View Single Post
Old 11-18-2012, 03:02 AM   #42
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,568
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Joe Louis's resume is very poor

Quote:
Originally Posted by edward morbius View Post
You can do this with anybody. Schmeling was blown out in 1 round by Gypsy Daniels. He lost to an aging Jack Sharkey who was never able to beat a top fighter again. He lost badly to Steve Hamas in their first fight. He was stopped by Baer and crushed by Louis in their rematch.
I thought he was robbed against Sharkey.
Steve Hamas was a smart boxer.


Quote:
In comparision, the postwar Walcott was erratic but gave fewer really bad performances.
But if people are holding Walcott up as some sort of slick and skillful boxer with KO power who would run rings around Baer and/or Schmeling, then it needs to be pointed out that didn't dominate against men like Rex Layne and Elmer Ray, who weren't super skillful themselves.


Quote:
The 1936 Louis was young and talented, but the 1948 version had more savvy and was fifteen pounds heavier. Schmeling never beat a 213 lb fighter, let alone one as good as even an old Louis.
Louis was old and overweight. He was better in 1936.

Quote:
*It is a whole different issue how much pre-war fights like Simon prove about Walcott. His efforts against Ray and Layne are no worse than Schmeling's against Hamas.
Hamas was a clever boxer, the equal of Tommy Loughran in a 4-fight series, and with wins over other contenders. Equal with Lee Ramage in a 3-fight series, another lauded 'clever' boxer.
Schmeling dominated Hamas utterly in the rematch.
I think Rex Layne was crude by comparison with Hamas.

If the claim is being made is that Walcott would easily dominate the "crude" Max Baer, I look to where Walcott easily dominated such types of fighter. I can't find any examples to back that up.
Walcott gets overrated on the 'beauty' of some of his moves, his performances in their entirety don't back it up.
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote