[Elmer Ray]

"Moore was ageing rapidly at the time he fought Marciano... look what happened to him against Patterson just a few months later."


huh? mr. e look at moores record coming into the marciano fight, he was 45-1 in his last 46 fights including wins over top heavyweight contenders jimmy bivins, nino valdez, clarence henry, harold johnson, bob baker. did gibbons have heavyweight wins like these? not to mention moore beating harold johnson 4 times including knocking out harold johnson less than a year away from fighting marciano. in fact moore had only lost once in the past 6 years to Hall of famer harold johnson(which moore avenged 5 times).

did gibbons beat any skilled powerful big heavyweights like moore did? did gibbons beat a big powerful skilled top heavyweight contender like valdez, baker.

marciano was a known ruiner. with the beating he put on moore, its safe to say he took something out of moore.

as for patterson, he is an ATG top 20 heavyweight of all time. so wut if he knocked out moore, moore could have never beaten patterson on his best night, patterson would have smoked out gibbons too. i dont see how you can hold it against moore for losing to an ATG heavyweight. i might add this fight was AFTER a known ruiner liker marciano had given moore a terribly beating 1 1/2 years earlier.

moore wasnt aging at all when he fought rocky. in fact even after the marciano fight moore went 28-3 and was champion for another 6 years!!


gibbons retired just two years after the dempsey fight, and got his ass kicked by tunney.

[Elmer Ray]

look i dont see why we have to bring down marciano and dempseys opponents to talk up either fighter. wuts the point of that? lets stick to styles.

[raylawpc]

"gibbons retired just two years after the dempsey fight, and got his ass kicked by tunney.

However, there is certainly nothing dishonorable about losing to Gene Tunney. Getting one's butt kicked by Tunney happened 82 times, if you count newspaper decisions.

[Elmer Ray]

However, there is certainly nothing dishonorable about losing to Gene Tunney. Getting one's butt kicked by Tunney happened 82 times, if you count newspaper decisions.

just like there is certanly nothing dishonerable about losing to floyd patterson.

[Elmer Ray]

"Dempsey's wins were all over guys who were in their prime and at the top of their games. Marciano's were not. [I'd put Firpo on Dempsey's list. Maybe Tunney, too. LOL]"

wut top guys are those anyways? jack sharkey yes but this was controversial. other than that he never beat a great fighter in there prime. harry wills was out there, but dempsey didnt fight him.


if you say tommy gibbons was in his prime vs dempsey, then you must acklknowlege moore and walcott were in there primes when they fought rocky. it works both ways.


btw, i think even the versions of moore, charles, walcott marciano beat were better than anyony dempsey beat. joe louis even at 36 would have kicked the shit out of firpo, old willard, and fulton IMO.

[Elmer Ray]

"Geez, not to me. Wow."


what you think rusty old willard, little carpentier, clusmy firpo, mediocre brennan looked better? i dont not at all

lastarza at least knew how to keep his chin tucked and his hands high. did any of those guys do that? no thats boxing 101

[Elmer Ray]

"
It's as clear to me that Dempsey would have beaten Wills as it is that Marciano would have beaten Valdez, Baker or Henry."


not to me. wills beat much better competition than dempsey and had the tools to beat dempsey.


while its clear marciano would have taken valdez, baker, henry, its not clear whether dempsey would have beaten wills

[hawk5ins]

If your are going to ask everyone not to denigrate either fighters opponents and want to come accross as not sinking to that level, then don't sink to that level and do exactly that: Denigrate Dempsey's opponents.

When you say that tactic is NOT necessary to make your point, then you have to live by your own declaration. Even if it is in response to someone else doing exactly that.

Either that or everything is fair game.

Hawk

[raylawpc]

lastarza at least knew how to keep his chin tucked and his hands high. did any of those guys do that? no thats boxing 101

Elmer, that is not a fair comment. Guys who fought before and into the 1920s were not trained to fight with the same style as guys who fought in the 1950s and later. You look at old guys like Willard, Jack Johnson, Ketchel, Leonard, etc. etc. etc., they all fought with their hands pretty much held low.

Now if you think these guys could never have learned to fight out of a more modern boxing stance - well, that's one thing. But it is unfair to criticize them for not fighting in a style they were never taught.

[raylawpc]

just like there is certanly nothing dishonerable about losing to floyd patterson.

Absolutely.

[hawk5ins]

Your last point prompts me to ask this question:

Do you think that fighters (from the 20's or earlier) becuase of the style they fought in (becuase they were taught that way) are at a disadvantage to fighters who fought in a more modern or traditional stance, from say the 50's?

Hawk

[raylawpc]

I think Ron Lipton said it quite well in his 2/15 posting on his Q & A thread: "I accepted and always understood the evolution of modern boxing but never liked the hands low, leaning back on the rear leg, excessive clinching etc.
It would not work too well against a class A+ modern fighter, who trained to deal with it. Yet those old bastards could be very tricky."

I agree with the gist of what Ron said throughout this recent postings (2/13-2/16) with respect to the fighting styles of the old timers.

[hawk5ins]

That's the lawyer in you answering that question, that's for sure.

Personally, I prefer direct responses to direct questions, but that's just me.

If I wanted Ron's take on this question, I would have gone and viewed Ron's post.

Ray, nevermind. I withdraw the question.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

since the tossing around of opinions of various weight, merit and relevance... all of which not close to substantiation beyond their own utterance.. formidable in appearance and yet really little more than guesses, deemed meaty and formidable more for who says them rather than what they are themselves... is in vogue in these last handful of posts; I will toss one of my own out there regarding the latest turn of the discussion:

I think, and bear in mind having never been paid a professional purse for fighting nor have I ever actually had a cutman named "Ace" suture me up, that we have witnessed more a passing of time and a changing of rules and ways to win judges favor and preserve one's winning career than a true revelation or evolution in regards discovery of de facto proper hand and leg positioning in boxing.

[mike]

i find it impossible to believe that walker,tunney or dempsey could have learned ANYTHING new in decades later--and due too their experience--may end up knowing less --overall--at a later era--they had nothing to learn more from anyone--case closed.

[raylawpc]

That's the lawyer in you answering that question, that's for sure.

Personally, I prefer direct responses to direct questions, but that's just me.

If I wanted Ron's take on this question, I would have gone and viewed Ron's post.

Ray, nevermind. I withdraw the question.

Hawk

Okay.

[hagler04]

Elmer, that is not a fair comment. Guys who fought before and into the 1920s were not trained to fight with the same style as guys who fought in the 1950s and later. You look at old guys like Willard, Jack Johnson, Ketchel, Leonard, etc. etc. etc., they all fought with their hands pretty much held low.

Now if you think these guys could never have learned to fight out of a more modern boxing stance - well, that's one thing. But it is unfair to criticize them for not fighting in a style they were never taught.

Some guys in the 19teens held their hands higher . . it was a matter of styles.

We often forget that many of the folks we declare today to be 'master boxers' . . .James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Roy Jones Jr, Maywheather Jr. . . .often hold their hands extremely low.

It especially doesn't make much sense to hold your hands up to your cheeks a la Tyson if you're wearing 5 ounce gloves made of horse leather. That lack of padding would make the 'rope a dope' completely impossible to execute.

Main point being, I entirely believe that boxing by 1905-1910ish had evolved from the bare-knuckle era and that the changes that took place in the 20s, 30,s and 40s, had more to do with changes in regulations (glove size, length of title bouts etc.) than boxers suddenly getting smarter (most of the guys who trained the 1940s fighters were guys who fought in the teens)

Let Johnson and Dempsey have a few tune-ups with modern rules and they'll be ready to kick anyone's ass in the 'modern' ring.

And the root of this is all mute anyway since I def. believe Dempsey had more skills than Marciano.

[Dan Gunter]

I lean toward Dempsey, principally because I think the two were equally tough, but Dempsey was faster and had (to my mind) better defensive skills. (I do not mean to denigrate Marciano's defensive skills.) But I see nothing outrageous in choosing Marciano. Reasonable minds can certainly differ on this one.

Well, I will say this: We should all agree that this fight would have been attended by the gods themselves.

[Husker]

Nine days out of ten I would pick Dempsey as I would against any other heavyweight who's ever lived, save Ali and to be honst, I'm not wholly confident either Ali (pre and post banishment) takes him.

This is that tenth day. Having recently discussed this exact same match-up on anpther site recently, I've been thinking about the Rock a lot recently and I can't shake two very famous happenings.

1. The Walcott KO in the first fight. This wasn't Hearns crushing Duran in two, Robinson's perfect hook in the 5th (or was it the 6th?) against Fullmer or Louis' awesome demolition in the rematch against Schmeling. Just as it wasn't quick, it wasn't gradual either. With one single punch exceptionally late in a grueling, give and take battle, he simply discombobulated a heavyweight champion with a punch that traveled less than a foot.

2. The facial injury against Charles the first time. With his nose flopping around like a windsock, Rocky kept coming. That's inhuman. Charles wasn't a big puncher at heavy but he still kept hitting him there and the Rock kept coming. I've seen some courageous and tough s in this sport but I've NEVER seen anything like that.

Dempsey could be reckless and wide-open and I don't think that hurts him because he was so damned fast but the Rock would get one in every now and then, at first. Then steadily more and more often. How 'bout a longer Hagler-Hearns? One guy, superior or equal in EVERY department (in Tonmmy's case all but one -chin) hurts the other guy early and maybe even more than once but it's not enough and slowly but surely the tide swings.

Marciano TKO late.

[hawk5ins]

Hawk

[TDKO]

Why was my question deleted?

[Paulie W]

TDKO: it's not the same thread you posed the question on (you'll find that further down the page) but is a longer thread on the same topic (which is why, I imagine, it was bumped?).

[TDKO]

Ok....

Thanks Paulie.

I will look for it.

[Juan C Ayllon]

And, in case you don't want to scroll down to it, here's a link to the other Dempsey-Marciano thread:

Link to Other Dempsey-Marciano Thread

[TDKO]

Thanks Juan!

[Juan C Ayllon]

You're welcome, TDKO!

[greek1237]

Two points: Regarding why Dempsey never fought a black contender, it is easy to forget that, just 9 years before Dempsey became champion, race riots broke out and people were actually killed as a result of that fight between Jeffries and Johnson. I don't think that's the only reason, but I think the fear of a repeat played a role in the decision to keep Wills away from Dempsey. (By the way, I don't think Dempsey was afraid of Wills on a personal level; I don't think Demspey was afraid of anyone.)

Regarding the years of activity, one must remember that boxing was unregulated in those days, and nobody could force a champion to defend his title. In those days, a heavyweight champion was a god. He could make a ton of money through vaudeville, movies, and personal appearances without ever having to put his title on the line. Dempsey, I suspect, was making plenty of money - why put the title on the line and risk losing it? I recall in 1902/1903, somebody asking Jeffries why he didn't sign for a title defense against Corbett. He said, basically, "I'm making $1,000 a week in vaudeville. Why risk the title for a $20,000 or $30,000 purse?" I suspect that was Dempsey/Kearns mindset, too: "We're making plenty of money now? Why take a chance of blowing the title and missing out on all the dough that comes with being champion?"

Regarding Greb, was there an outcry for Dempsey to fight Greb? Its not a rhetorical question; I just don't recall anyone calling for that fight.

Tunney was smoking something when he wrote that.
You should have read his writting on Boxer vs Gorilla. We all know a Gorilla can rip a car in half, but Tunney says something that a boxer could beat a Gorilla.

[greek1237]

ops wrong one.

[apollack]

Here's something interesting, written in 1927 by Joe Choynski:

Most of the champions today would make sorry showings against those of a generation ago. ... Neither Dempsey nor Tunney seem to me up to the standard of the heavyweights of a generation ago. I am not impressed by Tunney. I can't see where Dempsey ever beat any one deserving to be mentioned with John L. Sullivan, Jeffries, Fitzsimmons or Sharkey.

Miske? Brennan? Gunboat Smith? Flynn? Why these men would not have given Jeffries, Fitzsimmons or Sharkey a sweat.

Carpentier? He is a joke. Fitz would have licked him in one round. Imagine Carpentier being referred to as clever. Who ever heard of a one-handed fighter being clever? Carpentier's left might as well be cut off. How can a man with no left be a scientific boxer? Look over Carpentier's record and tell me one good man he licked.

Willard at his best was a pusher. He was all in when Dempsey beat him.

As for Firpo, he would have made a good sparring partner for Sullivan or Jeffries - just a big, clumsy clown, a one-handed fellow who telegraphs his blows. He would not have laid a glove on Kid McCoy. Firpo was 'built up,' as was Carpentier, by clever publicity.