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

At least Marciano wasn't afraid to take on top rated black fighters, unlike tunney and dempsey.


Liston is better than Marciano.

 

Dempsey showed nothing on film that can compare to the 6 punch combination Louis finished Walcott off with in 1948.


Joe Louis is the greatest of all time in his prime. People underrate him when he was past his prime, he was still lethal and dangerous.

 

Your fixation is not in the least bit comical. It's actual rather sad.

 

w

Agreed. I think Louis would control the range and distance against Tunney with his jab. The idea that boxing & moving from a smaller man is a recipe for success against Louis isn't really true. Louis was not some guy that was just easily susceptible to being out-boxed. It only becomes true when talking about the GOAT HW who happened to not only be bigger than Louis but better than Tunney at just about everything. Billy Conn and Walcott did not have their success like that. Success against Louis from smaller guys actual took some form of risk and unpredictability. I'm afraid Tunney is not gung-ho are risky enough to implement such a strategy to have an actual chance of winning. Yes he's Irish but he liked his Shakespeare too much.

Walcott-Dempsey is far more interesting. I think Dempsey matches up better with Walcott than probably 52 Marciano does. However, this Dempsey was a past it. Dempsey was certainly capable of falling into a trap. Tunney dropped Jack. All I know is Walcott's punches would hurt.

 

This Tunney would die up Louis .. it's all about the speed. Louis was clearly faded already while Tunney was at his absolute best .. a bigger, stronger, better, harder hitting version of Conn ..

I see Walcott beating this highly inactive Dempsey as well ..

 

atschrofl



Tunney-conn would be a 50-50 fight, no way gene was better than a prime conn.

 

Perhaps you can tell me anyone Conn defeated as good as the Greb Tunney mastered or the still very dangerous Gibbons Tunney stopped or the Dempsey Tunney defeated in Chicago ? The answer is no one. In addition, if they are even which is hilarious, the 1941 version of Conn beats the post WW2 Louis easily anyway just like a prime Tunney would .. and either makes a joke out of the 1951 version of Joe, your focal point for your idol matching up against large, capable heavyweights w a pulse ...

 

:|

 

Did ezzard charles make a joke out of the 1951 louis? I seem to remember charles face looking like a meat grinder after 15 rounds. Charles was arguably better than Conn and Tunney so for you to make outrageous claims conn and tunney would embarrass a 1951 louis when charles/marciano both couldn't...you're going to far.

Gibbons was flabby and way over the hill when Tunney fought him. Melio Bettina would have beaten a 1925 Tommy Gibbons. Joe Louis wanted no part of Bettina in the early 40s. A slick, highly skilled southpaw.

Tunney also lost to Greb...TWICE

Conn beat no one as good as greb, but plenty of HOF great fighters which clearly put him above tunney in resume like Tony Zale, Gus Lesnevich, Fred Apostoli, Mellio Bettina, Teddy Yarosz, Young Corbett III, Vince Dundee, Eddie Babe Risko, Solly krieger, Fritzie Zivic. All of these men fought in a better deeper era than the 1920s, and look better on film.

 

Your endless fixation on men's bodies is interesting ...

 

"Louis clearly faded by 1947." He wasn't at his peak but we're talking about Joe Barrow Louis. In 1947 he wasn't merely a good champion or good fighter at this point. He was still a great fighter.

What is Tunney going to really do? He operates primarily from one range. He's a boxer-mover, going against an ATG HW with power, respectable speed, and a superior jab. I'd wager 47 Louis was faster punching than 26 Dempsey. Certainly in his combinations which were always better. If you honestly think Tunney is whitewashing 47 Louis than you must think that Ali would win every single round against a peak Louis because Ali was exponentially better than Tunney. Yes, the differential of greatness between Ali and Tunney is greater than the one between Peak Louis and 47 Louis.

 

It's the typical overly simplistic analysis from hegrant which exemplifies his rudimentary grasp of boxing.

 

Criticism is only as valid as the source Pete and you are a consistent second rater here ... voluminous for sure but content wise , an eight rounder.

 

You're comparing a '47 Louis to his performances in 1950 and '51 after his 2 year retirement. Why not take his performances in '46 or his long KO run coming into the Walcott fight to characterise his ability rather than after a 2 year lay off?

Neither are a true testament to his ability in '47, which I think was still pretty high, enough to impressively KO Walcott in the return, who on film looks to be his best opponent in my view. Louis does ofcourse look slowed by '47, I wouldn't dispute that

 

Mcgrain,

Louis was a very dangerous great puncher in 1946-1948. He lost a lot of his combination punching abilities, finishing ability between 1948 and 1950. Don't lump the 1950-51 Louis in with the 1946-48 Louis as a puncher.