Jack Dempsey vs Joe Louis in Punching Power

Maybe a ferocity edge to Dempsey and a technicality edge to Louis? I'm not sure how that all pans out to overall power, though... :huh

 

I don't know how you can say they are wrong or right ... Dempsey's big pre-title wins are not on film nor is there any significant film of those opponents. Dempsey's title reign was decent at best but plagued by inactivity and avoiding the two most challenging opponents, Wills and Greb ... I have been writing here for years Dempsey is a fighter that is impossible to qualify based on substanciated fact ... to say he was better or not than Louis is truly a guess at best ... if you had to go on footage to me it is a leap of faith ...

 

Egad, how in hell did i get in another shootout with you ? I was in a sparring match with MBP, and I was correcting his wrong assumption that
experts [notice i'm deleting their names] are not considered primary though they all had seen the prime Dempsey, but in his MBP view he is the TRUE PRIMARY source.! Funny if it was in jest. You M entered the picture ,and now I am in a debate again with you about a different subject. Yipes !
I to clear the record, have stated that Ali's opponents with some exceptions,were the best group of contenders ,a champion FACED. Why am I not credited with my statement. Must I repeat it as a litany every day.?
That being said, I also have stated than no fighter in history picks their
time of birth, and the ERA they started fighting. Passion in the bedroom determines that, I've heard. But I believe that their are fighters who transcend their era, and because of styles and unique qualities, would beat champions of other era's superior to there's. Thus I believe Joe Louis, at his best {Baer, Schmeling #2] would have caught up with and kod any version of Ali, were they to have fought at their peaks. This Joe Louis
was literally a punching machine at his peak.You might outbox him for awhile, but as night follows day Louis would eventually find you and hurt you, and sayonara to anyone he hits, incluyding Ali, who incidentally never met a Gatling Gun puncher hurling clusters of punches at him, with precise accuracy. Sooner or later Louis catches up to you.Check the Baer fight. He was unreal.!
Mc ,did I ever say Dempsey's resume was as good as Ali's or Joe Louis, for the most part ? Never, so have I said that. NEVER. So why the angst ?
Dempsey did go 23-0 from 1919 -23, but his self imposed 3 year layoff
hurt his legacy. Were he alive today ,I am sure he would admit it, but he would do it again,being rich, banging all the flappers of the silent day screen in Hollywood. Who the hell could blame him ? I can't... His big mistake was taking a 3 year layoff, dumping Jack Kearns, his wise mentor and manager,and agreeing to fight Gene Tunney, WITHOUT any tune-up
fights. In short a recipe for disaster. But old, slow as a sloth at the age of about 32, this shell of the Duran like prime Dempsey, Jack floored Tunney with a 5-6 punch barrage,and almost kod Tunney in the controversial long count, as we know. Dempsey also as we know caught up and weakened a
prime 25 year old Jack Sharkey in the 7th round in 1927.
So Mc, I agree with you that Louis and Ali for the most part had tougher resumes than Dempsey had, but I still insist that H2h ,and at his peak I
would put my dough on Dempsey,because of his UNIQUE style, combining great handspeed and power,along with a do or die attitude never surpassed
by a heavyweight. Peace....

 

I think they both hit with about the same power but thier delivery was different. Louis was more textbook while Dempsey was more wild and free swinging with his punches. It's too close to call. I wouldn't want to get hit by either one.

 

gj, Yes I agree with you about Joe Louis,was the best"textbook" heavyweight ever. Beautiful to behold his perfectly levereged punching style. Never equaled by a heavyweight ! But I have to disagree with you on
your describing Dempsey as a wild free swinging puncher. This description
is based on his fight with Big Jess Willard in 1919, when Dempsey knowing that his manager bet a tremendous amount of money,that Dempsey would win by a FIRST ROUND KO. So aware of this fact ,Dempsey went ALL OUT
in a blazing Toledo afternoon sun trying for the 1st round ko.It was over
100 degrees heat at ringside. This situation and the fact that Dempsey had to PUNCH UP to reach Willard's chin,made Dempsey look unlike his true style of close attack,where he needed less than a foot to explode on his
opponents body and chin.I once read an account of his fight where Dempsey with short powerful punches destroyed Fred Fulton in less than a round. Just watch the 2nd round in the Firpo fight where Dempsey in a burst of in close power flattens big Firpo with a short one-two combination
that the camera can hardle catch, but we see the result's of Firpo on the floor dead to the world. Dempsey had fast hands and enormous two handed power from less than a foot distance. I of course have never seen THIS prime Dempsey [except a few clips], but I take heed of what I have read lo these many years, from historians who saw this Dempsey and raved about him. Take care....Funny, the same detractors of Dempsey who claim
that what they see today of available film of the prime Dempsey,doesn't
convince them as they "have to see with their own eyes, to be convinced", but tout a Joe Gans, a Sam Langford's greatness on even less film.
To my eyes this doesn't make sense at all. :good

 

While you all make great posts i will go by what Nat Fleischer had to say: "You put Dempsey and Louis in a telephone booth together and Jack would be the only one who came out alive."
My God, Dempsey had five (5) fights in 1919 before he demolished Willard on Julu 4th in Toledo Ohio...he won them all by KO in the 1st round.
He KO's #2 contender Fred Fulton in 1918 (6'4", 220 lbs) in 17 seconds, which included 10 seconds to count him out.
Dempsey was a beast in his prime.

 

I stand corrected. Burt you're right about Dempsey's ability to throw short powerful punches. I forgot about the Firpo fight. Jack decked Firpo after freeing his arm from a clinch and whippng a short hook on Firpoo's jaw. And let's not forget the combo that put Tunney on his keester. 5 compact fast shots that landed on a sagging Tunney in about one and a half seconds. How the hell did I forget this? Dempsey was a beast and is probably my all time favorite HW champ. They don't make 'em like that anymore.

 

gj,NO they don't make them like that anymore, because he was unique.
Young Jack Dempsey had no safety net as a youth. Leaving his birth state Colorado alone after the 8th grade, traveling solo from town to Western town on the UNDERCARRIAGE of freight trains,holding on to the chassis
to avoid detection from the RR detectives,going from town to town in your teens challenging bar inhabitants for a fight winner take all,put a veneer of
sheer toughness and resolve,probably never seen in a heavyweight before or since. So gj, we can see what drove Jack Dempsey to be so damn fierce in the ring. Couple this background with a perfect physique for a heavyweight. Dempsey was described as having "fast twitching muscles",
with a large upper frame atop a narrow waist, thus accounting for his 185-95 pounds. Yep ,they DON'T make them like that anymore,as you so
aptly described...Cheers, jg....

 

Recently read "A Flame of Pure Fire" by Roger Kahn about the life of Jack Dempsey, Great book Burt. If you haven't read it yet I would suggest giving it a go since you're a Dempsey fan like me. If only we could time machine Dempsey into today's HW division and watch him clean house!

 

All five were complete bums though, and I do not use the word lightly. When Foreman fought 5 guys, they were atleast competent boxers who could handle themselves, not local toughmen off the street. LaMar Clark accomplished similar feats.

 

Yes gj I bought the book a couple of years ago. Roger Kahn had known Jack Dempsey for many years until Dempsey's death in 1983. A great read.

 

In the Willard fight Dempsey has pretty compact punching till just before the third knock down -- at that point Jack started loading up because Willard had been rendered open to anything.

My feeling about resume is that it's more the light in which greatness is seen than constitutive of greatness; that's assuming a guy (or gal) is fighting the most qualified challengers. Jack can't be faulted for fighting guys who weren't alive in his time; he may be faulted for inactivity, and one can argue about his not meeting Gred and Wills.

How much weight does one give prime vs longevity? If it were baseball, I'd say an Sandy Koufax vs Walter Johnson arguement would go to Johnson -- both awesome at their best, but Johnson had too many good years.
Dempsey was a fine fighter 1918-1927 -- yes, even the declined fighter of 1926/1927. But there were years he didn't defend, and I have a hard time seeing that he was distinctly better than Louis or Ali, much less to a degree that it would offset the 15 year spans (granted with 3-yr off spells) in which they were fine heavyweights.
I do think highly of Dempsey; I usually have him in the top half-dozen when I ponder ATG heavyweights. I feel compelled to put him behind Louis and Ali, but would not rank him distinctly behind anyone else.

----------

Louis/Dempsey punching: I think I'd put Louis a bit ahead as a KO puncher, but Dempsey was perhaps a bit better at beating people up when that was his aim.