If you put a gun to my head I would pick Louis to win, but no money is going down. You have two of the best finishers in history going at it, and each has plenty of problems with the other stylistically!
To me he clearly has the better résumé. Ezzard Charles 2* Harold Johnson Joey Maxim 2* Elmer Ray 2* Jimmy Bivins Curtis Sheppard And arguably a win over Joe Louis. To me that's more impressive than Dempsey's. He set the record for oldest HW to win the title (even tho it was broken) And it's only by a place so I don't mind another way.
Dempsey inside 3 rounds.He overwhelms Louis. If Joe gets past the 6th round his chances increase dramatically ,imo.
I am not sure that it was. Walcott arguably had a genuinely weak division, arguably hindered by the world war!
There are only 2 fighters who I would pick over a prime Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey isn't one of them. It would be a a TKO Stoppage in a fairly tense fight.
He also lost twice against Charles. Very good win. He also lost against both of them. Another good win. Sheppard was dangerous but it's not an accomplishement to beat him. Can't tell without full footage. Besides, he lost the rematch. Dempsey had wins over: Gunboat Smith *2 Carl Morris *2 Bill Brennan *2 Fred Fulton Billy Miske *2 Battling Levinsky Jess Willard George Carpentier Tommy Gibbons Luis Firpo Jack Sharkey I don't think it's debatable given how much losses Walcott has against the best competition.
I think Walcott's résumé is still better, regardless of Losses. Consistency is a huge part in being a great fighter, so I can see Dempsey being over it (plus I love Walcott). And both are below Charles anyway, both top 15 HWs.
Tunney on dempsey vs Louis, "both were awesome hitters, dempsey alone was awesome in his ability to take punch after punch and keep coming, and never flinch." I think dempsey was slightly better than even Louis ....the two best
A lot of posters think Louis would beat a young Mike Tyson who was arguably a super Dempsey but lose to regular Dempsey. I don't know, are you one of those?