1950 Joe Louis vs Dempsey's big men

I'm only really familiar with Jesse Willard, who I think Louis would outpoint rather than KO/TKO in 1950. By that point, Joe didn't have the kind of power he had had in the early 1940s when he was at his peak, though his skill and handspeed were still too much for most heavyweights in the division in 1950. I think he'd find Jesse a nice big target, but it took a prime Dempsey to pull a demolition job on Jesse Willard.

 

I'm saying your initial post asked for Louis of 1951, but you've been pointing to fights he had a year or so before that. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Louis was better in early '50 than in late '51, given that he was a year younger and hadn't yet taken that beating from Ezzard Charles.

I didn't ask for "being competitive for a few rounds," I asked for what young great had he beaten. That answer is none, just like for Willard. Getting bludgeoned into defeat in 8 rounds instead of 4 doesn't accomplish anything.

If you want to see it, all you have to do is read any of the reports from that time. They all acknowledge him as being a legit contender.

Here's a random few from the New York Times:

"Floyd Johnson, young Iowa heavyweight, who is rapidly establishing himself as a qualified ring rival for Jack Dempsey and Fred Fulton, veteran Minnesota heavyweight, are scheduled to battle twelve rounds tonight in the Arena A.C., the Fourth Regiment Arrmory, Jersey City, in a contest to determine an opponent for Jess Willard on May 12."

"The interest of boxing fans here and through the country generally will be centred on Jersey City tomorrow night when Fred Fulton, Minnesota heavyweight, and Floyd Johnson, Iowa's ambitious contender for Jack Dempsey's crown, exchange blows in a twelve-round bout at the Arena A.C., the Fourth Regiment Armory."

"The most important heavyweight bout of the indoor season thus far will be staged at Madison Square Garden tonight, when Floyd Johnson of Iowa and Jack Renault of Canada meet in a fifteen-round battle to a decision. Johnson and Renault are regarded as leading heavyweight title contenders, and as tonight's bout will be in the nature of an elimination contest it appears to have created an unusual amount of interest."

What top 10 contenders did he beat outside of Savold?

That still doesn't make Louis any "better" than Willard in that time. The fact remains none of Louis' wins were big enough to make his standing any better in his time than Willard's was in his. Willard was the reigning undisputed champ when Dempsey beat him in 1919, and he was only one fight removed from another title challenge when Firpo beat him in 1923. Louis was coming straight out of retirement when he challenged Charles, and needed to beat Marciano in order to be at least considered for another title shot.

What do you mean "how"? He either is a good enough jabber to land it more often than Louis, or he isn't. He either lands his right hand enough to KO Louis, or he doesn't.

Yes, the press regarded it as a "W" for Fulton. What's your point? Are you interested in looking at the results of exhibition matches, or not?

No, he wasn't. He deliberately elected not to fight any of the top ranked contenders for close to a year, until he basically had no choice if he was going to be considered for a title shot. In fact, according to the Boxing Register, the only fighter he fought between Charles and Marciano that was ranked at all by The Ring was Savold.

And you did more than "just" that. From the beginning, you've been looking to spin things however you wanted just to suit whatever your argument happens to be at any particular time. You've belittled certain fighters and their achievements when you wanted, and then hyped up others, but in every case you could've done the exact reverse if you so chose. You bend over backwards giving inaccurate arguments as to why Firpo's win over Willard "doesn't count," or why Floyd Johnson "doesn't count" as a contender, but then you readily accept Savold's status as a contender and even go the opposite direction and hype him up. That's an obvious double standard there.

Not if they weren't nearly the same amount past their primes. Willard didn't start fighting until he was 30, and was at his peak when he was around 35, only a couple years before he fought Dempsey. In fact, there's no tangible proof of him ever being past his prime before fighting Dempsey. He was far fresher and closer to his best at that time than Louis was in 1951, which was about a decade past Louis' peak.

 

I would give Baker ,Layne and Henry very good chances of beating Louis in a slugfest at that stage of his career,I would pick Lastarza to outpoint him too.

 

Fred Fulton easily outboxes him.

Firpo easily might have KO'ed him.

Willard hs a more than even shot of beating him.

The 37 year old Louis had zero power and weak stamina. His legs were gone. He was surviving off his jab. How anyone claims this was a big victory for Rocky only shows how thin his resume against large heavyweights really is.

Every time I read his victory over the 6' 2" , 214 pound Louis is a statement of how Rocky faired against "big heavyweights" by a couple here, I can't help but question if they are actually serious. Almost every boxing historian I have ever spoken with, and I have spoken often with the biggest, all view this as a tragic fight in which a "former" great fighter, now severly depleated, loses to a young tiger. Some here actually try and claim that this Louis was anything more than a shell and still a worthy , capable fighter to build up a Rocky argument and it is a joke. If that is your argument it is very weak.

 

Louis was still a good boxer in the 1950's as long as he had an opponent stand right in front of him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR9zg7B-4p8

I never really rated Firpo so I'd pick any Louis to beat him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uj7oBXwwMo

Willard was incredibly durable and actually took Dempsey's best in the 2nd and 3rd rounds but he was far too damaged from the first round to continue fighting. Louis would likely outbox him, like Jack Johnson, but in a long distance fight Willard might get to him. I don't think the Willard who fought Dempsey was in the same condition as the Willard who fought Johnson though.

http://megavideo.com/?v=84Y4TJRI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoboUe7RWLE

Tough to say about Fulton, there's no film of him, but he was a good fighter by all accounts if somewhat vulnerable.

 

Nice post Suzie,I dont agree Louis would beat Layne , and doubt he could stop him at that stage of his career ,despite Layne's defensive flaws.Marciano out slugged Louis ,granted Henry was no Marciano,but the added weight on Louis was surplus not prime weight.
I would give the edge to Baker in power in the time scale we are talking about,by then Louis was using his killer right very sparingly ,because as he said later he saw the openings but was too slow to exploit them.

You are probably correct about Lastarza, he was after all very carefully matched .
I beleive you may be on to something when in another post,in your absorbing sparring with MY2Sense, you said the Louis who fought Savold was sharper and faster than the Louis who lost to Charles.
Regular work had rounded Louis in to better condition imo, his judgement of distance and stamina were better than against Charles ,imo..Of course Charles was appreciably better than Savold ,still.
JIm Norris pressured Louis for the Charles fight,the IBC wanted the fight in Sept in Yankee Stadium,Louis wanted it in December in the Garden.Louis had only 6 weeks to train for Charles,he said as he sat in his dressing room prior to the fight , he wanted to tell Mannie Seaman to call the fight off ,because he knew he wasnt ready for it.
"Then fight started with Charles jabbing me and punching me around the ring.He was younger,he was faster,he was lighter.Charles never really hurt me, he just wore me out and really cut me up.
He hooked ,jabbed,and got some good lefts to my stomach.When he started the crosses to my face,I dazed some.
When I saw an opening,I couldn't get to it fast enough- my reflexes were rusted,and my coordination was messed up.
I tried to get off ,but when I got him in trouble,I couldnt react fast enough .
From the seventh round,I knew I just didn't have it. I was washed up.
It wasnt about reflexes,or something like that.I simply didnt have it.
I said to myself, "Oh if I could just have gotten to you five years ago".
But it wasn't five years before ,and it was the fourteenth round and I was bleeding like a stuck pig.
When the bell sounded for the fifteenth round, I was so exhausted Mannie Seaman had to lift me off the stool ".
I would agree that Louis was in better fighting shape for Savold than Charles.
If you watch the Louis Savold clip ,kindly provided by Great A, the commentator stresses this point.:good
ps great arguments put forth by both you and My 2 sense.

 

Layne's delayed reaction looks like some one has just pulled his plug out.Rocky allmost falls over him.

 

How is that relevant to what punishment Louis took in the fight?

No, it could show any of a number of things, or nothing at all. It could just as well show that Dempsey was better than Marciano, or had better reached his peak, or had a more troubling style for Willard than Marciano had for Louis. This is another case of you making selective judgments.

It doesn't have anything to do with 1919. This is about FIRPO and how YOU said that Firpo's win over Willard "doesn't count" solely on the basis that Willard "hadn't won a fight in four years." That was a complete falsity. Not only had he recently won a fight, but he had beaten a red hot contender and put himself one fight away from a title shot.

It already DID.

No, that's dependent on who those particular contenders/ fringe contenders are and how big the wins over them are.

I'll admit it when you show it. So far, you've only showed that he had the greater number of fights, but not that his wins mattered any more.

Meanwhile, since you're suddenly so obsessed with people "admitting" to wrongdoing, how about you admit you were wrong about these flagrant untruths:

Go on, I'm waiting.

No, it isn't. There's still the question of what stage of their careers they're each at (regardless of age), and what sort of wear and tear they've each suffered, and in Louis' case he was much farther removed from his prime than Willard was from his.

Much more important than "domination" is the MAGNITUDE of the wins. A guy could dominate 100 fringe contenders, but that won't be bigger than someone beating a leading contender as Floyd Johnson was.

It's never "easy" to be undisputed champion. You still had to have gone out and accomplished the feat of winning the title at some point, and in Willard's case he also successfully defended his title at least once.

Only if you were from England, maybe.

Outside of that, it was more like the equivalent of the WAA title, like which it quickly disappeared after changing hands a couple times.

I don't know. That could only be accurately surmised from seeing films of him, and films of a 1951 Louis against similar style/quality big men.

So then you agree that Fulton had more fights against quality big men than just Wills, correct?

Maybe, but that's not what you initially said. You said he was consistently beating the "world class" contenders and that's not true.

Also, Willard's coming straight off a 4-year layoff and beating a streaking top contender deserves more credit than Louis fighting a string of fringe contenders and not the top contenders.

First of all, Willard had been fighting exhibitions in that time too. Moreover, Louis simply being more active doesn't change the fact that he was much farther removed from his prime then than Willard was from his.

No, he is credited with winning an official decision over Sailor Burke in that interim. That's if you don't want to count his newspaper decision over Frank Moran in an official title defense, even though it was universally agreed on as being a lopsided win for Willard.

No, because we have actual video proof of Louis' form in fights that show otherwise.

In Willard's case, you're basically just guessing as to how much he might've slipped during those 3 years of inactivity.

No, 260 (what he weighed for his shutout of Moran) was his career high weight.

And speculating about a fighter's possible deterioration based on circumstances does not constitute tangible proof. Actual fights that clearly show him deteriorating (such as we have in Louis' case) is tangible proof. There's no fight that actually shows that Willard had slipped prior to fighting Dempsey.

No. He was the more active fighter, but not necessarily more sharp at that stage of his career. And more importantly, nor is there any solid proof that he was still better.

Yes it was, because Louis was much farther past his prime, had visibly deteriorated much more, and had soaked up far more punishment by that time.

Besides, Willard's fight with Floyd Johnson (when he was even older) proves that he had the capacity to come off a 3 or 4-year layoff, weigh around 245 and still perform impressively at the world class level. Banking so much criticism of Willard simply on his being laid off is shaky at best.

 

I'm not sure how much the inactivity diminished Willard when he stepped in the ring with Dempsey. It's impossible to say exactly, because Dempsey beat him quite severely.
Yes, Willard looked better (younger, leaner) against Jack Johnson but I'm not sure his prowess as a fighter suffered in strict correlation to his appearance - and he didn't exactly look that much worse against Dempsey.
Willard was a big lump, and his style was to stand his ground, walk men down with his strength, absorb their punches, and grind them down with slow but thudding punches.
Remember Willard didn't take up boxing pro until he was 29, and was never successful because of speed, reflexes or agility.
Vitali Klitschko - another big and somewhat plodding man - recently came off a 4 year layoff at age 37 and didn't look any less of a fighter.
The fact that Willard came back 4 years after the Dempsey fight and beat Floyd Johnson is relevant, because it illustrates the point I'm making - his style and abilities weren't such that he would necessary suffer as much when he became an older fighter.