Joe Louis's resume is very poor

[The Funny Man 7]

The guy beat EVERYONE. I literally can't think of a fighter who cleaned out a house so thoroughly. Yes, his era wasn't as packed as Ali's his resume does include:

-Baer
-Sharkey
-Schmeling
-Walcott (twice0
-Nova
-Galento
-Conn (twice)
-Lewis
-Uzcuden
-Godoy
-Farr

All quality guys. Most of them would have been top 10 guys in other eras.

Another reason his opposition seems so weak is because Louis was knocking mother ****ers out before some of them had the chance to develop into serious contenders with real credentials. Its the same problem Holmes had and now the Klitschkos have it too. Basically the choice comes down to 1.) exposing and beatng up prospects before they can fully develop or 2.) knock out retreads.

[Theron]

This is a very obvious troll.....

[dmt]

must be that poster who was orignally called "revolver"

[PowerPuncher]

I don't think his era was that good to be honest, the skilled guys like Conn and Schmelling were small (and old), the big guys were poor. Walcott being the exceptional stand out. If the Klits were beating these type of guys everyone would be talking about what a poor era it is

[Unforgiven]

Max Schmeling and Max Baer and Billy Conn were probably the best men he fought.

I don't think Joe Louis's opposition is bad at all.
All heavyweight champion's suffer from a lack of quality challengers. That's the nature of the division, expectations are high, but turnover of new fighters is slow.

Ali's opposition wasn't as great as people make out either.

[ThinBlack]

Originally Posted by Vic-JofreBRASIL

Now this is not a good bump Thinblack. Shit thread, OP is obviously trolling.

You're right, Vic, I did have some initial reservations, but decided to take a shot.Misfired!

[janitor]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

I don't think his era was that good to be honest, the skilled guys like Conn and Schmelling were small (and old), the big guys were poor. Walcott being the exceptional stand out. If the Klits were beating these type of guys everyone would be talking about what a poor era it is

Firstly, there is no such thing as a weak era. You don't dominate in any era, without being incredible.

It is interesting that you not Walcott as an exceptional standout. During his own career, few would have compared him to Schmeling or Baer.

Of course if you are right, then Louis beat him twice while he was on the verge of retirment.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by janitor

Firstly, there is no such thing as a weak era. You don't dominate in any era, without being incredible.

It is interesting that you not Walcott as an exceptional standout. During his own career, few would have compared him to Schmeling or Baer.

Of course if you are right, then Louis beat him twice while he was on the verge of retirment.

Fair point. In retrospect if course i think walcott does stand out as the most talented true heavy in his reign. schmeling is a hell of a fighter but walcott takes it imo and louis was certainly past his best for both

[Nightcrawler]

Btw: i still live the boxing retrospective when joe walcott watches the first louis fight, and the look on his face screams "yeah, i got him...i got the best heavyweight there had ever been and held my own"

[SuzieQ49]

Max Schmeling and Max Baer and Billy Conn were probably the best men he fought.

Prime versions of Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano?

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

Btw: i still live the boxing retrospective when joe walcott watches the first louis fight, and the look on his face screams "yeah, i got him...i got the best heavyweight there had ever been and held my own"

Max Schmeling fought a much better version of Louis than Walcott, and took the judges out of the equation!

Perhaps the idea that the top early 50s guys were better than the top late 30s guys should be challenged?

Just throwing it out there!

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Prime versions of Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano?

The latter two while he was nearly shot. For a troll thread this one is easy to shit on. some days suzie, we need quality trolls like frankenfrank or anglosaxon

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by janitor

Max Schmeling fought a much better version of Louis than Walcott, and took the judges out of the equation!

Perhaps the idea that the top early 50s guys were better than the top late 30s guys should be challenged?

Just throwing it out there!

1)schmeling beating louis may be the best heavyweight win...ever! Mcgrain said it a whilr back and he was on to something
2) shits and giggles top 5 from each era, 30s vs 50s. You know the eras better than i

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Prime versions of Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano?

Baer and Schmeling and Conn were better than Walcott, yes.
Maybe I should have said "best men he beat" though, excluding Charles and Marciano who he lost to.

[Hands of Iron]

As if he even needed a 'strong resume' (subject to opinion too, really) to be - at worst - the second greatest heavyweight ever. He doubles and triples up on the number of world rated contenders most other ATG Heavyweights ran through, presided over the greatest title reign in history, had flawless mechanics and technique -- and was for my money, the greatest puncher of all-time.