Would you place Joe Louis above any of these guys, pound for pound? - Page 5

Bokaj · 02-23-2011, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goat15

lol you're banging your head against a brick wall. we've covered this!

I just feel that I don't get any answers. In the future perhaps the p4p lists should come with an additional "No natural HWs allowed".

goat15 · 02-23-2011, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokaj

He's got a strong case. It would be easier to compare them if Ali's career hadn't been interrupted like it was.

yeah so difficult to compare and pick who was greater. anyone who thinks it's clear cut must be seeing something i'm not... or not seeing something

goat15 · 02-23-2011, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokaj

I just feel that I don't get any answers. In the future perhaps the p4p lists should come with an additional "No natural HWs allowed".

i agree that the bias against heavyweights is frustrating. like i said, though, some people do have good reasons for their choices (the dominance vs. era thing)...different people emphasise different things i guess, and different views can be equally well argued.

Pachilles · 02-23-2011, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokaj

I just feel that I don't get any answers. In the future perhaps the p4p lists should come with an additional "No natural HWs allowed".

Quote:

Originally Posted by goat15

i agree that the bias against heavyweights is frustrating. like i said, though, some people do have good reasons for their choices (the dominance vs. era thing)...different people emphasise different things i guess, and different views can be equally well argued.

Broken record i know. But i think one of the main reasons for this, is the Heavyweight Divisions mainstream popularity throughout time, which makes it cool to not rate it

goat15 · 02-23-2011, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pachilles

Broken record i know. But i think one of the main reasons for this, is the Heavyweight Divisions mainstream popularity throughout time, which makes it cool to not rate it

yeah that's probably the main reason for the prejudice. when prejudices are so long-standing, they become infused with 'logic'!

bodhi · 02-23-2011, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokaj

You could also say that Louis beat fighters that were 60-70 lbs heavier than him, which you can't say for Armstrong.

The fact is that he beat fighters of all shapes and sizes.

The point I made was that Louis was dominant in a greater range of weight and for a much longer time. I think the time frame is in Louis' favour not Armstrong's.

1. They didn't dominate as Louis did. Not even Duran has half the amount of defenses for the undisputed title that Louis did nor did any of them reign for nearly as long.

2. Monzon shouldn't be in the same sentence as Louis when it comes to dominating a given weight.

At the end of the day what could Louis have done to prove his greatness if what he did wasn't enough? Move down and campaign at LHW and MW? Your reasoning just leaves no real opening for a natural HW in p4p rankings.

If I´d rank fighters purely on achievement and dominance Louis would be Top3. But there are other factors, mostly resume, and Louis doesn´t score that high there. So, if a hypothetical hw would match Louis achievements and would have a resume comparable to Armstrong or Robinson. No doubt he would be Top10. Possibly Top5.

But as it is, there is no hw like that. Ali has the resume for it but not the achievements. Louis has the achievements but not the resume. That´s how I see it. You can disagree. Doesn´t mean much to me though.

bodhi · 02-23-2011, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pachilles

Broken record i know. But i think one of the main reasons for this, is the Heavyweight Divisions mainstream popularity throughout time, which makes it cool to not rate it

Which is BS. I have 6 fighters who fought enough at hw to be considered hws in my Top8.

Fighters who fought purely at one division are have a hard time to get in there. But that´s not because they get punished for fighting only in one division. But the fighters who covered more than one division get rewarded for taking the risk of trying deeper water. Hws are a bit unlucky because there is no toher division they can cover. Sh*t happens.

teeto · 02-23-2011, 11:47 AM

Langford-no
Robinson-no
Armstrong- no
Greb-no
Charles-have to say no
Walker-possibly not
Pep-this is close imo, i'd likely lean towards Pep though
Moore-yes, this is Joe's best bet if you make the case based purely on his better success rate
Duran-no
Fitzsimmons-close, not sure
Ali-no
Burley-yes
Benny Leonard-close, probably lean towards Leonard but it needs an analysis which i haven't had a go at yet
Sugar Ray Leonard-it's too much of a pain in the arse judging Sugar Ray Leonard-i guess i'd possibly lean towards him
Barney Ross-yes
Gene Tunney-yes, close.

Bokaj · 02-23-2011, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bodhi

If I´d rank fighters purely on achievement and dominance Louis would be Top3. But there are other factors, mostly resume, and Louis doesn´t score that high there. So, if a hypothetical hw would match Louis achievements and would have a resume comparable to Armstrong or Robinson. No doubt he would be Top10. Possibly Top5.

But as it is, there is no hw like that. Ali has the resume for it but not the achievements. Louis has the achievements but not the resume. That´s how I see it. You can disagree. Doesn´t mean much to me though.

Ok. We'll agree to disagree.

I don't really understand your distinction between achievements and record, though.

I make such a one for Foreman. Him regaining the HW title 21 years after first winning it, is a fantastic achievement. But his record isn't that great imo since he's little better than 50-50 with the ranked opponents he fought.

For Louis, I make no such distinctions. Him making 25 defenses, being 26-1 in title fights, beating 30+ top ranked fighters, etc, etc is his record as far as I'm concerned. And it's quite an outstanding one.

bodhi · 02-23-2011, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Ok. We'll agree to disagree.

I don't really understand your distinction between achievements and record, though.

I make such a one for Foreman. Him regaining the HW title 21 years after first winning it, is a fantastic achievement. But his record isn't that great imo since he's little better than 50-50 with the ranked opponents he fought.

For Louis, I make no such distinctions. Him making 25 defenses, being 26-1 in title fights, beating 30+ top ranked fighters, etc, etc is his record as far as I'm concerned. And it's quite an outstanding one.

Well, achievements is what you did and resume is against who you did it.

Bokaj · 02-23-2011, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bodhi

Well, achievements is what you did and resume is against who you did it.

For me, "record" is a combination of the two. But fair enough.

02-23-2011, 11:47 AM	#68
teeto Next Level Predictions East Side VIP Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Team Ireland Manor, Easing Pabuiao into the life of managing the GOAT Posts: 33,956 vCash: 1000	Re: Would you place Joe Louis above any of these guys, pound for pound? Langford-no Robinson-no Armstrong- no Greb-no Charles-have to say no Walker-possibly not Pep-this is close imo, i'd likely lean towards Pep though Moore-yes, this is Joe's best bet if you make the case based purely on his better success rate Duran-no Fitzsimmons-close, not sure Ali-no Burley-yes Benny Leonard-close, probably lean towards Leonard but it needs an analysis which i haven't had a go at yet Sugar Ray Leonard-it's too much of a pain in the arse judging Sugar Ray Leonard-i guess i'd possibly lean towards him Barney Ross-yes Gene Tunney-yes, close.
Top