Originally Posted by JLP 6
This may not impress you.
Joe Louis held the title for eleven years and 8 months. Not the IBF, WBA, or WBC. No. He held the only title. The same one that John L. Sullivan held. Joe beat everyone that held the title before that were still fighting including cleaning and recleaning out his division and the lightheavyweight division for good measure. For eleven years! I think that is still a boxing record. 23 title defenses out of 25 were KO's. I that is a record as well. He lost a few prime year to WWI BTW. Would have been maybe 30.
The next champion after Joe was Ezzard Charles who was born in 1921. He was 16 when Louis won the title in 1937. Louis was probably his boyhood hero. The next 11 years after Joe had 6 different heavyweight champions. Charles, Walcott, Marciano, Patterson, Johansson, and Liston.
All of these men were GREAT fighters with the exception of Johansson. This is why Louis is so famous? Because he was the greatest until Ali came along. One comes close to those two.
As undesputed champions:
Mike Tyson was it for 2 years and 6 months (then KO'ed by Buster Douglas)
Lennox Lewis was the undesputed champion for 1 year (then KO'ed by Hasim Rahman)
Evander Holyfield: 2 years then losing the Bowe. (No shame in this one)
That totals a combined 5 years and change as undesputed champions from the three GREAT fighters.
What do you think of all this? Is Joe is a overated bum...along with all of the other old-time fighters, or with your clear rational mind will you concede that people who are in awe of this man Joe Louis have some good reason for it?
JPL, you're confusing accomplishments with H2H outcomes. Nobody would dispute that in terms of accomplishments Louis is at worst 2nd best in history, but H2H beating the likes of Conn isn't all that impressive. They wouldn't even allow Conn into the ring with Lewis in todays boxing world, nor Marciano for that matter.