Dempsey - Louis prime for prime

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.

 

Dempsey had the better chin, faster feet and was more [FONT=&quot]maneuverable[/FONT], 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.

 

Louis by TKO

 

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

I disagree with the outcome, however.

 

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

 

Just some notes on your analysis:

Yes, although Dempsey's real Sunday punch was the left, not the right/

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 was probably more fleet-footed than Louis, but Louis is definitely the faster-handed.

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.

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.

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.

Possibly, but I still think this should be listed among Louis' advantages.

 

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.

 

Fair.

 

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 ******ed and any poster with his list on this board would (rightfully) be shred to pieces:

Nat Fleischer, Founder of Ring Magazine, 1958.

1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Jim Corbett
6. Joe Louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schemling
10. Rocky Marciano

This 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 **** 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.