Jack Dempsey 1926 v Jersey Joe Walcott 1947 - Joe Louis 1947 v Gene Tunney 1926

It's my personal opinion that Old Louis had a better jab than prime Tunney. I know that could bring a load of horsehit down upon me and I accept that it takes more to beat a fighter of Tunney's quality. But I think this could be a really close fight. I think the distance might be very important.


The thing is, I also think that Demspey would have a very good chance of getting Walcott. I don't think Dempsey lost his power in the same way Louis did eventually and may have done in time for Walcott (i'm not 100% on that). I also think that Dempsey was just a little bit more crafty. I don't accept for a moment that Louis was "robotic". But Louis struggled with Walcott because he didn't unpick certain facets of his style, over both fights. Dempsey lost to Tunney because he was physically incapable of competing with him.

Walcott is not the physical specimen that Tunney was. I think Dempsey might solve some Walcott details. LX's picks are the smart ones but I could see it going the exact opposite way.

 

If power is based partly upon torque, speed and body mechanics, this question answers itself.

Between 1947 and 1950, Louis fought five times and scored one KO.

That is unprecedented.

That he lost his power is pretty much unquestionable. Charles remarked, supposedly, that Louis didn't hit him that hard. In the final 10 fights of his career he managed two stoppages. You don't have to call it power if you're uncomfortable with it, call it "overall hitting ability" or whatever you like, but Louis slipped dramatically in terms of the affect his punches had.

Against Walcott he landed some good looking shots that didn't have the affect I say they would have had some years before. Walcott did not have an exceptional chin. Even the final KO is odd. Louis is not generating the usual torque as he throws those punches, his hips seem to be behind his hands. Louis seems behind his punches when compared to his best years for those punches. I think its instructive.

Yes, but there was a year in the interim, a year of inactivity unparalleled in his entire career, fifteen months in total. Louis looks noticeably older physically against Walcott. This, too, is instructive.

Based upon what?

Louis never fought a fighter with the jab, movement and punch resistance of a 1926 Tunney in 1947. So what?

 

Actually, no I mean the 1926 version as detailed in the thread question.

He'd better be. I personally don't believe he would survive the KD that Tunney suffered.

Speculation. I don't think he's necessarily any more powerful than Sharkey and I'd add that Walcott's KO ledger is far from impressive.

Before being knocked unconscious by a vastly superior puncher who eventually caught up to him.

It's interesting though. Marciano basically beat Walcott down rather than "solved" him.

Dempsey was beaten by one fighter in 1926, a prime Gene Tunney. Tunney is your pet peeve, Walcott is your pet, so perhaps you see Tunney as "inferior" but I disagree with you. Many would.