Dempsey's Power

[Hydraulix]

Has anyone noticed that people often got up from Dempsey's knockdowns? He had to knock most of his opponents down repeatedly. It seemed that Dempsey punched with a lot of force and could easily knock you down, but not out.

Take Jess Willard for example. Dempsey floored him countless times in the first round, but couldn't drop him again in the second or third. And it took quite a few knockdowns for Luis Firpo to stay down as well.

What do you think?

[Jorodz]

dempsey's strength was his aggression: he was able to overwhelm his opponents with volume but his punches weren't that powerful individually, only in bunches. dempsey caught opponents with the number of punches he threw at one time, his ferocity, but not the heaviness or pop of each punch. i think he gets overrated in his power based on two fights but overall, he's not an all time great puncher

[TheGreatA]

Jack Dempsey, interviewed in the 1953 fall edition of Fight magazine said, "What everyone forgets is that Marciano can punch harder with a right hand than any modern-day heavyweight. In his first fight with Walcott, Rocky needed only one blow to win the title. The power in his right scrambled Jersey Joe's brains at Chicago."

"I've scored my share of knockouts along the way, but more often than not my opponents got up after being knocked down and had to be knocked down repeatedly. The same is true of Joe Louis. But Marciano needs only one solid smash and it's all over.

That's why I say Rocky Marciano is the hardest-hitting heavyweight champion I have seen."

[Jorodz]

Jack Dempsey, interviewed in the 1953 fall edition of Fight magazine said, "What everyone forgets is that Marciano can punch harder with a right hand than any modern-day heavyweight. In his first fight with Walcott, Rocky needed only one blow to win the title. The power in his right scrambled Jersey Joe's brains at Chicago."

"I've scored my share of knockouts along the way, but more often than not my opponents got up after being knocked down and had to be knocked down repeatedly. The same is true of Joe Louis. But Marciano needs only one solid smash and it's all over.

That's why I say Rocky Marciano is the hardest-hitting heavyweight champion I have seen."

very good post my friend and from a reliable source:good dempsey was a pressure fighter and a determined fighter who overwhelmed opponents who knocked them out cold. marciano was a whole different breed (though, so was louis)

[Hydraulix]

Do you think Dempsey had a harder punch than Frazier?

[Jorodz]

Do you think Dempsey had a harder punch than Frazier?

no, he was a faster puncher but frazier hit much harder and heavier. neither was a sharp, crisp earnie shavers type of puncher. frazier knocked peoples heads off with a single hook, dempsey did it with 20 punches

[My2Sense]

Take Jess Willard for example. Dempsey floored him countless times in the first round, but couldn't drop him again in the second or third. And it took quite a few knockdowns for Luis Firpo to stay down as well.


Those guys were relatively big guys compared to him, though. It figures that a natural 180-pounder like Dempsey would have at least some trouble keeping them down, even if he did hit hard for his size.

He's on film flattening guys like Sharkey and Brennan with one or two punches each, and they stayed down, plus he reportedly had some fights on the way to the title in which he flattened some opponents easily as well.

[Jorodz]

Those guys were relatively big guys compared to him, though. It figures that a natural 180-pounder like Dempsey would have at least some trouble keeping them down, even if he did hit hard for his size.

He's on film flattening guys like Sharkey and Brennan with one or two punches each, and they stayed down, plus he reportedly had some fights on the way to the title in which he flattened some opponents easily as well.

he was certainly a great puncher but i think it's overrated in the grand scheme of things. for his size: he was quite good. but overall, not in the top 10 heavyweight punchers, especially considering his VERY limited opposition. his best opposition was tunney and he could barely hurt him except for the knock down

[TheGreatA]

he was certainly a great puncher but i think it's overrated in the grand scheme of things. for his size: he was quite good. but overall, not in the top 10 heavyweight punchers, especially considering his VERY limited opposition. his best opposition was tunney and he could barely hurt him except for the knock down

I think that counts as barely hurting him, Tunney was damn near knocked out with one punch and a follow-up combination from a past prime Dempsey.

Fulton, a big heavyweight for his era, was flattened in 20 seconds by Dempsey.

I'd say that the man could certainly punch, even if he was not the biggest puncher of all time. I'd rate his punching power about the same as Frazier's and Frazier had 15 lbs on Dempsey.

[prime]

Dempsey was a great puncher, in more ways than one.

First, he knew how to punch and could break down what he did. His book is very instructive. His explosive style was founded on applied body weight and concentrated energy on point of impact. It incorporated not merely brute strength, but leverage and speed as well, thus paving the way for an admirer named Mike Tyson.

The hook he scored his first knockdown of Willard with was about as explosive a punch as I've seen in the ring, enough to bring down a very durable 245-pound champ. Amazing feat by a 187 pounder! The subsequent protracted pounding was quite natural with two men of this weight difference: an executioner who weighs 58 pounds less than his victim, and then the victim is in pure defensive mode.

In contrast, sure, David Tua knocked Ruiz cold in 19 seconds with his hook. But he also outweighed The Quiet Man 225 to 219.

The much lauded George Foreman was notorious for having to score several knockdowns himself. Was he featherfisted? Of course not. Simply his power was a heavy, crushing type, albeit telegraphed. Pure power is not the whole name of the game.

It is said the punch that knocks you out is the one you don't see and thus brace for. This requires not only power, but also speed and sharpness. Young Mike Tyson was a great example with his record of 10-count knockouts, not only of trial horses coming up, but at the highest levels: Berbick, Thomas, Holmes, Spinks, Tubbs, Biggs, to name some.

Normally, IMO you may see your opponent getting up from a knockdown if he has a chin and your weights are comparable. So I don't penalize Dempsey for Willard's or Firpo's getting up.

Pound for pound, I think Jack Dempsey is one of the best punchers of all time, Number 7, in fact, among history's greatest, according to Ring Magazine.

[he grant]

I think you guys are way off. Dempsey was an exceptional puncher and hit as hard as anyone under 200 that ever fought .... nice statement (above) no doubt. Ever wonder the motivation ? Anything from being a nice guy to being on Weils payroll to build hype ... who knows ? He was not gonna praise Rocky for speed, size, defense or boxing ability.

No doubt Marciano was a big puncher, however let's get real. He stop's a 38 year old Walcott with a huge right in the 13th round of a war, correct? What about the 70 other power shots Marciano landed before that one ? Are we to believe that was the only right hand Marciano landed the whole bout? The film's prove otherwise.

Charles went 15 with Marciano the first time taking his best shots. He went eight the second and it took an accumulation of shots to finally take him out. The same with LaStarza. I won't even mention the Cockell bout but the often KO'ed Moore , a light heavy, took dozens of his best shots till finally going out.

Here's the book on Rocky's power: Rocky went for the KO with almost every punch. That was his style. He has a few nice couple of punch KO's but for the most part he wore down a fighters with an accumulation, especially quality fighters ... look at his title defenses throwing aside the very questionable Walcott rematch ...

LaStarza went 11
Charles went 15
Charles went 8
Cockell goes 9
Moore goes 9

Each fight was an accumulation of endless hard punching pressure.

Dempsey's list of KO's speaks for itself. In addition, I definately believe Dempsey's one punch KO over a young, prime Sharkey, who took five knock downs against a prime Louis, is even more impressive than Rocky's KO over an old Walcott.

[TheGreatA]

The interview with Dempsey was before any of those fights happened though.

Rocky had first dispatched the man Dempsey thought very highly of, Rex Layne with a single overhand right which crumbled Layne.

KO'd an old Louis, sending him through the ropes with a right hand.

Knocked out 'Kid' Matthews with two powerful left hooks.

Brutally knocked out the champion Walcott, and then repeated the feat in one round.

At this point Marciano's reputation as a one punch KO artist was at its highest. In subsequent fights, Marciano no longer scored knockouts like he had in these fights. It may have been because he changed his style from a wide-swinging slugger to a more consistent pressure fighter, or maybe his power was "exposed" a little.

[he grant]

Good points ... I was just putting Marciano in perspective, something extremely difficult to do here at times ...

[Dempsey1238]

I dont think its fair to compare Dempsey or Marciano powerwise because of guys like Charles or Walcott going 15 or 13 rounds.

Dempsey didnt face any one like them in his championship prime rein, and when he did onces, Tommy Gibbions, he got taking the full 15 rounds.

I more impress with Marciano battling a points win over Charles than I am with Dempsey blasting Firpo or Willard out in a few rounds. Marciano had a higher comp of foes in his title rein.

[Maxmomer]

Dempsey caught his opponents fresh in the early rounds, they had more energy to get up from knock-downs in the 1st, 3rd, or 4th rounds than others had after taking a battering for eight or ten rounds. Dempsey came out knocked his man down early and put him down over and over until he stayed down, Marciano came out and tried to put his man down from his first punch before knocking him out with one or two punches late in the fight.

[McGrain]

I agree that Marciano fought better competition.

[Muchmoore]

no, he was a faster puncher but frazier hit much harder and heavier. neither was a sharp, crisp earnie shavers type of puncher. frazier knocked peoples heads off with a single hook, dempsey did it with 20 punches

Frazier!?

[Jorodz]

Frazier!?

:lol:laugh if you will but i feel overall frazier was the harder puncher. yes dempsey was smaller but taking into account they were both heavyweights, frazier fought better opposition and knocked out opponents with single punches more than dempsey. both were tremendous punchers but jack sharkey himself than that dempsey's effectiveness was his aggression. he seemed to rely on volume and furious anger rather than power.

[Muchmoore]

both were tremendous punchers but jack sharkey himself than that dempsey's effectiveness was his aggression. he seemed to rely on volume and furious anger rather than power.

He knocked out Jack Sharkey with one punch.

[Unforgiven]

The same thing can be said for Tyson, Foreman, Liston, etc.

They all had one-punch power but more often they had to knock the guy down more than once.

[Bummy Davis]

Dempsey was a very powerfull puncher. His hook was incredible but he could punch with both hands. Jack had heavy hands. Marciano was the better one punch fighter but Rocky would punch the arms and shoulders and collar bone and break you down with stamina until he broke your defenses down and could land his power shot clean. Marciano's fights vs Walcott, Charles, Layne,Louis,Matthews shows the 2 fisted power and how he worked his way in for the KO but not in a rush like Tyson but Tyson only KO'd a man 1 time after the 8th, Lewis never did, Marciano was begining to warm up around the 8th. Dempsey was another fighter who liked to punch the HEART,the kidneys, the liver, the collar bone. I think his Ali like stardom hurt him along with the inactivity but Dempsey had a better one punch hook than Frazier. Joe had to work you with it and it was more dramatic but Dempsey's was a killer punch. I think Marciano had the best killer instinct of the 3 but Dempsey and Frazier were no slouches. Remember Frazier had only 26 fights going into Ali 1 and the sudden fame and partying was hard to come back from, that is why Joe had the shortest prime of the swarmers

[Jorodz]

He knocked out Jack Sharkey with one punch.

well there goes that theory:oops:

[OLD FOGEY]

I think that counts as barely hurting him, Tunney was damn near knocked out with one punch and a follow-up combination from a past prime Dempsey.

Fulton, a big heavyweight for his era, was flattened in 20 seconds by Dempsey.

I'd say that the man could certainly punch, even if he was not the biggest puncher of all time. I'd rate his punching power about the same as Frazier's and Frazier had 15 lbs on Dempsey.

I think Dempsey's chin might be somewhat overrated, but his punching power was certainly at the top level.

[janitor]

Do you think Dempsey had a harder punch than Frazier?

I do personaly.

The observations about Dempseys efectivness at finishing oponents being down to speed and delivery are verry sound.

The observations about him scoring multiple knockdowns are not in some cases. The fighters in question were somtimes verry durable and got knocked down multiple times in the early rounds where knockdowns do not usualy take place.

I still think Dempsey had scary power.

He broke Bill Brennans ankle with a punch that hit his body. I think Earnioe Shavers did something similar.

[he grant]

Who are we refering to, the Wllard bout ? Prior to Dempsey no other fighter even ever knocked Willard down. Jeff had an iron chin and was thought to be unhurtable. Jack Johnson pounded him for the first ten rounds and never made him blink.

Look at Dempsey's icing of Morris, Fulton, Brennen, Sharkey, Carpentier, Firpo ... the guy's power was exceptional.

[Chris Warren]

The best people Marciano knocked out were pushing 40, Dempsey fought in a era where fighters were smaller gloves not to mention out of Dempsey 60 or so odd wins roughly 30 if his opponents had no wins.

Foreman knocked out world class fighters in their prime.

[Muchmoore]

The best people Marciano knocked out were pushing 40, Dempsey fought in a era where fighters were smaller gloves not to mention out of Dempsey 60 or so odd wins roughly 30 if his opponents had no wins.

Foreman knocked out world class fighters in their prime.

:lol:

[djanders]

Dempsey had frightening punching power, without a doubt...more so than Frazier...in my opinion.

[dezbeast]

Dempsey had freakish power for his size. I wouldn't be surprised if he punched as hard as Frazier.

[My2Sense]

The best people Marciano knocked out were pushing 40, Dempsey fought in a era where fighters were smaller gloves not to mention out of Dempsey 60 or so odd wins roughly 30 if his opponents had no wins.


What 30 Dempsey opponents do you have complete records of showing no wins?

[PetethePrince]

I think you guys are way off. Dempsey was an exceptional puncher and hit as hard as anyone under 200 that ever fought .... nice statement (above) no doubt. Ever wonder the motivation ? Anything from being a nice guy to being on Weils payroll to build hype ... who knows ? He was not gonna praise Rocky for speed, size, defense or boxing ability.

Maybe, but Dempsey from my understanding seemed honest. And in reality, the film does prove his claim to be true.

No doubt Marciano was a big puncher, however let's get real. He stop's a 38 year old Walcott with a huge right in the 13th round of a war, correct? What about the 70 other power shots Marciano landed before that one ? Are we to believe that was the only right hand Marciano landed the whole bout? The film's prove otherwise. Man I do feel you have something against The Rock especially when I see you find a way to diss him against another small fighter. What does Walcott's age have to do with his durability or ability to take a punch in this case? He was in arguably the best shape of his life and fighting the best fight of his life up until round 13. Marciano hit Walcott all over but never hit him with the perfect shot or in the perfect placement. Using the "How did he survive through 13 rounds" can be used for virtually any power punch. Marciano got him full extension right on the button in the perfect spot. Lights out for Walcott.

Charles went 15 with Marciano the first time taking his best shots. He went eight the second and it took an accumulation of shots to finally take him out. The same with LaStarza. I won't even mention the Cockell bout but the often KO'ed Moore , a light heavy, took dozens of his best shots till finally going out. Great A mentions the somewhat subtle style difference. I'm making the thread about Marciano and Charles to that would somewhat justify that. Charles took a treacherous beating, no doubt (I'll leave it at that for now). The second fight took a few big punches to drop him, then 5-6 bombs to finish him. Charles was quite beat up (Although up on the cards?) but I wouldn't say it was an accumulation win seeing as he needed "1 round" to win. Marciano was said to keep LaStarza up to punish him for the "Brain-damage" comment. Peter Marciano says that it was probably the only time he came in the ring with hostility. Nicky Sylvester, Rocky's friend said that he "Kept up in the 5th round, 7th round, 8th round, 10th round, etc." And for power, Marciano ruined LaStarza's career, broke blood vessels in his arm which required surgery. Marciano dropped Moore constantly with Moore being saved by the bell on two occasions. The Moore knockdowns looks like a lot of the Dempsey fights with Dempsey's opponent getting up. The Cockell fight was Rocky's worst performance. Cockell was game to survive, throw a straight, hold, back up, 1-2, back up, hold, etc.

Here's the book on Rocky's power: Rocky went for the KO with almost every punch. That was his style. He has a few nice couple of punch KO's but for the most part he wore down a fighters with an accumulation, especially quality fighters ... look at his title defenses throwing aside the very questionable Walcott rematch ...

LaStarza went 11
Charles went 15
Charles went 8
Cockell goes 9
Moore goes 9

Each fight was an accumulation of endless hard punching pressure.

Dempsey's list of KO's speaks for itself. In addition, I definately believe Dempsey's one punch KO over a young, prime Sharkey, who took five knock downs against a prime Louis, is even more impressive than Rocky's KO over an old Walcott. I disagree. Here is my breakdown. Marciano to me is clearly the more powerful puncher. In terms of one punch power and power in general. Dempsey is quick and more accurate a puncher. He gets to the right spots and has good speed so the fighters don't see it coming as much. Dempsey can be incredibly lethal because of those. In terms of punchers, Dempsey is a better puncher. Both technically, and when combining speed and power. With Rocky, he is clearly the more powerful puncher. In my book anyway.

As for the Dempsey - Sharkey fight. Isn't the reading of it a cheap low blow that had Sharkey turned and hurt with Dempsey flooring him with a left hook. It was a rather cheapish win that doesn't display his power in comparison to the Marciano and Walcott fight.

1 Punch and Layne was in fetal position.

1 Punch and Walcott had a scrambled brain.

Carmine Vingo in a near death fight.

Harry Kid Mathews fight with a feint right and two left hooks.

Marciano and Walcott rematch.

Dropping Louis with a left hook. Finishing him but knocking him through the ropes.


The interview with Dempsey was before any of those fights happened though.

Rocky had first dispatched the man Dempsey thought very highly of, Rex Layne with a single overhand right which crumbled Layne.

KO'd an old Louis, sending him through the ropes with a right hand.

Knocked out 'Kid' Matthews with two powerful left hooks.

Brutally knocked out the champion Walcott, and then repeated the feat in one round.

At this point Marciano's reputation as a one punch KO artist was at its highest. In subsequent fights, Marciano no longer scored knockouts like he had in these fights. It may have been because he changed his style from a wide-swinging slugger to a more consistent pressure fighter, or maybe his power was "exposed" a little.


Bingo.

A misconception is that people survived with Marciano therefore his power is overstated. Not true. People don't factor important things like accuracy, speed, etc. Marciano's power was crushing but Marciano could become wild and would punch anywhere and everywhere. When he hit you on the button it was likely good night.

[OuterDrake]

They say the hardest punch is the one you don't see coming.

Dempsey just wasn't elusive enough. A fighter could brace them selves for his punches before they landed.

[Cheese]

Dempsey was a great puncher, in more ways than one.

First, he knew how to punch and could break down what he did. His book is very instructive. His explosive style was founded on applied body weight and concentrated energy on point of impact. It incorporated not merely brute strength, but leverage and speed as well, thus paving the way for an admirer named Mike Tyson.

The hook he scored his first knockdown of Willard with was about as explosive a punch as I've seen in the ring, enough to bring down a very durable 245-pound champ. Amazing feat by a 187 pounder! The subsequent protracted pounding was quite natural with two men of this weight difference: an executioner who weighs 58 pounds less than his victim, and then the victim is in pure defensive mode.

In contrast, sure, David Tua knocked Ruiz cold in 19 seconds with his hook. But he also outweighed The Quiet Man 225 to 219.

The much lauded George Foreman was notorious for having to score several knockdowns himself. Was he featherfisted? Of course not. Simply his power was a heavy, crushing type, albeit telegraphed. Pure power is not the whole name of the game.

It is said the punch that knocks you out is the one you don't see and thus brace for. This requires not only power, but also speed and sharpness. Young Mike Tyson was a great example with his record of 10-count knockouts, not only of trial horses coming up, but at the highest levels: Berbick, Thomas, Holmes, Spinks, Tubbs, Biggs, to name some.

Normally, IMO you may see your opponent getting up from a knockdown if he has a chin and your weights are comparable. So I don't penalize Dempsey for Willard's or Firpo's getting up.

Pound for pound, I think Jack Dempsey is one of the best punchers of all time, Number 7, in fact, among history's greatest, according to Ring Magazine.

You have a good point there. Tyson's final knockout left hook punch to Berbick didn't look hard when you watch it but it had Berbick falling all over the ring.

[Cheese]

Dempsey had frightening punching power, without a doubt...more so than Frazier...in my opinion.

I think Dempsey was definitely a power puncher. It seems to me his attacks were prone to damaging his opponents in the head area more than the body. It seems in my opinion that Joe was a body puncher first and then a head puncher second. Joe couldn't always get many clean punches to his opponents face but he always was able to land ferocious body shots throughout a fight and break his opponents down if he could not knock them down quickly.

It seems at though Dempsey style opened up his opponents for more head shots which have immediate effects in regard to opponents being hurt or knockdowns. Whereas Frazier's body punches did not have immediate results but definitely took their toll in the later rounds.

[djanders]

The best people Marciano knocked out were pushing 40, Dempsey fought in a era where fighters were smaller gloves not to mention out of Dempsey 60 or so odd wins roughly 30 if his opponents had no wins.

Foreman knocked out world class fighters in their prime.

:nut I am speechless. I have no speech. It's late. I'm old. I should be in bed.

[mcvey]

Maybe, but Dempsey from my understanding seemed honest. And in reality, the film does prove his claim to be true.

Man I do feel you have something against The Rock especially when I see you find a way to diss him against another small fighter. What does Walcott's age have to do with his durability or ability to take a punch in this case? He was in arguably the best shape of his life and fighting the best fight of his life up until round 13. Marciano hit Walcott all over but never hit him with the perfect shot or in the perfect placement. Using the "How did he survive through 13 rounds" can be used for virtually any power punch. Marciano got him full extension right on the button in the perfect spot. Lights out for Walcott.

Great A mentions the somewhat subtle style difference. I'm making the thread about Marciano and Charles to that would somewhat justify that. Charles took a treacherous beating, no doubt (I'll leave it at that for now). The second fight took a few big punches to drop him, then 5-6 bombs to finish him. Charles was quite beat up (Although up on the cards?) but I wouldn't say it was an accumulation win seeing as he needed "1 round" to win. Marciano was said to keep LaStarza up to punish him for the "Brain-damage" comment. Peter Marciano says that it was probably the only time he came in the ring with hostility. Nicky Sylvester, Rocky's friend said that he "Kept up in the 5th round, 7th round, 8th round, 10th round, etc." And for power, Marciano ruined LaStarza's career, broke blood vessels in his arm which required surgery. Marciano dropped Moore constantly with Moore being saved by the bell on two occasions. The Moore knockdowns looks like a lot of the Dempsey fights with Dempsey's opponent getting up. The Cockell fight was Rocky's worst performance. Cockell was game to survive, throw a straight, hold, back up, 1-2, back up, hold, etc.

I disagree. Here is my breakdown. Marciano to me is clearly the more powerful puncher. In terms of one punch power and power in general. Dempsey is quick and more accurate a puncher. He gets to the right spots and has good speed so the fighters don't see it coming as much. Dempsey can be incredibly lethal because of those. In terms of punchers, Dempsey is a better puncher. Both technically, and when combining speed and power. With Rocky, he is clearly the more powerful puncher. In my book anyway.

As for the Dempsey - Sharkey fight. Isn't the reading of it a cheap low blow that had Sharkey turned and hurt with Dempsey flooring him with a left hook. It was a rather cheapish win that doesn't display his power in comparison to the Marciano and Walcott fight.

1 Punch and Layne was in fetal position.

1 Punch and Walcott had a scrambled brain.

Carmine Vingo in a near death fight.

Harry Kid Mathews fight with a feint right and two left hooks.

Marciano and Walcott rematch.

Dropping Louis with a left hook. Finishing him but knocking him through the ropes.





Bingo.

A misconception is that people survived with Marciano therefore his power is overstated. Not true. People don't factor important things like accuracy, speed, etc. Marciano's power was crushing but Marciano could become wild and would punch anywhere and everywhere. When he hit you on the button it was likely good night.

Indications of Marcianos power ,Walcott stated he was a harder one shot puncher than Louis.Also Most of Marciano's adversary's weren't the same after tangling with him ,he ruined quite a few fighters.

[he grant]

Why is it every time I voice an opinion based on fact do Rocky lovers claim I have something against the man ? That is their best defense against logic, obviously.

Age has a lot to do with an ability to absorb punishment. This is a fact. Now here you go claiming the 38 year old Walcott was in the best shape of his life for the Marciano bout. Better than at 34, twice against Joe Louis ? Better than at 35 and 36 v.s. Charles for the title ? Where do you pick this fact out of the air ? Walcott was not at his physical prime at 38 for Marciano, let's be real please. Say what you want but watch the film ... Marciano tagged him many times all fight and Walcott hung tough and fought him tooth and nail. No doubt Rocky caught him with a late fight bomb but it was not as if he did not hit him all night. He simply caught him perfect.

There is no point debating his title bouts as the results speak for themselves despite your disagreeing. It took him many rounds to pound out small heavyweights. Not a few punches. None of them even 200 pounders. It does not diss Rocky to say this, in fact it praises him. It shows he was an extremely well conditioned puncher, perhaps the best ever, who loaded up round after round, punch after punch and broke his men down. What's wrong with accepting this fact? I'm giving him more credit than you Prince since you are saying he lacked skill and only KO'ed when he finally managed to connect. Again, a myth since the films show different. He landed hard and often and KO'ed most, like most big punchers, with an accumulation, a great achievement.

I personally find Dempsey to be a far more explosive and skilled puncher. He destroyed much bigger men, without question. I feel certain if more film existed on Jack the question would not really be a debate.

[Hydraulix]

I think Dempsey was definitely a power puncher. It seems to me his attacks were prone to damaging his opponents in the head area more than the body. It seems in my opinion that Joe was a body puncher first and then a head puncher second. Joe couldn't always get many clean punches to his opponents face but he always was able to land ferocious body shots throughout a fight and break his opponents down if he could not knock them down quickly.

It seems at though Dempsey style opened up his opponents for more head shots which have immediate effects in regard to opponents being hurt or knockdowns. Whereas Frazier's body punches did not have immediate results but definitely took their toll in the later rounds.

I agree. Dempsey worked the body as well, but he wasn't as consistent at doing it as Frazier.

I think Dempsey and Frazier are about even when it comes to power. Only Dempsey had faster handspeed and was treacherous with both hands, while Frazier's only "bread and butter" punch was his left hook. But in terms of left hook power and body shots, I think they're about even.

[OLD FOGEY]

Why is it every time I voice an opinion based on fact do Rocky lovers claim I have something against the man ? That is their best defense against logic, obviously.

Age has a lot to do with an ability to absorb punishment. This is a fact. Now here you go claiming the 38 year old Walcott was in the best shape of his life for the Marciano bout. Better than at 34, twice against Joe Louis ? Better than at 35 and 36 v.s. Charles for the title ? Where do you pick this fact out of the air ? Walcott was not at his physical prime at 38 for Marciano, let's be real please. Say what you want but watch the film ... Marciano tagged him many times all fight and Walcott hung tough and fought him tooth and nail. No doubt Rocky caught him with a late fight bomb but it was not as if he did not hit him all night. He simply caught him perfect.

There is no point debating his title bouts as the results speak for themselves despite your disagreeing. It took him many rounds to pound out small heavyweights. Not a few punches. None of them even 200 pounders. It does not diss Rocky to say this, in fact it praises him. It shows he was an extremely well conditioned puncher, perhaps the best ever, who loaded up round after round, punch after punch and broke his men down. What's wrong with accepting this fact? I'm giving him more credit than you Prince since you are saying he lacked skill and only KO'ed when he finally managed to connect. Again, a myth since the films show different. He landed hard and often and KO'ed most, like most big punchers, with an accumulation, a great achievement.

I personally find Dempsey to be a far more explosive and skilled puncher. He destroyed much bigger men, without question. I feel certain if more film existed on Jack the question would not really be a debate.


Well, yeah, but Dempsey went 15 with the 175 lb Gibbons and 12 with the rather ordinary Brennan. I would point out that Dempsey had only one knockout---Sharkey---after the age of 28, and that was a bizarre fight. He had only 2 ko's in 5 fights after the age of 26. And are you all that certain that films of Dempsey coming up would show him off better than Marciano against Muscato, Shkor, Beshore, Reynolds, Vingo, etc, all of which seem to have been destructive knockouts.

I think Dempsey scored something like 50 ko's in 83 fights. Marciano 43 in 49.

[Dempsey1238]

As said before, Charles, Walcott, and Moore are a higher breed of fighters than Willard, Firpo, and even George imo.

People bring up the age, "Old" Walcott, Charles and Moore, but forget that "Old" Tommy Gibbions took prime Jack Dempsey the whole 15 rounds, and he was lighter than these guys on fight night.

Not to mention Dempsey's problems in catching Brennan after hell in 11 rounds.

Lets say I think Marciano would blast out Firpo in pretty much the same way as Dempsey did. Dempsey was not faceing the movers Marciano did. Outside of Gibbions.

Would not relly count the Sharkey ko in regards to power, it was a shot to the balls follow by a hook to the chin.

Hardly note worthy in power imo.

[Unforgiven]

Well, yeah, but Dempsey went 15 with the 175 lb Gibbons and 12 with the rather ordinary Brennan.

Brennan was stopped in 6 rounds by Dempsey first time around. He'd never been stopped before in 50 fights.
When they met the second time, Brennan had only been stopped by Dempsey, one stoppage in 80 fights !
In fact, Brennan went 100 fights with only Dempsey being able to stop him. Then, by now a barkeeper and past his best, he got stopped twice (by Firpo and Miske) and retired.

[Dempsey1238]

Brennan was stopped in 6 rounds by Dempsey first time around. He'd never been stopped before in 50 fights.
When they met the second time, Brennan had only been stopped by Dempsey, one stoppage in 80 fights !
In fact, Brennan went 100 fights with only Dempsey being able to stop him. Then, by now a barkeeper and past his best, he got stopped twice (by Firpo and Miske) and retired.


But was the first fight stop more on Brennan hurting his foot than it did with Dempsey's knock out power?

[Unforgiven]

Dempsey was not faceing the movers Marciano did. Outside of Gibbions.



Walcott didn't move much against Marciano, not up on his toes. Charles's legs weren't was they used to be either and fought mostly flat-footed. Archie Moore was rather flat-footed too.

Gibbons and Carpentier were on their bicycles at times versus Dempsey, for sure.

[Unforgiven]

But was the first fight stop more on Brennan hurting his foot than it did with Dempsey's knock out power?

Brennan hurt his foot when Dempsey hit him on the chin. That should answer your question.


As I said earlier, the original post in this thread is a criticism that can be applied to most, perhaps ALL, of the all-time punchers. Pure one-punch KOs are rare, esp. at world-class level.

[Dempsey1238]

Walcott didn't move much against Marciano, not up on his toes. Charles's legs weren't was they used to be either and fought mostly flat-footed. Archie Moore was rather flat-footed too.

Gibbons and Carpentier were on their bicycles at times versus Dempsey, for sure.

Gibbions was holding, not relly moving, and Carpentier would go back a few feet from Dempsey and try to land that right of his, He was not moving or ducking or slipping like Walcott did.

Marciano had Walcott corner on the ropes, and just with a few shoulder shifts, made Marciano miss most of his punchings, Think it was the 6th or 7th round??
Moore did the same thing. Not relly foot movement, but the ablilty to not get tag, which Capentier or Firpo lack.

[OLD FOGEY]

Brennan was stopped in 6 rounds by Dempsey first time around. He'd never been stopped before in 50 fights.
When they met the second time, Brennan had only been stopped by Dempsey, one stoppage in 80 fights !
In fact, Brennan went 100 fights with only Dempsey being able to stop him. Then, by now a barkeeper and past his best, he got stopped twice (by Firpo and Miske) and retired.

I said earlier that Dempsey was a top level puncher.

In his last 9 fights--the championship fights from Willard on, and including the non-title ko of Sharkey, Dempsey went 7-2 with 6 ko's. He fought 67 rounds. In his last 9 fights--the championship fights, and including the fights with Reynolds and Matthews, Marciano went 9-0 with 8 ko's. He fought 71 rounds.

Dempsey gained a few rounds because the Tunney fights were limited to 10 rounds.

I just don't see anything to choose in the number of rounds type of argument. Dempsey was more likely to get a first-round ko because of his early tornado attack. Marciano was more likely to score a knockout once you got to the second round.

Marciano seems to have been a little more consistent.

Both men were clearly fierce punchers.

[he grant]

Old Fogey, yea he had one KO after 28 but can you add he only had three fights, two of them loses to Tunney. It's not like he had ten bouts and one KO ...

Old Tommy Gibbons was 32 so that would make him six years younger than Walcott, five younger than Louis, one younger than Charles and likely ten younger than Moore. Almost forgotten today Gibbons was a master boxer, one of the best pound for pound fighters of his age and had never been KO'ed when he fough Dempsey who himself was coming off of years of inactivity.

Walcott, Charles and Moore may have been better skilled fighters than Willard and Firpo but they were much smaller men and all had been KO'ed several times prior to Rocky. Willard was a monster who had never been off his feet while Firpo was a 6'3", 220 pound bull in his physical prime. Since this is about power, Dempsey's demonstration is far superior.

Bill Brennen is one of Dempsey's best recorded examples of power punching. After easily defeating Brennan the first time, Dempsey was clearly a bit overconfident for the rematch. His NYC partying before the bout is well documented. That night Brennan, a 6' , 200 pounder in his physical prime, easily as good if not better than Layne, Mathews or any of Rocky's KO hit parade, fought the fight of his life. Dempsey sucked it up and showed his own late round KO power by blasting him out in the 12th with a nasty combination.

Again, I feel Dempsey proved his power against bigger, stronger younger men than Marciano ever did and did so especially late in his career by flattening Sharkey and nearly taking out a prime Tunney.

If we are really gonna compare Rocky and Dempsey here is the bottom: Rocky gave 110% throughout his career and overachieved. Dempsey stopped being a fighter after the Willard bout. He started to immediately regress due to inactivity and his enormous celebrity. He under achieved and to me has always been the ultimate enigma among heavyweight champs.

No one really knows how great Jack Dempsey could have been. I personally feel he was far more talented than Rocky but Rocky earned his place at the top while Dempsey remains filled with question marks. Rocky fought everyone while Dempsey did not, mainly Wills and Greb.

[PetethePrince]

Why is it every time I voice an opinion based on fact do Rocky lovers claim I have something against the man ? That is their best defense against logic, obviously.

Age has a lot to do with an ability to absorb punishment. This is a fact. Now here you go claiming the 38 year old Walcott was in the best shape of his life for the Marciano bout. Better than at 34, twice against Joe Louis ?

:patsch

I made my case fine. Walcott was arguably having the best fight of his life up until round 13. He was in terrific shape. Age and the ability to take or absorb a punch is hardly related. I love how you try to be slippery by saying "absorb punishment" and in this case when you're washed up or shot than that would be strongly a case, or if you're 40+. It's not like Walcott was absorbing punishment any different than he was a few years earlier than Louis. As for the older and ability to take a punch. George Foreman. I rest my case.

Better than at 35 and 36 v.s. Charles for the title ? Where do you pick this fact out of the air ? Walcott was not at his physical prime at 38 for Marciano, let's be real please. Say what you want but watch the film ... Marciano tagged him many times all fight and Walcott hung tough and fought him tooth and nail. No doubt Rocky caught him with a late fight bomb but it was not as if he did not hit him all night. He simply caught him perfect.

So it was Marciano looking good up until that 13th round? Are you saying that this bombs broke Walcott down. If that right hand came in round 4 the way it did in 13th the same event would've transpired. This much is obvious. You are really stringing to straws here.

There is no point debating his title bouts as the results speak for themselves despite your disagreeing. It took him many rounds to pound out small heavyweights. Not a few punches. None of them even 200 pounders. It does not diss Rocky to say this, in fact it praises him. It shows he was an extremely well conditioned puncher, perhaps the best ever, who loaded up round after round, punch after punch and broke his men down. What's wrong with accepting this fact? I'm giving him more credit than you Prince since you are saying he lacked skill and only KO'ed when he finally managed to connect. Again, a myth since the films show different. He landed hard and often and KO'ed most, like most big punchers, with an accumulation, a great achievement.

Yes, but still stay within the context of these fights versus the pre title fights. To ignore historical reverence on Marciano's slight altered style would be willfully ignorant or cherry picking when trying to disect his exaggerated power.

I personally find Dempsey to be a far more explosive and skilled puncher. He destroyed much bigger men, without question. I feel certain if more film existed on Jack the question would not really be a debate.[/quote]

[janitor]

This debate seems prety academic to me.

Whether Dempsey or Marciano hit harder I doubt that there was a huge gulf separating them.

We could debate to what extent Dempseys effectivnes was down to technique but if we factor that out then the concept of power becomes prety arificial.

I would not personaly spend as much effort as some posters arguing about something so abstract and unmeasurable.

If Dempsey and Marciano both hit me then I will offer an opinion on who hit harder.

[djanders]

This debate seems prety academic to me.

Whether Dempsey or Marciano hit harder I doubt that there was a huge gulf separating them.

We could debate to what extent Dempseys effectivnes was down to technique but if we factor that out then the concept of power becomes prety arificial.

I would not personaly spend as much effort as some posters arguing about something so abstract and unmeasurable.

If Dempsey and Marciano both hit me then I will offer an opinion on who hit harder.

I agree. I don't think there's a huge gulf between the punching powers of the 2 men. Personally, I thing Dempsey was more effective with his punching power...when he was at his best, but I wouldn't argue with anyone who thinks Marciano's power was better. I might point out to someone who mentions Marciano's knockout percentage that Rocky's percentage would not be so high if he had competed with Dempsey's recorded opponents, at the times in his life that Dempsey fought them, under the same life circumstances, and for the same numbers of scheduled rounds.

[he grant]

Not to mention Dempsey was a better two handed puncher ...

[janitor]

Not to mention Dempsey was a better two handed puncher ...

Only to the extent that he was a better puncher all round.

Both guys were as dangerous with the left ast the right.

[PetethePrince]

I agree. I don't think there's a huge gulf between the punching powers of the 2 men. Personally, I thing Dempsey was more effective with his punching power...when he was at his best, but I wouldn't argue with anyone who thinks Marciano's power was better. I might point out to someone who mentions Marciano's knockout percentage that Rocky's percentage would not be so high if he had competed with Dempsey's recorded opponents, at the times in his life that Dempsey fought them, under the same life circumstances, and for the same numbers of scheduled rounds.

Huh? With Rocky towering over knocked down men he wouldn't have had a better KO record? That certainly makes a lot of sense. Williard would just be a huge target for Rocky to chop down. Rocky had the better opposition.

I already made stated that I believed Dempsey was a better puncher. Just as I believe Louis is a better puncher than Rocky and Dempsey. I would say Dempsey was a better puncher than Foreman too. But he certainly didn't hit as hard as Foreman. The gap between Foreman and Dempsey and Rocky and Dempsey is obviously a noticeable margin. I still think that Rocky's power in comparison to Dempsey's is noticeably more.

I also think Frazier might hit harder than Dempsey and I think Marciano definitely hit harder than Frazier. So again, these debates usually get no where.

[PowerPuncher]

Dempsey certainly could punch but his power and skills gets vastly overrated none the less off very little evidence. His competition was very weak when compared to other champions.

[GPater11093]

I think Dempsey was the better puncher in proper terms, he ha dthe harder more technically correct punch and it was faster.

But Rocky always had his punch it was a constant danger moreso tahn any other fighter in the heavyweights that SuzyQ was always banging away all night.

[SuzieQ49]

In addition, I definately believe Dempsey's one punch KO over a young, prime Sharkey, who took five knock downs against a prime Louis, is even more impressive than Rocky's KO over an old Walcott.


Since when was the sharkey kayo one punch? it was a double combination to the balls followed by a left hook to the head....Sharkey was on the ground holding his balls in agonizing pain from the low blows...as far as im concerned thats a repeat of Bowe-Golota. This knockout has extreme controversy....

[SuzieQ49]

I personally find Dempsey to be a far more explosive and skilled puncher. He destroyed much bigger men


Were they bigger "Better" men? For Example, Rocky Knocked out # 2 rated 37 year old Joe Louis. Louis was 6'2 214lb.


Willard was 37 1/2 years old(older than louis) and had not recorded a win in nearly FOUR years prior to the dempsey fight....while Louis was on a 8 fight winning streak. IMO 1950 Joe Louis would easily pick apart a 1919 Willard.


Luis Firpo, an extremley crude untalented fighter who resembles more of a drunken brawler than a boxer. I firmly believe even the 37 year old Joe Louis would have easily outjabbed and outboxed Firpo for a one sided shutout decision. Louis would just dominate him on the outside.


Carl Morris? Louis would have used him for a punching bag at any stage of his career

Fulton is probably the best bet to beat a 37 year old louis out of the big men dempsey fought...but would he? Fulton had a weak chin and his best weapon(left jab) was not better than Louis's jab. He certainly was not the more skilled of the two, and louis was the harder puncher. I like Louis here.




In my estimation 37 year old Joe Louis was better than any 210lb + heavyweight Jack ever beat

[SuzieQ49]

My opinion is the pre 1954 slugger version of Rocky Marciano hit harder than Jack Dempsey with one punch...but Dempsey hit harder than the newly changed 1954-55 Marciano.


Marciano recorded the better one punch knockouts on film. Jack had no neutral corner rule and still took many many knockdowns to finally put his opponents away...while rocky once he had his man hurt, the end was soon. Dempsey may have knocked out bigger opponents, but rocky knocked out BETTER opponents...and dempsey certainly never defeated a 210lb + man as good as Joe Louis. Dempsey was no doubt a terrific two fisted puncher with dynamite in his fists, but so was rocky. Its close..but I favor rocky slightly

[Maxmomer]

Huh? With Rocky towering over knocked down men he wouldn't have had a better KO record? That certainly makes a lot of sense. Williard would just be a huge target for Rocky to chop down. Rocky had the better opposition.

I already made stated that I believed Dempsey was a better puncher. Just as I believe Louis is a better puncher than Rocky and Dempsey. I would say Dempsey was a better puncher than Foreman too. But he certainly didn't hit as hard as Foreman. The gap between Foreman and Dempsey and Rocky and Dempsey is obviously a noticeable margin. I still think that Rocky's power in comparison to Dempsey's is noticeably more.

I also think Frazier might hit harder than Dempsey and I think Marciano definitely hit harder than Frazier. So again, these debates usually get no where.

I think what he meant is that Dempsey fought under harsher conditions and in a more unforgiving era. He never got real proper management or training until he met up with Kearns.

[Boilermaker]

Since when was the sharkey kayo one punch? it was a double combination to the balls followed by a left hook to the head....Sharkey was on the ground holding his balls in agonizing pain from the low blows...as far as im concerned thats a repeat of Bowe-Golota. This knockout has extreme controversy....


So, Suzie, if Dempsey lands that exact same shot to the balls and follows it up with the same left hook, on Rocky does Rocky get up or get counted out? Is there any fighter who could have absorbed the shot to the balls / hook combination? Or was that particular Dempsey shot the best of all time.

[he grant]

If we discounted for hitting in the balls Marciano would not be counted at all. He was known for foul fighting straight through his title reign. This is well documented.

How can you criticize Willard at 37 ? That's the average age of Rocky's top opponents. I thought you guys would be praising Willard since you have no problem justifying 37 year old Louis, 38 year old Walcott, 42 year light heavyweight old Moore and 33 years plus former middleweight w over 100 bouts Charles? In your eyes I thought Willard would be a young turk !

[mcvey]

This debate seems prety academic to me.

Whether Dempsey or Marciano hit harder I doubt that there was a huge gulf separating them.

We could debate to what extent Dempseys effectivnes was down to technique but if we factor that out then the concept of power becomes prety arificial.

I would not personaly spend as much effort as some posters arguing about something so abstract and unmeasurable.

If Dempsey and Marciano both hit me then I will offer an opinion on who hit harder.

Not for several days you wouldn't :lol:

[mattdonnellon]

This debate seems prety academic to me.

Whether Dempsey or Marciano hit harder I doubt that there was a huge gulf separating them.

We could debate to what extent Dempseys effectivnes was down to technique but if we factor that out then the concept of power becomes prety arificial.

I would not personaly spend as much effort as some posters arguing about something so abstract and unmeasurable.

If Dempsey and Marciano both hit me then I will offer an opinion on who hit harder.
I BEG TO DIFFER-IF EITHER HIT YOU, I DOUBT IF WE'D EVER GET YOUR OPINION! Agree with your post, though.

[Dempsey1238]

If we discounted for hitting in the balls Marciano would not be counted at all. He was known for foul fighting straight through his title reign. This is well documented.

How can you criticize Willard at 37 ? That's the average age of Rocky's top opponents. I thought you guys would be praising Willard since you have no problem justifying 37 year old Louis, 38 year old Walcott, 42 year light heavyweight old Moore and 33 years plus former middleweight w over 100 bouts Charles? In your eyes I thought Willard would be a young turk !

Louis, Charles, Walcott were fighting and active and WINNING, Were Jess Willard had 1 fight in the last 4 years.

[SuzieQ49]

How can you criticize Willard at 37 ? That's the average age of Rocky's top opponents. I thought you guys would be praising Willard since you have no problem justifying 37 year old Louis, 38 year old Walcott, 42 year light heavyweight old Moore and 33 years plus former middleweight w over 100 bouts Charles? In your eyes I thought Willard would be a young turk !


Its not the age Hegrant, its the fact Willard had not recorded a win in FOUR YEARS prior to the Dempsey fight.


Walcott was 38, but had defeated Ezzard Charles twice 4 months prior and 11 months prior.

Louis was 37, but had won 8 fights in a row in the past 2 years including 2 over Top 10 rated opponents

Charles was 32, but had just knocked out two top 10 rated opponents in the past 8 months prior to fighting rocky.

Moore was 38, but was 45-1 in his last 46 fights over the past 4 years including a title eliminator over 6'3 215lb Nino Valdez. Jess Willards record in the prior 4 years of fighting Dempsey? 0-0 LMAO its not even comparable


Jess Willard was 37, and had not recorded one single win in almost FOUR years prior to fighting jack dempsey. YIKKKKES!

[SuzieQ49]

hegrant,

no matter what you say the dempsey-sharkey bout will ALWAYS be filled with controversy. it was NOT a clean knockout punch, it was marred with a Golota combo to the balls.. Sharkey could be seen on the ground wincing in pain holding his balls because of the low blow. Rocky never had a tainted knockout like this.

[Manassa]

Archie Moore would have fucked up Jess Willard.

[SuzieQ49]

Pretty badly too. I doubt Willard would see the bell and even if he did, would he even have won a round?

[Manassa]

Pretty badly too. I doubt Willard would see the bell and even if he did, would he even have won a round?

I think he would last a while actually, because Moore (1955) wouldn't have gone out with all guns blazing and Willard (1919) was pretty tough, too. I reckon they'd be feeling each other out for a couple of rounds, in the third and fourth Moore would commence his plan of action, and Willard would take a gradual beating for the next few rounds. Around the ninth or tenth Willard would be opened up and Moore would beat on him for an entire round or two and the fight would be stopped, Moore having won 8-1 on the cards or something similar.

[SuzieQ49]

I could defintley see that. I fully expect this fight to go into the latter rounds...but Archie does have the finishing skills, pinpoint accuracy, power and style to stop the very tough Willard late. Especially if he marks up Willards face to the point where Jess decides to sit on his stool. I think Willard would spend the majority of the fight getting beaten to the punch and pummeled in close, while he tries to tie up moore. On the outside, I can see Willard jab being shoulder rolled by moore followed by blistering counterpunches to willards face.


how do you see Moore vs Firpo going?

[Manassa]

I could defintley see that. I fully expect this fight to go into the latter rounds...but Archie does have the finishing skills, pinpoint accuracy, power and style to stop the very tough Willard late. Especially if he marks up Willards face to the point where Jess decides to sit on his stool. I think Willard would spend the majority of the fight getting beaten to the punch and pummeled in close, while he tries to tie up moore. On the outside, I can see Willard jab being shoulder rolled by moore followed by blistering counterpunches to willards face.


how do you see Moore vs Firpo going?

Moore-Firpo - Firpo would probably impose himself on Moore in the beginning rounds, maybe even knocking him down. A bit like what Durelle did, except Moore was a little older then, and Durelle was more accurate than Firpo with his punches (which says a lot, because Durelle was inaccurate). Firpo was fairly big, but he wasn't good; just strong. Moore would dispatch him in about eight rounds I would think, or maybe opt for a lop-sided decision win, depending on how dangerous Firpo seemed on the night.

[Unforgiven]

I think Jess Willard might well have beaten Archie Moore.

Moore beat a few good big men but none who were quite as strong and durable as Jess Willard was.
Willard had a lot of power in his right hand, and a good uppercut. He was a monstrous individual. He knocked out Jack Johnson, so I'd give him a chance of KOing Moore.

[SuzieQ49]

I think Jess Willard might well have beaten Archie Moore.



The 1919 37 year old Willard coming off a 4 year layoff?

Moore beat a few good big men but none who were quite as strong and durable as Jess Willard was.


Maybe so, but he certainly beat a few big men who were alot more skilled than willard. I would also question willard's durability...the only two punchers he ever fought(Dempsey and Firpo)...knocked him out. No doubt Willard was tough, but he defintley was not impossible to stop.

Willard had a lot of power in his right hand, and a good uppercut. He was a monstrous individual. He knocked out Jack Johnson, so I'd give him a chance of KOing Moore.

Looks like you are confused. We are talking the version of Willard Dempsey fought vs Archie Moore. Big Difference. Also I don't see what Willard getting badly outbox then outlasting a fat old faded champion in johnson has anything to do with a scheduled 15 round fantasy fight vs moore? If the johnson-Willard fight had been set for 15-20 rounds, Johnson wins easily.

[PetethePrince]

Suzie has just come to take over this thread. Said just about everything I wanted to say. Can't believe the Sharkey knockout was even mentioned as being a real testament to Dempsey's power. Knowing the controversy, it's a very Bowe-Golata seeming knockdown as Suzie mentions.

The only thing I disagree with in Suzie is that Marciano had a style change from 54 to 54-55. Nothing magically ever happened like that. It was a just slow and slight change from the post Walcott fights. That changed mostly showed up for the Charles fight. Rocky only fought Cockell and Moore in 55. One of which was dead game practically when it started, and the other who was just a tad bit older so his reflects weren't top notch. Rocky seemed to know to turn it up on Moore because he wouldn't be able to handle his constant assault. It became overwhelming.

[djanders]

Huh? With Rocky towering over knocked down men he wouldn't have had a better KO record? That certainly makes a lot of sense. Williard would just be a huge target for Rocky to chop down. Rocky had the better opposition.

I already made stated that I believed Dempsey was a better puncher. Just as I believe Louis is a better puncher than Rocky and Dempsey. I would say Dempsey was a better puncher than Foreman too. But he certainly didn't hit as hard as Foreman. The gap between Foreman and Dempsey and Rocky and Dempsey is obviously a noticeable margin. I still think that Rocky's power in comparison to Dempsey's is noticeably more.

I also think Frazier might hit harder than Dempsey and I think Marciano definitely hit harder than Frazier. So again, these debates usually get no where.

Well...to start off with, for the KO% records to be compared fairly, Marciano would have to begin his pro career at the age of 19, instead of 23. Then, he would have to live Dempsey's life and face Dempsey's exact opponents under exactly the same conditions when Dempsey faced them...# of rounds scheduled, riding the rails, lack of training opportunities, lay offs, etc. No, I do not believe Marciano's KO% would have been as high as it was under those circumstances. Even without the neutral corner rule, following in Dempsey's footsteps, I think Rocky's KO% would have been much lower than 88%.

I won't argue with you about your belief that Rocky hit with noticeably more power. It's a sensible opinion. I just don't agree with you. I think the two men were very close in that regard, and, when comparing raw punching power and nothing else, I give the slight edge to Dempsey.

But, with that said, prime against prime, I think Rocky would have won over Dempsey, more times than not, head to head.

:good

[TheGreatA]

Suzie has just come to take over this thread. Said just about everything I wanted to say. Can't believe the Sharkey knockout was even mentioned as being a real testament to Dempsey's power. Knowing the controversy, it's a very Bowe-Golata seeming knockdown as Suzie mentions.

The only thing I disagree with in Suzie is that Marciano had a style change from 54 to 54-55. Nothing magically ever happened like that. It was a just slow and slight change from the post Walcott fights. That changed mostly showed up for the Charles fight. Rocky only fought Cockell and Moore in 55. One of which was dead game practically when it started, and the other who was just a tad bit older so his reflects weren't top notch. Rocky seemed to know to turn it up on Moore because he wouldn't be able to handle his constant assault. It became overwhelming.

Low blows or not, I think it's pretty impressive seeing a man get lifted off the ground with a single compact left hook.

In my view it was a matter of Sharkey punching Dempsey after the bell, after which Dempsey, who had been quite lethargic previously in the fight, came out furiously in the next round and knocked Sharkey out.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[PetethePrince]

Well...to start off with, for the KO% records to compared fairly, Marciano would have to begin his pro career at the age of 19, instead of 23. Then, he would have to live Dempsey's life and face Dempsey's exact opponents under exactly the same conditions when Dempsey faced them...# of rounds scheduled, riding the rails, lack of training opportunities, lay offs, etc. No, I do not believe Marciano's KO% would have been 88% under those circumstances.

I won't argue with you about your belief that Rocky hit with noticeably more power. It's a sensible opinion. I just don't agree with you. I think the two men were very close in that regard, and, when comparing raw punching power and nothing else, I give the slight edge to Dempsey.
But, with that said, prime against prime, I think Rocky would have won over Dempsey, more times than not, head to head.

:good

I can't go in a time machine and place Marciano in those conditions against Dempsey's opponent in certain situations to know how he would have done. Marciano's life wasn't entirely easy though either. However, what I will say is I do think Marciano would have a better record and would've scored more knockouts. Especially when factoring the fact that men can be hit once they just get up.

I guess I can handle others thinking Dempsey had more power. I just don't see it nor get that belief. I'll admit he's a better puncher, just like how Louis is a better puncher. But I don't think they hit harder than Rocky. Do you think Dempsey hit harder than Louis?

[PetethePrince]

Low blows or not, I think it's pretty impressive seeing a man get lifted off the ground with a single compact left hook.

In my view it was a matter of Sharkey punching Dempsey after the bell, after which Dempsey, who had been quite lethargic previously in the fight, came out furiously in the next round and knocked Sharkey out.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Can always count on when film is concerned. Sharkey probably doomed himself with that 6th round tap on Dempsey. Sharkey looks to be in agony on the floor in the 7th. He's not out of it, he just looks to be in awful pain.

[djanders]

I can't go in a time machine and place Marciano in those conditions against Dempsey's opponent in certain situations to know how he would have done. Marciano's life wasn't entirely easy though either. However, what I will say is I do think Marciano would have a better record and would've scored more knockouts. Especially when factoring the fact that men can be hit once they just get up.

I guess I can handle others thinking Dempsey had more power. I just don't see it nor get that belief. I'll admit he's a better puncher, just like how Louis is a better puncher. But I don't think they hit harder than Rocky. Do you think Dempsey hit harder than Louis?

I think, if you could line them up with a punch machine, all in their primes, the power readings would go...

1. Louis
2. Dempsey
3. Marciano

If we could have them fight each other multiple times, I think the win-lost results would be...

1. Louis
2. Marciano
3. Dempsey

:thumbsup

[dezbeast]

The thing is Marciano had almost as much power in the last round as the first. His punching stamina was incredible. But if you compare him and Dempsey in the first round, I would say Dempsey easily generated more power with a single punch.

[djanders]

The thing is Marciano had almost as much power in the last round as the first. His punching stamina was incredible. But if you compare him and Dempsey in the first round, I would say Dempsey easily generated more power with a single punch.

I agree with you! In the 15th round of a hard fought fight, I would go with Marciano's power all the way! :good

[PetethePrince]

The thing is Marciano had almost as much power in the last round as the first. His punching stamina was incredible. But if you compare him and Dempsey in the first round, I would say Dempsey easily generated more power with a single punch.

That's a good point, although I disagree with the last statement.

I think, if you could line them up with a punch machine, all in their primes, the power readings would go...

1. Louis
2. Dempsey
3. Marciano

If we could have them fight each other multiple times, I think the win-lost results would be...

1. Louis
2. Marciano
3. Dempsey

:thumbsup
Interesting, Walcott seemed to think Marciano hit harder then Louis. Described Marciano as a one punch knockout artist always throwing bombs and always hurting you when he hit somewhere.

[he grant]

Guys let's put Walcott's comment into perspective. He was being interviewed on a show and was put on the spot. He gave a diplomatic answer. I've seen other guys go round and round about Rocky and his power and the main point is that Rocky threw almost every punch he ever threw as a knockout punch. He fought that way and had the exceptional stamina to pull it off. He did not jab, he did not box. He load up constantly, that was his style.

I rate the three:

Louis
Dempey
Marciano

All three could knock down walls ...

[djanders]

That's a good point, although I disagree with the last statement.


Interesting, Walcott seemed to think Marciano hit harder then Louis. Described Marciano as a one punch knockout artist always throwing bombs and always hurting you when he hit somewhere.

Marciano threw more hard punches. I couldn't argue with Jersey Joe there. The question I was trying to answer was who do I think was capable of the hardest single punch power? If we are talking about accumulative hurt, over the course of a long fight, I would say Marciano is #1 of the 3 by that measure.

[OLD FOGEY]

Well...to start off with, for the KO% records to be compared fairly, Marciano would have to begin his pro career at the age of 19, instead of 23. Then, he would have to live Dempsey's life and face Dempsey's exact opponents under exactly the same conditions when Dempsey faced them...# of rounds scheduled, riding the rails, lack of training opportunities, lay offs, etc. No, I do not believe Marciano's KO% would have been as high as it was under those circumstances. Even without the neutral corner rule, following in Dempsey's footsteps, I think Rocky's KO% would have been much lower than 88%.

I won't argue with you about your belief that Rocky hit with noticeably more power. It's a sensible opinion. I just don't agree with you. I think the two men were very close in that regard, and, when comparing raw punching power and nothing else, I give the slight edge to Dempsey.

But, with that said, prime against prime, I think Rocky would have won over Dempsey, more times than not, head to head.

:good

There are valid points made about the different backgrounds. That said, Marciano gave a fantastic performance of stopping opponents. 43 of 49 for 88% is I think the best percentage of any 20th century heavyweight champion. It is even more impressive when you look at the rated or ever rated opponents. He knocked them all out. Many fighters came out of the amateurs as prospects and were carefully managed. How many matched or even come close to this sort of performance? In championship fights, Marciano ko'd 6 of 7 (86%), Dempsey 5 of 8 (63%)--interestingly close to their career performances. In their last 10 fights, Marciano stopped 9 of 10, Dempsey 7 of 10. Marciano's edge was not only in the early fights, but throughout his career. His run from the Layne fight to the Moore fight of 14 wins, 13 ko's, 13 bouts against rated or once rated opposition, ko'ing every man he fought either in the initial bout or the rematch, is more impressive to me than any run Dempsey had.

Another point is that Marciano was exceptional in his own era. That ko percentage stands out like a sore thumb if compared to top fighters of let's say the 1930 to 1970 period. What about Dempsey? Well, he ko'd 51 of 83 for 61%, but that wasn't the best ko percentage while he was active. Fulton did 63% (70 of 112), Firpo 67% (26 of 39), Bob Martin 74% (40 of 51) and Paul Berlenbach 65% (35 or 54). There might be a lot of reasons for Dempsey being behind these men, but the bottom line is that his ko percentage is just not exceptional in his own era.

As for the length of Dempsey's bouts, that is somewhat true and also somewhat not true. From April to December 1916, Dempsey went the full 10 round distance 7 times, more than Marciano did in his entire career.

[OLD FOGEY]

On Dempsey's early fights in the west--but why would we think his opponents on the whole had it better? Most likely they had rough lives also, probably having to work, not being properly trained, etc.

Marciano fighting in the late 1940's between Boston and New York was probably in against opponents who know their way around gyms. It is likely to me that Marciano's average early opponent was better than Dempsey's just because of the progress boxing had made and the fact that he was competing near major urban centers.

I think a case could be made either way, but it is all guesswork.

[he grant]

Guys, 95% of Rocky's first 35 bouts were tomato cans and no historian disputes this .. after that he fought good fighters the rest of his career ... the nuthuggers can say what they like but read the newspaper reports prior to the Louis fight and they all rip Marcino's record as built on club fighters ... I'm not making this up, read the coverage.

[PetethePrince]

Guys, 95% of Rocky's first 35 bouts were tomato cans and no historian disputes this .. after that he fought good fighters the rest of his career ... the nuthuggers can say what they like but read the newspaper reports prior to the Louis fight and they all rip Marcino's record as built on club fighters ... I'm not making this up, read the coverage.

I still don't get you though. It's not like Dempsey's punching power looks better than Marciano's on film. From the 1 punch KO's to the better opposition to the numbing clumbing shots he hit over fighters bodies and the careers he ruined I feel it's an easy decision to come to grips with. Dempsey, on the other hand only knocked out some bigger fighters. Most of which were either old, inactive, unproven, or both. I give Dempsey his dues as being the better puncher. But it took him banging guys out and them getting up with him standing over them to knock them down again, only for these opponents to get up another 5 times. That as for power doesn't really impress me that much.

And Tomato Cans or not. Rocky hit them and they all went to sleep. Are you going to criticize Tyson's KO record for being against tomato cans too? Rocky has the 2nd (Or is it 3rd?) biggest KO streak in HW history. And doing all this while supposedly being incredibly crude in a 4 round bout night in and out is quite impressive.

[OLD FOGEY]

Guys, 95% of Rocky's first 35 bouts were tomato cans and no historian disputes this .. after that he fought good fighters the rest of his career ... the nuthuggers can say what they like but read the newspaper reports prior to the Louis fight and they all rip Marcino's record as built on club fighters ... I'm not making this up, read the coverage.

So. Dempsey's opponents prior to 1917 were something more than tomato cans? How great was Johnny Sudenberg? If your point is that some, such as Joe Louis, fought tougher competition than Marciano, I agree. But Dempsey is not in my judgement one of them. Check the records of the men he was fighting as late as 1918 and 1919 on his way to the title. More than a few were set-ups of the worst kind sent in to feed his one-round ko record.

And the whole tomato-can argument with Marciano is attenuated by the fact that he did just as well with world-class fighters as he did with his tomato-can opponents.

[SuzieQ49]

Can always count on when film is concerned. Sharkey probably doomed himself with that 6th round tap on Dempsey. Sharkey looks to be in agony on the floor in the 7th. He's not out of it, he just looks to be in awful pain.

EXACTLEY. Sharkey is on the floor grabbbing his balls in worlds of pain. You could see by the expression on his face prior to the left hook those uppercuts to the balls hurt alot. This knockout has EXTREME controversy. Jack Sharkey beat the shit out of dempsey and won nearly every round...Dempsey knew he was on the verge of losing and got extremley cheap/dirty. I dont respect that. This is not a clean knockout. If he had landed that left hook on Sharkey WITHOUT the right uppercuts to the balls, then this would be one hell of a victory. But we cannot change history. The Film is there. Sharkey was in alot of pain.

[PetethePrince]

EXACTLEY. Sharkey is on the floor grabbbing his balls in worlds of pain. You could see by the expression on his face prior to the left hook those uppercuts to the balls hurt alot. This knockout has EXTREME controversy. Jack Sharkey beat the shit out of dempsey and won nearly every round...Dempsey knew he was on the verge of losing and got extremley cheap/dirty. I dont respect that. This is not a clean knockout. If he had landed that left hook on Sharkey WITHOUT the right uppercuts to the balls, then this would be one hell of a victory. But we cannot change history. The Film is there. Sharkey was in alot of pain.

I can't argue with that. It's truly amazing what other people will use to prop up another fighter only in effort to discredit another one. Otherwise, why else use that example as a legit showing of Dempsey's power? You don't, you can't... which begs the question. How many 1 punch KO's did Dempsey actually have? Few to none I'd bet. All becomes a whole lot clearer. Awesome puncher, but not on Marciano's level in terms of pure power. Not in my book. And poor Sharkey, that's got to be one of the worst ways a fighter can lose.

[he grant]

Funny but he sure looks like he went down fron the chin shot to me. If you watch the Dempsey/Sharkey fight in it's entirity, Dempsey was coming on and giving Sharkey a nasty body beating. It was not the one sided battering many make it. No doubt Sharkey was ahead but he was in a fight and he knew it. No doubt Dempsey was nasty in there but so was Rocky. He was know for hitting low, hitting on the break, hitting after the bell. Watch the Cockell fight.

Prince, maybe if you took the time to read my many passages on Marciano you would comprehend I have constantly praised him as a great fighter. To say I discredit him by focusing on selective passages only demonstrates poor reading comprehension and the inability to follow threads.

When trying to total Dempsey's KO's you leave out one thing and that is there are vey few Dempsey bouts on film. For you to make a statement about how many he may or may not have is silly like much of what you write. The evidence is inconclusive. It is entertaining though.

[pugilist_boyd]

dempsey is always underestimated,nothing new

[PetethePrince]

Funny but he sure looks like he went down fron the chin shot to me. If you watch the Dempsey/Sharkey fight in it's entirity, Dempsey was coming on and giving Sharkey a nasty body beating. It was not the one sided battering many make it. No doubt Sharkey was ahead but he was in a fight and he knew it. No doubt Dempsey was nasty in there but so was Rocky. He was know for hitting low, hitting on the break, hitting after the bell. Watch the Cockell fight.

Prince, maybe if you took the time to read my many passages on Marciano you would comprehend I have constantly praised him as a great fighter. To say I discredit him by focusing on selective passages only demonstrates poor reading comprehension and the inability to follow threads.

When trying to total Dempsey's KO's you leave out one thing and that is there are vey few Dempsey bouts on film. For you to make a statement about how many he may or may not have is silly like much of what you write. The evidence is inconclusive. It is entertaining though.

He Grant. Don't respond to me if you're going to jump on the attack with me. I'm well aware of your somewhat selective praise for Marciano. But when other ATG fighters and heavyweights come into the picture that praise is quite limited. It's quite clear by your messages that it is YOU who has decided to not read my post. If you're going to respond to me like this then don't bother continuing to do so because I will just ignore.

Dempsey has terrific powerr. There's limited film, but what we have seen I think anybody with an eye of sense, reasoning, and intelligence to analyze can see Marciano hits a bit harder. When adding the fact that we can read a lot more on Dempsey to see his career on a whole while examining his record it's very safe and fair to make this case. The only thing entertaining is suggesting how making any sort of conclusion on the subject is silly since little film is on Dempsey when you have done JUST that in making a case he's superior to Marciano in power. The irony, and backpedaling is indeed highly humorous. Silly to make one statment, but not a case against another. Are you even aware of what you write?

I've only the seen Sharkey fight on highlights. Suggesting that the Dempsey KO is not dubious is quite hilarious. Suggesting that the blow knocked Sharker down and out is even more hilarious. Seriously, watch him in agony but clearly concious. He's reacting to the repeated ball shots by Dempsey and is on the ground squirming helplessly from that. It comes out as a rather spasdic one punch KO if the punch had no effect. Of course I might defend this ridicliousness if I had tried making a point of Dempsey's 1 punch power by showing it. Maybe you can't relate to that sort of pain or reaction. Can't help you there I guesss :rofl.

[he grant]

Prince, practice what you preach. Don't attack or offend and you will be treated the same. Read how many offensive remarks you make in the above passage.

It is obvious you are a high strung kid with limited knowledge to boot. On one hand it's fun to push your buttons because your so predictable but in fairness it is going to get boring to the other posters. Try writing your points like an adult. Articulate your positions without insults or offense if you are capable of it. The we will debate the sport .

[mcvey]

I can't argue with that. It's truly amazing what other people will use to prop up another fighter only in effort to discredit another one. Otherwise, why else use that example as a legit showing of Dempsey's power? You don't, you can't... which begs the question. How many 1 punch KO's did Dempsey actually have? Few to none I'd bet. All becomes a whole lot clearer. Awesome puncher, but not on Marciano's level in terms of pure power. Not in my book. And poor Sharkey, that's got to be one of the worst ways a fighter can lose.
Valid Points , but a trifle ironic,given that Sharkey was notorious for punching below the belt himself :lol:
In fact he was responsible for the" no foul rule" being introduced.:good

[he grant]

Not a vaild point since there are very few Dempsey bouts on film. How do we know he didn't have a dozen KO's like Rocky's over Layne that were not filmed? We don't, so the argument is flawed. So are statements like " anyone can see Marciano hits harder" . Equally silly because such observations are subjective to interpretation not definative. Very adolesent attempts at trying to make a point.

[PetethePrince]

Prince, practice what you preach. Don't attack or offend and you will be treated the same. Read how many offensive remarks you make in the above passage.

It is obvious you are a high strung kid with limited knowledge to boot. On one hand it's fun to push your buttons because your so predictable but in fairness it is going to get boring to the other posters. Try writing your points like an adult. Articulate your positions without insults or offense if you are capable of it. The we will debate the sport .

I come to argue in a fair and civil manner. I don't get negative and try slandering or attacking with posts about the others posters knowledge and other snide remarks when I can't argue my position. You did not. You're just one step closer to being put on my ignore. If you keep up these pointless diversions or attack type posts I will put you on my ignore list. You're not pushing my buttons, you're just not worth the bickering.

Not a vaild point since there are very few Dempsey bouts on film. How do we know he didn't have a dozen KO's like Rocky's over Layne that were not filmed? We don't, so the argument is flawed. So are statements like " anyone can see Marciano hits harder" . Equally silly because such observations are subjective to interpretation not definative. Very adolesent attempts at trying to make a point.

The only thing "silly" is how you jumped into this undecided category after arguing that Dempsey hit harder. You argued by bringing up the low blow KO from Sharkey. Now you're in the retreat backpedaling the fact that any statements of "Marciano hits harder" is a silly observation. HOWEVER, the other statement being made isn't? Try to be consistent, rather than try diverting of course and criticizing the person who's arguing rather than their point. Don't call arguments flawed when you've held into a position that by your logic is equally as flawed. If you're going to try hiding in the "Not enough film" 7 pages into a thread. Then I guess I'll say well we don't know if Tyson or Foreman hit harder than Dempsey, Jeffries, or Johnson because there's not enough actual film of them to know. Let's just ignore what we've seen in the meantime, assuming they have plenty one punch KO's and ignore their records or reports. Only statement would be flawed and a silly observation to make. :nut

This is the last time I'm responding to you in this thread. You can continue to respond but it might be pointless. Continue to divert discussions about age, knowledge, or criticism about me as a poster rather than my actual point that you can't argue (Only change positions against) then I will just end up putting you on my ignore list. Take care...

[mcvey]

Not a vaild point since there are very few Dempsey bouts on film. How do we know he didn't have a dozen KO's like Rocky's over Layne that were not filmed? We don't, so the argument is flawed. So are statements like " anyone can see Marciano hits harder" . Equally silly because such observations are subjective to interpretation not definative. Very adolesent attempts at trying to make a point.

Thats two of us on your shit list then .
I'm mortified.:oops:

[Dempsey1238]

Outside of one bout, Dempsey's entire title rein is on film to judge though. 8 fights, the Rock only got like what? His six title fights, his title win, and a few pre title fights.

About 11 fights for the Rock, which in the long run is not a Lot that parts the 2 film wise.

Louis out does both with about 30 fights to himself.

If you want the film arguement, than Rocky should get that film arguement also imo.

We supposely saw Dempsey at his best vs Willard, But no one punch ko, a lot of knockdowns, and Dempsey even standed over Jess, but no one punch ko.

I suppsoe his fight with Bill would sort of count as a one punch ko, but Bill was hurt with body punchings, follow by the over hand right. Not the shocking factor of Walcott.

The fight with George was Dempsey's best body work, but I felt Dempsey carry him a little. It was a right hand and uppercut that got the ko.

Firpo was the left right that got the ko, with a lot of brawling and mugging. Lets not forget that Firpo drop Dempsey and than knock him out of the ring.

Sharkey's been cover, shot to the balls follow by the hook.

Gibbions, and Tunney went the distand, 2 loses and 1 win. But again, no real signs of one punch power. He hits hard, but the footage most often shows them getting up time and again, and getting beating down.

Marciano at least has the Layne and Walcott bouts on film, but he does have many early and pre contendership one punch kos. Now these happen not against the best, but still he show he can still ko a top contender with one will time blow as he show Layne.

[guilalah]

PetethePrince
Jack Sharkey beat the shit out of dempsey and won nearly every round...Dempsey knew he was on the verge of losing and got extremley cheap/dirty.


Gotta agree with he grant. I saw the Dempsey-Sharkey youtubes before they were yanked. Sharkey won a lot of the battles, but Dempsey was dictating the war. Sharkey may well have been ahead (anyone know the cards?), but Dempsey was drawing interest on his body work and Sharkey wasn't looking too good in the last couple rounds.

Here's the old thread on those youtubes:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[he grant]

Princess, also a last word freak? You write one thing and say another. Maybe one day when you stop bleeding we can continue. Till then remain a lightweight. Keep saying you'll ignore me and keep attacking and responding ... like the child you are. Bye Princess. Till the next time.

McVey: Did not mean to insult you. My argument is that there is no clear cut definative answer over who hits harder based on the film .. to say Rocky hits harder baesd on more filmed one punch KO's in an incomplete argument

Dempsey : Right Willard, Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons, Firpo, Tunney, Sharkey and Tunney are on film. That's it ... eight out of eight two recorded bouts. My point is if we had many of his pre-title bouts filmed such as Flynn, Smith, Morris, Brennan 1, Fulton we might see exceptional punching ko's that will alter perspectives. Some of us are tyring to make conclusive, definative statements on inconclusive data. That's all .

Guilalah: Typical of that poster. Big mouth, small knowledge. By his own admittance he never even watched the whole fight, just highlights, but writes passionately as if he knows something. Anyone who watched the fight would know as the rounds progressed it became a very competitive fight as Dempsey's swarming body attack was getting to Sharkey and weakening him. That's what's great about boards. The history of who wrote what is memoralized so that the load mouths and lightweights cannot lie with any effect.

[SuzieQ49]

. My point is if we had many of his pre-title bouts filmed such as Flynn, Smith, Morris, Brennan 1, Fulton we might see exceptional punching ko's that will alter perspectives.


On the flipside....Alot of Rockys supposed devastating knockouts pre title days are not on film. Imagine if we got to see his knockouts over Bernie Reynolds, Gino Bounvino, Johnny Skhor, Fred Beshore....All according to reports "Devastating" knockouts. The Reynolds knockout was reported a "ONE PUNCH" knockout where renyolds whole body was lifted into the air by one Suzy Q right hand.

So we could say the same for both fighters

[Dempsey1238]

Princess, also a last word freak? You write one thing and say another. Maybe one day when you stop bleeding we can continue. Till then remain a lightweight. Keep saying you'll ignore me and keep attacking and responding ... like the child you are. Bye Princess. Till the next time.

McVey: Did not mean to insult you. My argument is that there is no clear cut definative answer over who hits harder based on the film .. to say Rocky hits harder baesd on more filmed one punch KO's in an incomplete argument

Dempsey : Right Willard, Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons, Firpo, Tunney, Sharkey and Tunney are on film. That's it ... eight out of eight two recorded bouts. My point is if we had many of his pre-title bouts filmed such as Flynn, Smith, Morris, Brennan 1, Fulton we might see exceptional punching ko's that will alter perspectives. Some of us are tyring to make conclusive, definative statements on inconclusive data. That's all .

Guilalah: Typical of that poster. Big mouth, small knowledge. By his own admittance he never even watched the whole fight, just highlights, but writes passionately as if he knows something. Anyone who watched the fight would know as the rounds progressed it became a very competitive fight as Dempsey's swarming body attack was getting to Sharkey and weakening him. That's what's great about boards. The history of who wrote what is memoralized so that the load mouths and lightweights cannot lie with any effect.


Seen all 7 rounds, myself. I thought the copywrite date would be gone by now, shock it got pull.

I do have the fight, It was not the one sided beating people claim it was, Sharkey stagger Dempsey in round 1, Than Dempsey starts finded his grove around around 4 or 5, But regardless if of who was ahead,

The knockout STILL came from a shot from the balls to the chin.

Kinda of like Duran Buc so to speak. I am not saying Dempsey cant hit, I just feel Rocky had better power is all. The Willard and Firpo fights shows how hard Jack can hit. Were the Sharkey fight was some what close, with Dempsey getting the better in the later round. But that does not change the balls to hook ko imo.

[cross_trainer]

On the flipside....Alot of Rockys supposed devastating knockouts pre title days are not on film. Imagine if we got to see his knockouts over Bernie Reynolds, Gino Bounvino, Johnny Skhor, Fred Beshore....All according to reports "Devastating" knockouts. The Reynolds knockout was reported a "ONE PUNCH" knockout where renyolds whole body was lifted into the air by one Suzy Q right hand.

So we could say the same for both fighters

We do have more, and better, film of Rocky, though.

[he grant]

SQ: Definately correct.

Guys , everyone is entitled to an opinion. My point is that at the very least it is opinion. There is not definates here as we are really splitting hairs ... both were exceptional hitters.

[PetethePrince]

Gotta agree with he grant. I saw the Dempsey-Sharkey youtubes before they were yanked. Sharkey won a lot of the battles, but Dempsey was dictating the war. Sharkey may well have been ahead (anyone know the cards?), but Dempsey was drawing interest on his body work and Sharkey wasn't looking too good in the last couple rounds.

Here's the old thread on those youtubes:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

That's what Suzie said, not me. I do know thatSharkey gave him trouble though and that the knockdown is highly controversial.

[Dempsey1238]

We do have more, and better, film of Rocky, though.

More film of Rocky, but not by much. We got about 3 or so more fights on Rocky, than one would have with Dempsey's 8.

[he grant]

It's not just better film, it's of what fights. If we had only the first Lowry fight and the Cockell we really would not know an accurate picture of Rocky's power ... whatever ..