Comparing boxing best swarming heavyweights from Dempsey to Tyson

[Mendoza]

Comparing boxing best swarming heavyweights from Dempsey to Tyson:

Power: Tyson 10, Dempsey 9, Marciano 8.5, Frazier 7.5

Tale of the Tape: ( height, weight, and reach ) Dempsey 5.5, Tyson 5.5, Frazier 5, Marciano 4

Hand and foot speed. Dempsey 9.5, Tyson 8.5, Frazier 7.5, Marciano 5.5

Boxing ability and versatility on OFFENSE ( Jab, hook , cross, body punch, uppercut, in-fight out fight, combinations, feints ) : Tyson 8.5, Dempsey 8, Marciano 6, Frazier 5.5

Boxing ability and versatility on DEFENSE ( avoid getting hit…..block, slip, duck, clinching power and technique, parry, footwork to get out of the way ) Dempsey 6.5, Tyson 6.5, Frazier 6, Marciano 5.5

Stamina: Marciano 10, Frazier 10, Dempsey 7.5, Tyson 7

Durability: Dempsey 8, Tyson 8, Marciano 8, Frazier 6

Heart and will to win: Marciano 10, Frazier 9.5, Dempsey 8, Tyson 5

Ring Generalship, Smarts, and Poise in the ring: Marciano 9, Dempsey 7, Frazier 6.5, Tyson 5

Quality of opposition fought: Frazier 9.5, Tyson 9, Dempsey 6.5, Marciano 6

Intimidation ability and killer instinct: Tyson 9.5, Dempsey 9, Marciano 8, Frazier 7.5

Total score, and its close:

Dempsey 84.5
Tyson 82.5
Frazier 81.0
Marciano 80.5

[McGrain]

I agree with a lot of your marks - assuming they are relative to each other and in so far as it is possible to mark fighters - here are my objectins.


First, I see no reason to score Marciano higher than Frazier for Heart and will to win, I would score them both with a ten.

Tyson should rank alongside Dempsey for hand and footspeed, but Dempsey should be higher than Tyson in terms of defence.

I know you are not particuarly interested, but I think that Dempsey should be scored lower for opposition faced. We can agree to disagree on this point, however.

[Mendoza]

McGrain I agree with a lot of your marks - assuming they are relative to each other and in so far as it is possible to mark fighters - here are my objectins.

Thanks, and I expect a lot of objections in this thread. And I reserve the right to edit the scores a tad if I missed something.


First, I see no reason to score Marciano higher than Frazier for Heart and will to win, I would score them both with a ten.

I do. Frazier was not always in the best of shape, he allowed Futch to stop a fight for him without much protest, and his body language was not as strong as Marciano’s when bad things happened to him.


Tyson should rank alongside Dempsey for hand and footspeed, but Dempsey should be higher than Tyson in terms of defence.

Dempsey moved his feet quicker than Tyson did, but Tyson had a pretty good guard, and at his best good head movement too. Hard call.


I know you are not particularly interested, but I think that Dempsey should be scored lower for opposition faced. We can agree to disagree on this point, however.

Quality of opposition faced is different than quality of opposition beat. In addition, Dempsey had 80+ fights which is tops on the list.

[McGrain]

I do. Frazier was not always in the best of shape, he allowed Futch to stop a fight for him without much protest, and his body language was not as strong as Marciano’s when bad things happened to him.

As you say; this is reasonable actually. But Frazier's performance against Ali in III is one of the single most extraordinary things I've ever seen in the ring (maybe only pegged by Ali's that night, actually) and it was based primarily upon heart and will to win. Those boys were actually past that stuff and digging in the rock bed. I agree that Frazier did not protest, and in my opinion he showed enough distress in the corner for Futch to pull him. However, I don't think you can expect Frazier to fight Ali, Futch, and hold himself in place, so I don't hold the lack of protest against him even .1%



Dempsey moved his feet quicker than Tyson did, but Tyson had a pretty good guard, and at his best good head movement too. Hard call.

I always feel that Tyson's head movement is rythmic. It is designed to ditch the jab, primarily, not individual shots - Dempsey's, by comparison, flows beautifully, he can punch properly of the back of his head movement and he looks to me as if he is tottally without rythym or pattern - impossible to time then, except by way of luck. I consider Dempsey's head movement clearly superiour to Tyson's, who's head movement is clearly superior to every great heavyweigh.

[Maxmomer]

I think Marciano and Dempsey should be even as far as heart goes. Other than that, I pretty much agree.

[McGrain]

I think Marciano and Dempsey should be even as far as heart goes. Other than that, I pretty much agree.

You think Dempsey showed more heart in his career than Frazier?!

When?

[Maxmomer]

You think Dempsey showed more heart in his career than Frazier?!

When?

I left Frazier out by mistake, I simply meant to say I think they should all be rated even in the heart department. Frazier may have been out of shape for some fights, Dempsey may have taken too many long lay offs, but any of them would have rather died than give up in the ring, and that's what matters most to me.

[ChrisPontius]

Tale of the Tape: ( height, weight, and reach ) Dempsey 5.5, Tyson 5.5, Frazier 5, Marciano 4


You think a ripped 6'1 187lbs guy is physically equally matched with a ripped 5'11 216lbs guy?

[Mendoza]

You think a ripped 6'1 187lbs guy is physically equally matched with a ripped 5'11 216lbs guy?

Tyson is about 5'9 1/2" or 5'10", and has a limted 71" reach. Dempsey, though much lighter is taller by about 3-31/2" taller , and has 6 " in reach over Tyson. So yeah, about equal on the tale of the tape.

[OLD FOGEY]

Comparing boxing best swarming heavyweights from Dempsey to Tyson:

Power: Tyson 10, Dempsey 9, Marciano 8.5, Frazier 7.5

Tale of the Tape: ( height, weight, and reach ) Dempsey 5.5, Tyson 5.5, Frazier 5, Marciano 4

Hand and foot speed. Dempsey 9.5, Tyson 8.5, Frazier 7.5, Marciano 5.5

Boxing ability and versatility on OFFENSE ( Jab, hook , cross, body punch, uppercut, in-fight out fight, combinations, feints ) : Tyson 8.5, Dempsey 8, Marciano 6, Frazier 5.5

Boxing ability and versatility on DEFENSE ( avoid getting hit…..block, slip, duck, clinching power and technique, parry, footwork to get out of the way ) Dempsey 6.5, Tyson 6.5, Frazier 6, Marciano 5.5

Stamina: Marciano 10, Frazier 10, Dempsey 7.5, Tyson 7

Durability: Dempsey 8, Tyson 8, Marciano 8, Frazier 6

Heart and will to win: Marciano 10, Frazier 9.5, Dempsey 8, Tyson 5

Ring Generalship, Smarts, and Poise in the ring: Marciano 9, Dempsey 7, Frazier 6.5, Tyson 5

Quality of opposition fought: Frazier 9.5, Tyson 9, Dempsey 6.5, Marciano 6

Intimidation ability and killer instinct: Tyson 9.5, Dempsey 9, Marciano 8, Frazier 7.5

Total score, and its close:

Dempsey 84.5
Tyson 82.5
Frazier 81.0
Marciano 80.5

The trouble with this excercise is that it is totally personal and subjective. Why is Dempsey way ahead of Frazier in offense? Frazier was able to hit Ali often in 1971. Dempsey did not do as well not only with Tunney, but also with Gibbons. Why is Marciano, with the best knockout record against Hall-of-Famers, champions, rated fighters, and general opposition (88% to Dempsey's 63%) a less powerful puncher?

Also, some factors might simply overwhelm others. It is sort of like comparing the New England Patriots to another team and giving the other team an edge at tight end and then using that to cancel out the quarterbacks. Sorry. It just doesn't work that way.

[ChrisPontius]

Tyson is about 5'9 1/2" or 5'10", and has a limted 71" reach. Dempsey, though much lighter is taller by about 3-31/2" taller , and has 6 " in reach over Tyson. So yeah, about equal on the tale of the tape.

There is a reason that there are weight classes, not height classes.

Height can be an advantage but it's limited and depends on the way you use it. Spinks at 6'3 had plenty of trouble with 5'7 Qawi, because what Qawi gave up in height and reach, he made up for in physical strength.


By the way, Tyson was not 5'9 or 5'10. With HBO they measured him on camera and he was 5'11 or 5'11 1/2. This picture is not a photoshopped thing: they showed it on television.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


So Dempsey has about two inches on him, hardly enough to make up for thirty pounds of muscle that Tyson has on him.
Just look:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Mendoza]

OLD FOGEY The trouble with this exercise is that it is totally personal and subjective. Why is Dempsey way ahead of Frazier in offense?

Because he has a good right hand and can in or out fight. Fraizer was mostly a hooker.


Frazier was able to hit Ali often in 1971. Dempsey did not do as well not only with Tunney, but also with Gibbons.

Gibbons and Tunney had the stamina to move all day long. Ali took breaks, which is where Frazier got to him more often than not.


Why is Marciano, with the best knockout record against Hall-of-Famers, champions, rated fighters, and general opposition (88% to Dempsey's 63%) a less powerful puncher?

I'm going on pure power here. Marciano was more of an attrition type of puncher. His better stamina, and ring generalship lead to his high Ko %. Other things to consider are this Marciano did not fight out of his prime like Dempsey, Tyson and Frazier did. Rocky also had a padded record on the way up which slightly inflated his KO %. I also feel Dempsey KO'd harder to stop fighters, and in most cases in shorter order. But again, this is pure power I'm rating here. IMO, Demspey had a little more than Rocky did.


Also, some factors might simply overwhelm others. It is sort of like comparing the New England Patriots to another team and giving the other team an edge at tight end and then using that to cancel out the quarterbacks. Sorry. It just doesn't work that way.

I see you points. Its not an end all be all, rather a macro sense of where they stand vs each other various categories.

[Mendoza]

There is a reason that there are weight classes, not height classes.

Height can be an advantage but it's limited and depends on the way you use it. Spinks at 6'3 had plenty of trouble with 5'7 Qawi, because what Qawi gave up in height and reach, he made up for in physical strength.


By the way, Tyson was not 5'9 or 5'10. With HBO they measured him on camera and he was 5'11 or 5'11 1/2. This picture is not a photoshopped thing: they showed it on television.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


So Dempsey has about two inches on him, hardly enough to make up for thirty pounds of muscle that Tyson has on him.
Just look:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Was Tyson in shoes for this photo? Numbers are often fudged in boxing. I have heard people who have meet Tyson say he is shorter than 5'11 1/2".

I'll go with them over what is " reported ".

[prime]

Good work.

Against a swarmer, I rate Tyson the highest of the four on the strength of greater power, speed, assortment of effective punches with both hands, combination prowess, countering ability, chin and defense. All wonderful tools in a shoot-out.

Dempsey is a close second, scoring just a bit lower on power, speed, chin. Just as a sample regarding chin, I cannot ignore that Firpo shocked Dempsey to the canvas in the very first stanzas, whereas Thomas' right, Tucker's uppercut and Bruno's lefts and huge rabbit punches simply elicited a disdainful snort from Tyson. And with respect to power and speed, Dempsey's destruction of Willard is for the ages, yet was hardly repeated against twiggy yet feisty Carpentier or the technical Gibbons. On the other hand, Berbick's drunken dance was followed by crushing victories over Thomas, Biggs, Tubbs, Holmes, Spinks, Bruno and Williams. Greater mayhem over bigger men.

Frazier's face-first approach was potentially disastrous against a truly powerful hitter, yet his indomitable spirit, durability and undeniable power in that extraordinary left hook and crushing right to the body would allow him to seize victory against many Quarry-like fighters.

Marciano never ceased to seek victory. He hit well with both hands and had great killer instinct. His 49-0 is a tribute to a man who truly felt like a champion at heart. But a 38-year-old fighter, however great, dropped him early and truly stung him late. Besides, his punches were comparatively slow and, contrary to the legends I read as a kid, one was not usually all it would take.

Against a boxer, I rate Frazier first, Tyson second, Dempsey third and Marciano fourth. It was amazing to see how at FOTC, when Ali first tried to dance away, Frazier hopped along right with him, never missing a beat and immediately pinned him against the ropes. Not even a boxer as fast and tall as Ali could escape that brutal body attack nor those killer swinging hooks to the head. Frazier was there for 15 rounds, with the kitchen sink to boot.

[OLD FOGEY]

Because he has a good right hand and can in or out fight. Fraizer was mostly a hooker.



Gibbons and Tunney had the stamina to move all day long. Ali took breaks, which is where Frazier got to him more often than not.



I'm going on pure power here. Marciano was more of an attrition type of puncher. His better stamina, and ring generalship lead to his high Ko %. Other things to consider are this Marciano did not fight out of his prime like Dempsey, Tyson and Frazier did. Rocky also had a padded record on the way up which slightly inflated his KO %. I also feel Dempsey KO'd harder to stop fighters, and in most cases in shorter order. But again, this is pure power I'm rating here. IMO, Demspey had a little more than Rocky did.



I see you points. Its not an end all be all, rather a macro sense of where they stand vs each other various categories.

A. Who was ever able to stop or negate Frazier's offense. Foreman just blew him away. Ellis, Quarry, Machen and the others all ended up eating that left hook. Dempsey went to a slow draw with Miske in 1918. Gibbons to some extent, and Tunney to a great extent, also checkmated his offense.

B. Marciano fought to 32, the same age as Dempsey and Frazier (not counting the one comeback draw). Dempsey and Frazier just started slipping at a younger age.

C. Marciano's record is no more padded than Dempsey's. Both fought some mediocre opponents on the way up, and that is irrelevant in the case of either man in my opinion as both actually performed better against better opposition once they hit their strides. In his last 14 fights, six against Hall-of-Famers, seven against champions or championship claimants, and 13 against men who were or would be rated, most in the top 2-3 positions, Marciano won 14 with 13 knockouts.

4. I would dispute that Dempsey was clearly the better early puncher or that Marciano won generally by attrition. Dempsey ko'd 43 of 81 opponents in 4 rounds or less--53%. Marciano ko'd 28 of 49 opponents in 4 rounds or less--57%. Dempsey carried power into the later rounds, but Marciano clearly was more outstanding in this respect.

[ChrisPontius]

Was Tyson in shoes for this photo? Numbers are often fudged in boxing. I have heard people who have meet Tyson say he is shorter than 5'11 1/2".

I'll go with them over what is " reported ".

Good point, but they show his entire body and he's only wearing boxers, i.e. bare feet. If you want me to provide a pic of that as well let me know.


But aside from his height, wouldn't you say that the 30 pounds of natural weight he has on Dempsey is a physical advantage, fighting qualities aside?

[C. M. Clay II]

Good point, but they show his entire body and he's only wearing boxers, i.e. bare feet. If you want me to provide a pic of that as well let me know.


But aside from his height, wouldn't you say that the 30 pounds of natural weight he has on Dempsey is a physical advantage, fighting qualities aside?

Here it is. Enjoy!:good

2yQb5nx5-w8

[Ezzard]

Great thread.

Not sure the 30 pounds is natural weight though. Dempsey with modern training would be heavier. Just look at how much weight Holyfield put on.

[Dempsey1238]

I think in Comp, Marciano should rank 2nd, behind Fraizer.
Than Tyson 3rd, and Dempsey last.

[Mendoza]

Great thread.

Not sure the 30 pounds is natural weight though. Dempsey with modern training would be heavier. Just look at how much weight Holyfield put on.

Right. Holyfield was 81K light heavyweight ( 178.2 pounds ) and started out as a pro below 190 pounds in the cruiser weight division.

Both Dempsey and Holyfield had similar builds, so it is plausible that with the same training methods, and nutrition, Dempsey could be 205-210 pounds, which is not too far from Tyson's peak weight.

But for this thread, I went on their peak weights.

[Langford]

Right. Holyfield was 81K light heavyweight ( 178.2 pounds ) and started out as a pro below 190 pounds in the cruiser weight division.

Both Dempsey and Holyfield had similar builds, so it is plausible that with the same training methods, and nutrition, Dempsey could be 205-210 pounds, which is not too far from Tyson's peak weight.

But for this thread, I went on their peak weights.


Dempsey at 187 is thin. Real thin. He has the frame and the overall size/build to put on 30lbs in a way that would not hurt his movement and stamina overtly to the point that he would suffer.

Tysons weight would be mostly natural and that is a great thing about Tyson. He was 15 and 200lbs. I give the over all edge in size to Tyson. But Dempsey would be a natural to grow/increase his size. Frazier and Marciano, not as much.

Who I think would really run away with increasing his build and not suffering because of it was Gene Tunney. I think that Tunney would be around 215-220 with modern training/nutrition and just as fast and just as scientific.

ATG swarmers almost always boil down to Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Tyson, which means we are due for another one.

I wonder if you could boil down great boxers, boxer-punchers, and power hitters to four a piece.

[SuzieQ49]

dempseys competition should rank the lowest IMO. marcianos defintley above dempsey. I also think you underate marcianos skill. He was alot more cagey than one must think, he may have looked foolish but then you got in the ring with him and you came out with a newfound respect of his defensive skills. louis, walcott, moore, lastarza all remarked on marciano being underated in the defensive department.


Power: 1. Tyson
2. Marciano
3. Frazier
4. Dempsey




I dont think tyson was a swarmer, he was more of a slugger

[Mendoza]

ATG swarmers almost always boil down to Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Tyson, which means we are due for another one.

I wonder if you could boil down great boxers, boxer-punchers, and power hitters to four a piece.

I suppose I could do one on the great boxers, the great sluggers, the and the great super heavyweights.

[McGrain]

louis, walcott, moore, lastarza all remarked on marciano being underated in the defensive department.

Walcott said of Marciano that he was, "easy to hit but hard to hit clean" which obviously is a nightmare for somebody like Walcott. I found that remark interesting.

[Sizzle]

In terms of competition,
1. Frazier
2. Tyson
3. Marciano
4. Dempsey

In terms of dominance,
1. Marciano
2. Tyson
3. Dempsey
4. Frazier

Longevity,
1. Tyson (people forget he was fighting and beating ranked heavyweights for almost twenty years)
2. and 3. (tie) Dempsey and Marciano
4. Frazier


Head to head,
1. Tyson
2. Marciano
3. Frazier
4. Dempsey

Looking at courage and intangibles,
1. Marciano
2. Dempsey
3. Frazier
4. Tyson

[janitor]

Power: 1. Tyson
2. Marciano
3. Frazier
4. Dempsey


I dont think that Frazier hit as hard as Dempsey.

In terms of all round punching efectivness I would rate Dempsey the best of the three including Tyson.

[ChrisPontius]

I dont think that Frazier hit as hard as Dempsey.

In terms of all round punching efectivness I would rate Dempsey the best of the three including Tyson.

Marciano knocked out all time great lightheavyweights Moore and Charles.

Frazier destroyed all time great lightheavy Foster in two rounds.

Tyson destroyed all time great lightheavy Spinks in 91 seconds.

Dempsey went the 15 round distance with a lesser than the former mentioned lightheavies Gibbons and got smacked the shit out of him twice by all time great lightheavy Tunney.


I think SuzieQ has the order spot on.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Marciano knocked out all time great lightheavyweights Moore and Charles.

Frazier destroyed all time great lightheavy Foster in two rounds.

Tyson destroyed all time great lightheavy Spinks in 91 seconds.

Dempsey went the 15 round distance with a lesser than the former mentioned lightheavies Gibbons


All you are doing here is cherry picking the one Dempsey title fight win that went the distance and holding it up as an unrepresentative example. I frankly do not consider being taken the distance by Tommy Gibbons to be any more damaging than being taken the distance by Ezzard Charles or James Smith. You can cherry pick a case where any dominant champion was taken the distance.

Even if your line of argument was ballanced it would not necisarily follow that Dempsey failed to knock out Gibbons due to lack of power.

Now if you are bringing up the Tunney fight then Tysons post prison fights get starkly drawn into the equation.

[ChrisPontius]

All you are doing here is cherry picking the one Dempsey title fight win that went the distance and holding it up as an unrepresentative example. I frankly do not consider being taken the distance by Tommy Gibbons to be any more damaging than being taken the distance by Ezzard Charles or James Smith. You can cherry pick a case where any dominant champion was taken the distance.

Even if your line of argument was ballanced it would not necisarily follow that Dempsey failed to knock out Gibbons due to lack of power.

Now if you are bringing up the Tunney fight then Tysons post prison fights get starkly drawn into the equation.

What i did was objectively compare the "4 big swarmers" their records against the best light heavyweights they fought. You could add Carpentier in there for good measure, but i believe Gibbons and Tunney were better. It is tough luck for Dempsey that he faced Tunney near the end of his career, but at the same time, Marciano faced Moore at the end of his career. Dempsey is not proven to be able to beat a Tunney, whereas the former mentioned are.

[dmt]

What i did was objectively compare the "4 big swarmers" their records against the best light heavyweights they fought. You could add Carpentier in there for good measure, but i believe Gibbons and Tunney were better. It is tough luck for Dempsey that he faced Tunney near the end of his career, but at the same time, Marciano faced Moore at the end of his career. Dempsey is not proven to be able to beat a Tunney, whereas the former mentioned are.but Moore was nowhere near as quick footed as Tunney, and besides it's not like Marciano was that past his best. If u ask me, Rocky would have likely reigned for a few more years

[janitor]

What i did was objectively compare the "4 big swarmers" their records against the best light heavyweights they fought. You could add Carpentier in there for good measure, but i believe Gibbons and Tunney were better. It is tough luck for Dempsey that he faced Tunney near the end of his career, but at the same time, Marciano faced Moore at the end of his career. Dempsey is not proven to be able to beat a Tunney, whereas the former mentioned are.

Let us analyze further.

Dempsey defended his title sucesfully the same number of times as Marciano and like Marciano was taken the distance once. The man who took him the distance was Tommy Gibbons who was never knocked out (he quit against Tunney). Tunney also was never knocked out.

I find it rather extroardinary that you should hold this as a mark against him relative to fighters who were taken the distance by multiple oponents who were knocked out by other people.

[ChrisPontius]

Let us analyze further.

Dempsey defended his title sucesfully the same number of times as Marciano and like Marciano was taken the distance once. The man who took him the distance was Tommy Gibbons who was never knocked out (he quit against Tunney). Tunney also was never knocked out.

I find it rather extroardinary that you should hold this as a mark against him relative to fighters who were taken the distance by multiple oponents who were knocked out by other people.

Well, Michael Spinks was never knocked out except for the Tyson fight either.

Charles was only stopped twice before the Marciano fight, once by Walcott, a hard puncher (once in 4 fights) and once by Marshall when he was green and basically fighting dangerous guys monthly. After the Marciano fight he went downhill. I can grant you that if Gibbons fights the competition and at the rate Charles did that he'd pick up a KO loss as well. Btw, quitting is still not making the finish. The competition Tunney faced doesn't compare to Charles' either (or Moore's or Spinks' for that matter).

Bob Foster i will give you. He was not very durable (against heavyweights).

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Well, Michael Spinks was never knocked out except for the Tyson fight either.


He also didnt have as many fights at heavyweight as Gibbons. Now a number of people who took Tyson the distance were knocked out.

the only people who held Dempsey to the score cards past six rounds as any stage past his hobo days were-

Billy Miske-never knocked out except by Dempsey
Tommy Gibbons-never knocked out
Gene Tunney-never knocked out

Charles was only stopped twice before the Marciano fight, once by Walcott, a hard puncher (once in 4 fights) and once by Marshall when he was green and basically fighting dangerous guys monthly.

Yes. The point is that we do not use Marcianos failure to stop him first time round as an argument against his power.

I can grant you that if Gibbons fights the competition and at the rate Charles did that he'd pick up a KO loss as well.

Speculation. Bottom line is he was never knocked out.


The competition Tunney faced doesn't compare to Charles' either (or Moore's or Spinks' for that matter).


Charles and Moore I can give you.

Spinks is another matter

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote]


He also didnt have as many fights at heavyweight as Gibbons. Now a number of people who took Tyson the distance were knocked out.

the only people who held Dempsey to the score cards past six rounds as any stage past his hobo days were-

Billy Miske-never knocked out except by Dempsey
Tommy Gibbons-never knocked out
Gene Tunney-never knocked out



Yes. The point is that we do not use Marcianos failure to stop him first time round as an argument against his power.



Speculation. Bottom line is he was never knocked out.



Charles and Moore I can give you.

Spinks is another matter

1. I have seen the film of Tunney and Gibbons, and if I remember, Gibbons was knocked out. Tunney knocked him down in the 12th and when he got up Tunney knocked him down again. If my memory is not failing me, Gibbons did not beat the count. He was sitting with his legs splayed through the count.
I don't think the referee stopped the fight and I don't think Gibbons quit.

2. I don't think Gibbons and Tunney were in against a lot of really big punchers, especially heavyweight punchers, other than Dempsey. I think to balance not being knocked out much, one should look at the quality of fighters that these men lasted against. Charles and Moore survived a greater number of big punchers.

[OLD FOGEY]

Well, Michael Spinks was never knocked out except for the Tyson fight either.

Charles was only stopped twice before the Marciano fight, once by Walcott, a hard puncher (once in 4 fights) and once by Marshall when he was green and basically fighting dangerous guys monthly. After the Marciano fight he went downhill. I can grant you that if Gibbons fights the competition and at the rate Charles did that he'd pick up a KO loss as well. Btw, quitting is still not making the finish. The competition Tunney faced doesn't compare to Charles' either (or Moore's or Spinks' for that matter).

Bob Foster i will give you. He was not very durable (against heavyweights).

I don't know about Charles being green against Bivins and Marshall in 1943, but he was in the army and not training at all. He took these fights to get money for his family. This is an excuse, of course, but it is also true that neither Bivins and Marshall proved able to stop Charles in rematches after the war.

[Little_Mac]

Boxing ability and versatility on DEFENSE ( avoid getting hit…..block, slip, duck, clinching power and technique, parry, footwork to get out of the way ) Dempsey 6.5, Tyson 6.5, Frazier 6, Marciano 5.5


I think that's a little generous. I would have given the guy a 2... maybe. He ate absolutely everything that came his way.

[Dempsey1238]

Marciano was a pretty good defense fighter for a swarmer, Its a myth that the guy ate eveything. The Rocky movies did a lot of harm in regards to Marciano imo.

LarSarza, Charles the 2nd time, and even Moore coulnt land a clean shot on the Rock. They miss a lot of punchings in there fights with the Rock.

[ChrisPontius]

but Moore was nowhere near as quick footed as Tunney, and besides it's not like Marciano was that past his best. If u ask me, Rocky would have likely reigned for a few more years

On the other hand, Moore had knockout power whereas Tunney lacked in that apartment. For instance, Moore knocked out heavyweight journeyman Bert Whitehurst who twice went the distance with Liston (although he was down when the final bell rang in one of their fights).

Rocky had the same style as Dempsey and was just as old. Dempsey started younger, but during his championship reign he was taking more vacations than Boris Jeltsin who was out fishing in his private set up fishing lake during national crisis.

[Little_Mac]

Marciano was a pretty good defense fighter for a swarmer, Its a myth that the guy ate eveything. The Rocky movies did a lot of harm in regards to Marciano imo.

LarSarza, Charles the 2nd time, and even Moore coulnt land a clean shot on the Rock. They miss a lot of punchings in there fights with the Rock.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Watch this and tell me if you see an inkling of defense...

And don't even get me started on missed punches.

[Dempsey1238]

Marciano was still a bit green at that time. I talking about his bouts with Walcott, Charles and LarSarza and Moore. He had impove GREATLY since his bout from Lee Savold.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Look at the big impovement.

[janitor]

Rocky had the same style as Dempsey

I asume you would like to qualify this statment.

[janitor]

[quote=OLD FOGEY][quote=janitor]

1. I have seen the film of Tunney and Gibbons, and if I remember, Gibbons was knocked out. Tunney knocked him down in the 12th and when he got up Tunney knocked him down again. If my memory is not failing me, Gibbons did not beat the count. He was sitting with his legs splayed through the count.


The impresion of many ringsiders was that Gibbons could have beat the count but chose to sit it out James Douglas style.

2. I don't think Gibbons and Tunney were in against a lot of really big punchers, especially heavyweight punchers, other than Dempsey.

Tunney might not have been but Gibbons certainly was.

[ChrisPontius]

I asume you would like to qualify this statment.

Alright, there is a ton of differences between them, but compared to 40 random other boxers, Dempsey and Marciano will still generally fall in the same style category - unless you only look at Marciano pre-52.

In this case i was referring to the fact that both had a short-career-guaranteeing style.

[janitor]

In this case i was referring to the fact that both had a short-career-guaranteeing style.

Dempsey less so perhaps.

If he had been a more active champion he would probably have enjoyed better longevity.

[SuzieQ49]

i think dempsey was all around superior puncher than perhaps marciano and frazier, but i think in terms of pure power i give the edge to the rock.

i think tyson rates over all of them at his peak in punching abilities and pure power. he actually rates up their with joe louis

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote]
[quote=OLD FOGEY]

The impresion of many ringsiders was that Gibbons could have beat the count but chose to sit it out James Douglas style.



Tunney might not have been but Gibbons certainly was.

1. This is the first reference I have ever heard of Gibbons' deliberately taking the count. He had taken quite a beating. The bottom line is he was hit, he went down, and he took the count.

2. Whom do you consider the devastating punchers other than Dempsey that Gibbons faced?

[sthomas]

How bout adding intangibles to the discussion. I would rank Marciano 10+. With this guy the sum was exponentially greater than the parts.
I'd give Frazier and Dempsey an equal rating of about 7.5 and Tyson about 6.
His power is underrated here, I think although not as explosive, it's very close to Tyson. The comments on defense being underrated are true too. Watch him against Moore (I think). He gets so low that his head is often at the level of his knee and it's contiually moving in all directions.

[Little_Mac]

Marciano was still a bit green at that time. I talking about his bouts with Walcott, Charles and LarSarza and Moore. He had impove GREATLY since his bout from Lee Savold.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Look at the big impovement.

I see an improvement, he does like a wrist flick at LaStarza's jab sometimes. I wouldn't qualify it as "big" or "great".

It not even close to this level of activity (the video might be slightly sped up but it's still good)
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Or this (watch the brilliance at about 0:40 seconds, amazing)
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Marciano's defense is just not even in the same league.

[Dempsey1238]

Well first Dempsey and Tyson's defenses look better because they were faster than the Rock. 2nd, the defense impove bit by bit, by the time he got to Archie Moore, it was better than Larsarza's. Also Rocky had a pretty bad start, at first vs LarSarza, than he warm to his task. By the time of the Charles, and Moore fights, Marciano was pretty much as complete as he was going to be.
If you notice, if you seen the FULL fight, and not just ten mins, LarSarza miss a lot of punchings, people get onto Rocky for missing, but here a pin point guy like Roland was missing a good number of punchings.

Ezzard Charles in the 2nd fight would miss a good number, and so would Moore. It was not like evey time they thown, they landed. I think Marciano had a better slip miss rate vs Moore and Roland, than Fraizer did in the first Ali fight. I give Marciano a 5 or 6 in that defense department, than the 1 or 2 you give.

[Dempsey1238]

Regard the activey, Tyson slip BEFORE they thown the punch, same with Dempsey, while Marciano slip or lead WHEN they punch. He didnt waste as much enegry in useless bobbing and weaving.

[OLD FOGEY]

I see an improvement, he does like a wrist flick at LaStarza's jab sometimes. I wouldn't qualify it as "big" or "great".

It not even close to this level of activity (the video might be slightly sped up but it's still good)
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Or this (watch the brilliance at about 0:40 seconds, amazing)
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Marciano's defense is just not even in the same league.

"Marciano's defense is just not even in the same league."


Actually it is better. Two things about Tate. He was an ordinary fighter--that is why he worked as a sparring partner. Secondly, Dempsey sparred with him every day. He knew his style and moves so well that he could probably anticipate them. That is quite a bit different from being in the ring for the first or perhaps second time ever with a man.
It works like that in almost any sport. If a hitter in baseball sees a pitcher day in and day out for at bat after at bat, he would have a great advantage over a better hitter seeing the same pitcher for the first time.

[Little_Mac]

Regard the activey, Tyson slip BEFORE they thown the punch, same with Dempsey, while Marciano slip or lead WHEN they punch. He didnt waste as much enegry in useless bobbing and weaving.

Maybe they slipped before the punch came because they read the punch coming... maybe marciano does that because he has a slow reaction time

[Little_Mac]

"Marciano's defense is just not even in the same league."


Actually it is better. Two things about Tate. He was an ordinary fighter--that is why he worked as a sparring partner. Secondly, Dempsey sparred with him every day. He knew his style and moves so well that he could probably anticipate them. That is quite a bit different from being in the ring for the first or perhaps second time ever with a man.
It works like that in almost any sport. If a hitter in baseball sees a pitcher day in and day out for at bat after at bat, he would have a great advantage over a better hitter seeing the same pitcher for the first time.

Most of marciano's opposition, IMO, was ordinary as well.

Your point about Tate being Dempsey's sparring partner is good, however. But you can look at any of Dempsey's other fights and see the same defensive characteristics and styles. Try to find a rhythm to Dempsey's movements, I dare you....

true defensive genius (for a swarmer style)

[SuzieQ49]

Most of marciano's opposition, IMO, was ordinary as well.

ya I agree. I mean Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott, Archie Moore... ya those guys are nothing special.:roll:

roland lastarza, nino valdez, rex layne ya those guys are all bums right?:roll:


Marciano had very solid defense. He worked out of a very mastered well turtored crouch, which he used to dip and roll around at all athletic unpredictable angles that made him hard to hit, and he parryed a jab very well, and if you watch the louis fight you can see him get into a standup slugger bob and weave style that worked effectivly against louis powerful jab. Marciano was the best at being able to make his opponent hit him, but not land a hard clean punch.

Angelo dundee said marciano was the only fighter he ever saw the could "punch out of a slip"


ali remarked that marciano slips a jab alot better than he thought

[OLD FOGEY]

Most of marciano's opposition, IMO, was ordinary as well.

Your point about Tate being Dempsey's sparring partner is good, however. But you can look at any of Dempsey's other fights and see the same defensive characteristics and styles. Try to find a rhythm to Dempsey's movements, I dare you....

true defensive genius (for a swarmer style)

I wouldn't call Louis, Walcott, Charles, Moore, Matthews, LaStarza, Layne, etc ordinary. In fairness, Dempsey's best opposition was much better than Tate, also.

On filmed sparring--I think the points I in my first post were true, but I didn't really go far enough. Why was a sparring match filmed in the first place? Probably to publicize the upcoming Willard-Dempsey fight. The object would have been to show Dempsey in the best possible light. Put baldly, Tate most likely was paid to make Dempsey look good. If he gave Jack a tough time, they would have used someone else.
Bottom line for me--for all the reasons I've mentioned, I wouldn't use sparring sessions to evaluate fighters, and I think it particularly egregious to compare a sparring session of one fighter with a real fight of another, in which the opponent is trying his best to not only make his opponent look bad, but to actually defeat him.

It is not that I think less of Dempsey defensively, but that I think more of Marciano. Dempsey's bob was a decisive improvement over any previous aggressive slugger. His head movement, while excellent, was slightly predictable. His head generally moved in an up and down line as between the six and the twelve on a clock. Marciano bobbed also, if less frequently, but also used a crouch, and a dip and roll. He carried his hands higher and was better at using his gloves to block punches. He had a great deal of head movement also, not as often between the six and twelve, but much more frequently between the eight and the four. He had more, and more confusing, head movement. No one really worked him over with jabs on film.
There is a second criticism I would make of Dempsey and a criticism I would make of both of them. Observers in his time noted that Dempsey was excellent defensively when on the offense, but when his offense was checked and his opponent threw a flurry of punches, Dempsey had no answer. This is clearly seen on film. Carpentier, Firpo, Tunney, and Sharkey each drive Dempsey back and hit him punch after punch. He takes them standing straight with his hands low, showing scant defense. Marciano against Walcott in the 11th round when hurt makes Walcott miss punch after punch via a dip and roll. He makes Moore miss a great deal after the second round knockout. Marciano has a strong edge in fighting on the defensive.
Both Dempsey and Marciano threw defense to the wind at times when they had an opponent going and were on the attack. This is where the idea that either man had no defense probably comes from. One could argue that someone might have made them pay, but on film, except for perhaps to some extent Firpo, no one does.

[sthomas]

Marciano is underrated in my, opinion, especially defensively. The last two posts do a great job of pointing it out. That head and upperbody, and arm, movement of his was unpredictalbe, seemingly random. Alot of bob and weavers rely on a few movements and they get adapted to by the opponent.

I'm starting to think many don't appreciate the man because he was so unothodox and, again random. It's hard to follow somone who really does not have that much of a pattern. Let's face this fact too, he wasn't the most graceful guy in the ring shuffling forward, but hey this ain't gymnastics or iceskating.

[Marciano Frazier]

Here's how I'd score these:

Power: Tyson 9.5, Marciano 9.5, Dempsey 9, Frazier 8.5

Tale of the Tape: ( height, weight, and reach ) Tyson 5.5, Dempsey 5, Frazier 5, Marciano 4

Hand and foot speed. Tyson 9, Dempsey 8.5, Frazier 8, Marciano 6

Boxing ability and versatility on OFFENSE ( Jab, hook , cross, body punch, uppercut, in-fight out fight, combinations, feints ) : Tyson 8.5, Dempsey 8.5, Marciano 8 (aside from his short reach causing him to pretty much relinquish long-range fighting, he's pretty much got the whole repertoire), Frazier 7 (not enough of a right hand to get higher)

Boxing ability and versatility on DEFENSE ( avoid getting hit…..block, slip, duck, clinching power and technique, parry, footwork to get out of the way ) Dempsey 6.5, Tyson 6.5, Frazier 6, Marciano 5.5

Stamina: Marciano 10, Frazier 10, Dempsey 8.5, Tyson 7

Durability: Marciano 9, Tyson 9, Dempsey 8, Frazier 8

Heart and will to win: Marciano 10, Frazier 10, Dempsey 9, Tyson 5

Ring Generalship, Smarts, and Poise in the ring: Marciano 9, Dempsey 8.5, Frazier 7.5, Tyson 6

Quality of opposition fought: Frazier 10, Tyson 8.5, Marciano 7.5, Dempsey 6.5 I take exception to this one- why is it quality of opposition fought instead of quality of opposition beaten? Because it doesn't really matter who you fought if you lost to them, and this list is largely turned on its head if you go by quality of opposition beaten instead of fought.

Intimidation ability and killer instinct: Tyson 9.5, Dempsey 9, Marciano 8, Frazier 7

Total score:

Frazier 87
Dempsey 86.5
Marciano 86.5
Tyson 84


But if we use a quality of opposition beaten standard instead of quality faced, as I suggested above and think would be fair, then it's:
Marciano 86.5
Frazier 86.5
Dempsey 85.5
Tyson 82
(Frazier, Dempsey and Tyson lose credit for having lost the majority of their fights against the best opposition they faced, while Marciano's score remains the same, since he beat everyone. Frazier's only drops a half-point because he did beat the very best opponent of his career, while Tyson and Dempsey both failed ever to post a win against the best opposition they faced- Tyson in particular never even coming close, and so they lose a full point and two points respectively relative to the "opposition faced" mark.

[dmt]

this is a ability thread, and i don't see quality of oppostion have anything to do with it

[Marciano Frazier]

this is a ability thread, and i don't see quality of oppostion have anything to do with it
Yes, "quality of opposition" seemed out of place on this list in the first place, but even moreso when it's quality faced and not quality beaten, since it's clearly the latter which is what actually reflects on one's ability as a fighter. Why should Tyson get an extra couple points over Marciano because he got smacked around by Holyfield and Lewis and Rocky didn't?

[janitor]

Two things about Tate. He was an ordinary fighter--

For the record I strongly disagree.

I think that Tate at his peak was a verry good fighter who was unlucky to be around when the likes of Langford, McVean and Wills were dominating the division.

He held the coloured title and could at least be considered comparable to a modern alphabet champion like say Greg Page who became a sparring partner later in his career when he had ceased to be a contender.

[janitor]

"Marciano's defense is just not even in the same league."

Actually it is better.

While I agree that Marcianos defence is under rated I would hold Dempseys up as the gold standard of the swarming heavyweights.

If I had a young fighter of this style Dempsey is the guy I would want him to emulate defensivley. The man who called the bopb an "artistic duck".

[yancey]

Here's how I'd score these:

Power: Tyson 9.5, Marciano 9.5, Dempsey 9, Frazier 8.5

Tale of the Tape: ( height, weight, and reach ) Tyson 5.5, Dempsey 5, Frazier 5, Marciano 4

Hand and foot speed. Tyson 9, Dempsey 8.5, Frazier 8, Marciano 6

Boxing ability and versatility on OFFENSE ( Jab, hook , cross, body punch, uppercut, in-fight out fight, combinations, feints ) : Tyson 8.5, Dempsey 8.5, Marciano 8 (aside from his short reach causing him to pretty much relinquish long-range fighting, he's pretty much got the whole repertoire), Frazier 7 (not enough of a right hand to get higher)


Boxing ability and versatility on DEFENSE ( avoid getting hit…..block, slip, duck, clinching power and technique, parry, footwork to get out of the way ) Dempsey 6.5, Tyson 6.5, Frazier 6, Marciano 5.5

Stamina: Marciano 10, Frazier 10, Dempsey 8.5, Tyson 7

Durability: Marciano 9, Tyson 9, Dempsey 8, Frazier 8

Heart and will to win: Marciano 10, Frazier 10, Dempsey 9, Tyson 5

Ring Generalship, Smarts, and Poise in the ring: Marciano 9, Dempsey 8.5, Frazier 7.5, Tyson 6

Quality of opposition fought: Frazier 10, Tyson 8.5, Marciano 7.5, Dempsey 6.5 I take exception to this one- why is it quality of opposition fought instead of quality of opposition beaten? Because it doesn't really matter who you fought if you lost to them, and this list is largely turned on its head if you go by quality of opposition beaten instead of fought.

Intimidation ability and killer instinct: Tyson 9.5, Dempsey 9, Marciano 8, Frazier 7

Total score:

Frazier 87
Dempsey 86.5
Marciano 86.5
Tyson 84


But if we use a quality of opposition beaten standard instead of quality faced, as I suggested above and think would be fair, then it's:
Marciano 86.5
Frazier 86.5
Dempsey 85.5
Tyson 82
(Frazier, Dempsey and Tyson lose credit for having lost the majority of their fights against the best opposition they faced, while Marciano's score remains the same, since he beat everyone. Frazier's only drops a half-point because he did beat the very best opponent of his career, while Tyson and Dempsey both failed ever to post a win against the best opposition they faced- Tyson in particular never even coming close, and so they lose a full point and two points respectively relative to the "opposition faced" mark.

I think you have done a good analysis.... imo Frazier should score a little higher on killer instinct/intimidation, but still a good, fair analysis.

[Little_Mac]

ya I agree. I mean Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott, Archie Moore... ya those guys are nothing special.:roll:


Joe Louis was done when Marciano fought him and everyone knows it (whether they're willing to admit it or not). I used to underrate Charles but now give him a lot more respect, Walcott I always thought was pretty good, but nothing extraordinary, and Moore... I just wasn't very impressed with when watching him.

Again, this is just my opinion. The only thing that really grinds my gears is when people declare an aging Joe Louis to be Marciano's best opposition. The rest of those I can see.

[Dempsey1238]

Joe Louis was still a pretty good fighter when they fought though, Louis was beating rank contenders, and was rank in the top 2 when he fought Marciano.

This was not like Ali Holmes, with no warm up fights. Louis was beating the rank contenders of the early 50's. Sure it was not a great Louis. But a GOOD Louis.