Dempsey - Louis prime for prime

[PowerPuncher]

Who wins?

Reasons for Dempsey

Louis could be lax defensively especially to the right - Dempsey may leap on this

Louis sometimes liked to fight at his own pace, Dempseys high pressure style may have got to him

Louis could start slow and Dempsey being a fast starter may take advantage of this

Dempsey is faster of hand and foot (or is he? Close)

Reasons for Louis

Dempseys aggressive style may be perfect for Louis to counter

Louis had more compact punches that may land quicker in close quarter exchanges. When Dempsey comes in Louis may have made perfect use

Dempseys defense was fantastic for bobbing and weaving but his guard wasn't tight and left allot of openings for deadly

General factors that level each other out

Power - both excellent, won't be the determining factor

Chin - Both down a fair amount, maybe some doubts on both against big punchers with their KDs

Stamina - both excellent, Dempseys seemed to have a higher workrate

Jab - Louis is better BUT I think Dempsey would take away the jab and it will be about who lands their best power shots cleaner

[McGrain]

When Dempsey misses he is vulnerable. When Louis misses he is less so.

Basically an overextended Dempsey will get hit very hard by Louis several times and visit the canvas. When he gets up he's got a killer after him.

Secondly, Louis is the only guy that is going to be able to match Dempsey at Jack's best range. His uppercut is arguably the equal of any of JD's best punches at close range. Meantime, Jack has to get there - the battle of #1 for elusivness v #1 for compact punching would be fascinating. But Dempsey only has to lose once.

I think JD is pretty cleanly out-gunned here. I'd pick Joe early.

[PowerPuncher]

When Dempsey misses he is vulnerable. When Louis misses he is less so.

Basically an overextended Dempsey will get hit very hard by Louis several times and visit the canvas. When he gets up he's got a killer after him.

Secondly, Louis is the only guy that is going to be able to match Dempsey at Jack's best range. His uppercut is arguably the equal of any of JD's best punches at close range. Meantime, Jack has to get there - the battle of #1 for elusivness v #1 for compact punching would be fascinating. But Dempsey only has to lose once.

I think JD is pretty cleanly out-gunned here. I'd pick Joe early.

Intially I was thinking Dempsey matched up very well here. Then I came to thinking about Dempsey leaving himself open and Louis having the more compact attacks getting to the target first

I think 1 factor we are neglecting is Dempsey being the more natural fighter with far better improvision and taking advanatage of Louis robotic movement

I also think when both fighters tastes each others power they won't be as keen to lead recklessly. So I doubt it will be over in the first few rounds

[McGrain]

I also think when both fighters tastes each others power they won't be as keen to lead recklessly. So I doubt it will be over in the first few rounds

The problem you have is chin - both have good chins but no more - verses power - both can punch. And in the event that one is hurt you have two of three most lethal finishers ever to have boxed (along with Tyson). If I was a judge i'd probably sneak of for a lap-dance (it's a well known fact that boxing judges have no souls, like dogs).

[McGrain]

Louis??? Good chin? I don't think so :nono

So which word will you use to describe Louis' chin?

[China_hand_Joe]

Louis, probably by KO in a mismatch. Bigger and significantly more skilledand a far better record.

Lets not go searching too deeply for ways Dempsey could win. You are bound to find a few slight, insignificant advantages if you look deep enough.

It is a mismatch.

[Maxmomer]

Dempsey had the better chin, faster feet and was more maneuverable, hand speed is about even. I think Dempsey hit harder and he punched short almost as good as Louis. I can see Dempsey taking 2 out of 3 fights. Ultimatly I think Dempsey would land harder, sooner and once he had Louis in trouble it'd be over. I also think Dempsey would be able to take Louis' power better than Louis would be able to take his.

[brooklyn1550]

Louis by TKO

[roxyboxy]

Dempsey had the better chin, faster feet and was more maneuverable, hand speed is about even. I think Dempsey hit harder and he punched short almost as good as Louis. I can see Dempsey taking 2 out of 3 fights. Ultimatly I think Dempsey would land harder, sooner and once he had Louis in trouble it'd be over. I also think Dempsey would be able to take Louis' power better than Louis would be able to take his.


I appreciate the estimation involving multiple matchups. I think it's a great way to project a matchup.

I disagree with the outcome, however.

[RoccoMarciano]

So which word will you use to describe Louis' chin?

Superb, great, fantastic, stupendous... all would be a good starter!

[Marciano Frazier]

Just some notes on your analysis:
Who wins?

Reasons for Dempsey

Louis could be lax defensively especially to the right - Dempsey may leap on this
Yes, although Dempsey's real Sunday punch was the left, not the right/

Louis sometimes liked to fight at his own pace, Dempseys high pressure style may have got to him

Louis could start slow and Dempsey being a fast starter may take advantage of this
Yes, but I think Louis would probably be in there pretty geared up right from the opening bell if he knew he was facing Dempsey, and it's certainly clear from performances like the Schmeling and Baer rematches that he was very much capable of explosive fast starts.

Dempsey is faster of hand and foot (or is he? Close)
Dempsey was probably more fleet-footed than Louis, but Louis is definitely the faster-handed.

Reasons for Louis

Dempseys aggressive style may be perfect for Louis to counter

Louis had more compact punches that may land quicker in close quarter exchanges. When Dempsey comes in Louis may have made perfect use

Dempseys defense was fantastic for bobbing and weaving but his guard wasn't tight and left allot of openings for deadly
On this note, remember that Dempsey's bobbing-and-weaving crouch is just the sort of style that Louis had the most trouble with in aggressive opponents- see Godoy, for example.

General factors that level each other out

Power - both excellent, won't be the determining factor

Chin - Both down a fair amount, maybe some doubts on both against big punchers with their KDs
I think Dempsey had a somewhat better chin than Louis. If the first Fireman Jim Flynn fight was a fix(which I believe it was), then he was never legitimately stopped in over 80 known fights. He also doesn't seem to have been as prone to flash knockdowns in his prime as Louis was.

Stamina - both excellent, Dempseys seemed to have a higher workrate
I think Louis has the edge in stamina. Dempsey had truckloads of early-round knockouts, but tended to level out as the rounds went by and only had one real late stoppage(Brennan), while Louis is absolutely outstanding in terms of carrying his power late, having 13th-round stoppages over Conn and Simon and 11th-round stoppages over Pastor and Walcott.

Jab - Louis is better BUT I think Dempsey would take away the jab and it will be about who lands their best power shots cleaner
Possibly, but I still think this should be listed among Louis' advantages.

[Duodenum]

Nat Fleischer was already a veteran ringside observer by the time he viewed Dempsey/Willard from ringside, and he also viewed Louis against Max Baer at ringside. It was his determination that Dempsey's handspeed in Toledo was slightly superior to Louis's against Maxie. (Lest this be dismissed as simply the opinion of a nostalgist, let's also remember that Fleischer identified Ali as the fastest heavyweight of all time in 1969.)

Dempsey's advantage in speed could be crucial, as Louis had far more trouble with the faster Billy Conn, than a post peak Dempsey did with the faster Carpentier. Also, as fast and mobile as Tunney was, Gene stated that he only got three or four clean shots at a past prime JD in 20 rounds of boxing. A peak Dempsey wouldn't be as wide open to Louis as is commonly supposed.

In Fried's "Corner Men," Jack Blackburn is quoted as having confided in private that Jack Johnson would have beaten Louis, because "Johnson was a mover." Compound that with JL's own admission that he "didn't like to be crowded." Godoy did not have the same active degree of upper body movement Dempsey employed, to say nothing of Jack's lateral movement with knees bent, and heels simultaneously off the floor.

While I have no problem with Louis's chin, I don't consider his balance to have been quite on a par with Dempsey's. Jack would have probably caught him with a couple of flash knockdowns.

Louis and Dempsey were both perfectly capable of winning over the 15 round distance, as Joe demonstrated against Farr, Godoy and Walcott (I believe Louis won the first Walcott match in the final two cantos, scored as it was on the rounds system), and a post peak Jack proved against Tommy Gibbons. But Louis never dominated over 15 rounds as Dempsey did in Shelby (and the late peaking Gibbons had overpaced himself, yet was fading at the end).

Chin and power would not be the decisive factors here. Nor would Louis's superior overall punching technique. Speed, mobility and balance would be more critical factors, along with the fact of Louis being a bigger target, especially for Dempsey's bodyshots.

Jack never sustained any significant boxing related injuries to his hands (and pounded away on the top of Gibbons's head for 15 fast rounds), while Joe did injure his right against Farr (necessitating his having to outbox Farr with his jab).

Should Dempsey have been stunned, he was adept at using his wrestling experience to tie his man up long enough for his rapid recovery ability to manifest itself. This was not a skill demonstrated by Louis whenever he was in distress. If either was knocked silly, Jack had the far greater know-how to weather the storm. Tunney observed that all Dempsey needed was "a five second interval." While Louis withstood tremendous punishment from Schmeling in their first bout between the first and final knockdowns, neither was he ever able to shake off the effects of those initial stunning blows. (Louis lasted as long as he did because Schmeling didn't commit to his right with full extension, always remaining in counterpunching mode with more of a hooking right, like the short bomb he finished off Stribling with.)

Although Dempsey's hook overshadowed the right he nicknamed, "Iron Mike" (adopting Frank Moran's practice of dubbing his own overhand right as "Mary Ann"), Jack's right counter to Tunney's jab in mid-ring wobbled Gene back to the ropes, setting up the Long Count knockdown. Dempsey's own back was to the ropes when he launched the right uppercut which nearly sent Firpo into orbit. I also believe it was his right below Sharkey's belt which was the true knockout punch in their encounter. (The Gob's knees had already buckled when he looked over helplessly to the referee, and he seemed paralyzed. Whether or not it was a low blow, it did cause the legs of Sharkey's trunks to jerk up when it landed, so it was unquestionably below the beltline. But the referee, in position to see it, did not rule a foul.)

Dempsey UD 15 Louis (with Jack scoring a pair of flash KD's to win a couple rounds).

[mcvey]

Nat Fleischer was already a veteran ringside observer by the time he viewed Dempsey/Willard from ringside, and he also viewed Louis against Max Baer at ringside. It was his determination that Dempsey's handspeed in Toledo was slightly superior to Louis's against Maxie. (Lest this be dismissed as simply the opinion of a nostalgist, let's also remember that Fleischer identified Ali as the fastest heavyweight of all time in 1969.)

Dempsey's advantage in speed could be crucial, as Louis had far more trouble with the faster Billy Conn, than a post peak Dempsey did with the faster Carpentier. Also, as fast and mobile as Tunney was, Gene stated that he only got three or four clean shots at a past prime JD in 20 rounds of boxing. A peak Dempsey wouldn't be as wide open to Louis as is commonly supposed.

In Fried's "Corner Men," Jack Blackburn is quoted as having confided in private that Jack Johnson would have beaten Louis, because "Johnson was a mover." Compound that with JL's own admission that he "didn't like to be crowded." Godoy did not have the same active degree of upper body movement Dempsey employed, to say nothing of Jack's lateral movement with knees bent, and heels simultaneously off the floor.

While I have no problem with Louis's chin, I don't consider his balance to have been quite on a par with Dempsey's. Jack would have probably caught him with a couple of flash knockdowns.

Louis and Dempsey were both perfectly capable of winning over the 15 round distance, as Joe demonstrated against Farr, Godoy and Walcott (I believe Louis won the first Walcott match in the final two cantos, scored as it was on the rounds system), and a post peak Jack proved against Tommy Gibbons. But Louis never dominated over 15 rounds as Dempsey did in Shelby (and the late peaking Gibbons had overpaced himself, yet was fading at the end).

Chin and power would not be the decisive factors here. Nor would Louis's superior overall punching technique. Speed, mobility and balance would be more critical factors, along with the fact of Louis being a bigger target, especially for Dempsey's bodyshots.

Jack never sustained any significant boxing related injuries to his hands (and pounded away on the top of Gibbons's head for 15 fast rounds), while Joe did injure his right against Farr (necessitating his having to outbox Farr with his jab).

Should Dempsey have been stunned, he was adept at using his wrestling experience to tie his man up long enough for his rapid recovery ability to manifest itself. This was not a skill demonstrated by Louis whenever he was in distress. If either was knocked silly, Jack had the far greater know-how to weather the storm. Tunney observed that all Dempsey needed was "a five second interval." While Louis withstood tremendous punishment from Schmeling in their first bout between the first and final knockdowns, neither was he ever able to shake off the effects of those initial stunning blows. (Louis lasted as long as he did because Schmeling didn't commit to his right with full extension, always remaining in counterpunching mode with more of a hooking right, like the short bomb he finished off Stribling with.)

Although Dempsey's hook overshadowed the right he nicknamed, "Iron Mike" (adopting Frank Moran's practice of dubbing his own overhand right as "Mary Ann"), Jack's right counter to Tunney's jab in mid-ring wobbled Gene back to the ropes, setting up the Long Count knockdown. Dempsey's own back was to the ropes when he launched the right uppercut which nearly sent Firpo into orbit. I also believe it was his right below Sharkey's belt which was the true knockout punch in their encounter. (The Gob's knees had already buckled when he looked over helplessly to the referee, and he seemed paralyzed. Whether or not it was a low blow, it did cause the legs of Sharkey's trunks to jerk up when it landed, so it was unquestionably below the beltline. But the referee, in position to see it, did not rule a foul.)

Dempsey UD 15 Louis (with Jack scoring a pair of flash KD's to win a couple rounds).
Very good post.I see Dempsey koing Louis inside two rounds,he wouldnt allow Louis to take charge of the action ,most of Joes opponent were well aware of his power and went on the backfoot,those that took a shot at "fighting him"often had success ,if only momentarily.Dempsey had the footspeed to get in quickon Louis ,and the bobbing,weaving ,crouch to get under one of Joes best assets his jab crouchers bothered Louis,as did swarmers ,and there was no better one than Dempsey,he had the better chin imo ,power about the same,louis may have had the edge in handspeed ,Dempseys footwork was faster and more fluid.I think Dempsey tears out and takes charge ,coming under Joes left,to fire to the body,looking to unload upstairs when he sees the openings,Jack said ,when asked how he would have fought Louis,"I would just walk into him and throw short punches that come around with a lotof shoulder power behind them"Dempsey would be vulnerable to Louis,s uppercuts as he came in and might hit the floor momentarily,but once he was inside I think he would drop Louis a couple of times for an early stoppage.The further it goes the more I like Louis ,Dempsey often levelled out as a fight wore on ,Johnson called him"essentially a 4 round fighter",Louis fought at a more measured pace generally and put a lot of guys away late ,so if he survives the early rounds his chances greatly increase,but my bet is Dempsey tags him early ,and if he got to you he finished you.

[My dinner with Conteh]

So which word will you use to describe Louis' chin?


Fair.

[ChrisPontius]

Nat Fleischer was already a veteran ringside observer by the time he viewed Dempsey/Willard from ringside, and he also viewed Louis against Max Baer at ringside. It was his determination that Dempsey's handspeed in Toledo was slightly superior to Louis's against Maxie. (Lest this be dismissed as simply the opinion of a nostalgist, let's also remember that Fleischer identified Ali as the fastest heavyweight of all time in 1969.)

This statement is completely irrelevant. It is flat-out impossible to say that a fighter that you literally saw a full 20 years ago is "slightly superior". No human has the memory to make those accurate comparisons. Think of where and who you were 20 years ago, 20 years ago is a long time!
Psychological research has shown that in as little time as 4 years, memories can be shaped and remade unconsciously in a way that is more fitting or benificial for the individual.

Not to mention his views are completely biased. I know he did a lot of good for boxing, but his top10 list is nothing short of retarded and any poster with his list on this board would (rightfully) be shred to pieces:

Nat Fleischer, Founder of Ring Magazine, 1958.
Jack Johnson
Jim Jeffries
Bob Fitzsimmons
Jack Dempsey
Jim Corbett
Joe Louis
Sam Langford
Gene Tunney
Max Schemling
Rocky MarcianoThis was in 1958 and Joe Louis is only at 6 despite having fought much more top fighters than all other fighters on that list, having more title defenses than any of them, the longest reign and the best record outside of Marciano. Who, by the way, is also way too low. Now i can understand that a bit as he and most of his opponents had just retired or were still active; i expect Lewis' stock to rise a bit as well in the next decade for the same reason.

The opponents that Dempsey and Fitzsimmons beat are a jokes compared to the long list of fighters that Louis beat and dominated for over a decade, yet they are ranked higher than him.

Like most people he's living in the past. I cannot blame him for that as it's normal human behaviour, but he's taking it too far. I like his views when comparing fighters who fought between 1900-1920 but anything outside that scope i don't trust.

He did not have the luxery of having the footage on speed-corrected film but that doesn't make his opinions closer to the truth.



Dempsey's advantage in speed could be crucial, as Louis had far more trouble with the faster Billy Conn, than a post peak Dempsey did with the faster Carpentier. Also, as fast and mobile as Tunney was, Gene stated that he only got three or four clean shots at a past prime JD in 20 rounds of boxing. A peak Dempsey wouldn't be as wide open to Louis as is commonly supposed.
Carpentier was not even close to being as good as Conn.

Someone more comparable to Conn is Tunney, and he won 19 out of 20 rounds against Dempsey. His statement that he only got three of four clean shots in on Dempsey in 2 fights is simply not true. I randomly checked one round and he already landed several more clean punches in that round alone.

It's another one of those fairytales that they had back then to hype their opponents up, and 99% of the people couldn't verify it because they had no film, no easy access to record books or a boxrec.
That statement reminds me a bit of Dempsey describing Willard as being "in incredibly great shape, a master boxer and 6'6" while in fact he was a horrible boxer, 37 years old and 10+ pounds over his best weight. The fact that almost no one check these things and took his word for it is, i think, one of the reasons that Dempsey is too high on some lists, including Fleischers list.


In Fried's "Corner Men," Jack Blackburn is quoted as having confided in private that Jack Johnson would have beaten Louis, because "Johnson was a mover." Compound that with JL's own admission that he "didn't like to be crowded." Godoy did not have the same active degree of upper body movement Dempsey employed, to say nothing of Jack's lateral movement with knees bent, and heels simultaneously off the floor.

But again this is contradicting with film. Johnson was no mover. All the time he throws a punch , goes into a clinch, does some work there, pushes him away, and starts all over again. People back then had no or little access to film (especially of an early, ignored fighter because he was black like Johnson). Most people described him as a master boxer so i guess they interpreted that as "wow, he boxes on his toes, jabs, etc" but film disproves that myth.

Godoy (who by the way, is as formidable as any of Dempseys opponents, while he's a Louis second tier opponent) still lost both fights, one by knockout. We can make this argument all night long. If the totally unskilled Firpo can knock Dempsey down twice when he was helped back into the ring by thirds, Louis knocks him out.



Louis and Dempsey were both perfectly capable of winning over the 15 round distance, as Joe demonstrated against Farr, Godoy and Walcott (I believe Louis won the first Walcott match in the final two cantos, scored as it was on the rounds system), and a post peak Jack proved against Tommy Gibbons. But Louis never dominated over 15 rounds as Dempsey did in Shelby (and the late peaking Gibbons had overpaced himself, yet was fading at the end).


Louis dominated Farr over 15 rounds and did so with an injured right hand.



Chin and power would not be the decisive factors here. Nor would Louis's superior overall punching technique. Speed, mobility and balance would be more critical factors, along with the fact of Louis being a bigger target, especially for Dempsey's bodyshots.

I do believe Louis has better power. He knocked guys straight the fuck out. Dempsey always had to knock them down several times. The only exception is Sharkey, whom he had just hit with a low blow which is extremely painful in a day with no protective cups and small gloves. It looks like he's hoping for a DQ when he's on the floor. If anything, his only non-grind down knockout is pretty fishy. Louis proved his power against much better opposition.


Altogether i think you rely a lot of your analysis on opinions of people who made them based largely on their own biased memories while not having the access to film and records that we enjoy.


Should Dempsey have been stunned, he was adept at using his wrestling experience to tie his man up long enough for his rapid recovery ability to manifest itself. This was not a skill demonstrated by Louis whenever he was in distress. If either was knocked silly, Jack had the far greater know-how to weather the storm. Tunney observed that all Dempsey needed was "a five second interval." While Louis withstood tremendous punishment from Schmeling in their first bout between the first and final knockdowns, neither was he ever able to shake off the effects of those initial stunning blows. (Louis lasted as long as he did because Schmeling didn't commit to his right with full extension, always remaining in counterpunching mode with more of a hooking right, like the short bomb he finished off Stribling with.)

Although Dempsey's hook overshadowed the right he nicknamed, "Iron Mike" (adopting Frank Moran's practice of dubbing his own overhand right as "Mary Ann"), Jack's right counter to Tunney's jab in mid-ring wobbled Gene back to the ropes, setting up the Long Count knockdown. Dempsey's own back was to the ropes when he launched the right uppercut which nearly sent Firpo into orbit. I also believe it was his right below Sharkey's belt which was the true knockout punch in their encounter. (The Gob's knees had already buckled when he looked over helplessly to the referee, and he seemed paralyzed. Whether or not it was a low blow, it did cause the legs of Sharkey's trunks to jerk up when it landed, so it was unquestionably below the beltline. But the referee, in position to see it, did not rule a foul.)

Dempsey UD 15 Louis (with Jack scoring a pair of flash KD's to win a couple rounds).
That's a nice story. I will say that Louis had proved plenty of times to be able to recover from knockdowns.

[ChrisPontius]

When one looks objectively at both their records, it is clear that:
-Dempsey fought a shitload of mediocre opponents
-Louis not only beat all top10 ranked opponents, he destroyed them
-When Dempsey didn't fight old, mediocreties he struggled badly (Sharkey, stopped by Louis in 3 one-sided rounds) or was completly dominated (by Tunney, twice).
-It took a full 59 years for an other lightheavyweight to win the heavyweight title.
-Dempsey has most of his historical standing from the legendary story of David and Goliath, when he knocked out Willard in a brutal fight. However, not many people look past that great story and see that Willard was 37 years old, overweight, inactive and a horrible boxer
-When Louis had a fight in which he didn't dominate, he always gave rematches and always knocked his opponent out in those rematches (Schmeling, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott). Did Dempsey give rematches to Firpo and Sharkey both of which he struggled with and had controversial victories over? What happened when he rematched Tunney?


Joe Louis has gigantic edge when it comes to ring records.
Now styles. You say that Louis was bothered by people who came at him, by his own admission. Fair enough, but it's no secret that Louis was incredible humble and by doing so helping the black people a lot. The only time a crowder bothered him was Godoy, whom he still beat. When he made adaptations in the rematch, he knocked him out without much trouble. All other crowders he faced were knocked into next week.

Now something no one seems to be interested to talk about, but how did Dempsey do against punchers? As is the common story with most of his opposition, the best punchers he faced were pretty horrible. Firpo and Willard. Willard as i already said, was old, out of shape, an unskilled farmboy and he barely landed much on Dempsey. Firpo who also didn't know how to box, did land on Dempsey and knocked him down twice, once out of the ring. How does that bode for Dempsey when he's facing Louis?


I think Louis would stop Dempsey.

[McGrain]

Not to mention his views are completely biased. I know he did a lot of good for boxing, but his top10 list is nothing short of retarded and any poster with his list on this board would (rightfully) be shred to pieces:

Nat Fleischer, Founder of Ring Magazine, 1958.

Jack Johnson
Jim Jeffries
Bob Fitzsimmons
Jack Dempsey
Jim Corbett
Joe Louis
Sam Langford
Gene Tunney
Max Schemling
Rocky Marciano.
It gets worse. Nat was disgusting in his approach to Battlink Siki according to the book - everything from pretending to be ringside when he wasn't to reinforcing the "man-ape" myth.

Nat is a source and should be treated as such, but IMO there are better ones out there.

[dmt]

This statement is completely irrelevant. It is flat-out impossible to say that a fighter that you literally saw a full 20 years ago is "slightly superior". No human has the memory to make those accurate comparisons. Think of where and who you were 20 years ago, 20 years ago is a long time!
Psychological research has shown that in as little time as 4 years, memories can be shaped and remade unconsciously in a way that is more fitting or benificial for the individual.

Not to mention his views are completely biased. I know he did a lot of good for boxing, but his top10 list is nothing short of retarded and any poster with his list on this board would (rightfully) be shred to pieces:

Nat Fleischer, Founder of Ring Magazine, 1958.

Jack Johnson
Jim Jeffries
Bob Fitzsimmons
Jack Dempsey
Jim Corbett
Joe Louis
Sam Langford
Gene Tunney
Max Schemling
Rocky MarcianoThis was in 1958 and Joe Louis is only at 6 despite having fought much more top fighters than all other fighters on that list, having more title defenses than any of them, the longest reign and the best record outside of Marciano. Who, by the way, is also way too low. Now i can understand that a bit as he and most of his opponents had just retired or were still active; i expect Lewis' stock to rise a bit as well in the next decade for the same reason.

The opponents that Dempsey and Fitzsimmons beat are a jokes compared to the long list of fighters that Louis beat and dominated for over a decade, yet they are ranked higher than him.

Like most people he's living in the past. I cannot blame him for that as it's normal human behaviour, but he's taking it too far. I like his views when comparing fighters who fought between 1900-1920 but anything outside that scope i don't trust.

He did not have the luxery of having the footage on speed-corrected film but that doesn't make his opinions closer to the truth.



Carpentier was not even close to being as good as Conn.

Someone more comparable to Conn is Tunney, and he won 19 out of 20 rounds against Dempsey. His statement that he only got three of four clean shots in on Dempsey in 2 fights is simply not true. I randomly checked one round and he already landed several more clean punches in that round alone.

It's another one of those fairytales that they had back then to hype their opponents up, and 99% of the people couldn't verify it because they had no film, no easy access to record books or a boxrec.
That statement reminds me a bit of Dempsey describing Willard as being "in incredibly great shape, a master boxer and 6'6" while in fact he was a horrible boxer, 37 years old and 10+ pounds over his best weight. The fact that almost no one check these things and took his word for it is, i think, one of the reasons that Dempsey is too high on some lists, including Fleischers list.


But again this is contradicting with film. Johnson was no mover. All the time he throws a punch , goes into a clinch, does some work there, pushes him away, and starts all over again. People back then had no or little access to film (especially of an early, ignored fighter because he was black like Johnson). Most people described him as a master boxer so i guess they interpreted that as "wow, he boxes on his toes, jabs, etc" but film disproves that myth.

Godoy (who by the way, is as formidable as any of Dempseys opponents, while he's a Louis second tier opponent) still lost both fights, one by knockout. We can make this argument all night long. If the totally unskilled Firpo can knock Dempsey down twice when he was helped back into the ring by thirds, Louis knocks him out.


Louis dominated Farr over 15 rounds and did so with an injured right hand.



I do believe Louis has better power. He knocked guys straight the fuck out. Dempsey always had to knock them down several times. The only exception is Sharkey, whom he had just hit with a low blow which is extremely painful in a day with no protective cups and small gloves. It looks like he's hoping for a DQ when he's on the floor. If anything, his only non-grind down knockout is pretty fishy. Louis proved his power against much better opposition.


Altogether i think you rely a lot of your analysis on opinions of people who made them based largely on their own biased memories while not having the access to film and records that we enjoy.


That's a nice story. I will say that Louis had proved plenty of times to be able to recover from knockdowns.How r the likes of Miske, Brennan, Gibbons, Fulton jokes? Are they really jokes compared to Baer, Simon or Conn? Not in my opinion. Louis beat better fighters, sure, but Dempsey did not fight jokes.

Yes Conn is comparable to Tunney but Dempsey was rusty, out of shape, and past his best when he fought Tunney. And please the Tunney winning 19 out of 20 is not entirely fair, there are opinions that Tunney won 17 out of those rounds. A swarmers style is desgned to slow down earlier then a boxer puncher, that's why other swarmers like Tyson, Frazier and Armstrong started fading by their late 20's/early 30's. You simply cannot criticise Dempsey for the Tunney or Sharkey fights because he was not at his best, he may not have been "shot" but he was well past his best

Godoy was not as good as Gibbons or even Brennan IMO.

I myself would slightly favour Louis but Dempsey has a good chance. Both struggled with lesser fighters.

[Holmes' Jab]

When Dempsey misses he is vulnerable. When Louis misses he is less so.

Basically an overextended Dempsey will get hit very hard by Louis several times and visit the canvas. When he gets up he's got a killer after him.

Secondly, Louis is the only guy that is going to be able to match Dempsey at Jack's best range. His uppercut is arguably the equal of any of JD's best punches at close range. Meantime, Jack has to get there - the battle of #1 for elusivness v #1 for compact punching would be fascinating. But Dempsey only has to lose once.

I think JD is pretty cleanly out-gunned here. I'd pick Joe early.


Very sound analysis.

Louis for me as well, early on I'd say. Somewhere near the 3rd round. :yep

[dmt]

not in two or three rounds. Louis was patitent somewhat, and while he was capable of producing early round ko's, he didn't get them that often especially against a crouching fighter. It took Louis 8 rounds to get riounds to get rid of Godoy in the rematch, when Louis was described at his best vs a crouching fighter, i doubt he could finish Dempsey very early. Although it's not entirely out of the question, it's unlikely that Louis wins in the early rounds

[C. M. Clay II]

But again this is contradicting with film. Johnson was no mover. All the time he throws a punch , goes into a clinch, does some work there, pushes him away, and starts all over again. People back then had no or little access to film (especially of an early, ignored fighter because he was black like Johnson). Most people described him as a master boxer so i guess they interpreted that as "wow, he boxes on his toes, jabs, etc" but film disproves that myth.

I think Blackburn knows what he's talking about. He did fight Johnson before, you know.:rolleyes:

[Bummy Davis]

Louis is my ATG #1, fought the best,most real defences,fought all sizes,shapes and colors....Dempsey had a shorter prime but was a dangerous ATG, when in it,Louis vs Dempsey could go either way,Prime for Prime, Dempsey was a harder puncher and more aggressive fighter than Schmeling, we dont know if that would work in his favor because Louis was not a reckless puncher like Firpo. Louis has the overall edge but I cant help thinking that Dempsey would present a stylistic dilema and certainly have a better than punchers chance, but if Louis hurt Jack, there was never a two fisted combo/power puncher with great finishing skills, like Joe.........How about I predict an explosive KO will both men touching the canvas

[dmt]

When one looks objectively at both their records, it is clear that:
-Dempsey fought a shitload of mediocre opponents
-Louis not only beat all top10 ranked opponents, he destroyed them
-When Dempsey didn't fight old, mediocreties he struggled badly (Sharkey, stopped by Louis in 3 one-sided rounds) or was completly dominated (by Tunney, twice).
-It took a full 59 years for an other lightheavyweight to win the heavyweight title.
-Dempsey has most of his historical standing from the legendary story of David and Goliath, when he knocked out Willard in a brutal fight. However, not many people look past that great story and see that Willard was 37 years old, overweight, inactive and a horrible boxer
-When Louis had a fight in which he didn't dominate, he always gave rematches and always knocked his opponent out in those rematches (Schmeling, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott). Did Dempsey give rematches to Firpo and Sharkey both of which he struggled with and had controversial victories over? What happened when he rematched Tunney?


Joe Louis has gigantic edge when it comes to ring records.
Now styles. You say that Louis was bothered by people who came at him, by his own admission. Fair enough, but it's no secret that Louis was incredible humble and by doing so helping the black people a lot. The only time a crowder bothered him was Godoy, whom he still beat. When he made adaptations in the rematch, he knocked him out without much trouble. All other crowders he faced were knocked into next week.

Now something no one seems to be interested to talk about, but how did Dempsey do against punchers? As is the common story with most of his opposition, the best punchers he faced were pretty horrible. Firpo and Willard. Willard as i already said, was old, out of shape, an unskilled farmboy and he barely landed much on Dempsey. Firpo who also didn't know how to box, did land on Dempsey and knocked him down twice, once out of the ring. How does that bode for Dempsey when he's facing Louis?


I think Louis would stop Dempsey.u r far too harsh on Dempsey. Brennan was a very hard hitter. Dempsey had rematches with Miske, who gave him trouble earlier on, but Dempsey finally stopped him in the third meeting and convincingly by decision in the second one. Louis also fought alot of average foes. Jack Sharkey was a good hitter and faced an over the hill Dempsey, but Jack still showed the chin to stand up to his power.

[dmt]

by the way, and older Dempsey faced the best version of Sharkey, and Louis faced an over the hill Sharkey- there's a difference

[Duodenum]

Nat is a source and should be treated as such, but IMO there are better ones out there.Fleischer is not merely a source, flawed as he is, but he was also a ringside eyewitness to many of these historical matches. (In fact, Nat was the third man in the ring for exhibition performances by both Dempsey and Louis.) Nat made observations in "50 Years at Ringside" which were borne out by films of those events which had not even come to light at the time he published it. (In 1957, he torpedoed Jack Johnson's claim of shielding his eyes from the sun in Havana by including a picture of Billy Conn's gloves in the same position after getting deposited by Louis. This was before the film of Willard/Johnson had come to light, further verifying the accuracy of his recall concerning details of that marathon bout.)

Fleischer needed to strive for accuracy in situations where he knew the contests he was covering were being filmed for posterity. Furthermore, at the time he wrote his autobiography, some long lost footage of these events had already come to light, and he assumed this would continue. Beyond that, the United States wasn't the only country that he was covering matches in. There were other nations which did not have an interstate transport ban on boxing films in place, as he was perfectly well aware.

In addition to working numerous bouts as a referee, he performed duties as a judge and broadcaster. (There is a film clip of Nat on the microphone at the Dempsey/Carpentier title fight.)

He certainly did have his biases, and was not really qualified to judge Fitzsimmons, Corbett or Jeff, not having witnessed them at their best. But he came along when boxing journalism was the highest and most demanding art form in sportswriting, and had to be very highly competent to achieve the position of prominence and credibility among boxing's finest performers that he did.

Perhaps the only individual in the press who was friends with both Ali and Jack Johnson during their peaks.

Concerning Siki and the "man-ape" myth, Dempsey was subjected to an explosion of contempt when facing Carpentier as well. Gorgeous Georges was revered in Dempsey's own country as a gallant and handsome blue-eyed blond war hero, while Jack was reviled as a slacker and uncivilized half-breed savage (invoking his Choctaw ethnicity in the process), with the appearance of a dark skinned, unshaven, coarse brute. Anybody who took out the urbane Carpentier was bound to be reviled. Tunney hit him low. Dempsey hammered him remorselessly. Siki ambushed him. How dare they! (Not that Carp was above opportunism himself, as Kid Lewis found out, five years before Jack appropriated that tactic for himself against Sharkey.)

[dmt]

Finally somebody stands up to this Dempsey myth. ChrisPontius is right on the money. Dempsey fought bum after bum after bum. I can't believe people would even put this guy in the top heavyweights, let alone top 5 or 3 or even 1 where I sometimes see him.he made some fine points but also some somewhat unfair ones i pointed out above (though i respect his opinion, comparing Dempsey-Sharkey fight and Louis-Sharkey fight is just not fair on Dempsey's part)

[mr. magoo]

he made some fine points but also some somewhat unfair ones i pointed out above (though i respect his opinion, comparing Dempsey-Sharkey fight and Louis-Sharkey fight is just not fair on Dempsey's part)

Maybe so, but he made a lot of other valid observations that went far beyond the Sharkey comparison, as you already pointed out. To put it plain and simple, Louis was in a totally separate class from Dempsey. Sure, we always see their names grouped together on things like all time great lists, but to say that they are in the same league is simply not the case. The sport evolved dramatically in the interum between Dempsey's era and Louis's. Of course, people will be arguing these points back and forth long after we're all dead, but anyone who looks at this match-up with an honest and open mind, can clearly see that its really not a match-up at all. I'm not even so sure how Dempsey would fair against the likes of Schmeling, Walcott, or Baer. If he struggled with Firpo, think about what a puncher with real ring generalship would have done to him. Baer may likely have killed him.

I just think that we spend more time than need be on comparing Dempsey to great heavyweights post 1930. A week ago, we had a whole debate going, regarding Dempsey vs Lennox Lewis. Such a thread should have been resolved within just a matter of a few posts, yet it went on for days!

[OLD FOGEY]

not in two or three rounds. Louis was patitent somewhat, and while he was capable of producing early round ko's, he didn't get them that often especially against a crouching fighter. It took Louis 8 rounds to get riounds to get rid of Godoy in the rematch, when Louis was described at his best vs a crouching fighter, i doubt he could finish Dempsey very early. Although it's not entirely out of the question, it's unlikely that Louis wins in the early rounds

In 123 fights, though, up to his forties, Godoy was stopped only by Louis. His second "knockout" per boxrec, seems closer to a DQ for stalling. He might have been badly hurt, but no details are given. One thing is for certain. Godoy may have been able to take it better than almost anyone.

[ChrisPontius]

Finally somebody stands up to this Dempsey myth. ChrisPontius is right on the money. Dempsey fought bum after bum after bum. I can't believe people would even put this guy in the top 10 heavyweights, let alone top 5 or 3 or even 1 where I sometimes see him.


u r far too harsh on Dempsey. Brennan was a very hard hitter. Dempsey had rematches with Miske, who gave him trouble earlier on, but Dempsey finally stopped him in the third meeting and convincingly by decision in the second one. Louis also fought alot of average foes. Jack Sharkey was a good hitter and faced an over the hill Dempsey, but Jack still showed the chin to stand up to his power.

Sorry, i was a bit too harsh on Dempsey. I can understand people picking him because he may trouble Louis stylistically speaking. I just favor Louis for the reasons i previously stated. I agree that the Sharkey comparison is unfair, but i can't help but notice the huge gap in quality of beaten opposition between the two.

[dmt]

Maybe so, but he made a lot of other valid observations that went far beyond the Sharkey comparison, as you already pointed out. To put it plain and simple, Louis was in a totally separate class from Dempsey. Sure, we always see their names grouped together on things like all time great lists, but to say that they are in the same league is simply not the case. The sport evolved dramatically in the interum between Dempsey's era and Louis's. Of course, people will be arguing these points back and forth long after we're all dead, but anyone who looks at this match-up with an honest and open mind, can clearly see that its really not a match-up at all. I'm not even so sure how Dempsey would fair against the likes of Schmeling, Walcott, or Baer. If he struggled with Firpo, think about what a puncher with real ring generalship would have done to him. Baer may likely have killed him.

I just think that we spend more time than need be on comparing Dempsey to great heavyweights post 1930. A week ago, we had a whole debate going, regarding Dempsey vs Lennox Lewis. Such a thread should have been resolved within just a matter of a few posts, yet it went on for days!i am sorry but they are not in a different league, and it's not a mismatch. Baer did not have real ring generalship, though he was better then Fripo.

Look anyone can strguggle with lesser fighters, it happened to Louis too, this is like saying " If fat Tony Galenteno could floor Louis, think of what Dempsey's left hook would have done to him". Again even great fighters can be knocked down by big if unskilled hitters. Louis was knocked out of the ring by Budy Baer, floored vs Braddock who was not known for his power, Schmeling was a fine hitter but nothing like Dempsey, and Conn- not known for his power- stunned Louis quiet a few times with his combinations. To be fair Dempsey was floored by lesser punchers too. However there is very little, if any chance of Max or Budy Baer beating Dempsey. He is not getting killed here.

Again if Godoy could last 8 rounds with Louis in the rematch, and Godoy was no Dempsey just like Brennan was no Louis, why is it that Louis takes Dempsey out in three? Why is it that because Tunney, a much faster footed fighter beats a rusty Dempsey that has not fought in three years, mean that Louis could somehow outslick Dempsey? Dempsey would not lose to Schmeling, or Baer. Maybe Walcott would have a slight chance but that;s really all

They are not in a seperate class because if u compare pure abilities it's close:

Power: slight edge to Louis
Chin: Slight edge to Dempsey
Heart: Even
Handspeed: Even
Footwork: Dempsey by a mile
Accuracy: Louis
Killer instinct: Even
Heart: Even

as you can see, they are close in several catogories, and i simply cannot agree with the argument that it's a mismatch. They are in the same class, they are similar in abilities.

[dmt]

Sorry, i was a bit too harsh on Dempsey. I can understand people picking him because he may trouble Louis stylistically speaking. I just favor Louis for the reasons i previously stated. I agree that the Sharkey comparison is unfair, but i can't help but notice the huge gap in quality of beaten opposition between the two.i can understand the opposition point but it is true that some of Dempsey's best opponents do not even exist on film like Fulton or Miske. But their resumes show that these men were good fighters, infact Miske was only stopped once in over 100 fights- that by dempsey- and he beat quiet a few hall of famers too.

[Duodenum]

Like most people he's living in the past.Once again, it needs to be pointed out that Fleischer identified Ali as history's fastest heavyweight in 1969, hardly the assessment of somebody living excusively in the past (like me).He did not have the luxery of having the footage on speed-corrected film but that doesn't make his opinions closer to the truth.No, he had something vastly superior. Ringside observations to supplement his unrestricted access to same fight footage and broadcast recordings (some of which he broadcast himself).

KO Magazine's Steve Farhood scored Mike Spinks the winner over Eddie Davis live from ringside, but when he rescored that bout off the footage shortly afterwards, he had Davis winning it. Even modern recording and broadcasting technology is no substitute for ringside and
in-ring observation (as a referee or competitor). Unlike Farhood, Fleischer also performed as an official judge for championship competition himself, in addition to refereeing events. (As for broadcasting, there's a film clip of Nat on the microphone at the Dempsey/Carpentier title fight.)
Carpentier was not even close to being as good as Conn.Conn wasn't close to being as brave as Carpentier either, or as tough, or as lethal a puncher. (When it comes to bravery in the boxing ranks, Carpentier's service as an aviator during WW I, Barney Ross's conduct at Guadalcanal, Dempsey's entry into combat at Okinawa, or Schmeling's service as an overaged paratrooper take the cake.)Someone more comparable to Conn is Tunney, and he won 19 out of 20 rounds against Dempsey. His statement that he only got three of four clean shots in on Dempsey in 2 fights is simply not true. I randomly checked one round and he already landed several more clean punches in that round alone.Conn didn't have Tunney's power, size, physical strength or toughness. He was also about 25 pounds lighter. Neither did he have Gene's smarts. Tunney would have never tried to knock Louis out the way Conn did.
If the totally unskilled Firpo can knock Dempsey down twice when he was helped back into the ring by thirds, Louis knocks him out.I'll skip over this issue, as we've already aired our divergent views about Dempsey/Firpo.Louis dominated Farr over 15 rounds and did so with an injured right hand.I do agree it was probably Louis's most skillful boxing exhibition, along with the Godoy rematch, but still far more competitive than Dempsey/Gibbons.I do believe Louis has better power. He knocked guys straight the fuck out. Dempsey always had to knock them down several times.True, Dempsey did have to knock them down several times, because each punch could have sufficient power to be a knockdown punch.

Dempsey would have floored Conn with at least five punches out of the six punch combination Louis took him out with in their first meeting. (That's why I agree that Louis is the better puncher, but not the harder one. Each punch of a combination delivered by Louis knocked his opponent into the next one, magnifying the impact of each.)

Jack dropped the larger Brennan for the count in their rematch with bodyshots in round 12, a massive display of late round power. Nobody else was able to put Miske down until he was right at death's door. He fractured the ribs of the huge George Godfrey in sparring. After retirement, he also knocked out the granite chinned Galento in sparring. Willard showed himself against Frank Moran to have good skills and quickness, but not great, certainly not on the scale of Jack Johnson. But Big Jess was tough as nails, taking an incessant pounding from the five ounce gloves of Johnson and Firpo for several rounds. Moran and McCarty had good power as well. Nobody was ever able to inflict the sort of quick damage on Willard that Dempsey subjected him to in just a minute and a half of a single round of action. (Of course many of his most devastating one punch knockouts were not captured on film.)Altogether i think you rely a lot of your analysis on opinions of people who made them based largely on their own biased memories while not having the access to film and records that we enjoy.What I aim to do is measure the accuracy of a given account against the available footage of that event. If they match closely, then I have more confidence in accounts from that same source about matches for which there is no known footage.I will say that Louis had proved plenty of times to be able to recover from knockdowns.Yes, and I am not among those who questions Louis's chin. He certainly proved it against Max Baer, Tony Galento, Ezzard Charles, and even Rocky Marciano in his swan song. I do question his balance at times, however, and don't believe he would keep his feet through 15 rounds against Dempsey. My point is that if and when Louis did manage to stun Jack, he would be able to ride out the storm and quickly recover (better than Joe might in the same situation).

Dempsey was the only one to knock out Brennan in K.O. Bill's first 50 fights, and the only one to do it twice. He was the second one to do so in Carl Morris's first 59 bouts (after Lute McCarthy six years earlier). Sam Langford predicted that Dempsey would prevail over Wills if they were ever to square off.

Joe Louis is the greatest heavyweight champion in boxing history. He defended against all worthy opponents. That is not what is being discussed here. The issue is Dempsey at his best against Louis at his best, and my position is that Dempsey would prevail.

Do not overlook the fact that I'm predicting a distance contest, unlike many Dempsey supporters. Nor do I hold Louis/Conn I strongly against Joe, as he did ill advisedly weaken himself by coming in too light for speed, at the persuasion of the press. (Ignoring Blackburn's warnings that he wouldn't be strong under 200 pounds anymore. I don't even hold this too strongly against Louis, as I also agree with Louis and disagree with Blackburn, that one should get up as quickly as possible from a knockdown, lest the count is lost.) No, Dempsey was not a great champion in the sense of actively defending the title against all comers. (Then again, he was the highest paid athlete on Earth in 1925, a year in which he did not defend the title. Why compete when the public is paying more not to compete?)

Anybody who's compared Dempsey's "Championship Fighting" to what limited movie film footage of him is available to scrutinize already knows what Jack was about.

[dmt]

One more thing about the Fripo thing, it mainly happened because of the no-neutral corner rule. Dempsey had utterly knocked the shit out of him and the fight should have been stopped after 4 or so kd's. But if u have knocked someone down so many times, obiusly u can get careless and Dempsey did too.

Let's see great fighters getting floored by lesser ones, not just Dempsey:

Johnson- Ketchel, a middle

Louis- Braddock, B Baer, Schmeling, Galenteno

Marciano: Moore, alight-heavy though he could hit. Older Walcott

Ali: 185lb Cooper

Frazier: Bonavena

Foreman: Young

Holmes: Snipes

Tyson: Douglas

Lewis: both one punch stoppages from two big guys who were not known for exceptional power but still fairly good hitters

[mr. magoo]

Look anyone can strguggle with lesser fighters, it happened to Louis too, this is like saying " If fat Tony Galenteno could floor Louis, think of what Dempsey's left hook would have done to him". Again even great fighters can be knocked down by big if unskilled hitters. Louis was knocked out of the ring by Budy Baer, floored vs Braddock who was not known for his power, Schmeling was a fine hitter but nothing like Dempsey, and Conn- not known for his power- stunned Louis quiet a few times with his combinations.

There are a couple of things to take into consideration here, when determining weather or not these guys were in the same league. First of all their legacies. Louis defended his title 25 times over a 12 year period. Dempsey defended his title 6 times in 7 years. Louis never failed to defend against a mandatory. Dempsey never fought Harry Wills, and I can care less if the social climate prevented it from happening. When Holmes failed to fight Greg Page and Bowe failed to face Lewis, people were all over their asses like smell on shit. Dempsey not fighting Wills because of social tension between blacks and whites is nothing but crap, especially given that we had already seen a black heavyweight champ prior to Dempsey's reign. For nearly a century people have given this guy a pass for this, and it's ridiculous regardless of the testimony of Wills that " it wasn't Dempsey's fault "

Another thing is the competition level and skill of the fighters. Yes, Louis had struggles with men like Braddock, Galento, Baer and Schmeling. I hold firm to my belief however that they were better fighters than most of the men Dempsey fought. Jack never faced a puncher like Buddy or Max Baer. Buddy Baer was 6'6" 250 Lbs, and had 45 knockouts in 50 wins. He also had nearly as many first round Ko's as Dempsey. The only difference between Willard and Baer, was that Baer was much younger, more fit, and a better fighter overall. Shmeling, Conn, Walcott, baer, and Godoy were all better than anyone Dempsey beat.


To be fair Dempsey was floored by lesser punchers too. However there is very little, if any chance of Max or Budy Baer beating Dempsey. He is not getting killed here.


Why not?


Again if Godoy could last 8 rounds with Louis in the rematch, and Godoy was no Dempsey just like Brennan was no Louis, why is it that Louis takes Dempsey out in three? Why is it that because Tunney, a much faster footed fighter beats a rusty Dempsey that has not fought in three years, mean that Louis could somehow outslick Dempsey?

I don't recall ever saying that Louis would take out Dempsey in any specified number of rounds, nor did I make my claim on the basis of Dempsey losing to Tunney. It means little to me that Dempsey was past his prime against Tunney, given that I think Louis would beat him on his best night.


Dempsey would not lose to Schmeling, or Baer. Maybe Walcott would have a slight chance but that;s really all


Again, I don't see what you base this assumption on. Schmeling Ko'd a prime Joe Louis, which is clearly a better feat than Dempsey ever acheived.



They are not in a seperate class because if u compare pure abilities it's close:

Power: slight edge to Louis
Chin: Slight edge to Dempsey
Heart: Even
Handspeed: Even
Footwork: Dempsey by a mile
Accuracy: Louis
Killer instinct: Even
Heart: Even


About 90% of these are intangibles, meaning that you nor anyone else could possibly measure them accurately and determine who had more, less or the same. How in the hell do measure things like Heart and Killer instinct?


as you can see, they are close in several catogories, and i simply cannot agree with the argument that it's a mismatch. They are in the same class, they are similar in abilities.


I disagree, while Dempsey had raw power and good footwork, Louis was arguably the best combination puncher of all time. Can you imagine never having been in the ring with a fighter who put together punches like Louis and then all of a sudden being confonted with that?

Power, footwork and punching ability are probably Dempsey's best assets. Louis would have gone into this fight at least having the experience of tasting the power of the Baer brothers among other big hitters, and having met good boxers like Conn and Schmeling. What in the hell did Dempsey ever face that was even remotely like Louis?

[Maxmomer]

He didn't struggle with Firpo. He dropped him ten times in route to a second round stoppage.

[dmt]

There are a couple of things to take into consideration here, when determining weather or not these guys were in the same league. First of all their legacies. Louis defended his title 25 times over a 12 year period. Dempsey defended his title 6 times in 7 years. Louis never failed to defend against a mandatory. Dempsey never fought Harry Wills, and I can care less if the social climate prevented it from happening. When Holmes failed to fight Greg Page and Bowe failed to face Lewis, people were all over their asses like smell on shit. Dempsey not fighting Wills because of social tension between blacks and whites is nothing but crap, especially given that we had already seen a black heavyweight champ prior to Dempsey's reign. For nearly a century people have given this guy a pass for this, and it's ridiculous regardless of the testimony of Wills that " it wasn't Dempsey's fault "

Another thing is the cpmpetition level and skill of the fighters. Yes, Louis had struggles with men like Braddock, Galento, Baer and Schmeling. I hold firm to my belief however that they were better fighters than most of the men Dempsey fought. Jack never faced a puncher like Buddy or Max Baer. Buddy Baer was 6'6" 250 Lbs, and 45 knockouts in 50 wins. He also had nearly as many first round Ko's as Dempsey. The only difference between Wilard and Baer, was that Baer was much younger, more fit, and a better fighter overall. Shmeling, Conn, Walcott, baer, and Godoy were all better than anyone Dempsey beat.?it's not "crap" that the politics prevented the fight. Because Johnson was so hated, no one ever wanted a black challeger again and there were black fighters even after Wills that did not get a title shot

Anyway that's not the point. The point is Louis did fail to meet a few contenders including the feared Elmer Ray. How is Braddock better From the film i have seen he is not better then Brennan, Gibbons, or Sharkey.

Fripo was a puncher in Baer's league, yeah sure he was crude, sure but it's his raw power that was excellent

Louis was a better champion, sure, but he also faced guys like Al McCoy in title defenses.


Why not?? becauser they are not good enough to, that's how . I have never seen anyone claim Budy Baer could beat Dempsey, sorry but that claim is pretty ridicoulus.






in all honesty i don't even see how u can argue who is better between Schmeling and Dempsey. Who did Holmes beat that was as good as the 73 version of Ali that Norton beat? Does that mean Norton was better?

[mr. magoo]

]it's not "crap" that the politics prevented the fight. Because Johnson was so hated, no one ever wanted a black challeger again and there were black fighters even after Wills that did not get a title shot



It is crap. Deal with it.


Anyway that's not the point. The point is Louis did fail to meet a few contenders including the feared Elmer Ray. How is Braddock better From the film i have seen he is not better then Brennan, Gibbons, or Sharkey.


Show me proof that he was the #1 mandatory at any point during Louis's reign, the way that Wills was during Dempsey's, and I'll steadfastly admit my ignorance. Until you can, however, it shall remain crap.

Fripo was a puncher in Baer's league, yeah sure he was crude, sure but it's his raw power that was excellent


Louis was a better champion, sure, but he also faced guys like Al McCoy in title defenses.


Which number out of a whole 25 was that? Oh I forgot, Dempsey had a whole whopping 6 defenses. Great legacy :good

becauser they are not good enough to, that's how . I

Gee, I think that just might qualify as the explanation of the year.


in all honesty i don't even see how u can argue who is better between Schmeling and Dempsey. Who did Holmes beat that was as good as the 73 version of Ali that Norton beat? Does that mean Norton was better

Scmeling fought in a better era than Dempsey. Simple as that. The same way that Norton fought in a better era than Holmes. I don't personally think that Norton would beat Holmes in his prime, but there are some who think that he would.

[Duodenum]

He didn't struggle with Firpo. He dropped him ten times in route to a second round stoppage.Yes, and this might be a good opportunity to chime in that Firpo wanted no part of Dempsey. And this despite the fact that Jack was champion! (Which begs the question: Who else wanted no part of Dempsey?) Assuming Jack failed to beat the count when he was shoved out of the ring, what would have happened in a rematch between the two?

Dempsey would have destroyed Wills, having the advantage of youth, speed, mobility and power on his side. He also would have extended his title reign. Instead, Wills parlayed his $50,000 guarantee into a lucrative real estate career. (In the grand scheme of things, Dempsey may have been the real victim of the color barrier, and Wills the true beneficiary. Harry certainly wound up in a very different situation than Louis found himself in.)

[Duodenum]

Oh I forgot, Dempsey had a whole whopping 6 defenses. Great legacy :goodMillion dollar gates and front page news headlines are Dempsey's legacy. Red Grange was not a great professional gridiron player, but his impact on the popularity of the sport was every bit as elemental as Dempsey's was on boxing.

[OLD FOGEY]

He didn't struggle with Firpo. He dropped him ten times in route to a second round stoppage.

This is Dempsey quoted in the June, 1945 issue of Ring Magazine:

"I was knocked out by the Argentine's first punch and went right on fighting in my sleep.
"I remember that right at the start. I cut loose with a left hook. Had it landed, the fight might have ended then and there. Though I will say that big guy could take it, and plenty.
"I missed that left hook, and then the grandstand hit me. Some of the reporters were charitable and said I slipped. I didn't slip. I was knocked silly.
"I read the next day that I had knocked him down seven times. Well, you can't prove that by me, because I recollect anything about the first round except Doc Kearns face, white, scared, as I sat in my corner after the first round."

The right hand Dempsey is talking about is right at the beginning of the fight. On the film I have seen Dempsey drops to one knee and there is a quick splice to Dempsey and Firpo clinching. Bert Sugar claims to have seen a version of the film which shows Dempsey taking a seven count. Dempsey was down once more for a flash knockdown before ultimately being knocked out of the ring.
Dempsey called it his toughest fight.

[ChrisPontius]

The point is Louis did fail to meet a few contenders including the feared Elmer Ray.

A few things to take into account:

In 1946, the #1 contender was Tami Maurrielo. Elmer Ray was the #2 contender.

Joe Louis fought Mauriello (on top of a rematch in which he knocked Conn out in 8) and knocked him out inside of one round.

Then the next year, 1947, Jersey Joe Walcott had beaten Elmer Ray.
And in the proces, he took the #1 ranked contender position and Elmer Ray remained the #2 contender. So Joe Louis took on Walcott.

What can Louis be blamed for? Fighting the #1 contender consistently? Walcott had just beaten Ray, or to put it in ESB terms, "he had exposed Ray".


Louis couldn't meet a few of them due to limited times (WWII) but fought the best of them in Walcott and knocked him out after a struggle in their first fight.



On the Braddock fight, i would hardly say Louis struggled with him. He suffered a flash knockdown in round one. Probably nervous, his first title fight, only 23 years old. Outside of that knockdown he gave Braddock a severe beating, being the only man the really knock him out (and he got plenty of beatings during his career). He was unconscious for a minute or so.


Duodenum, thanks for your reply. I will reply after a good night of sleep. :pc

[mr. magoo]

A few things to take into account:

In 1946, the #1 contender was Tami Maurrielo. Elmer Ray was the #2 contender.

Joe Louis fought Mauriello (on top of a rematch in which he knocked Conn out in 8) and knocked him out inside of one round.

Then the next year, 1947, Jersey Joe Walcott had beaten Elmer Ray.
And in the proces, he took the #1 ranked contender position and Elmer Ray remained the #2 contender. So Joe Louis took on Walcott.

What can Louis be blamed for? Fighting the #1 contender consistently? Walcott had just beaten Ray, or to put it in ESB terms, "he had exposed Ray".


Louis couldn't meet a few of them due to limited times (WWII) but fought the best of them in Walcott and knocked him out after a struggle in their first fight.



On the Braddock fight, i would hardly say Louis struggled with him. He suffered a flash knockdown in round one. Probably nervous, his first title fight, only 23 years old. Outside of that knockdown he gave Braddock a severe beating, being the only man the really knock him out (and he got plenty of beatings during his career). He was unconscious for a minute or so.


Duodenum, thanks for your reply. I will reply after a good night of sleep. :pc

Thanks for the input Chris :good

[mr. magoo]

Million dollar gates and front page news headlines are Dempsey's legacy.


I'm sure that his socialogical importance did wonders for the sweet science, Deenerino. But, I'm talking about what he did in the ring, and as it compares to that of Joe Louis. :mj

We both know that Bean Fart did quite a bit for the sport as well.

[dmt]

It is crap. Deal with it.
.no it is not crap. Wills was there, i was not, u were not either. Wills knows what he is talking about, he certainly has more knowledge of why the fight did not happen then either u or me, therefore it is not "crap" and his testimeony is not "ridicoulus"

[mr. magoo]

no it is not crap. Wills was there, i was not, u were not either. Wills knows what he is talking about, he certainly has more knowledge of why the fight did not happen then either u or me, therefore it is not "crap" and his testimeony is not "ridicoulus"

Wills may very conceivabley have stated that it was not Dempsey's decision to deny him a title shot, however we don't know if Wills was trying to save face by not rocking the boat and making a fuss over it or to what degree Dempsey may or may not have had a say in the issue. You have to remember that in those days, the heavyweight champion of the world was a highly influential position. There may have been a variety of reasons as to why this fight never occured. We can't ignore the fact, however that there was a challenger highly deserving of a title fight, who did not get one.

Here are some questions to ask about Dempsey:

1. Did he fight the best of his era? Not always.

2. Was he an active champion who defended his title often? No

3. Did he often fight men who were of low quality and with poor records? Yes

4. Did he struggle to beat fighters who were limited in skill and physical abilty? Sometimes

5. Was he past his prime at a relatively early age? Yes

6. Did he set any records or acheive any major feats that shaped the world of boxing as we know it? Not really

7. Could he have competed effectively and successfully against champions and contenders of equally competitive or more competitive eras? Maybe

8. In an effort to place him in the top 10, does Dempsey's career acheivemnets exceed those of Ali, Louis, Marciano, Holmes, Lewis, Foreman, Frazier, Holyfield, Tyson, Liston, Patterson, or Johnson? No

Although his name and rather high ticket selling numbers left an impression on certain historians and fans, Dempsey does not offer much in contrast to what many of the other great lineal champions have given to the sport:

John L. Sullivan- First recognized world champion.

Jack Johnson- First Black Heavyweight champion.

Joe Louis- Longest reign and most title defenses.

Rocky Marciano- Only undefeated champion.

Muhammad Ali- 3 time champion, and best of what many considered to be the most competitive era,

Mike Tyson- Youngest champion

Larry Holmes- Second best undefeated winning streak, and second longest reign with second most number of title defenses.

George Foreman- 2 time champ, highest win/knockout ratio and oldest to regain title.

Evander Holyfield- 4 time heavyweight champ and cruiserweight champ.

Lennox Lewis- One of the best comp records in terms of fighting large percentage of ranked fighters for number if bouts.

Dempsey doesn't meet any of the criteria, nor offers anything of substantial significance.

[Duodenum]

I'm sure that his socialogical importance did wonders for the sweet science, Deenerino. But, I'm talking about what he did in the ring, and as it compares to that of Joe Louis.First of all Bloss, I hope you don't object too strongly to my removal of your dancing emoticon. (Michael Jackson has given me nightmares since I was a kid. I want to see Jerko in the next installment of "Celebrity Boxing" on FOX against Danny Bonaduce.:bbb:!:) The crux of this whole discussion for me is how the Dempsey of Toledo would have done against the Joe Louis who demolished Max Baer and broke Godoy's face in their rematch. Our views on this question are solidly entrenched, and being hashed out for the consideration of undecided others reading this.

Now, I have to admit that I'm rather peeved at ole' Doc Kearns for making his ridiculous one round knockout bet, because we might have seen a peak Dempsey perform for a more extended period of time, in a more calculating manner against Willard, instead of the frenetic latter half of round one he was suddenly compelled to produce.

Big Jess, was like Tex Cobb and George Chuvalo, tough enough to extend first rate competition. Without such rugged individuals, the peak potential of many greats would be reduced to mere speculation. Still, Willard was tough enough to last longer than Fred Fulton's several seconds, and nobody else in boxing at that time might have lasted so long against the beast Dempsey was on that particular day.
We both know that Bean Fart did quite a bit for the sport as well.Yeah, and the way boxing is going, it might revert to the four round format of Dempsey's California days. (In which case Tyson, Foreman, Lyle, Shavers and Cooney will all be making comebacks. But if four rounds becomes the legal time limit again, at least we'll see them compete more often!)

[mr. magoo]

First of all Bloss, I hope you don't object too strongly to my removal of your dancing emoticon. (Michael Jackson has given me nightmares since I was a kid. I want to see Jerko in the next installment of "Celebrity Boxing" on FOX against Danny Bonaduce.:bbb:!:) The crux of this whole discussion for me is how the Dempsey of Toledo would have done against the Joe Louis who demolished Max Baer and broke Godoy's face in their rematch. Our views on this question are solidly entrenched, and being hashed out for the consideration of undecided others reading this.

Now, I have to admit that I'm rather peeved at ole' Doc Kearns for making his ridiculous one round knockout bet, because we might have seen a peak Dempsey perform for a more extended period of time, in a more calculating manner against Willard, instead of the frenetic latter half of round one he was suddenly compelled to produce.

Big Jess, was like Tex Cobb and George Chuvalo, tough enough to extend first rate competition. Without such rugged individuals, the peak potential of many greats would be reduced to mere speculation. Still, Willard was tough enough to last longer than Fred Fulton's several seconds, and nobody else in boxing at that time might have lasted so long against the beast Dempsey was on that particular day.Yeah, and the way boxing is going, it might revert to the four round format of Dempsey's California days. (In which case Tyson, Foreman, Lyle, Shavers and Cooney will all be making comebacks. But if four rounds becomes the legal time limit again, at least we'll see them compete more often!)

I'd really like to offer you an emoticon of an image that doesn't cause you to wake up screeming in the middle of the night with your sheets soaking wet. Unfortunately, the selection is slim, therefore Michael will have to stay.

:mj

[ChrisPontius]

Once again, it needs to be pointed out that Fleischer identified Ali as history's fastest heavyweight in 1969, hardly the assessment of somebody living excusively in the past (like me).

Which is about the only positive thing he said about a modern fighter. In no way does it undo his ridiculously biased top10 lists.



No, he had something vastly superior. Ringside observations to supplement his unrestricted access to same fight footage and broadcast recordings (some of which he broadcast himself).


That is not superior. Memory is not very trustworthy; film is.


Conn wasn't close to being as brave as Carpentier either, or as tough, or as lethal a puncher. (When it comes to bravery in the boxing ranks, Carpentier's service as an aviator during WW I, Barney Ross's conduct at Guadalcanal, Dempsey's entry into combat at Okinawa, or Schmeling's service as an overaged paratrooper take the cake.)



How is Conn not as tough as Carpentier? Are you trying to suggest that Carpentier (who hurt Dempsey too, by the way) is in any way superior to Conn other than power? Which is pretty irrelevant anyway, since he was a lightheavyweight. Lightheavyweights rarely have the power to impact real heavyweights unless their power is off the charts, which is not the case with Carpentier.

The war duty is a silly argument. Riddick Bowe didn't last 2 days at the Marine corps but his heart inside the ring is as proven as any in history, considering the tremendous beatings he took from Golota without quitting.
And if you want to make the argument, Dempsey ducked his duty of WWI.



Conn didn't have Tunney's power, size, physical strength or toughness. He was also about 25 pounds lighter. Neither did he have Gene's smarts. Tunney would have never tried to knock Louis out the way Conn did.


Well he was a natural lightheavyweight who bulked up a bit so i'd say the 25lbs is a bit exxagarated.


I do agree it was probably Louis's most skillful boxing exhibition, along with the Godoy rematch, but still far more competitive than Dempsey/Gibbons.


I have not seen all rounds of Farr-Louis, but i read that Louis only lost 2 or 3 rounds.


True, Dempsey did have to knock them down several times, because each punch could have sufficient power to be a knockdown punch.


:nut


What I aim to do is measure the accuracy of a given account against the available footage of that event. If they match closely, then I have more confidence in accounts from that same source about matches for which there is no known footage.


Right, but that's the problem. They don't match closely. Johnson a master boxer who keeps distance and uses his jab? Tunney only landing 3 or 4 clean punches on Dempsey in 20 rounds? Willard in terrific shape?
These are all statements from those times and completely incorrect. Hey, can't blame them, they probably didn't know that footage and other historical facts would be available so easy in the future, so why not lie a little to enhance your status?


Yes, and I am not among those who questions Louis's chin. He certainly proved it against Max Baer, Tony Galento, Ezzard Charles, and even Rocky Marciano in his swan song. I do question his balance at times, however, and don't believe he would keep his feet through 15 rounds against Dempsey. My point is that if and when Louis did manage to stun Jack, he would be able to ride out the storm and quickly recover (better than Joe might in the same situation).

Dempsey was the only one to knock out Brennan in K.O. Bill's first 50 fights, and the only one to do it twice. He was the second one to do so in Carl Morris's first 59 bouts (after Lute McCarthy six years earlier). Sam Langford predicted that Dempsey would prevail over Wills if they were ever to square off.

Joe Louis is the greatest heavyweight champion in boxing history. He defended against all worthy opponents. That is not what is being discussed here. The issue is Dempsey at his best against Louis at his best, and my position is that Dempsey would prevail.

Do not overlook the fact that I'm predicting a distance contest, unlike many Dempsey supporters. Nor do I hold Louis/Conn I strongly against Joe, as he did ill advisedly weaken himself by coming in too light for speed, at the persuasion of the press. (Ignoring Blackburn's warnings that he wouldn't be strong under 200 pounds anymore. I don't even hold this too strongly against Louis, as I also agree with Louis and disagree with Blackburn, that one should get up as quickly as possible from a knockdown, lest the count is lost.) No, Dempsey was not a great champion in the sense of actively defending the title against all comers. (Then again, he was the highest paid athlete on Earth in 1925, a year in which he did not defend the title. Why compete when the public is paying more not to compete?)

Anybody who's compared Dempsey's "Championship Fighting" to what limited movie film footage of him is available to scrutinize already knows what Jack was about.

Fair enough.

[dmt]

Wills may very conceivabley have stated that it was not Dempsey's decision to deny him a title shot, however we don't know if Wills was trying to save face by not rocking the boat and making a fuss over it or to what degree Dempsey may or may not have had a say in the issue. You have to remember that in those days, the heavyweight champion of the world was a highly influential position. There may have been a variety of reasons as to why this fight never occured. We can't ignore the fact, however that there was a challenger highly deserving of a title fight, who did not get one.. that's fine. But other champions also failed to meet some challengers. I honestly think u have done the Wills debate to death, but if u can't realise how many lifes could have been possibly lost due to race riots, then i don't know what to say. Bottom line though is Wills's leagacy is also affected by it. I don't know if Wills was trying to save face or not but maybe he was telling the truth. We atleast have enough evidence that Dempsey, atleast twice, tried to arrange this fight, even personally writing articles in the newspaper for a promoter to come up with the fight. Those are not the signs of ducking.

Here are some questions to ask about Dempsey:

1. Did he fight the best of his era? Not always.. Fine

2. Was he an active champion who defended his title often? No

3. Did he often fight men who were of low quality and with poor records? Yes

4. Did he struggle to beat fighters who were limited in skill and physical abilty? Sometimes

5. Was he past his prime at a relatively early age? Yes

6. Did he set any records or acheive any major feats that shaped the world of boxing as we know it? Not really

7. Could he have competed effectively and successfully against champions and contenders of equally competitive or more competitive eras? Maybe

8. In an effort to place him in the top 10, does Dempsey's career acheivemnets exceed those of Ali, Louis, Marciano, Holmes, Lewis, Foreman, Frazier, Holyfield, Tyson, Liston, Patterson, or Johnson? No

Although his name and rather high ticket selling numbers left an impression on certain historians and fans, Dempsey does not offer much in contrast to what many of the other great lineal champions have given to the sport:


Dempsey doesn't meet any of the criteria, nor offers anything of substantial significance.If u r talking about historical significance, then he was the first one to produce the million dollar gate, and det the record for 25 first round knockouts,l the highest by any heavyweight champion. Yes there were alot of weak fighters among these knockouts but also ranked fighters among those 25 first round knockouts. And while many other heavyweights also fought alot of average opponents, no other all time great champion had as many knockouts as Dempsey, only Tyson comes close.

yeah and Dempsey was the only heavyweight champion who failed to meet some good challengers, yet when Wills refuses to meet Tunney , or if Holmes fails to meet Coetzee and Thomas, or something like that then it's acceptable.:good

[mr. magoo]

yeah and Dempsey was the only heavyweight champion who failed to meet some good challengers, yet when Wills refuses to meet Tunney , or if Holmes fails to meet Coetzee and Thomas, or something like that then it's acceptable.:good


Actually, it wasn't considered acceptable. In fact, I already mentioned earlier that Holmes was given holy hell for not fighting Greg Page. At least he was held accountable however, be having his title stripped. nobody ever took Dempsey's belt away for failure to meet a mandatory challenge.

At any rate, these debates are interesting and keep the forum exciting. Think of how boring it would be if we all agreed.

[dmt]

Actually, it wasn't considered acceptable. In fact, I already mentioned earlier that Holmes was given holy hell for not fighting Greg Page. At least he was held accountable however, be having his title stripped. nobody ever took Dempsey's belt away for failure to meet a mandatory challenge.

At any rate, these debates are interesting and keep the forum exciting. Think of how boring it would be if we all agreed.i can agree with that :good

[JIm Broughton]

I want to say Louis but I can't help remembering the Galento fight. Tony decked Joe and definitely hurt him as well and Galento had no hand speed, no foot speed and almost no boxing ability as well. He was a tough portly barroom brawler with a good left hook and that's it. I can't help but think that Dempsey, who was leagues above Galento(and 3xfaster) would win. I'm not saying that it would be a walk in the park by any means but I think style-wise it's a bad matchup for Joe. I'd pick Dempsey but I would'nt bet the farm on it.

[Luigi1985]

I want to say Louis but I can't help remembering the Galento fight. Tony decked Joe and definitely hurt him as well and Galento had no hand speed, no foot speed and almost no boxing ability as well. He was a tough portly barroom brawler with a good left hook and that's it. I can't help but think that Dempsey, who was leagues above Galento(and 3xfaster) would win. I'm not saying that it would be a walk in the park by any means but I think style-wise it's a bad matchup for Joe. I'd pick Dempsey but I would'nt bet the farm on it.


Why are some of you always coming with such strange comparisons? Fireman Jim Flynn beat Dempsey also by 1st round- KO, should we now favour a fighter like Tony Ross, who beat the evil Fireman, to beat Dempsey too? Get what I mean? I favour Louis clearly, I predict a midround- KO...

[Maxmomer]

Dive.

[mr. magoo]

Be kind of hard to bet on Dempsey, unless you really had money to burn.

[Cojimar 1945]

I read an article in which Louis rates Dempsey as the greatest.

[Mendoza]

It would be a great match up. A tempo fighter ( Louis ) vs an helter skelter anti tempo fighter ( Dempsey ).

I think Dempsey had a good style match up here, as he is more aggressive, faster on his feet in a 360 degree direction to get the angles and his balance when throwing or avoiding punches, a bit harder to hit, and in my opinion had the better chin.

Louis threw textbook punches, but he had a low guard, average shuffling feet, and said his one weakness was he hated to be crowded. Such a fighter will have some major problems vs Dempsey. Godoy mauled Louis in the first fight and had no issues getting the better of the in-fighting or bulling Louis to the ropes. Godoy could not hit very hard. Dempsey could.

Best guess is Dempsey wins this fantasy fight in early to mid rounds, though one good right hand from Louis could change his fortunes.

[mcvey]

It would be a great match up. A tempo fighter ( Louis ) vs an helter skelter anti tempo fighter ( Dempsey ).

I think Dempsey had a good style match up here, as he is more aggressive, faster on his feet in a 360 degree direction to get the angles and his balance when throwing or avoiding punches, a bit harder to hit, and in my opinion had the better chin.

Louis threw textbook punches, but he had a low guard, average shuffling feet, and said his one weakness was he hated to be crowded. Such a fighter will have some major problems vs Dempsey. Godoy mauled Louis in the first fight and had no issues getting the better of the in-fighting or bulling Louis to the ropes. Godoy could not hit very hard. Dempsey could.

Best guess is Dempsey wins this fantasy fight in early to mid rounds, though one good right hand from Louis could change his fortunes.
Much as it pains me ,I find myself in complete agreement ,Dempsey inside 2. Once inside Jack goes to work before Louis gets into his rythmn,got to watch those uppercuts though.

[janitor]

I would pick Louis hear.

The reason?

Dempsey is going to be coming forward and Louis will be looking to use his forward momentum against him. This puts Dempsey in a verry dangerous position.

Having said that I would not be surprized at all if Dempsey overwealmed him. This is honestly an anything can happen fight.

Another important factor is what fight plan each guy implements.

If I was in Louis's corner I would tell him not to take a step forward and to back up just enough to keep Dempsey walking into his combos.

I would advise Dempsey to make good use of lateral movment to set up counters on Louis and then switch his attack to the inside when he had him hurt.

[ChrisPontius]

Having said that I would not be surprized at all if Dempsey overwealmed him. This is honestly an anything can happen fight.


You mean overwhelmed asin knocked out early? I don't think that will happen. Louis is just too much of a skilled, talented and fast handed veteran for that.

[mr. magoo]

You mean overwhelmed asin knocked out early? I don't think that will happen. Louis is just too much of a skilled, talented and fast handed veteran for that.

I think janitor initially picked Louis to win the fight. I didn't quite understand the wording of that sentence either, but I don't think he favours Dempsey.

[janitor]

You mean overwhelmed asin knocked out early?

No I just mean got to him somewhere down the stretch.

Incidentaly I would not advise Dempsey to go for an early knockout. I think that is precisely the scenario that Louis would be drilled to exploit.

[janitor]

I think janitor initially picked Louis to win the fight. I didn't quite understand the wording of that sentence either, but I don't think he favours Dempsey.

Yes I pick Louis to win.

Just with less confidence than some.

[Duodenum]

No I just mean got to him somewhere down the stretch.

Incidentaly I would not advise Dempsey to go for an early knockout. I think that is precisely the scenario that Louis would be drilled to exploit.I expect that Joe would stand up to Jack's Sunday Punch early, just as Gibbons did. Like he did in Shelby, Dempsey would immediately make the mental adjustment to box for the longer haul. Romantic notions aside, this isn't something likely to end in the opening scheduled rounds.

[Marciano Frazier]

A few things to take into account:

In 1946, the #1 contender was Tami Maurrielo. Elmer Ray was the #2 contender.

Joe Louis fought Mauriello (on top of a rematch in which he knocked Conn out in 8) and knocked him out inside of one round.

Then the next year, 1947, Jersey Joe Walcott had beaten Elmer Ray.
And in the proces, he took the #1 ranked contender position and Elmer Ray remained the #2 contender. So Joe Louis took on Walcott.

What can Louis be blamed for? Fighting the #1 contender consistently? Walcott had just beaten Ray, or to put it in ESB terms, "he had exposed Ray".
A slight correction here- actually, Ray was #1 contender for Louis' title from December of '46 through February of '47, according to the newspaper and RING magazine rankings. And he was in the top 2 contenders for the championship for a solid two-and-a-half years straight. It is also true that while Louis was on tour in 1945-46, Ray was the one fighter he outright refused to meet in an exhibition match, citing the reasoning that Ray "couldn't take it easy"/"didn't know how to fight an exhibition" and one of them would get hurt. Ray's first fight with Charles was originally intended to serve as a title eliminator, but Ray never got the shot, purportedly for not winning convincingly enough.
All that said, had Ray won the rematch with Walcott and maintained his #1 contender status, I have no doubt he would have been given the shot in Walcott's stead. That is, although they seem to have been wary of him, I'm sure that when push came to shove, Louis/his management would have given Ray a shot. It was never a situation like having a pressing, outstanding #1 contender for your championship who holds that position for several years and is never given a shot.

Louis couldn't meet a few of them due to limited times (WWII) but fought the best of them in Walcott and knocked him out after a struggle in their first fight.
Louis should've lost the first Walcott fight, but it was a courageous move that showed integrity to give him an immediate rematch like that, and a great accomplishment to win it.


On the Braddock fight, i would hardly say Louis struggled with him. He suffered a flash knockdown in round one. Probably nervous, his first title fight, only 23 years old. Outside of that knockdown he gave Braddock a severe beating, being the only man the really knock him out (and he got plenty of beatings during his career). He was unconscious for a minute or so.
Eh, actually, the fight was fairly close on the scorecards before Louis knocked Braddock out. Don't get me wrong- he was clearly in charge at that point and the better man that evening, but one could reasonably say that Louis "struggled" at least a bit, since Braddock did have him down(even for a flash-count) and win at least a couple rounds, keeping it close prior to the knockout.

I lean towards Louis in this match-up, but I think you're being one-sided in this thread and not giving Dempsey his just dues. Fighters with Dempsey's type of style were absolutely capable of giving Louis all kinds of problems, and a guy with Dempsey's kind of power and skill has a serious chance against anyone. Louis didn't have a granite jaw, wasn't as quick on his feet or maneuverable as Dempsey, and could potentially be thrown off his rhythm/gameplan by Dempsey's much more herky-jerkey pacing and unusual angles. That said, I do judge Louis to have been the better overall fighter, and think he probably would be able to overcome these stylistic difficulties if he utilized his jab and straight right and fought a smart strategical match.

[janitor]

A slight correction here- actually, Ray was #1 contender for Louis' title from December of '46 through February of '47, according to the newspaper and RING magazine rankings. And he was in the top 2 contenders for the championship for a solid two-and-a-half years straight. It is also true that while Louis was on tour in 1945-46, Ray was the one fighter he outright refused to meet in an exhibition match, citing the reasoning that Ray "couldn't take it easy"/"didn't know how to fight an exhibition" and one of them would get hurt. Ray's first fight with Charles was originally intended to serve as a title eliminator, but Ray never got the shot, purportedly for not winning convincingly enough.


Incidentaly Ray would have been a far less dangerous challenger for Louis than Walcott.

Louis knocked Ray out in two seperate exhibitions after he retired. It seems that Ray tried to knock Louis out to make a name for himself and came of second best.

[ChrisPontius]

A slight correction here- actually, Ray was #1 contender for Louis' title from December of '46 through February of '47, according to the newspaper and RING magazine rankings. And he was in the top 2 contenders for the championship for a solid two-and-a-half years straight. It is also true that while Louis was on tour in 1945-46, Ray was the one fighter he outright refused to meet in an exhibition match, citing the reasoning that Ray "couldn't take it easy"/"didn't know how to fight an exhibition" and one of them would get hurt. Ray's first fight with Charles was originally intended to serve as a title eliminator, but Ray never got the shot, purportedly for not winning convincingly enough.
All that said, had Ray won the rematch with Walcott and maintained his #1 contender status, I have no doubt he would have been given the shot in Walcott's stead. That is, although they seem to have been wary of him, I'm sure that when push came to shove, Louis/his management would have given Ray a shot. It was never a situation like having a pressing, outstanding #1 contender for your championship who holds that position for several years and is never given a shot.


Louis should've lost the first Walcott fight, but it was a courageous move that showed integrity to give him an immediate rematch like that, and a great accomplishment to win it.



Eh, actually, the fight was fairly close on the scorecards before Louis knocked Braddock out. Don't get me wrong- he was clearly in charge at that point and the better man that evening, but one could reasonably say that Louis "struggled" at least a bit, since Braddock did have him down(even for a flash-count) and win at least a couple rounds, keeping it close prior to the knockout.

I lean towards Louis in this match-up, but I think you're being one-sided in this thread and not giving Dempsey his just dues. Fighters with Dempsey's type of style were absolutely capable of giving Louis all kinds of problems, and a guy with Dempsey's kind of power and skill has a serious chance against anyone. Louis didn't have a granite jaw, wasn't as quick on his feet or maneuverable as Dempsey, and could potentially be thrown off his rhythm/gameplan by Dempsey's much more herky-jerkey pacing and unusual angles. That said, I do judge Louis to have been the better overall fighter, and think he probably would be able to overcome these stylistic difficulties if he utilized his jab and straight right and fought a smart strategical match.

Fair enough. :good

[Vockerman]

If anyone remembers this quote from Joe Louis, this should settle the question:

"I had a bad weakness I kept hid throughout my career. I didn't like to be crowded, and Marciano always crowded his opponents. That's why I say I could never have beaten him."

If he thought Rocky crowded him what is he gonna do with Dempsey’s teeth in his throat?

Hype Igoe, a famous old-time boxing writer, who saw Jim Jeffries, Bob Fitzsimmons, James Corbett, and Jack Johnson, as well as Dempsey and Louis all in or near their prime years said the following: Dempsey would "have nailed him (Louis) with a left hook and finished him in the first round."
Igoe explains why he would favor Dempsey. "The Toledo Dempsey would have swept away any living man out of his path and the slow starting Louis would never have got started against Jack. He would have been belted so hard and so fast that he would have gone down early. A counter puncher never had a chance against Dempsey.”

Louis was never comfortable against fighters who fought from a crouch and he was vulnerable to right hands. Dempsey fought from a crouch and Dempsey’s right was a lot better than Max Schmeling's.

Louis is an awesome fighter and I DO have him ranked very highly, but this is a stylistic nightmare for him, perhaps the very WORST.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Marciano Frazier]

Incidentaly Ray would have been a far less dangerous challenger for Louis than Walcott.

Louis knocked Ray out in two seperate exhibitions after he retired. It seems that Ray tried to knock Louis out to make a name for himself and came of second best. You're being unreasonable to imply that those exhibitions are even anything close to an accurate representation of what would have happened when those two were in or near their primes. Ray was utterly shot and lost to Kid Riviera and John Holman within weeks of those exhibitions. And, also incidentally, I know of at least one other exhibition in that time period in which Ray fought a hard six rounds with Louis, rocked him and took him to what most papers considered would have been a draw.