Joe Louis vs Jack Dempsey

YES.

 

How is that possible that Schmeling stopped so many top tier durable contenders then? Something none of these guys accomplished?

How can anybody question Schmeling as a puncher is always something I can't understand.

 

Was Carpentier as good a heavyweight as Conn? Billy established himself as an excellent heavyweight before ever facing Louis. Not a rhetorical question as I'm not as familiar with Carpentier.

There had been a misconception about Billy Conn because he was small. It's almost as if Louis lost that fight. Great fight, action packed. In my view Joe had grinded Conn down and had him ready to GO. When Billy Conn made tremendous rally. Billy was hooking.
Joe did get buckled by a left hook. To me It's one of those things in sports that happen when man doesn't respect the power of his opponent. Joe didn't think he could do that, he walked into a Haymaker. Louis immediately recovered and KOd Conn 15 seconds later.
The way some people judge it against Louis (his chin) makes little sense.

 

He wasn't. He wasn't complete novice at that weight, but his HW resume is very lacking.

It's exactly the same thing that happened to Dempsey in Carpentier fight. Nobody holds it against Jack, cause he stopped George quickly after the moment. For some reason, it is extremely important in Louis evaluation though.

 

to much facts and logic keep speaking truth

 

I know it wouldnt be joe who skills would come in cause jack wouldnt let it unlike Jersey who would go toe to toe which is why he lost

jers had way better movement and was great at using angles I didnt understand why he picked to trade he could have won both matches easy

jack wasnt that way if he knew he could out pick a person and use his great movement he stuck to it same as the advanced ver of Mike did

 

When did the “advanced version”’of Mike cease?

Oh, perhaps when he co-incidentally met an advanced mover, boxer puncher in Douglas - his best opponent to date?

Now there’s a crazy thought but then you don’t apply your standards evenly and therefore you are consistently contradicting yourself.

So you have Mike “falling off” at just age 23 but here you are analysing a 34 yo Louis, who is clearly that much slower of hand and foot than his prime but still fighting well enough and actually achieving his end game that he was aiming for and progressing toward throughout the fight. No “savers”’ or “excuses”’ for Joe, just assess a fighter absolutely when it suits you (unlike your treatment of Mike’s less outstanding performances and outright failures?).

Joe was more considerate in his approach, figuring Walcott out and acting upon it - that clearly had an effect on Walcott’s own approach.

You always figure that there must’ve been something wrong with the guy you’re trying to tout (Tyson, Morrison etc.) rather than giving due credit to the influence and pressure exerted by the opposition. Narrow minded and biased.

Watch the fight properly. Walcott was IN FACT not slugging or mixing it with Joe when he got caught. He was offering his all conquering movement and tried to turn away from Joe’s well timed right hand that started him on his way.

Repeat, Joe belted Walcott WHILE he was in the throes of his defensive moves. As such, he was then badly hurt, couldn’t move and therefore threw back in absolute desperation looking to survive - but he was already on his way and Joe cleaned him up in perfect, finishing fashion.

 

im not giving you a detailed response to jers and joe cause I keep telling you blind people the same thing you cant see it or dont know the topic never was who won or lost

and no buster wasnt Mike's beat opponent liar he fought people who moved and was more skilled then him so dumb quote mike was in bad shape that night most folks know that

how about you name a person who beat mike when he was in shape name him

 

Funny that you ask a question when you won`t answer one yourself

 

Liar, liar, pants on fire? Are we having a kiddie argument?

Like, should I be replying with: “nah, nah, it takes one to know one?” <blows raspberry>

Switching to adult mode: YOU don’t give detailed responses EVER because you DON’T have any.

The breakdown I gave on Louis- Walcott didn’t just focus on the result but how Louis came to progressively box to the ultimate result. You don’t read and respond like a broken record, unable to converge on the points that don’t suit you.

Did you miss the part where Joe NAILED Walcott when Jersey Joe was giving Louis his “moves”? Of course you didn’t, you constantly ignore every point that refutes your position.


I agree Mike was in bad shape. After Buster got through with him. No brainer.

It shows you don’t know what you’re talking about - Buster WAS Mike’s best opponent - including his displaying the “movement” and “angles” you’re so fond of.

Pretty lame to take all Mike’s wins otherwise and then baulk on the reality of his first loss, a comprehensive drubbing over near 10 rds with an emphatic KO at the finish.

Louis’ took his loss to Schmeling on the chin and came back - NO excuses for Joe, eh Money, only for your beloved Mike?

Your being in denial over prime Tyson’s legitimate KO loss to a better man and his BEST opponent just goes to prove how much your emotional investment corrupts your objective judgment and explains your hypocritical approach overall.

 

dont have to

 

Poor response

 

no cause they wont give me the proof I always ask for

 

See Pugguy`s post here he does just that

 

no he doesn't that dude is crazy