Who Wins?: Dempsey v Marciano

Simple question really. Two of the greatest heavyweights of all time. Who do people think wins this tear up?

I would make Dempsey the favourite in this. Both guys are devastating punchers but I give Dempsey the advantage in speed and accuracy. Both fighters throw alot of punches but Marciano approach is to treat his entire opponent as one big target. Dempsey I believe was the more skilled puncher and picked his shots better. Marcianos open defense would spell trouble for him.

Marciano could also be a slow starter who took a while to grow into a fight. Dempsey was about as explosive a starter as there has been and would be all over Marciano from the opening bell. I think with his faster and more accurate punching he is able to cause Marciano huge problems. Marciano had a terrific chin and was durable but he would not be the person to be overwhelmed early by Dempsey and his lack of movement and defence could see him stopped either by knock out or by cuts.

The longer the fight lasts the more opportunity Marciano has to get a foothold in the fight but even if it goes to the cards I see Dempsey building up a sizeable lead and impressing more with the more accurate punching and better movement in order to win a decision.

What a delicious prospect...Dempsey probably had the height, weight and reach advantages but I'm not sure he was capable of using them. Just a vicious, foul filled brawl of which no one would bet their house on....

However I'm goping for Marciano to come on strong later on probably down on points and take a close decision...

Hey it's certainly pickem though.

Agree with Demspey, think of the two Marciano is the more open and against Dempsey this could be fatal. Couple this with the Rock's tendency to start a little slow and for me he could take such a shellacking in the early stages he could either be taken out or put himself in such a hole he cannot recover.

As an aside on the website Cox's Corner he makes an interesting point that virtually nobody who saw both of these guys live first hand gave Marciano the edge

I would probably disagree with you and go for Marciano, albeit with limited confidence.

I would agree with your take on Dempsey beng the better starter and more accurate puncher, but I think Marciano has the edge in stamina and durability which could be crucial in this kind of battle.

There may be a danger Marciano gets overwhelmed or stopped on cuts early, but over his career he displayed extraordianry resiliance and powers of recovery. I think if Dempsey fails to stop him by the mid rounds then Marciano dogged, powerful and relentless attacks mixed with his stamina and workrate begin to grind Dempsey down. Over 15 there is plenty of time for Marciano to grow into the contest and I see him wearing Dempsey down from the mid rounds on to take a decision or perhaps force a late stoppage.

Virtually nobody gave Rock a chance....who saw them live!!!

These are guys like Fleischer who said Ali was garbage..oldtimers who hate the present..

Funny enough my Grandad thought Pender would beat Hagler...

Leave it out

Now now Truss never said nobody gave Rock a chance, said nobody gave him the edge. Not really the same thing is it.

Dempsey, for me.

Rocky took a while to warm to his task whereas Dempsey, along with Tyson and probably Foreman, was the most explosive heavyweight, straight out of the blocks, in history. More variety in Dempsey's game, also. Genuine power in either hand, under rated defensive skills and the ability to shift angles of attack give him a decided edge, in my opinion.

we talking about a 15 rounder here? just get a feeling that marciano would stop him late. on paper feel that dempsey has the advantages but feel that the rock could wear him down and stop him late on. style makes fights and feel that dempsey would suit marciano

Easily Dempsey for me. The slow plodding Rocky would be easy meat for a frightening fighter like Jack. Jack would floor Rocky a few times and keep him there in 8.

Would have to go for Marciano in this one, has the far better chin and while he may get dropped will bounce back up pretty quickly and wont taste the canvas again, if it became a tear up think he's more capable of stopping Dempsey than the other way round. In a tear up which this most probably would be don't see many getting the better of the rock.

by the way, what a fight it would be. one the best fantasy match ups for the fans i would say

Dempsey and Marciano, pretty much the definition of a Heavyweight pick 'em in my eyes, and the voting so far seems to suggest as much. It'd be a fight of two halves, for me. If Marciano makes it past the mid-way stage, he becomes the big favourite. But does he get there? Today, I'm going to say no and state that Dempsey secures a knockout in the first four or five rounds. Ask me tomorrow, and I'll probably change my mind, though.

As we all know, Marciano was never the fastest out of the blocks, whereas Dempsey was the greatest ever Heavyweight 'four round fighter.' He was never the same after that point, but I think he gives Marciano too much to handle in that time frame. I think Dempsey's bobbing and weaving style is the answer to Marciano's crouched attack, and while they both had excellent chins, I'd also stress that Dempsey carried genuine devastating knockout power in either hand. Marciano could hit with the best of them, but only with the right, which may prove part of his undoing here.

As I said, it's no more than 55:45 either way in all honesty, but on this day I think Dempsey overwhelms Marciano and takes him out early after three or four rounds of mayhem.

I just find it difficult to imagine Marciano being taken out in 4 rounds given his immense durability and recoverabilty.

I can see how Dempsey might give him hell or even floor him in the first few but to blast him out completely would be a pretty amazing acheivement.

My biggest concern would be cuts/injury.

Marciano, and inside the distance at that. I freely admit to a bit of a blind spot with Dempsey, who I think was far more vulnerable a fighter than is sometimes acknowledged. Clearly a force of nature, he would be coming up against another one in Marciano.

Unlike Dempsey, however, Marciano simply didn't get discouraged. You would imagine that both fighters would have to look down the barrel at various moments of this fight - Marciano proved in both fights against Charles, against Walcott and against Moore that he could rally from adversity, could look imminent disaster in the face and fight his way through. Dempsey was a brilliant front-runner, and I know that he pulled himself back into the ring (with a little help) against Firpo (although if that had been Marciano, rather than Firpo, Jack would have been history), but the impression that I gain from his career as a whole is that when up against it, Dempsey was just not as resilient or flexible in his attitude as Marciano.

This is crucial, since a toe-to-toe battle swings decisively in Marciano's favour in the 11th and 12th, and a bloodied Rocky puts Dempsey down for the count in the 13th. Sheer bloody-mindedness wins the day.

It's alright Rowley..But when you chuck out lines like "anybody who saw them both live" etc...We all know these are old men and 90% always think the past was better than now......

Windy is a prime example

Though we've never got on it's nice to see the Captain contributing..

This should be added to the boxing myth thread. This supposed courage and strength and spirit that Rocky possessed. It seems he was the only boxer to have those qualities.

As Larry Holmes brilliantly put it, "Rocky was a young guy fighting old men. Rocky cant carry my jockstrap".

Put him in against a HW with a valid pulse rate and Rocky loses. Dempsey would slaughter him with relative ease.

Nothing the matter with you, truss. I only ever objected to your tendency to rubbish opinions that differed from your own. Apart from in your endless Manichaean struggle with Dave, you seem to have given up that unlovely habit.

Dempsey-Marciano is a fight in which I always imagined that I was vastly outnumbered...very interesting to see the vote around 50-50 as I write.

Preposterous, azania...he wasn't the only boxer to have those attributes, but by God he gave the impression of possessing them for longer than anyone else. How exactly is Dempsey's opposition so far superior to Rocky's? If Dempsey could be handed two lessons by a light-heavyweight moving up and, apparently be overwhelmed in sparring by a middleweight, albeit the greatest of them all, I think I might have to take the long odds that you would undoubtedly be eager to offer against Marciano.

Larry Holmes "brilliantly" put it, by the way? You wouldn't say that his tendency to stick his foot in his mouth accounts for the consistent underrating of Holmes more than any other factor?

Great matchup and i'm sure even people more into their modern boxing would love this one. I can't see it going more than 3-4 rounds to be honest as both men have nothing but offense on their mind. I would have to side with Dempsey, i see him coming out in the first round trying to finish Marciano but getting caught in the process, i would be suprised if Dempsey could take the victory without touching the canvas. Dempsey by TKO although if they fought ten times i would fancy Marciano to win a few at least.


Jack Dempsey WTKO 3

Can't believe Holmes ever had the audacity to say that, Marciano would have annihilated him.

Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott are top 20 heavyweights....who did Dempsey beat that high.....

I'll leave out Louis who was past it and Lastarza who Dundee think is one of the greatest heavy's never to win the title.

I dont see how Dempseys title reign was superior to Marcianos myself. The "old men" he beat were still the best around at the time for the most part.

Dempsey boasts Willard, Gibbons, Carpentiers and Firpo. Not particularly superior to Marciano. Gibbons and Carpentiers were light heavies really.

Dempsey also displayed more vunerabilities throughout his career.

I think Dempsey is superior in some ways that have been already outlined but there no doubt in my mind the fight is highly competitive to the point of brutal.

Hard fight to predict but I would go for Dempsey.
Marciano, while extremley rugged and durable, never faced anyone with the power and ferocity of Dempsey and I think The Manassa Mauler would deliever a stoppage in the opening rounds. Obviously the longer the fight goes, the more you'd fancy Rocky.
Overall though, due to Rocky being a slow starter, I'd fancy the more explosive ATG HW's such as Dempsey, Tyson and Foreman to have beaten him.

I would add that Rocky beat better guys that Liston during their respective reigns. But is anyone seriously suggesting that Rocky has the beating of Liston? Rocky fought old men and old light heavies.

Think Dempsey gets a bad rap on his oppo some times. Whilst it is true Carpentier and Gibbons where light heavies Caprentier did have some form at heavy beating Wells and Beckett and as Dempsey was a smallish heavy the weight difference was really not that great. Similarly Firpo for all his limitations could pack a wallop and extended Wills in his fight with him

Have argued plenty the Rock gets a bad rap on his level of opposition but think the same is true for Jack.

Fists of Fury wrote:Can't believe Holmes ever had the audacity to say that, Marciano would have annihilated him.

You must be joking. Rocky would be lucky to get past halfway. With those short stumpy hands he would never get close to Larry. A jab wins all day and Larry had the best ever at HW imo.

azania wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Can't believe Holmes ever had the audacity to say that, Marciano would have annihilated him.

You must be joking. Rocky would be lucky to get past halfway. With those short stumpy hands he would never get close to Larry. A jab wins all day and Larry had the best ever at HW imo.

A jab wins, simple as that, eh? Dear me Azania, you talk as if Marciano never faced anyone who could jab before. Jersey Joe Walcott, anyone?

I agree that Holmes starts as favourite against Marciano, but when two genuinely great fighters of any era face off, it's seldom going to be as one-sided as you seem to think. As Windy pointed out the other day, Holmes was all over the place against Snipes and Shavers, both of whom let him off the hook. He wasn't above getting nailed with the right hand (how many Heavyweights have carried more power in their right than Marciano?) and make no mistake, Marciano was far more ruthless than both Snipes and Shavers. When he went in for the kill, he did so with a truly clinical edge.

Likewise, are you telling me that Holmes would be unscathed if he'd brawled with Marciano the same way he brawled with Norton? Your constant belittling of Marciano (and any other fighter born before your beloved 'modern training and nutrition', come to think of it) is getting tedious now. Holmes beats Marciano more often than not for me, but to suggest he wins with ease ten times out of ten is ridiculous.

Dempsey by early stoppage.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Can't believe Holmes ever had the audacity to say that, Marciano would have annihilated him.

You must be joking. Rocky would be lucky to get past halfway. With those short stumpy hands he would never get close to Larry. A jab wins all day and Larry had the best ever at HW imo.

A jab wins, simple as that, eh? Dear me Azania, you talk as if Marciano never faced anyone who could jab before. Jersey Joe Walcott, anyone?

I agree that Holmes starts as favourite against Marciano, but when two genuinely great fighters of any era face off, it's seldom going to be as one-sided as you seem to think. As Windy pointed out the other day, Holmes was all over the place against Snipes and Shavers, both of whom let him off the hook. He wasn't above getting nailed with the right hand (how many Heavyweights have carried more power in their right than Marciano?) and make no mistake, Marciano was far more ruthless than both Snipes and Shavers. When he went in for the kill, he did so with a truly clinical edge.

Likewise, are you telling me that Holmes would be unscathed if he'd brawled with Marciano the same way he brawled with Norton? Your constant belittling of Marciano (and any other fighter born before your beloved 'modern training and nutrition', come to think of it) is getting tedious now. Holmes beats Marciano more often than not for me, but to suggest he wins with ease ten times out of ten is ridiculous.

I give up even replying to him, Chris, as you rightly say he is tedious and just plain incorrect.

I may have blinkers on a slight bit as I think Holmes has always been over-rated, and I just think Marciano would break him down before finishing him off, because as you say, Marciano would not have let him off the hook had he got through with a big right. Marciano behind on points but wins by KO after the 10th.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Can't believe Holmes ever had the audacity to say that, Marciano would have annihilated him.

You must be joking. Rocky would be lucky to get past halfway. With those short stumpy hands he would never get close to Larry. A jab wins all day and Larry had the best ever at HW imo.

A jab wins, simple as that, eh? Dear me Azania, you talk as if Marciano never faced anyone who could jab before. Jersey Joe Walcott, anyone?

I agree that Holmes starts as favourite against Marciano, but when two genuinely great fighters of any era face off, it's seldom going to be as one-sided as you seem to think. As Windy pointed out the other day, Holmes was all over the place against Snipes and Shavers, both of whom let him off the hook. He wasn't above getting nailed with the right hand (how many Heavyweights have carried more power in their right than Marciano?) and make no mistake, Marciano was far more ruthless than both Snipes and Shavers. When he went in for the kill, he did so with a truly clinical edge.

Likewise, are you telling me that Holmes would be unscathed if he'd brawled with Marciano the same way he brawled with Norton? Your constant belittling of Marciano (and any other fighter born before your beloved 'modern training and nutrition', come to think of it) is getting tedious now. Holmes beats Marciano more often than not for me, but to suggest he wins with ease ten times out of ten is ridiculous.

Walcott, Charles, Moore et al (old men) all had jabs. But none could compare to the jab Holmes possessed. Not even Ali or Liston. Furthermore, Rocky may hit hard, but no way as hard as Shavers. And the shot he caught holmes down would have falled an oak tree. Holmes' powers of recovery were remarkable. He may have been caught with some rights, but Rocky did not possess enough skills to get close enough to land it.

The only prolem is when Holmes KO's rocky. Rock had a hard head but if Archie can get him down, Larry keeps him there before halfway. That or cuts him to shreds after being way ahead on points.

Fists of Fury wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Can't believe Holmes ever had the audacity to say that, Marciano would have annihilated him.

You must be joking. Rocky would be lucky to get past halfway. With those short stumpy hands he would never get close to Larry. A jab wins all day and Larry had the best ever at HW imo.

A jab wins, simple as that, eh? Dear me Azania, you talk as if Marciano never faced anyone who could jab before. Jersey Joe Walcott, anyone?

I agree that Holmes starts as favourite against Marciano, but when two genuinely great fighters of any era face off, it's seldom going to be as one-sided as you seem to think. As Windy pointed out the other day, Holmes was all over the place against Snipes and Shavers, both of whom let him off the hook. He wasn't above getting nailed with the right hand (how many Heavyweights have carried more power in their right than Marciano?) and make no mistake, Marciano was far more ruthless than both Snipes and Shavers. When he went in for the kill, he did so with a truly clinical edge.

Likewise, are you telling me that Holmes would be unscathed if he'd brawled with Marciano the same way he brawled with Norton? Your constant belittling of Marciano (and any other fighter born before your beloved 'modern training and nutrition', come to think of it) is getting tedious now. Holmes beats Marciano more often than not for me, but to suggest he wins with ease ten times out of ten is ridiculous.

I give up even replying to him, Chris, as you rightly say he is tedious and just plain incorrect.

I may have blinkers on a slight bit as I think Holmes has always been over-rated, and I just think Marciano would break him down before finishing him off, because as you say, Marciano would not have let him off the hook had he got through with a big right. Marciano behind on points but wins by KO after the 10th.

You over-rate Rock and under-rate Larry and come to the conclusion that Rocky annihilates him. Too funny. People want Rocky to be great more out of hope than anything else. The fact is he was a poor champ in an incredibly weak era. 5-10 years prior and 5 years ahead he would have been a contender only.

His greatness is a myth imo. I always recall the barber scene in coming to america when I read discussions on Rocky.

You do present something of a one sided argument though Az. Whilst Shavers undoubtedly hit hard, he also threw less than Rocky, had less upper body movement than Rocky and did not possess one tenth of Rocky's stamina. Whilst I would go with the consensus that makes Holmes the favourite if Shavers can find Larry's chin cannot be beyond the realms than the Rock does.

Someone wake me up when Az has moved on.

azania wrote:The fact is he was a poor champ in an incredibly weak era. 5-10 years prior and 5 years ahead he would have been a contender only.

Not a fact, but rather an opinion, and a poorly argued one, at that.

Azania, in what respect was Marciano a "poor champion" then? He was 7-0 (6) in world title fights, beat those who were available to beat and, on top of that, I have never in the slightest bought in to this idea that he 'ducked' the emerging Patterson, either. Patterson's usually disasterous outings against punchers such as Johansson and Liston (or in the case of Williams, his total avoidance of them) is evidence enough for me of what was likely to happen had he ever faced off against Marciano.

I'd agree that Marciano's era in itself wasn't all that (though not as bad as some like to make out) but to call him a poor champion himself is insane. The only blotch on his record is that he didn't take on Valdes, but let's not forget that the big Cuban, despite what some would have us believe, was only the number one contender for roughly five months of Marciano's four year reign.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:The fact is he was a poor champ in an incredibly weak era. 5-10 years prior and 5 years ahead he would have been a contender only.

Not a fact, but rather an opinion, and a poorly argued one, at that.

Correct, an opinion. It may be poorly argued because other than a punch, Rocky was nothing much.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:The fact is he was a poor champ in an incredibly weak era. 5-10 years prior and 5 years ahead he would have been a contender only.

Not a fact, but rather an opinion, and a poorly argued one, at that.

Correct, an opinion. It may be poorly argued because other than a punch, Rocky was nothing much.

Guess Joe Louis was wrong, then. Pity you weren't around to point out the errors of Joe's ways. I mean, he just fought Rocky, whereas you could wax lyrical about the benefits derived from the separation of egg whites and yolks.

Mosley said Pac was the hardest hitting boxer he has ever faced. Most boxers say things to make their loss appear not so bad, Plus Louis played the game.

azania wrote:Mosley said Pac was the hardest hitting boxer he has ever faced. Most boxers say things to make their loss appear not so bad, Plus Louis played the game.

Louis didn't need to ' play the game. ' He was a nailed on American icon and it was his last fight. He was also thirty seven years old and didn't need to make excuses for his loss.

HumanWindmill wrote:Louis didn't need to ' play the game. ' He was a nailed on American icon and it was his last fight. He was also thirty seven years old and didn't need to make excuses for his loss.

If only you'd stop being so stubborn, Windy, and use all the wonderful modern training methods and nutrition that we have at our disposal these days. If you did, then you, too, would be able to read the thoughts of a man who passed away thirty years back.

Boxers make the most ridiculous excuses and reasoning. I am not saying for one moment that Rocky didn't have a dig. I dont dislike his style to start lying about him. Earnie punched hard. Dwane Bobbick also punched hard. Frank Bruno packed a wallop. It means nothing if you dont have the sufficient skills to be able to hit your opponent.

But if you are fighting old men who run out of gas and stand there to be his, it is a remarkable advantage to pack a wallop in your right hand (his left was for balance). But a skilled boxer like Holmes or an equally feroscious fighter like Dempsey would simply overwhelm Rocky. Dempsey punched hard with both hands and didn't need to get into perfect position in order to deliver his punches. He had better footwork, faster hands, an incredibly strong chin with a huge will to win. All too much for the very limited and fortunate Rocky.

I truly cannot believe what I am reading here. Az, it takes only a small amount of your time to read a selection of the many pieces of literature covering Marciano's attributes, fight reports and the like to realise that you are as horribly wrong as George W Bush was when he declared that he was certain of Iraq possessing WMD's.

I would ask that you do this, and then come back and try keeping a straight face whilst repeating what you have served up so far.

Fists of Fury wrote:I truly cannot believe what I am reading here. Az, it takes only a small amount of your time to read a selection of the many pieces of literature covering Marciano's attributes, fight reports and the like to realise that you are as horribly wrong as George W Bush was when he declared that he was certain of Iraq possessing WMD's.

I would ask that you do this, and then come back and try keeping a straight face whilst repeating what you have served up so far.

I've been called many things. Insulted in amny ways, but none compares to you comparing me to George W Bush. That beats the lot.

Before Ali fought Liston, he was thought invincible. Ditto Foreman. Ditto Tyson. Writers and scribes wrote of their near mythical standings and sheer invincibility of all of them. They were exposed and whimpered away after being beaten.

Writers also say similar things but their writings about Rocky are being tampered because he was a talentless fight who packed a wallop. Ali said the computer which decided Rocky beats him must have come from Alabama. He wasn't wrong imo.

You rate Rocky highly. I see nothing special about him (other than a wallop). Short armed, plodding, incredibly bad footwork, slow puncher, easy to hit and cut and very small. He was nothing special. Outside of his era there is no way imo that he could be anything other than a contender. In the 1960s (late) and 1970s he wouldn't be ranked in the top 10 but would have been gifted a shot because of other factors.

az, I picked Dempsey in this match up. I simply find it absurd that you so readily dismiss Marciano. Nobody ever claimed he was a forerunner of Pernell Whitaker, but this is not synonymous with his lacking very formidable qualities.

Windy. Rocky had decent qualities. he could punch, his style was awkward for many to handle. But he lacked basic fundermentals and would have been schooled by many other heavies and some light heavies. I simply dont rate him (if you weren't aware of that).

Someone incorrectly claimed it was before modern nutrition etc. well as you said dempsey dipped his face in vinegar (he should have seperated eggs). It is simply because Dempsey had all the attributed of Rocky with added skill. If Moore could deck Rocky, a harder hitter like Dempsey keeps him there. And Dempsey could dig with both hands.

azania wrote:Windy. Rocky had decent qualities. he could punch, his style was awkward for many to handle. But he lacked basic fundermentals and would have been schooled by many other heavies and some light heavies. I simply dont rate him (if you weren't aware of that).

Someone incorrectly claimed it was before modern nutrition etc. well as you said dempsey dipped his face in vinegar (he should have seperated eggs). It is simply because Dempsey had all the attributed of Rocky with added skill. If Moore could deck Rocky, a harder hitter like Dempsey keeps him there. And Dempsey could dig with both hands.

I'm not debating the Dempsey v Marciano issue with you, az. I've sided with Dempsey, as you have. My point is that you seem utterly oblivious to Marciano's many qualities. Heart, guts, stamina, power to weight ratio, punch resistance, aggression, etc., etc., are hardly qualities of limited value in a boxing ring.

THe rock was so poor he was beat in every fight he fought, ohh wait a minute.........

compelling and rich wrote:THe rock was so poor he was beat in every fight he fought, ohh wait a minute.........

Brian Neilson went 48-0 a decade ago. If you fight has-beens, old has-beens and has-been light heavies and you win it hardly makes you a great does it.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Windy. Rocky had decent qualities. he could punch, his style was awkward for many to handle. But he lacked basic fundermentals and would have been schooled by many other heavies and some light heavies. I simply dont rate him (if you weren't aware of that).

Someone incorrectly claimed it was before modern nutrition etc. well as you said dempsey dipped his face in vinegar (he should have seperated eggs). It is simply because Dempsey had all the attributed of Rocky with added skill. If Moore could deck Rocky, a harder hitter like Dempsey keeps him there. And Dempsey could dig with both hands.

I'm not debating the Dempsey v Marciano issue with you, az. I've sided with Dempsey, as you have. My point is that you seem utterly oblivious to Marciano's many qualities. Heart, guts, stamina, power to weight ratio, punch resistance, aggression, etc., etc., are hardly qualities of limited value in a boxing ring.

Windy I acknowledge all those 'qualities'. Margaritto has those qualities but against a quality fighter he will get exposed. He is still a limited fighter.

A better example would be Gatti (RIP) and Ward. Superbly entertaining fighters and left their hearts in the ring all the time. Very aggressive with perhaps nowhere near the punch (p4p) as rocky. But a skilled fighter beats them always.

azania wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:THe rock was so poor he was beat in every fight he fought, ohh wait a minute.........

Brian Neilson went 48-0 a decade ago. If you fight has-beens, old has-beens and has-been light heavies and you win it hardly makes you a great does it.

You see Azania, I thought you'd be realistic and sensible enough to make the distinction that Marciano's level of opposition was much higher than Nielsen's, and that amongst it was a series of fights for the legitimate Heavyweight title. Obviously I was wrong.