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

I do feel Dempsey has to fight Louis inside, based on T. Gibbons remark that you could see Dempsey's punches coming.

Dempsey might go for broke if Louis gets really buzzed. And Dempsey could smell the blood. But there's a small window of opportunity with Louis. (We've talked about Mauriello shaking Louis, but what happened to Mauriello just a few seconds later?)

 

Nope, sorry

Jack's too hot for Joe to handle. Accept the word of one who knows

Joe IS the more proper fighter technically, but Jack is too fast, too furious for Joe and Joe's chin would shatter

Why would I lie, to break your heart and spoil your day?

I have Joe beating Ali on points or TKO and I love Ali

but it's all a matter of styles. Jack is too much for Joe

Jack is not only fast, he hits like hell and a night against Conn would seem like heaven by comparison

and that handspeed combined with his killer instinct,,,,... Jack is legendary for his his feared attack. hell, I've seen it!

Hate to do this to you kid but Dempsey in four

 

I do not. I respect what he did but I don't think he could have beat Ali (my #1), Holmes, Holyfield, and Foreman. He was good enough to give them all problems though.

 

H2h, I have him over Holy without much difficulty, over Holmes (only just) and he has serious problems with George, but I wouldn't be shocked if he outlasts George too.

The only guy I'd bet any money on beating him would be Ali, and even that wouldn't be a sure thing.

 

Ali or Louis at #1 is down to individual preference. Neither can with a straight face be argued third or lower (unless you happen to be Larry Holmes in the flesh, who if he was capable of honest self-appraisal would realize he was a perfectly respectable lock for #3 all-time)

 

Billy Conn is widely regarded as top five all time (exact placement within the five may vary, but you do see him named in just about every spot if you ask enough people...) in the light heavyweight division - a "Traditional Eight" division with a heritage that may date back as far as the 19th century, at the very least well over a full century by over a decade.

David Haye, meanwhile, just about flirts with top five consideration at cruiserweight - a division not only historically shallower in p4p talent for as long as it has been around, but still in relative infancy: extant for about thirty years and only eleven at its current limit. Yes, he established himself as perhaps the hardest puncher ever at 200lbs and was the undisputed champion for a brief time - but his 'undisputed' status becomes disputable via Haye glaringly missing the boat on unifying with Adamek, or sticking around to build any kind of legacy based on longevity as he went chasing the money at heavy. (which to be fair ended up being true of Adamek too; both could have jockeyed for greatness at the weight or even achieved it together over a trilogy had they lingered for higher glory and lower pay...)

 

It may be that Jack Dempsey matched up well with Joe Louis if they were fighting each other when they were at their best, but would Dempsey be able to make as many consecutive title defenses as Louis without being defeated? To me, that is the big question. After all, Ken Norton may have matched up fairly well with Muhammad Ali, but does that mean the former came close to being as good as the latter?

- Chuck Johnston

 

It is not that Jack Dempsey or others, could not have theoretically beaten Louis, or even have matched his record if they had done things differently.

The salient point is that they didn’t.

A fighters choices end up defining their legacy, as much as their ability.

 

The question for me is ,who wins? And that is Dempsey early imo. Therefore I rank Dempsey above Louis.

 

Dempsey overrated. Sure, he knocks Louis out occasionally, but IMO Louis wins more than he loses by a fairly wide margin, maybe 70-30?

 

I would love to see your Top 10heavyweight resume list. Private message me if you can.

 

If you base a fighter's ranking on only head-to-head bouts, wouldn't Ralph "Tiger" Jones be ranked over Sugar Ray Robinson? Yes, that is an exaggerated example, but it shows the fallacy in not considering overall records when trying to determine which of two fighters should rank higher on a given all-time list.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Ali number one for me. I think Louis would beat Dempsey, knockout in the late rounds or by decision. Dempsey didn't fight enough, he was always rusty while Champion. As for Louis-Conn. Louis had been Champ for almost four years and was on his eighteenth title defense because they knew World War Two was coming. For example Wladimir Klitschko only fought eight times in first four years as Champ. Joe was burned out and lucky that night. But who had the toughest opponents? Who thought in the toughest decade and beat them all? Ali!

 

Louis also dehydrated himself against COnn to be under 200 & not be seen as a bully, a foolish choice Chappy gave him hell about. A peak Louis would have done better, but he de-peaked himself for that fight! :tired

Dempsey was hittable enough with limited endurance in his prime sometimes, spotty record, he was a shooting star but without someone like Foreman's size & strength he had too many flaws to put him on the loevel of a Louis.

I love to love the old timers, but looking at his losses, best victories, those he missed, his sparse defenses..And how inactive the older & flawed Willard was, I do not think he rates higher than the bottom of the top 10, & that is in part due to historical legacy.

 

he de-peaked himself? Drained himself so as not to be seen as a bully? that's laughable

I've never heard of such a thing

I've seen Louis - Conn 1 and I hate to imagine Joe being in there with Jack who would hit Joe so fast & so furious, he would have to back up just to see what the hell Jack was doing to him!

and let's not forget about Joe's first loss 0 by tko where he went beddy - bye :dead

Joe just wouldnt be able to fend off all the shots that came his way any more than Duran was able to fend off the attack of Tommy Hearns

Honestly, I think Joe does better against someone like ALi, who would probably put out a lot of jabs. A safe fight for Joe, one in which he could win

Not a lot of power, and didnt have a terrifying offense like Jack