Joe Louis's Opposition (old story, I know)

[ChrisPontius]

I agree and i think that, ironically, Ali's Vietnam induced layoff made him end up ranked higher on ATG lists because it gave Frazier & Foreman a chance to establish themselfes so Ali could beat them, even if he lost the first time to Frazier.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by cross_trainer

There are two schools of thought on Joe Louis's opposition: Either it was poor (no standout fighters), or that it was good, but Louis's dominance PREVENTED any standout fighters from emerging because he destroyed everyone with ease.

I ascribe to the second school of thought. Think about this for a moment--some of Louis's most highly rated opponents (Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Braddock, even Carnera) made their careers before or after Louis's prime years. I doubt very much that new talent simply disappeared circa 1937 and reemerged in 1949, even accounting for the effects of the war. There must have been a "would have been" ATG heavyweight somewhere in the mix during Louis's prime.

Question: Did Louis have significantly more trouble with his most highly rated opponents (aside from the first Schmeling loss) than he did with the top contenders during his peak? Again, mostly not. Carnera was annihilated, Baer was annihilated, Schmeling was annihilated once Joe corrected his mistake, and Braddock was (gamely) beaten up after a smidgeon of early success. Only Walcott did well, and it was at the tail end of Louis's career (Walcott lost twice anyway, once by brutal knockout).

Now ask yourself: What if Baer, Schmeling, Carnera, Braddock, and Walcott had come into their primes during Louis's peak years...say, in 1940 or 1941? If that was the case, they would never have made their marks as champions or dominant contenders, and we would dismiss them (just like we dismiss many of Louis's peak opponents) as bums of the month that Louis destroyed...even if you keep the fight results identical.

Most fighters are very lucky they live in competitive, Louis-free eras. Ironically, the harder you struggle against your opposition, the better your opposition is rated.

There is a lot to ponder here. My first thoughts are Louis opposition as a whole is average by championship standards. The best fighters Louis meet in the Ring were Schmeling, Walcott, Charles, and Marciano, and each one of these men defeated Louis except for Walcott who was robbed of a decision in Madison Square Garden. Louis managers of course had a speical contract with Madison Square Garden. While age had a lot to do with Louis' defeats to Charles and Marciano, the point here was looking at the best fighters Louis meet.

The next best group of fighters Louis fought was B Baer, Godoy, Farr, and Conn. Each fighter had there share of moments vs Louis. Baer floored him, Godoy might have won the first fight via decision, Farr vs Louis was rather close, and if the Conn fight was 12 rounds, the Pittsburgh kid would have been a heavyweight champion at 168 pounds.

We don't know how Louis would have done vs Liston, Ali, Holmes or Tyson, but in my opinion Liston, Ali, Holmes, and Tyson would not struggle to defeat Baer, Godoy, Farr, and Conn. I beleive Liston, Ali, Holmes or Tyson were far better than Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Braddock, and Carnera. So I would say Louis was well suited to fight in the time line he did.

The early 1930's were the graveyard years of heavyweight boxing. Nat Fleischer wrote that heavyweight boxing was on life support when Carnera was champion.

If Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Braddock, or Carnera made their careers before or after Louis's prime years, I doubt they would be viewed as special fighters simply because they were not consistent enough in the ring. I can't see Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Braddock, or Carnera beating the better champions before or after them. While an upset is possible, their ring records in a weak 1930's / 1940's heavyweight division was too inconstant to suggest they would be great in other era's.

[cross_trainer]

I note that several tend to rate how good a fighter is from Louis's era based upon how good he was against Louis. Seems a bit circular if we're considering Louis's legacy (so-and-so gave Louis trouble, so he must be an excellent fighter, so he contributes to Louis's legacy).

Instead, we should consider who has the best record against other non-Louis contenders, even if Louis clobbered them in a single round (as Foreman clobbered Frazier and Liston clobbered Patterson, even though Patterson and Frazier were great fighters).

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Title Defenses against the likes of Jack Roper , Tony Musto ,and Gus Dorazio were pretty dismal,Roper was 36 had a record of 26 W 22L 5 Ds,Musto had lost9of 33 fights with 1 drawand had won 4 of his lasty 9 fights, Dorazio, who couldnt break an egg, had a record of36 W 9 L 1 D his only win over a "name was a split dec over Bob Pastor3 years before,Al Ettore ,Arturo Godoy, Patsy Perroni and even Willie Reddish had beaten him.NONE OF THESE MEN WERE RATED CONTENDERS WHEN THEY MET LOUIS.Apart from looking at how Louis demolished them you have to factor in how good they were,their records tell us they were poor undeserving challengers.Louis ,s best opponents fromToomy Farr ,his 1st defence in37 toAbe Simon in 42 ,were Farr,Schmeling,Buddy Baer ,and Billi Conn,only one,Conn could be called an ATG, and he was a light heavy who weighed 169 lbs when he fought Louis ,giving the Champion 30 lbs,Louis when great but the calibre of his opponents was not,better fighters than those mentioned should have had the opportunity to test him complexion played a big part in the choice of Louis,s challengers,and overall they cannot compare to those Ali beat.

Louis made 7 title defenses in 1941. Three were against outstanding
contenders, Conn, Nova, and Baer. Why is it so terrible then that he
defended against Musto and Dorazio, and why is Dorazio so bad. He
had been rated in the top ten and would be in the future. According to
Boxrec, he came into the Louis fight at 50-9-1, good for that era and
not awful for today. His career record was 73-23-2, and he defeated
six men who were at one time or another top five heavyweigths (Harry
Bobo, Johnny Flynn, Buddy Walker, Joe Baksi, Lem Franklin, and Gunnar
Barlund). His record certainly stands up to Brian London (37-20-1),
who got two shots at the title, David Bey (18-11-1), Chuck Wepner
(35-14-2), not to mention Manuel Ramos (25-29-3), let alone someone
like Terry Daniels.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by cross_trainer

I note that several tend to rate how good a fighter is from Louis's era based upon how good he was against Louis. Seems a bit circular if we're considering Louis's legacy (so-and-so gave Louis trouble, so he must be an excellent fighter, so he contributes to Louis's legacy).

Instead, we should consider who has the best record against other non-Louis contenders, even if Louis clobbered them in a single round (as Foreman clobbered Frazier and Liston clobbered Patterson, even though Patterson and Frazier were great fighters).

These are some top heavys' records for the 1930 to 1955 era:
1. 56-10-4 (40) 2. 71-13-0 (53) 3. 51-26-6 (26)
4. 38-14-3 (13) 5. 81-30-13(24) 6. 53-7-5 (17)
7. 68-3-0 (54) 8. 64-12-1 (15) 9. 50-7-0 (45)
10. 49-9-5 (31) 11. 82-13-1 (60) 12. 51-18-2 (32)
13. 90-25-1 (51) 14. 49-0-0 (43) 15. 93-40-3 (65)
16. 185-23-11 (131) 17. 90-14-0 (72) 18. 87-13-1 (70)

Comment--If I asked you to chose the outstanding fighters out of these,
I think most would pick #14 and #7 who clearly have the outstanding
records.

These are some top heavys' records for the early 1980's to today:
1. 69-6-0 (44) 2. 42-8-2 (27) 3. 41-2-1 (32) 4. 76-5-0 (6
5. 70-6-3 (43) 6. 42-1-0 (33) 7. 48-3-0 (43) 8. 33-6-1 (21)
9. 41-18-1 (2 10. 53-6-2 (33) 11. 35-2-0 (34) 12. 34-3-2 (27)
13. 42-1-0 (35) 14. 55-13-1 (3 15. 49-4-1 (3 16. 42-6-2 (33)
17. 40-5-0 (3 18. 41-7-1 (2 19. 51-8-0 (36) 20. 40-3-1 (21)
21. 42-3-0 (31) 22. 64-2-0 (43) 23. 50-6-0 (44) 24. 47-3-1 (42)

Comment-If you couldn't guess whose records are whose, could you
figure out who the best fighters are? #13 and #22 have among the
best records. I wonder if anyone on this forum would consider them
among the top ten heavyweights of their era.

I did not try to stack the results. These are the records of highly
rated fighters taken off Boxrec and shuffled about.

*The goofy smiling guy is an 8.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

These are some top heavys' records for the 1930 to 1955 era:
1. 56-10-4 (40) 2. 71-13-0 (53) 3. 51-26-6 (26)
4. 38-14-3 (13) 5. 81-30-13(24) 6. 53-7-5 (17)
7. 68-3-0 (54) 8. 64-12-1 (15) 9. 50-7-0 (45)
10. 49-9-5 (31) 11. 82-13-1 (60) 12. 51-18-2 (32)
13. 90-25-1 (51) 14. 49-0-0 (43) 15. 93-40-3 (65)
16. 185-23-11 (131) 17. 90-14-0 (72) 18. 87-13-1 (70)

Comment--If I asked you to chose the outstanding fighters out of these,
I think most would pick #14 and #7 who clearly have the outstanding
records.

These are some top heavys' records for the early 1980's to today:
1. 69-6-0 (44) 2. 42-8-2 (27) 3. 41-2-1 (32) 4. 76-5-0 (6
5. 70-6-3 (43) 6. 42-1-0 (33) 7. 48-3-0 (43) 8. 33-6-1 (21)
9. 41-18-1 (2 10. 53-6-2 (33) 11. 35-2-0 (34) 12. 34-3-2 (27)
13. 42-1-0 (35) 14. 55-13-1 (3 15. 49-4-1 (3 16. 42-6-2 (33)
17. 40-5-0 (3 18. 41-7-1 (2 19. 51-8-0 (36) 20. 40-3-1 (21)
21. 42-3-0 (31) 22. 64-2-0 (43) 23. 50-6-0 (44) 24. 47-3-1 (42)

Comment-If you couldn't guess whose records are whose, could you
figure out who the best fighters are? #13 and #22 have among the
best records. I wonder if anyone on this forum would consider them
among the top ten heavyweights of their era.

I did not try to stack the results. These are the records of highly
rated fighters taken off Boxrec and shuffled about.

*The goofy smiling guy is an 8.

Can you give us the names behind the numbers. With or without a goofy smile is fine by me.