Does anyone not rate Joe Louis in there top 2 heavyweights of all time list?

1. Larry holmes
2. Muhammad ali
3. Lennox lewis
4. wladimir klitchko
5. joe louis
6. rocky marciano
7. george foreman
8. sonny liston
9. vitali klitchko
10. Mike tyson
11. jack johnson
12. gene tunney
13. joe frazier
14. evander holyfield
15. riddick bowe

 

maybe the Dempsey of the 1930s but the Dempsey of 1919, no way

There are very few fighters who are legitimate killers; Dempsey, Hagler, Foreman. I suppose you can add a young Tony Ayala

Those are the men I looked up to in my youth and still do

 

Joe's greatness goes without saying.

What perfectly illustrates that point for me is the Walcott rematch. It's a fight he didn't have to take, but he took it because he was unhappy about how things went the first time.

Walcott's style always gave Joe problems and there was the very real possibility of the title changing hands. It was a damn risky fight and many other fighters would have side-stepped it and retired or chosen an easier opponent.
But he went ahead with the rematch and once again Walcott was giving him plenty to think about.
Then, Joe lay a trap which Walcott fell for, and was finished off by one of the greatest combo's Louis ever threw. It's an unbelievable set of shots which seemed to chop Walcott down bit by bit.

Now to me, that is true greatness right there.

Then you factor in how perfectly he threw punches, his laser-like accuracy, his killer instinct, how unflappable and cool he was in the ring, how perfect he was in rematches, his long stay at the top and his record of title defences and it's hard to not be extremely impressed by his overall legacy and ability as a fighter.

 

This.

 

Based on resume, it would be almost impossible to argue against his inclusion in the top two.

There are a dozen or so heavyweigths, who might plausibly have beaten him head to head, but the same is true of anybody.

 

My take as well, although I am sympathetic to the argument that some make about the AP poll in the 1950's ranking Dempsey ahead of Louis and having watched both of them fight live.

I'm not sure if they may have been prejudice, they are only looking at it from a H2H perspective, or if we are unknowingly rewriting history.

 

Holy cr*p, now I've seen it all. Holmes over Ali, Vitali rated inside top 15 and above Tyson, Johnson, Tunney (maybe since he only had a few fights at HW) and Frazier.
Wlad over Louis and Marciano - H2H maybe, eventhough unlikely, but p4p (accomplishments, longevity and dominance wise) no way.

 

I see Dempsey as being superior in nearly every department.
When Marciano was champion so did the sportswriters.

 

Dempsey was a sucker for right hands?
Who kod him with them?

Schmeling, Marciano? Louis was knocked down by both right hands and left hooks and from men that did not have either Dempsey's power or handspeed.
You can walk into Louis and drop him as slow Galento,and cumbersome Baer, proved and you can badly buzz him as Mauriello proved.
Dempsey overwhelms Louis inside 2 rounds, if it goes more than halfway its probably Louis's fight.

 

My take on it too. Dempsey early, Louis late.

 

Louis and Ali at 1 and 2 for me.

 

I guess the way I feel about Dempsey and right hands is this:

Jack got stung with quite a few right hands.

People would say, 'Oh, if that right had landed on the point of Jack's chin, Dempsey would'a been KO'd'

Now, you read people saying that enough times and, 'Hmmmmm, maybe it's not so chancy those punches weren't quite on Dempsey's chin.'

Now, Louis had fast, accurate hands and could set guys up.
Maybe Louis finds Dempsey's chin with a right?
Maybe, 'Oh, if that right had landed on Dempsey's chin .....'