Dempsey - Louis prime for prime

i can understand the opposition point but it is true that some of Dempsey's best opponents do not even exist on film like Fulton or Miske. But their resumes show that these men were good fighters, infact Miske was only stopped once in over 100 fights- that by dempsey- and he beat quiet a few hall of famers too.

 

Once again, it needs to be pointed out that Fleischer identified Ali as history's fastest heavyweight in 1969, hardly the assessment of somebody living excusively in the past (like me).

No, he had something vastly superior. Ringside observations to supplement his unrestricted access to same fight footage and broadcast recordings (some of which he broadcast himself).

KO Magazine's Steve Farhood scored Mike Spinks the winner over Eddie Davis live from ringside, but when he rescored that bout off the footage shortly afterwards, he had Davis winning it. Even modern recording and broadcasting technology is no substitute for ringside and
in-ring observation (as a referee or competitor). Unlike Farhood, Fleischer also performed as an official judge for championship competition himself, in addition to refereeing events. (As for broadcasting, there's a film clip of Nat on the microphone at the Dempsey/Carpentier title fight.)

Conn wasn't close to being as brave as Carpentier either, or as tough, or as lethal a puncher. (When it comes to bravery in the boxing ranks, Carpentier's service as an aviator during WW I, Barney Ross's conduct at Guadalcanal, Dempsey's entry into combat at Okinawa, or Schmeling's service as an overaged paratrooper take the cake.)

Conn didn't have Tunney's power, size, physical strength or toughness. He was also about 25 pounds lighter. Neither did he have Gene's smarts. Tunney would have never tried to knock Louis out the way Conn did.

I'll skip over this issue, as we've already aired our divergent views about Dempsey/Firpo.

I do agree it was probably Louis's most skillful boxing exhibition, along with the Godoy rematch, but still far more competitive than Dempsey/Gibbons.

True, Dempsey did have to knock them down several times, because each punch could have sufficient power to be a knockdown punch.

Dempsey would have floored Conn with at least five punches out of the six punch combination Louis took him out with in their first meeting. (That's why I agree that Louis is the better puncher, but not the harder one. Each punch of a combination delivered by Louis knocked his opponent into the next one, magnifying the impact of each.)

Jack dropped the larger Brennan for the count in their rematch with bodyshots in round 12, a massive display of late round power. Nobody else was able to put Miske down until he was right at death's door. He fractured the ribs of the huge George Godfrey in sparring. After retirement, he also knocked out the granite chinned Galento in sparring. Willard showed himself against Frank Moran to have good skills and quickness, but not great, certainly not on the scale of Jack Johnson. But Big Jess was tough as nails, taking an incessant pounding from the five ounce gloves of Johnson and Firpo for several rounds. Moran and McCarty had good power as well. Nobody was ever able to inflict the sort of quick damage on Willard that Dempsey subjected him to in just a minute and a half of a single round of action. (Of course many of his most devastating one punch knockouts were not captured on film.)

What I aim to do is measure the accuracy of a given account against the available footage of that event. If they match closely, then I have more confidence in accounts from that same source about matches for which there is no known footage.

Yes, and I am not among those who questions Louis's chin. He certainly proved it against Max Baer, Tony Galento, Ezzard Charles, and even Rocky Marciano in his swan song. I do question his balance at times, however, and don't believe he would keep his feet through 15 rounds against Dempsey. My point is that if and when Louis did manage to stun Jack, he would be able to ride out the storm and quickly recover (better than Joe might in the same situation).

Dempsey was the only one to knock out Brennan in K.O. Bill's first 50 fights, and the only one to do it twice. He was the second one to do so in Carl Morris's first 59 bouts (after Lute McCarthy six years earlier). Sam Langford predicted that Dempsey would prevail over Wills if they were ever to square off.

Joe Louis is the greatest heavyweight champion in boxing history. He defended against all worthy opponents. That is not what is being discussed here. The issue is Dempsey at his best against Louis at his best, and my position is that Dempsey would prevail.

Do not overlook the fact that I'm predicting a distance contest, unlike many Dempsey supporters. Nor do I hold Louis/Conn I strongly against Joe, as he did ill advisedly weaken himself by coming in too light for speed, at the persuasion of the press. (Ignoring Blackburn's warnings that he wouldn't be strong under 200 pounds anymore. I don't even hold this too strongly against Louis, as I also agree with Louis and disagree with Blackburn, that one should get up as quickly as possible from a knockdown, lest the count is lost.) No, Dempsey was not a great champion in the sense of actively defending the title against all comers. (Then again, he was the highest paid athlete on Earth in 1925, a year in which he did not defend the title. Why compete when the public is paying more not to compete?)

Anybody who's compared Dempsey's "Championship Fighting" to what limited movie film footage of him is available to scrutinize already knows what Jack was about.

 

One more thing about the Fripo thing, it mainly happened because of the no-neutral corner rule. Dempsey had utterly knocked the **** out of him and the fight should have been stopped after 4 or so kd's. But if u have knocked someone down so many times, obiusly u can get careless and Dempsey did too.

Let's see great fighters getting floored by lesser ones, not just Dempsey:

Johnson- Ketchel, a middle

Louis- Braddock, B Baer, Schmeling, Galenteno

Marciano: Moore, alight-heavy though he could hit. Older Walcott

Ali: 185lb Cooper

Frazier: Bonavena

Foreman: Young

Holmes: Snipes

Tyson: Douglas

Lewis: both one punch stoppages from two big guys who were not known for exceptional power but still fairly good hitters

 

There are a couple of things to take into consideration here, when determining weather or not these guys were in the same league. First of all their legacies. Louis defended his title 25 times over a 12 year period. Dempsey defended his title 6 times in 7 years. Louis never failed to defend against a mandatory. Dempsey never fought Harry Wills, and I can care less if the social climate prevented it from happening. When Holmes failed to fight Greg Page and Bowe failed to face Lewis, people were all over their asses like smell on ****. Dempsey not fighting Wills because of social tension between blacks and whites is nothing but crap, especially given that we had already seen a black heavyweight champ prior to Dempsey's reign. For nearly a century people have given this guy a pass for this, and it's ridiculous regardless of the testimony of Wills that " it wasn't Dempsey's fault "

Another thing is the competition level and skill of the fighters. Yes, Louis had struggles with men like Braddock, Galento, Baer and Schmeling. I hold firm to my belief however that they were better fighters than most of the men Dempsey fought. Jack never faced a puncher like Buddy or Max Baer. Buddy Baer was 6'6" 250 Lbs, and had 45 knockouts in 50 wins. He also had nearly as many first round Ko's as Dempsey. The only difference between Willard and Baer, was that Baer was much younger, more fit, and a better fighter overall. Shmeling, Conn, Walcott, baer, and Godoy were all better than anyone Dempsey beat.

Why not?

I don't recall ever saying that Louis would take out Dempsey in any specified number of rounds, nor did I make my claim on the basis of Dempsey losing to Tunney. It means little to me that Dempsey was past his prime against Tunney, given that I think Louis would beat him on his best night.

Again, I don't see what you base this assumption on. Schmeling Ko'd a prime Joe Louis, which is clearly a better feat than Dempsey ever acheived.

About 90% of these are intangibles, meaning that you nor anyone else could possibly measure them accurately and determine who had more, less or the same. How in the hell do measure things like Heart and Killer instinct?

I disagree, while Dempsey had raw power and good footwork, Louis was arguably the best combination puncher of all time. Can you imagine never having been in the ring with a fighter who put together punches like Louis and then all of a sudden being confonted with that?

Power, footwork and punching ability are probably Dempsey's best assets. Louis would have gone into this fight at least having the experience of tasting the power of the Baer brothers among other big hitters, and having met good boxers like Conn and Schmeling. What in the hell did Dempsey ever face that was even remotely like Louis?

 

He didn't struggle with Firpo. He dropped him ten times in route to a second round stoppage.

 

it's not "crap" that the politics prevented the fight. Because Johnson was so hated, no one ever wanted a black challeger again and there were black fighters even after Wills that did not get a title shot

Anyway that's not the point. The point is Louis did fail to meet a few contenders including the feared Elmer Ray. How is Braddock better From the film i have seen he is not better then Brennan, Gibbons, or Sharkey.

Fripo was a puncher in Baer's league, yeah sure he was crude, sure but it's his raw power that was excellent

Louis was a better champion, sure, but he also faced guys like Al McCoy in title defenses.

becauser they are not good enough to, that's how . I have never seen anyone claim Budy Baer could beat Dempsey, sorry but that claim is pretty ridicoulus.






in all honesty i don't even see how u can argue who is better between Schmeling and Dempsey. Who did Holmes beat that was as good as the 73 version of Ali that Norton beat? Does that mean Norton was better?

 

It is crap. Deal with it.

Show me proof that he was the #1 mandatory at any point during Louis's reign, the way that Wills was during Dempsey's, and I'll steadfastly admit my ignorance. Until you can, however, it shall remain crap.

Fripo was a puncher in Baer's league, yeah sure he was crude, sure but it's his raw power that was excellent

Which number out of a whole 25 was that? Oh I forgot, Dempsey had a whole whopping 6 defenses. Great legacy :good

Gee, I think that just might qualify as the explanation of the year.

Scmeling fought in a better era than Dempsey. Simple as that. The same way that Norton fought in a better era than Holmes. I don't personally think that Norton would beat Holmes in his prime, but there are some who think that he would.

 

Yes, and this might be a good opportunity to chime in that Firpo wanted no part of Dempsey. And this despite the fact that Jack was champion! (Which begs the question: Who else wanted no part of Dempsey?) Assuming Jack failed to beat the count when he was shoved out of the ring, what would have happened in a rematch between the two?

Dempsey would have destroyed Wills, having the advantage of youth, speed, mobility and power on his side. He also would have extended his title reign. Instead, Wills parlayed his $50,000 guarantee into a lucrative real estate career. (In the grand scheme of things, Dempsey may have been the real victim of the color barrier, and Wills the true beneficiary. Harry certainly wound up in a very different situation than Louis found himself in.)

 

Million dollar gates and front page news headlines are Dempsey's legacy. Red Grange was not a great professional gridiron player, but his impact on the popularity of the sport was every bit as elemental as Dempsey's was on boxing.

 

This is Dempsey quoted in the June, 1945 issue of Ring Magazine:

"I was knocked out by the Argentine's first punch and went right on fighting in my sleep.
"I remember that right at the start. I cut loose with a left hook. Had it landed, the fight might have ended then and there. Though I will say that big guy could take it, and plenty.
"I missed that left hook, and then the grandstand hit me. Some of the reporters were charitable and said I slipped. I didn't slip. I was knocked silly.
"I read the next day that I had knocked him down seven times. Well, you can't prove that by me, because I recollect anything about the first round except Doc Kearns face, white, scared, as I sat in my corner after the first round."

The right hand Dempsey is talking about is right at the beginning of the fight. On the film I have seen Dempsey drops to one knee and there is a quick splice to Dempsey and Firpo clinching. Bert Sugar claims to have seen a version of the film which shows Dempsey taking a seven count. Dempsey was down once more for a flash knockdown before ultimately being knocked out of the ring.
Dempsey called it his toughest fight.

 

A few things to take into account:

In 1946, the #1 contender was Tami Maurrielo. Elmer Ray was the #2 contender.

Joe Louis fought Mauriello (on top of a rematch in which he knocked Conn out in 8) and knocked him out inside of one round.

Then the next year, 1947, Jersey Joe Walcott had beaten Elmer Ray.
And in the proces, he took the #1 ranked contender position and Elmer Ray remained the #2 contender. So Joe Louis took on Walcott.

What can Louis be blamed for? Fighting the #1 contender consistently? Walcott had just beaten Ray, or to put it in ESB terms, "he had exposed Ray".


Louis couldn't meet a few of them due to limited times (WWII) but fought the best of them in Walcott and knocked him out after a struggle in their first fight.



On the Braddock fight, i would hardly say Louis struggled with him. He suffered a flash knockdown in round one. Probably nervous, his first title fight, only 23 years old. Outside of that knockdown he gave Braddock a severe beating, being the only man the really knock him out (and he got plenty of beatings during his career). He was unconscious for a minute or so.


Duodenum, thanks for your reply. I will reply after a good night of sleep. c

 

Thanks for the input Chris :good

 

I'm sure that his socialogical importance did wonders for the sweet science, Deenerino. But, I'm talking about what he did in the ring, and as it compares to that of Joe Louis. :mj

We both know that Bean Fart did quite a bit for the sport as well.

 

no it is not crap. Wills was there, i was not, u were not either. Wills knows what he is talking about, he certainly has more knowledge of why the fight did not happen then either u or me, therefore it is not "crap" and his testimeony is not "ridicoulus"

 

Wills may very conceivabley have stated that it was not Dempsey's decision to deny him a title shot, however we don't know if Wills was trying to save face by not rocking the boat and making a fuss over it or to what degree Dempsey may or may not have had a say in the issue. You have to remember that in those days, the heavyweight champion of the world was a highly influential position. There may have been a variety of reasons as to why this fight never occured. We can't ignore the fact, however that there was a challenger highly deserving of a title fight, who did not get one.

Here are some questions to ask about Dempsey:

1. Did he fight the best of his era? Not always.

2. Was he an active champion who defended his title often? No

3. Did he often fight men who were of low quality and with poor records? Yes

4. Did he struggle to beat fighters who were limited in skill and physical abilty? Sometimes

5. Was he past his prime at a relatively early age? Yes

6. Did he set any records or acheive any major feats that shaped the world of boxing as we know it? Not really

7. Could he have competed effectively and successfully against champions and contenders of equally competitive or more competitive eras? Maybe

8. In an effort to place him in the top 10, does Dempsey's career acheivemnets exceed those of Ali, Louis, Marciano, Holmes, Lewis, Foreman, Frazier, Holyfield, Tyson, Liston, Patterson, or Johnson? No

Although his name and rather high ticket selling numbers left an impression on certain historians and fans, Dempsey does not offer much in contrast to what many of the other great lineal champions have given to the sport:

John L. Sullivan- First recognized world champion.

Jack Johnson- First Black Heavyweight champion.

Joe Louis- Longest reign and most title defenses.

Rocky Marciano- Only undefeated champion.

Muhammad Ali- 3 time champion, and best of what many considered to be the most competitive era,

Mike Tyson- Youngest champion

Larry Holmes- Second best undefeated winning streak, and second longest reign with second most number of title defenses.

George Foreman- 2 time champ, highest win/knockout ratio and oldest to regain title.

Evander Holyfield- 4 time heavyweight champ and cruiserweight champ.

Lennox Lewis- One of the best comp records in terms of fighting large percentage of ranked fighters for number if bouts.

Dempsey doesn't meet any of the criteria, nor offers anything of substantial significance.