1951 Joe Louis vs 1919 Jess Willard and 1923 Luis Firpo 12 rounds

Could you?

 

Who considers Carnera better than Willard ?

 

Everyone on here pretty much on the basis of his skillset and resume, start a poll if you wish

 

All I can say for the people picking the most washed up version of Louis to stop Firpo is that shows very little faith in the power of Harry Wills, who couldn't put Firpo away in 12 rounds.

 

Carnera was underrated in his own time really with all the fixed fights talk, he wasn't a bad boxer and people usually rate the previous generation better

 

I understand where you are coming from.

Carnera was actualy a prety good technician, and had heart, but everything else didn't quite work as it might have.

Willard punched like an ox, and had a chin like an anvil, but his big fighter technique was basic if effective.

Lets face it though, either of these guys was a horible proposition for a sub 200lb fighter.

 

Carnera didn't take a punch as well as Willard, imo.
Willard was immensely durable.


It's weird how some people here go to all kinds of lengths to suggest that Dempsey and everyone he fought were ****.


Yeah, I reckon a 37 year old Louis would beat Willard and Firpo. But it wouldn't be in 3 and 2 rounds. These would be long drawn-out affairs.

 

One attribute that Firpo and Willard had was toughness. An old Louis beats them on points.

 

Without looking up I believe 2 obscure sub 200lb fighters beat Willard prior to him facing Johnson

I'd go with the first statement although Carnera was tested against far more top contenders than Willard was, who's resume is very thin on the ground

 

LR,a stroke of genius ! On one hand Harry Wills instilled fear into Dempsey, posters say...On the other hand Wills couldn't stop the "crude"
Firpo in 12 rounds, but a washed up 37 year old Joe Louis, sans a right hand,would stop a bullish Firpo, says very LITTLE about Harry Wills...Bravo!

 

Ok, I'll try again...So this version of Harry Wills in his thirties ,would have beaten a prime Jack Dempsey who was 6 years younger than Harry Wills.?
This version of Harry Wills lost to both Jack Sharkey and Paolino Uzcudun
so there is no reason that a prime younger Dempsey wouldn't have beaten any version of Harry Wills...Style, style, style...
P.S. Of course Harry Wills DESERVED a chance for the title against Jack Dempsey ..Darn right ! But circumstances of that era prevented his getting a shot at the HW crown, just as much that a Charley Burley, Holman Williams also never got the break they deserved...Life is not fair !

 

I would pick Louis to win both bouts, at the very least by wide decisions. Possibly Louis scores later round KO's.

 

Are you saying that Louis lost his power? I'm not so sure that the power had faded in 1951. I think it was more a case of reduced delivery speed and timing, resulting in fewer deadly rights reaching their target.

Willard and Firpo, however, would have been wide open to almost anything that the aging Louis threw at them.

 

I agree. I'm not sold on the idea that Louis was "shot" either when facing Marciano. Clearly past his best, but not shot. He was still able to get shots off, and was still a very powerful man. Only the best at that time would beat him, which was proven by Louis's high ranking.