Gene Tunney v Joe Louis

Obviously we are setting the treshold of "great" at a point that takes in Louis Walcott I and II, and arguably Louis Baer or Louis Schmeling.

If you set it at a level that excludes them, they you are going to be left with a very short list.

 

True. People seem to have a distorted image of Louis-Conn I when they draw comparisons between the fight and Tunney-Dempsey. Conn's more telling rounds in Louis-Conn I were the ones he used his hand speed and smarts in close, putting combinations then tying Joe up, a lot of times starting with Conn flat footed. I agree with McGrain, Tunney might be a sweeter pick for Joe than Conn.

 

one could also add

Dempsey-Tunney
Marciano-Charles (if we're adding Marciano-Walcott)
Jackson-Corbett
Sullivan-Corbett
Ali-Norton (1, 2 & 3)
Spinks-Holmes
Holyfield-Moore
Holyfield-Bowe
Ali-Frazier 2 (should also be included)

Point is, this has happened a decent amount of times, and is not like winning the lotto improbable. So yes, it woud've been nice to see Louis against bettter foes. Not sure how that is even debatable

 

If you are going to make the definition that general, then I could offer up:

Louis Carnera
Louis Baer
Louis Braddock
Louis Schmeling I and II
Louis Walcott I and II

Might as well throw in Louis Sharkey, since you have included a few shot fighters.

 

The reason I included Dempsey-Tunney is because while Dempsey may not have been prime prime but he also was the champion and hadn't lost. He decided to take on.. not a great HW but he still fought an ATG.

Okay if you don't want to include Marciano vs. Charles.. Then Charles vs. Walcott should certainly be included.. which adds another one

Maybe then just the first Ali vs. Norton 1... But I think one of them should be included

The reason I did... was because Moore.. while not an ATG did defeat Holyfield and was a champion at a lower division. A dominate champion down there no less. Him beating holyfield in his prime means he was a legit contender and it was a solid defense of the title.

 

Braddock.. Bear and Carnera aren't near the quality of the fighters I've mentioned.. Which again, is why we're having this discussion. My whole point isn't that Louis isn't great.. my point is.. maybe just maybe Louis looked slightly better than he actually was because of the competition he faced. Maybe he would've looked just as good. We'll never know.. which is kinda my point. When he did fight ATG's.. for whatever reason.. he struggled or outright lost. There might have been reasons for this fight or that fight.. but it still happened.

 

How I see it exactly, maybe a tougher bout then with Conn and do I wish it could have happened!

 

Louis would ko Gene late.

a brutal ko

 

Bad Matchup for the brown bomber very tough fight style wise, a prime Louis was so good he may chop him down late but this fight is not easy to call. Tunney might have his number.

 

Dempsey might not have been as great as he once was but i think he definitely must be considered a great at this time. Arguably, depending on your definition of great, That Dempsey was still going to beat another Great in Jack Sharkey. These two wins of tunney are, i believe, very underated in many ways. I think they are on par with Holyfield's win over Tyson, Holmes over NOrton, And possibly even Ali over Frazier (well the third fight, anyway).

 

I agree. And Tunney was a better and harder puncher than Conn.