My Dad's Top 10 Heavyweights

Ironically, by 1924 or 1925 Wills probably was quite slow and easy a target for better fighters than Firpo, and Dempsey, who was also slipped, should have definitely fought him instead of fighting Gene Tunney !

Wills generally was known to clinch, hold and hit a fair bit and lean on his opponents on the inside. Kearns and Dempsey always said they figured him to be suitable stylistically for that reason, although Dempsey would never underestimate him.
No one's saying he's just the same as Firpo and Willard, and it's only ignorant Dempsey-haters who lump Firpo and Willard (and Fulton) together as some sort of awful trio of big men who all fought the same way.

 

None of these guys was the whole package, but each had some very significant assets that Jack had to overcome.

If you could Frankenstein-together Luis, Jess and Fred, that would be a hell of a fighter.

 

I got "Louis-Charles" from '50 rolling.................. Very tactical......... Almost dull.......... Charles too swift and crafty for the bloated and rusty Louis......... Louis is fighting like he was 50 yrs old..... Oh, Louis looks it too............

Buzzard Charles reminds me of a youthful Evander Holyfield with his in and out spryness and slick reflexes.........

MR.BILLbbb

 

Take a look at Ezzard Charles face and tell me Louis didn't give him a rough time. I bet Charles own mother didn't recognize him for weeks after the fight.

good point.

 

Actually, both Louis and Charles had closed / puffy left eyes afterward....... Due to the fact both had solid jabs of accuracy.......... Charles' overall punches were more precise.......... Louis was very slow and off-beat with his cross........

MR.BILL:rasta

 

My grandad was born in '14 and my pops was hatched in '41.... I popped up in 1967....
:deal

MR.BILL

 

I've moved onto "Holy-Foreman" from '91 since it was within arms reach........ Very closely related to "Louis-Charles."

Foreman, a hulk of a tank at 257 pounds with his trunks pulled up to his tits, looking mammoth next to the chisled Holyfield, who was simply too spry and reflexive at age 29 yrs for Foreman to trap and catch.......

Neither "Louis-Charles" or "Holy-Foreman" lived up to the billing in terms of action. But nevertheless, they were epic fights that made the world stop and take notice in 1950 and 1991..........

MR.BILL:bbb

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzHCZDLVmnA&feature=related[/ame]


Mr. Bill here is charles and louis training for the fight. Man, Charles looks so sharp and fast hitting that heavy bag...and Louis looks big and powerful hitting the speed bag. I gotta tell you, I wouldn't want to be a 185lb man fighting Joe Louis in there.

 

Yes, but a 208 pound Holy boxed Foreman's 257 pounds ass off........ Holy, Like Charles before, took some lumps, but they gave more then thay received....
:hat

MR.BILL

 

"Firpo and Willard (and Fulton)"

Fair enough and all good fighters, but Wills did decisively defeat Fulton and Firpo, and it is certainly possible, and I think likely, that he was better than the Willard of 1919.

Wills would have been a sterner test.

 

For sure.

 

I agree, Wills would have been a sterner test and a better scalp to celebrate.
I dont know for sure but I suspect Dempsey would have had more trouble with Harry Greb though, and Wills may not have fared too well at all. It's all speculation and conjecture on style match-ups without even the proper apparatus (film) to reach a qualified opinion.
I'm pretty sure Tunney instead of Wills in 1926 was an awful choice for Dempsey.

 

If you think it's irrational having Dempsey #1 then you should criticize every time a person that thinks he beats Marciano, Frazier, Louis, Ali, Wlad, Vitali, etc. Key-words there was perspective. And I think you to brush this aspect to the side makes your last paragraph read rather childish. It's possible you'll been seen in the same light when talking about the former greats with younger generations 40-50 years down the line. Just a thought.

 

Jesus.:shock: