Who beat better competition Louis or Dempsey?

SuzieQ49 · Jul 29, 2015

Thoughts

mr. magoo · Jul 29, 2015

Dempsey. He was past prime and beat a prime sharkey while a prime Louis beat a past prime Sharkey.

janitor · Jul 29, 2015

Louis takes it on volume, but qualitatively they are comparable.

SuzieQ49 · Jul 29, 2015

janitor said: ↑

Louis takes it on volume, but qualitatively they are comparable.
Click to expand...

Qualitatively? What does that even mean?

If you mean quality, Dempsey did not beat anyone the quality of billy conn jersey Joe Walcott Max Baer and max Schmeling. That's 4 fighters Louis beat who is better than anyone Dempsey Beat.

Louis clearly takes the quality

Louis also fought his top contenders in two different eras. Dempsey couldn't find time to fight his top 2 contenders in just one era. Every man he defended his title against, did not deserve a title shot over Greb or Wills

Big Ukrainian · Jul 29, 2015

SuzieQ49 said: ↑

Thoughts
Click to expand...

SuzieQ49, you re kidding?

Louis, and it's not even close.

Louis beat 6 different lineal champions, had 26 wins in title fights, beat 30 or so TOP-10 fighters.

Now compare to Dempsey - 2 lineal champions, 6 title fight wins etc.

janitor · Jul 29, 2015

SuzieQ49 said: ↑

Qualitatively? What does that even mean?

If you mean quality, Dempsey did not beat anyone the quality of billy conn jersey Joe Walcott Max Baer and max Schmeling. That's 4 fighters Louis beat who is better than anyone Dempsey Beat.

Louis clearly takes the quality
Click to expand...

Full Definition of QUALITATIVE

: of, relating to, or involving quality or kind

qual·i·ta·tive·ly adverb

They both beat the previous, and subsequent lineal champions. Louis had the advantage that the title had changed hands more times, in the year prior to him winning the title.

In the period between beating their predecessors, and successors as lineal champion, they both beat similar kinds of contenders. They both had a mix of boxer, puncher, big small.

That is why I see their opposition as being similar.

Louis also fought his top contenders in two different eras. Dempsey couldn't find time to fight his top 2 contenders in just one era. Every man he defended his title against, did not deserve a title shot over Greb or Wills
Click to expand...

This is highly debatable, and many people questioned it at the time.
Click to expand...

SuzieQ49 · Jul 29, 2015

janitor said: ↑

Full Definition of QUALITATIVE

: of, relating to, or involving quality or kind

qual·i·ta·tive·ly adverb

They both beat the previous, and subsequent lineal champions. Louis had the advantage that the title had changed hands more times, in the year prior to him winning the title.

In the period between beating their predecessors, and successors as lineal champion, they both beat similar kinds of contenders. They both had a mix of boxer, puncher, big small.

That is why I see their opposition as being similar.

This is highly debatable, and many people questioned it at the time.
Click to expand...

Previous...Ok except

1. Louis defeated 4 previous linear champs Carnera Baer Schmeling Braddock. Willard nowhere near as good as Schmeling and Baer. Dempsey never beat Jack Johnson either.

Subsequent. Ok except

1. Walcott is clearly better than Sharkey. Better skills, better defense, better jab, better feints, better footwork, harder hitter with both hands, better movement.

2. Louis knocked out Walcott with no controversy. Dempseys knockout over Sharkey is controversial. When your best win comes after controversy over a low blow, it definitely takes some sting away from the win. When you watch Louis knockout of Walcott, you get chills it was so sweet.

3. Sharkey was lucky to win the title in the first place. That decision over Schmeling is one of the worst most disgusting robberies I have ever watched in ring history! I don't give Sharkey credit for that win at all. Sharkey also lost his crown in embarrassing fashion to a circuis clown. Sharkey was a poor champion who was very lucky to win the belt by receiving the worst decision in boxing history

You talk about quality

My argument is Joe Louis defeated 4 men who were better than any single man Dempsey beat. Walcott, Baer, Conn Schmeling. Dempsey did not beat anyone as good as those guys. Even if you add Jack Sharkey to that group, Louis still holds the clear 4 to 1 edge. Again Louis demonstrating superior quality.

You say Louis had the advantage of the title changing hands. I say Dempsey had the advantage of facing a 37 year old out of shape champion who hadn't fought in 4 years. That had to be one of the worst versions of any champion who ever existed.

Dempsey had plenty of opportunity like Louis to fight the previous generations best. He turned down a Sam Langford fight in 1916, ran out of the ring against Joe Jeanette in 1918, and ducked Harry Wills for 7 years.

You say they beat similar contenders. How? Louis fought his number 1 contenders and most deserving fights. Dempsey fought the bottom feeders and losers of title eliminators. This is a fact Ben. Terminally ill Miske, signs to fight Brennan the day after wills destroys Fulton, fights gibbons after he loses 10 rounds to 0 to Greb.

You say boxers. Whom did Dempsey ever beat as skilled as billy conn max Schmeling and Walcott? What quality like that does Dempsey have on his resume? What skilled mover did Dempsey beat equivalent to a Conn? What great counterpuncher did Dempsey defeat on the level of Schmeling? Who did Dempsey beat with footwork head movement skills and a punch like Walcott?

You say punchers. What puncher did Dempsey beat on the level of a max Baer? Please for the love of god don't say Firpo

So you attempt to say there opposition was similar despite Louis beating much better fighters, much more contenders, beating boxers a class above the ones Dempsey beat, beating punchers above the class Dempsey beat, and defeating his top contenders while Dempsey never fought his?
Click to expand...

SuzieQ49 · Jul 29, 2015

This is highly debatable, and many people questioned it at the time.
Click to expand...

How is this highly debatable? Harry Greb literally beat the snot out of 3/4 of dempseys title challengers. Harry Wills whipped he best contenders/hall of famers of Willards era , then proceeded to dominate some of dempseys best victims, all while owning the number 1 spot by a landslide for a period of at least 6 years.

Wills and Greb were so far above the rest of dempseys title challengers it's laughable how the others even got title shots

Seamus · Jul 29, 2015

Louis by a country mile.

Seamus · Jul 29, 2015

janitor said: ↑

Louis takes it on volume, but qualitatively they are comparable.
Click to expand...

They are not even close. Please, give me Dempsey's best 5 pelts.

Entaowed · Jul 29, 2015

Right not remotely close.

Louis loist 3 & 1/2 prime years due to the war & still did so much more than Dempsey. much more dedicated work ethic.

It seems indisputable that there are great questions & limitations to Dempsey's opposition.

Others not mentioned like Godoy & Buddy Baer would be good Dempsey scalps.

BCS8 · Jul 30, 2015

This Marciano vs Dempsey rivalry has been quite entertaining and informative :good

janitor · Jul 30, 2015

SuzieQ49 said: ↑

janitor said: ↑

Previous...Ok except

1. Louis defeated 4 previous linear champs Carnera Baer Schmeling Braddock. Willard nowhere near as good as Schmeling and Baer. Dempsey never beat Jack Johnson either.
Click to expand...

The lineal title had changed hands more times in the years leading up to Louis's title reign. Presumably you don't expect Dempsey to go after Hart and Burns?

Subsequent. Ok except

1. Walcott is clearly better than Sharkey. Better skills, better defense, better jab, better feints, better footwork, harder hitter with both hands, better movement.

2. Louis knocked out Walcott with no controversy. Dempseys knockout over Sharkey is controversial. When your best win comes after controversy over a low blow, it definitely takes some sting away from the win. When you watch Louis knockout of Walcott, you get chills it was so sweet.
Click to expand...

I think that there is a good argument for saying that Louis's first decision win over Walcott, was more controversial than Dempsey's knockout of Sharkey.

3. Sharkey was lucky to win the title in the first place. That decision over Schmeling is one of the worst most disgusting robberies I have ever watched in ring history! I don't give Sharkey credit for that win at all. Sharkey also lost his crown in embarrassing fashion to a circuis clown. Sharkey was a poor champion who was very lucky to win the belt by receiving the worst decision in boxing history
Click to expand...

You could equally argue that he was unlucky to loose the title to Schmeling in the previous encounter.

Either way, Sharkey was the best heavyweight in the world after Tunney retiring.

You talk about quality

My argument is Joe Louis defeated 4 men who were better than any single man Dempsey beat. Walcott, Baer, Conn Schmeling. Dempsey did not beat anyone as good as those guys. Even if you add Jack Sharkey to that group, Louis still holds the clear 4 to 1 edge. Again Louis demonstrating superior quality.
Click to expand...

That is more an edge in quantity isn't it?

The point is that they were beating the same kind of opposition, at the same stages of their career.

while Louis was champion, many people compared his opposition unfavorably to Dempsey's.

We are just used to coming at the issue, from the opposite direction.

You say Louis had the advantage of the title changing hands. I say Dempsey had the advantage of facing a 37 year old out of shape champion who hadn't fought in 4 years. That had to be one of the worst versions of any champion who ever existed.
Click to expand...

You might argue that, but people looking at the prospective fight at the time say a massive size disparity, and didn't think Dempsey was lucky at all.

In fact Willard asked for assurances that he would not be prosecuted if he killed Dempsey, literally not metaphorically.

Dempsey had plenty of opportunity like Louis to fight the previous generations best. He turned down a Sam Langford fight in 1916, ran out of the ring against Joe Jeanette in 1918, and ducked Harry Wills for 7 years.
Click to expand...

That is more like criticizing Louis for not fighting George Godfrey or Larry Gains.

You say they beat similar contenders. How? Louis fought his number 1 contenders and most deserving fights. Dempsey fought the bottom feeders and losers of title eliminators. This is a fact Ben. Terminally ill Miske, signs to fight Brennan the day after wills destroys Fulton, fights gibbons after he loses 10 rounds to 0 to Greb.

You say boxers. Whom did Dempsey ever beat as skilled as billy conn max Schmeling and Walcott? What quality like that does Dempsey have on his resume? What skilled mover did Dempsey beat equivalent to a Conn? What great counterpuncher did Dempsey defeat on the level of Schmeling? Who did Dempsey beat with footwork head movement skills and a punch like Walcott?

You say punchers. What puncher did Dempsey beat on the level of a max Baer? Please for the love of god don't say Firpo

So you attempt to say there opposition was similar despite Louis beating much better fighters, much more contenders, beating boxers a class above the ones Dempsey beat, beating punchers above the class Dempsey beat, and defeating his top contenders while Dempsey never fought his?
Click to expand...

Again, this is all your interpretation.

It is OK to like Louis's opponents better, but you cannot simply assume that they are better.

If you do that, then you are no different to the people who wrote them off at the time, in favor of Dempsey'd opposition.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

janitor · Jul 30, 2015

SuzieQ49 said: ↑

How is this highly debatable? Harry Greb literally beat the snot out of 3/4 of dempseys title challengers. Harry Wills whipped he best contenders/hall of famers of Willards era , then proceeded to dominate some of dempseys best victims, all while owning the number 1 spot by a landslide for a period of at least 6 years.

Wills and Greb were so far above the rest of dempseys title challengers it's laughable how the others even got title shots
Click to expand...

My point is that not everybody thought so at the time.

There were people who accused doc Kearns, of cynically building up Harry Wills as a credible opponent for Dempsey, so that he could cash out by beating him.

There were newspapers arguing for Dempsey to fight other contenders instead.

Not everybody saw these men as standouts.

Webbiano · Jul 30, 2015

Imagine Vitali Klitschko coming back in a years time to fight a young Cruiserweight champ, or light heavyweight champ. Then ask yourself who do you think would be expected to win?

Log in or Sign up

Who beat better competition Louis or Dempsey?

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

Big Ukrainian Boxing Junkie Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Entaowed Boxing Addict banned Full Member

BCS8 VIP Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Webbiano Boxing Junkie Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Who beat better competition Louis or Dempsey?

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

Big Ukrainian Boxing Junkie Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Entaowed Boxing Addict banned Full Member

BCS8 VIP Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Webbiano Boxing Junkie Full Member