Giant Killers of the past vs today's top 25

Good post Bummy. In my opinion Guys like Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Walcott and Frazier would wreak havoc today. Too much emphasis is placed on size. Size is certainly important. That's why there have always been weight divisions, to ensure a fair fight. But I think in the HW division size is somewhat overrated. Many of todays HW's don't employ the skills needed to get inside a taller opponent and do damage. I think Dempsey and Frazier would be effective with thier bobbing and weaving and Marciano would be troublesome with his crouch and underrated defense. Louis would give today's heavies palpitations with his ability to parry incoming shots and respond with powerful accurate and fast combination punching. I'm not saying that they would dominate the HW scene(Though I'm somewhat inclined to believe they would) but they would certainly make noise or capture one of the fractured titles. I just see too many stand straight up and walk forward heavyweights to think that the greats from yesteryear wouldn't have great success against them.

 

Lamon Brewster was about the size of George Foreman during his prime. Nice attempt to paint him as a small guy.

 

Only the verry best of the giant killers would be able to beat the Klitschkos at their best.

Louis and Dempsey would both be fairly good candidates to do it.

Langford would certainly have a good chance.

For most of the rest it would be a case of a good big man beating a good smal man.

 

fair post jan:goodi think the distinction needs to be made between the brothers though, as they are wildly different fighters. i feel wlad is more vulnerable on the inside but is tougher to get to consistently due to his jab. vitali's looser style may allow smaller fighters in but there's less to work with when they do.

i see louis taking wlad out by the 8th, dempsey either wins in 3 or loses UD 15

langford i'm not even going to speculate

 

IMO Langford looks better on film than Dempsey.

 

Louis is the only of the smaller heavyweights I see as having a chance of fulfilling the role of a giant slayer. And I don't know that he would do it in a consistent manner against a string of Lewis, Ike, Bowe, Klits.

Dempsey has no chance. The big guys he beat were oafs, old, out of shape and inactive in Willard's case, not that big and remarkably unskilled in Firpo's case. He comes in far too open, gets off balance and often ditches his game plan and reverts to barroom brawling.

Langford, love him as I do, would just be too small. I know he beat Wills, but all those heavies of that era look like **** with the exception of Johnson, who oddly Sam agreed was to big for him to beat... a skilled 6-1 guy was too big.

Face it, the quality in the heavyweight division is just better over the last three decades. It doesn't necessarily make for more exciting fights. However, the fighters are bigger, more athletic, more extensively trained in amateur programs, trained with modern resources and knowledge of physiology. Case closed.

 

It is interesting that Louis is the one fighter, where even people like you and Pontius give him a real chance.

It shows you the kind of "once in a blue moon" fighter he was.

 

Louis was the best, most complete and deadly puncher the division ever saw. If he gets you in the right spot, good night. To beat him, you need to keep him off his mark and out of his comfort zone. It would be a very nervous task.

 

GJ,I agree with your post 100%. We are the great minority today who feel that today's dreadnaughts passing for heavyweights, would be beaten by the likes of Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis, and beaten badly. I have no doubts about this assertion. Dempsey of 1919-23 was a bobbing and weaving bigger edition of a Roberto Duran in his ferocity, strength and killer instinct. Todays naysayers, spout nonsense about the big stiffs Dempsey flattened ,such as Morris, Fulton, Gunboat Smith, etc,WITHOUT seeing them in action EVER. So much is their putdown of Jack Dempsey,
that they almost 90 years later know more than the great writers, and
fighters,as Langford, Walker, Tunney, Sharkey and Max Schmeling, ALL who called him the greatest. Ah yes, but some esteemed posters ,almost a century later KNOW BETTER. Personally ,I'll take the ringside eyewitnesses.
As for my man Joe Louis ,at his best would go through today's big boys like a hot knife through butter. A Dempsey or Louis were exceptionally strong
without sacrificing handspeed power and dexterity ...Cheers to you.

 

Seamus & janitor, you forgot about Tyson, who was among the "small guys" of the opening post.

Would you care to share your opinions?

 

He did a grand job bobbing and weaving out of the way of Harry Wills.

We do know better because we have lived to see what real heavyweights look like in Liston, Foreman, Bowe, Lewis, Ike and Klitschko's. Those folks never saw such big men with such refined skills and athletic ability.

I don't put Dempsey and Louis in the same category. One grabbed the brass ring and avoided difficulty as long as possible by sitting on the title and finding in two categories... smallish and sickly or oafish and crude.

 

perez is aboput 511

 

I doubt Dempsey could do much to either Klitschko tbh, he went life and death with a VASTLY inferior version of the Klits in Firpo and basically lost the match if it wasn't for a guy on the type writer.
Langford is too small and doesn't belong in the ring with them.
The only people of the giant killers you mentioned i think would beat the Klits is Louis, Marciano and Tyson. Louis with his short, sharp, accurate and poweful combinations could put ANYONE on the canvas and that goes for Vitali, you can extend this to Tyson.
Marciano would give them hell with his insane workrate and stamina, great chin and power I could see him outworking Vitali to a MD or UD especially given his aggressiveness and possibly KO'ing Wlad