1950 Joe Louis vs Dempsey's big men

What 210-plus fighters was Louis beating in that time to show he was still adept against that kind of opponent?

 

When was that? The only time I ever heard of them getting together was in a couple of exhibitions prior to Joe making his comeback.

But we're not talking about how they'd do against a quality prime big man. You're talking about they'd do against a quality past-prime big man. Which is exactly what Willard beat to get his title.

No, Willard had just KO'd contender Floyd Johnson a couple months earlier, which made him one fight away from a rematch with Dempsey.

No, he also beat leading contender Carl Morris and is credited with besting Willard in an exhibition.

 

In 51 Louis, had 8 fights , he won 7 scoring 3 stoppages, a ko in 6 over Savold ,who was himself 36 years old, a tko on cuts over Beshore 28-10-1,and a 10rd ko over Andy Walker 17-8-7.
I dont think Louis had much thunder left by then.
Louis had 2 exhibitions with Valdes,in Jan 49,and Feb 50,according to Louis' autobiography, both went the 4rds scheduled.
Of the three stoppages Beshore was 5' 9'', conceding 18 1/2 pounds.

Walker had had 31 fights when he fought Louis and won 21 of them, being stopped 4 times,after the Louis fight he had a further
11 fights and lost them all, 4 by stoppage.
Savold was as far past his best as Louis was,imo.
My point is, Louis was no longer stopping class men who were in their prime .[Savold was 36].
A prime or near prime Louis , with a 20lbs weight advantage, would not be taken 10rds by Agramonte twice, neither would Walker have survived into the 10th.

 

Louis would beat them, a class above those club fighters old or not

 

I think Dempsey's entirely overrated, however I recognize his skillset and the impact he made. Thus he still remains in my top 10 HW list. As time goes by, though, he starts to slide a bit. Old time writers seem to give him leeway or rank him high. I guess he was their hero, either way I don't see any justification for ranking him in your top 3.

As for this subject, I don't know to be frank. Maybe Firpo? That's still a stretch of a maybe.

 

The Louis who fought Marciano is not the one who fought Valdez, but yet you brought that fight up.

Why? Just because Willard lost to a peak Dempsey? What young, peak HW great did Louis show he was capable of beating at this stage?

It already DID make him a contender. That's the facts. You can't change history just because you don't "agree" with it.

And moreover, it doesn't excuse you for posting a blatant untruth by claiming the fight never happened.

He still was a legit leading contender then, no matter how many excuses/spins you try to make.

And unless you've seen him fight around that time, you have no business dismissing him as just a "punching bag" then.

Assuming he did beat Louis, I would expect it would be with the same attributes he's reported as using in his other wins, ie: a jab, boxing ability, power.

Seeing as you're the one who "counted" exhibitions in the first place, why did you discount Fulton's exhibition with Willard?

 

That's exactly what you did to other fighters in your previous post.

This is another case of you selectively emphasizing things to fit your viewpoint. If you wanted to, you could just as easily belittle Savold by dismissing him as being a 30-something year old "punching bag" who was only a couple fights away from retiring. But now because you're looking to give Joe Louis credit, you go in the other direction and build him up.

 

My point Suzie was that you referred to Louis as" hulking" and how would anyone" outslug him".
At that stage of Louis ring career ,he was not capable of outslugging the young turks of the division.Savold was 36.past his best ,his best win was not over Woodcock,but over the man who ruined Woodcock ,Joe Baksi.Baksi floored Woodcock 5 times in 7 rds for a stoppage win, it was a slaughter.
Savold managed a dec over Baksi in 44 ,two further fights with him that year saw him lose both,the second fight had the scorecards 10-2 9-3 and 11-1,Savold was not in it.
Even at his best Savold was never a really top fighter,and 7 years later , when he fought Louis he was past it, out side of the Uk , no one took the BBBof C's claim of a Heavyweight title seriously and it soon died a death.
Inflating Louis's win over Savold wont cut it, contemporary accounts of the fight stressed Savold was past his best ,and only the dearth of live young contenders enabled him to acheive his high ranking.
Woodcock himself only got his rating because of a dubious dsq win over Savold and a win over Lee Oma which was named "Oma, Coma ,Aroma" ,by Peter Wilson.
Savold had been kod in 2 rds by Elmer Ray in 46 , chucked out for stalling with Arturo Godoy the same year, he was a fighter in decline, when he fought Louis he had had one fight in 4 years, the 4 rd stoppage over Woodcock.