Dempsey - Louis prime for prime

When one looks objectively at both their records, it is clear that:
-Dempsey fought a shitload of mediocre opponents
-Louis not only beat all top10 ranked opponents, he destroyed them
-When Dempsey didn't fight old, mediocreties he struggled badly (Sharkey, stopped by Louis in 3 one-sided rounds) or was completly dominated (by Tunney, twice).
-It took a full 59 years for an other lightheavyweight to win the heavyweight title.
-Dempsey has most of his historical standing from the legendary story of David and Goliath, when he knocked out Willard in a brutal fight. However, not many people look past that great story and see that Willard was 37 years old, overweight, inactive and a horrible boxer
-When Louis had a fight in which he didn't dominate, he always gave rematches and always knocked his opponent out in those rematches (Schmeling, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott). Did Dempsey give rematches to Firpo and Sharkey both of which he struggled with and had controversial victories over? What happened when he rematched Tunney?


Joe Louis has gigantic edge when it comes to ring records.
Now styles. You say that Louis was bothered by people who came at him, by his own admission. Fair enough, but it's no secret that Louis was incredible humble and by doing so helping the black people a lot. The only time a crowder bothered him was Godoy, whom he still beat. When he made adaptations in the rematch, he knocked him out without much trouble. All other crowders he faced were knocked into next week.

Now something no one seems to be interested to talk about, but how did Dempsey do against punchers? As is the common story with most of his opposition, the best punchers he faced were pretty horrible. Firpo and Willard. Willard as i already said, was old, out of shape, an unskilled farmboy and he barely landed much on Dempsey. Firpo who also didn't know how to box, did land on Dempsey and knocked him down twice, once out of the ring. How does that bode for Dempsey when he's facing Louis?


I think Louis would stop Dempsey.

 

How r the likes of Miske, Brennan, Gibbons, Fulton jokes? Are they really jokes compared to Baer, Simon or Conn? Not in my opinion. Louis beat better fighters, sure, but Dempsey did not fight jokes.

Yes Conn is comparable to Tunney but Dempsey was rusty, out of shape, and past his best when he fought Tunney. And please the Tunney winning 19 out of 20 is not entirely fair, there are opinions that Tunney won 17 out of those rounds. A swarmers style is desgned to slow down earlier then a boxer puncher, that's why other swarmers like Tyson, Frazier and Armstrong started fading by their late 20's/early 30's. You simply cannot criticise Dempsey for the Tunney or Sharkey fights because he was not at his best, he may not have been "shot" but he was well past his best

Godoy was not as good as Gibbons or even Brennan IMO.

I myself would slightly favour Louis but Dempsey has a good chance. Both struggled with lesser fighters.

 

Very sound analysis.

Louis for me as well, early on I'd say. Somewhere near the 3rd round. :yep

 

not in two or three rounds. Louis was patitent somewhat, and while he was capable of producing early round ko's, he didn't get them that often especially against a crouching fighter. It took Louis 8 rounds to get riounds to get rid of Godoy in the rematch, when Louis was described at his best vs a crouching fighter, i doubt he could finish Dempsey very early. Although it's not entirely out of the question, it's unlikely that Louis wins in the early rounds

 

I think Blackburn knows what he's talking about. He did fight Johnson before, you know.

 

Louis is my ATG #1, fought the best,most real defences,fought all sizes,shapes and colors....Dempsey had a shorter prime but was a dangerous ATG, when in it,Louis vs Dempsey could go either way,Prime for Prime, Dempsey was a harder puncher and more aggressive fighter than Schmeling, we dont know if that would work in his favor because Louis was not a reckless puncher like Firpo. Louis has the overall edge but I cant help thinking that Dempsey would present a stylistic dilema and certainly have a better than punchers chance, but if Louis hurt Jack, there was never a two fisted combo/power puncher with great finishing skills, like Joe.........How about I predict an explosive KO will both men touching the canvas

 

u r far too harsh on Dempsey. Brennan was a very hard hitter. Dempsey had rematches with Miske, who gave him trouble earlier on, but Dempsey finally stopped him in the third meeting and convincingly by decision in the second one. Louis also fought alot of average foes. Jack Sharkey was a good hitter and faced an over the hill Dempsey, but Jack still showed the chin to stand up to his power.

 

by the way, and older Dempsey faced the best version of Sharkey, and Louis faced an over the hill Sharkey- there's a difference

 

Fleischer is not merely a source, flawed as he is, but he was also a ringside eyewitness to many of these historical matches. (In fact, Nat was the third man in the ring for exhibition performances by both Dempsey and Louis.) Nat made observations in "50 Years at Ringside" which were borne out by films of those events which had not even come to light at the time he published it. (In 1957, he torpedoed Jack Johnson's claim of shielding his eyes from the sun in Havana by including a picture of Billy Conn's gloves in the same position after getting deposited by Louis. This was before the film of Willard/Johnson had come to light, further verifying the accuracy of his recall concerning details of that marathon bout.)

Fleischer needed to strive for accuracy in situations where he knew the contests he was covering were being filmed for posterity. Furthermore, at the time he wrote his autobiography, some long lost footage of these events had already come to light, and he assumed this would continue. Beyond that, the United States wasn't the only country that he was covering matches in. There were other nations which did not have an interstate transport ban on boxing films in place, as he was perfectly well aware.

In addition to working numerous bouts as a referee, he performed duties as a judge and broadcaster. (There is a film clip of Nat on the microphone at the Dempsey/Carpentier title fight.)

He certainly did have his biases, and was not really qualified to judge Fitzsimmons, Corbett or Jeff, not having witnessed them at their best. But he came along when boxing journalism was the highest and most demanding art form in sportswriting, and had to be very highly competent to achieve the position of prominence and credibility among boxing's finest performers that he did.

Perhaps the only individual in the press who was friends with both Ali and Jack Johnson during their peaks.

Concerning Siki and the "man-ape" myth, Dempsey was subjected to an explosion of contempt when facing Carpentier as well. Gorgeous Georges was revered in Dempsey's own country as a gallant and handsome blue-eyed blond war hero, while Jack was reviled as a slacker and uncivilized half-breed savage (invoking his Choctaw ethnicity in the process), with the appearance of a dark skinned, unshaven, coarse brute. Anybody who took out the urbane Carpentier was bound to be reviled. Tunney hit him low. Dempsey hammered him remorselessly. Siki ambushed him. How dare they! (Not that Carp was above opportunism himself, as Kid Lewis found out, five years before Jack appropriated that tactic for himself against Sharkey.)

 

he made some fine points but also some somewhat unfair ones i pointed out above (though i respect his opinion, comparing Dempsey-Sharkey fight and Louis-Sharkey fight is just not fair on Dempsey's part)

 

Maybe so, but he made a lot of other valid observations that went far beyond the Sharkey comparison, as you already pointed out. To put it plain and simple, Louis was in a totally separate class from Dempsey. Sure, we always see their names grouped together on things like all time great lists, but to say that they are in the same league is simply not the case. The sport evolved dramatically in the interum between Dempsey's era and Louis's. Of course, people will be arguing these points back and forth long after we're all dead, but anyone who looks at this match-up with an honest and open mind, can clearly see that its really not a match-up at all. I'm not even so sure how Dempsey would fair against the likes of Schmeling, Walcott, or Baer. If he struggled with Firpo, think about what a puncher with real ring generalship would have done to him. Baer may likely have killed him.

I just think that we spend more time than need be on comparing Dempsey to great heavyweights post 1930. A week ago, we had a whole debate going, regarding Dempsey vs Lennox Lewis. Such a thread should have been resolved within just a matter of a few posts, yet it went on for days!

 

In 123 fights, though, up to his forties, Godoy was stopped only by Louis. His second "knockout" per boxrec, seems closer to a DQ for stalling. He might have been badly hurt, but no details are given. One thing is for certain. Godoy may have been able to take it better than almost anyone.

 

Sorry, i was a bit too harsh on Dempsey. I can understand people picking him because he may trouble Louis stylistically speaking. I just favor Louis for the reasons i previously stated. I agree that the Sharkey comparison is unfair, but i can't help but notice the huge gap in quality of beaten opposition between the two.

 

i am sorry but they are not in a different league, and it's not a mismatch. Baer did not have real ring generalship, though he was better then Fripo.

Look anyone can strguggle with lesser fighters, it happened to Louis too, this is like saying " If fat Tony Galenteno could floor Louis, think of what Dempsey's left hook would have done to him". Again even great fighters can be knocked down by big if unskilled hitters. Louis was knocked out of the ring by Budy Baer, floored vs Braddock who was not known for his power, Schmeling was a fine hitter but nothing like Dempsey, and Conn- not known for his power- stunned Louis quiet a few times with his combinations. To be fair Dempsey was floored by lesser punchers too. However there is very little, if any chance of Max or Budy Baer beating Dempsey. He is not getting killed here.

Again if Godoy could last 8 rounds with Louis in the rematch, and Godoy was no Dempsey just like Brennan was no Louis, why is it that Louis takes Dempsey out in three? Why is it that because Tunney, a much faster footed fighter beats a rusty Dempsey that has not fought in three years, mean that Louis could somehow outslick Dempsey? Dempsey would not lose to Schmeling, or Baer. Maybe Walcott would have a slight chance but that;s really all

They are not in a seperate class because if u compare pure abilities it's close:

Power: slight edge to Louis
Chin: Slight edge to Dempsey
Heart: Even
Handspeed: Even
Footwork: Dempsey by a mile
Accuracy: Louis
Killer instinct: Even
Heart: Even

as you can see, they are close in several catogories, and i simply cannot agree with the argument that it's a mismatch. They are in the same class, they are similar in abilities.