1950 Joe Louis vs Dempsey's big men

Also, if we're going to include exhibitions it should be noted that Jess Willard fought two 10-rounders in July 1918 !
And he may have boxed more rounds of exhibitions during his "inactive" years.

 

I dont know.
I dont think an old Joe Louis would have got rid of him in quick time like a young Dempsey did.
And I can imagine an old Joe Louis tiring badly hitting on Willard if it's a long fight. Willard might very well wear him down over the stretch.

 

Rocky's KO of Layne was terrific. A great shot with an errie delayed reaction.

I actually think the 1919 Willard, with his great chin, stamina and power has a hell of a shot of defeating that Louis by taking him into the later rounds. Rocky had quite a few great wins but Louis was not one of them.

 

He wasn't still rated #2 when the fight actually happened in mid '51, and in fact the NBA had issued a statement several months earlier saying he was no longer among its list of outstanding contenders.

Plenty of champions around that time had spells of inactivity or no title defenses. Just among the heavyweights, almost all of Willard's predeccessors (Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Johnson) had taken multi-year layoffs, and Dempsey would take a couple afterward. In none of their cases did it mean their stature as the top man in their division was diminished, so why should it for Willard?

Heck, was Louis' stature as the HW champ lessened by the fact that he was inactive for four years during his reign?

Why do you say that?

That he was a far cry from what he had been at his peak, and even was fairly well removed from what he had been a few years earlier during his post-service reign.

Not in what exists of the first 3 rounds of the Johnson fight, which is only as long as the Dempsey fight lasted.

But it still wouldn't change the fact that Louis was much more visibly deteriorated and much farther removed from his best, which is what's relevant here.

No he didn't show that, because he failed to show that he could still beat just a good fighter in his prime by beating any of the young rising contenders at that time (ie: Baker, Henry, LaStarza). You yourself even acknowledged earlier that Louis wasn't ready to try a fight with a young gun until toward the end of his comeback.

But the fighter who beat him was more highly regarded than anyone Louis beat during his comeback.

Why not ask what actually was better, not what you think "looks" better?

Again, Louis' string of wins did not bring him any more prestige or a better standing in the division than Willard's one win over Johnson. Nothing can change that.

Not really. That list only shows him beating what look like journeymen and/or faded veterans, most of whom were losing about as often as winning coming into those fights. None of his opponents were coming off an impressive string of wins as Johnson was when he fought Willard.

 

By biggest argument w SQ over Rocky is his justifying the badly deteriorited Louis as a quality opponent for Rocky. Using the Savold fight as proof adds to this. Despite where Savold was manipulated in the ratings he was an average journey with a ton of losses, a complete catcher who was older and more shot than Louis.

To say a 1951 Louis defeats Willard with no power is a joke. At least to me ...

 

My take--Joe Louis in his whole career never lost a fight to a man who was not arguably the best heavyweight out there at the time---Schmeling, Charles, Marciano---all men who appear in most top twenty lists. It seems a stretch to me to presume that Dempsey's mediocre opponents would likely defeat him.

Willard--There has been a rather bizarre argument that the older, inactive, and somewhat overweight Willard of Toledo was in his prime in contrast to the slipping Louis of 1951. Well, there is no doubt that Louis was not what he was, but what exactly was Willard even when he was what he was? Willard lost to the mediocre lightheavy Bearcat McMahon in 1914, his prime. I have a difficult time envisioning Louis ever losing to Bearcat McMahon. I think the Louis of 1951 should be a strong favorite over any version of Willard in a ten round bout.

Morris--Utterly ordinary fighter whose career is speckled with bad losses to fighters like Al Kubiak, Fireman Jim Flynn, Jim Stewart, and the like. He was also 34 and probably going back from his best, such as it was. I don't see this fighter beating any version of the historical Louis.

Fulton--Did beat Langford in 1917, but that year he also lost to Morris in a fight in which he seems to have fouled out in to avoid worse. He was also ko'd in 1917 by Jack London! When did a Jack London level fighter ko Joe Louis? I would favor Louis over Fulton off the record, and, as no one has film of Fulton, there is not much else to draw a conclusion on.

Firpo--had a good run in 1923, with ko's of a slipping Brennan and an ancient Willard, as well as the erratic Weinert. That is just about it for top level efforts from Firpo. He had been blasted out at the beginning of his career by the 167 lb Angel Rodriguez in 1 round. He had been outpointed by Dave Mills. In 1924 he was badly outboxed by the 35 year old Wills and by Weinert. Firpo might have an outside puncher's chance, but I like Louis to easily outpoint him.

 

Savold was in the yearly ratings 7 times between 1939 and 1950. He had a lot of losses throughout his career, but few contenders fought more good men over a longer period. Hhascap has posted that Savold had 55 fights against men who were rated at one time or another and won 28 of them. That is fighting really tough opposition and it is also doing reasonably well with it.

Louis dominated Savold. What more do you expect of him?

We have heard a great deal about Floyd Johnson in this thread, a fighter who was anywhere near the top of the heavyweight division for less than a year and then plunged into total mediocrity, being banned after a one round ko loss to Wills in 1925. In contrast, Savold was beating men who appeared in the yearly ring rankings from 1936 to 1950.

 

A thought:

Let's assume (whatever the truth of the matter) that SuzieQ is correct to favor Joe Louis against all of Dempsey's biggest opponents.

That doesn't mean that he'd be a favorite to beat all of them.

One reason that SuzieQ finds Louis's run against 8 guys (including two top 10 guys) more impressive than Willard's single victory is that it shows greater consistency on Louis's part. To some extent, I agree.

So...

The question is: could an old Louis be as consistently victorious against Dempsey's big men as a young Dempsey was?

 

That would be my conclusion as well.

There's also the possibility that one or more of the fighters you mentioned is a LOT better than the meager film of him indicates, or that he has a weird style that's tailor-made to beat Louis. After all, these guys were some of the best of their era.:think