Who would you expect to beat Joe Louis at his absolute peak ?

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

I think Farr was better than Byrd.
But like I said, not worth debating.


Galento knocked out some of the better fighters of the time, including some of the black fighters who you might criticize Louis for not fighting.
Of course Galento got the opportunities because he was "connected". Same applies to most, if not ALL, fighters.

You think all the heavyweight fighters of the era of were relatively poor ability.


Boxing trainers like Eddie Futch, Freddie Roach and Buddy McGirt, and countless other people, consider Joe Louis the least flawed of all heavyweight champions. Joe Louis look brilliant to me on film, and I'm in good company and the vast majority.

Farr better than Byrd? We have very different opinions here. Byrd accomplished more, has a better record, and beat better fighters.


Yes, I think most of the heavyweight fighters in the mid 1930's to mid 1940 were below average in comparison to other eras. Nat Fleisher wrote the heavyweight division was on life support before Louis took the title from Braddock, and he's 100% right. Tunney retired, and the title kept changing hands.

And other trainers like Steward think Louis is flawed and quickly point out what I am saying. Mills Lane things the same.

I agree that Louis was fundamentally excellent on offense, but defense and footwork is a comptley different story. I do not think Futch, Roach or McGirt think highly of Louis footwork or defense at all. I believe their comments were directed at Louis offense.

Can you post Futch’s, Roach’s, and McGrits quotes in context? I would like to read them. I suspect they are talking about Louis offensive technique. I agree with them here! However, I would be shocked if they complemented on Louis defense or footwork.


Fighter like Jack Johnson said Louis was easy to hit. Wills thought he same and said Louis can't deal with feints. Shcmeling saw something and it was a low guard. Walcott said Louis was easy to hit. Good boxers had no trouble hitting Louis even though he had the height, reach, and power advantage. The press of the times called Louis a shuffler, which is a degratory term that suggests slow and methodical footwork. Ali laughed when he saw Louis on film, and said he would never come close to catching up to me. These are the flaws I’m talking about. If Futch or Roach can counter ( saying his defense, footwork, guard, or balance / stance were good ) , I might fall out of my chair.

[Holmes' Jab]

Ali, maybe Lewis, maybe Holmes. That's about it.

[Mendoza]

Sonny's Jab,

I want you to take an honest look at Louis vs Tommy Farr on flim here.

When I say Louis had a low guard, slow feet, and stuck his face forward ( a real no-no in boxing ), I mean exactly that. This film proves without a doubt that I am correct. I don't see much head movement by Louis either.

Focus on Louis low left glove, slow feet, and chin foward stance. Then I have a few quesitons for you if I may.


1 ) Do you see these flaws on on flim as I do?


2 ) Do you think these flaws would hurt Louis vs a skilled bigger heavyweight who hit harder that say Farr, Godoy, Conn, or Pastor? I most ceritnaly do. Remember Louis had the height, reach, and power advantage in most of his fights.

Here is the link for the Farr fight

[URL="***********.youtube.com/watch?v=2A8vO2H2SLc"]***********.youtube.com/watch?v=2A8vO2H2SLc[/URL]

Here is the link for the godoy fight, again the same flaws by Louis can clearly be seen. In additon, notice how easy Godoy contorls Louis in a clinch.

[URL="***********.youtube.com/watch?v=nIrN-OOdWfc&feature=related"]***********.youtube.com/watch?v=nIrN-OOdWfc&feature=related[/URL]


Others are welcome to comment as well. The films should rule here.

Sorry, I'm logged on from my Blackberry at the moment, so I cant view video links at the moment.
I watched Louis-Farr a few days ago though. I didn't notice Louis "sticking his face forward".

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

Sorry, I'm logged on from my Blackberry at the moment, so I cant view video links at the moment.
I watched Louis-Farr a few days ago though. I didn't notice Louis "sticking his face forward".

Watch both matches when you get a chance.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Vantage_West

i see what your trap/banking on here and saying everyone he got knocked down by was a puncher...thing is at what point does a puncher excuse his abilty to get knocked down easily.

It never occurs to anybody that the number of knockdowns Louis sustained might simply be a function of the sheer volume of ranked fighters he fought.

People highlight the problems he had with certain oponents and use them to justify fighter A beating him but they forgett that fighter A lost the title after a couple of defences and only had a fraction of the number of fights against ranked opponents that Louis had.

Liston, Frzier, Foreman, Tyson only fought a fraction of the number of ranked oponents that Louis did. In some cases a small fraction.

so what we need is somone who is mobile ,fast but able to mix it up but not commiting.

Ali:
my first thoughts are that Ali is too nimble for joe. he doesnt get hurt easily, and has the mixture of chin heart and speed which is rare...and kinda makes him what he is.

Good call.

ali would defintly win against him

Dumb call.

Definite is nothing in a match up between two all time greats.

i have no quarms with that. i feel (from my most credible reputation) that louis is going to have to keep up with him in workrate and get underneath him to use his strength. i just feel joe hasnt fought anyone like this before. the closest being conn

I would say that Bob Pastor was a lot more like Ali personaly and look what happened to him.

if conn who is not a very naturaly gifted fighter.

Preposterous statment

holmes:
larry holmes the formerly forgoten champ. what does he have that louis cant deal with is that jab. that jab of holmes is all larry needed to use to win a fight. against louis

If you think that anybody could beat Louis using just a jab then you are seriously out of touch with reality. If Holmses only plan is to use his jab and hope it works then he has lost the fight before the first bell has rung.

joe shuffle foreward closing and locking off the ring to the size of a postage stamp. holmes would need to jab every time he got into range (which is easy as thats his plan since the mid 70's) when joe gets close throw a left right. if he closes the gap tie him up and basicly out last him.

An once Louis has Holmes on the ropes he will just sit there like a ninny?

Weaver and Shavers could put Holmes on queer street. If Louis had him in that state it would be game over.

I would also point out that every time Holmes fought the best he strugled. He simply did not produce the dominant wins over other top fighters of his era that characterise other all time greats so you should have verry grave doubts about him beating Louis.

Liston:
liston i feel has a good chance.had a good chin,a tough man and a very good skill set for a man of his reputation. BUT that is not my reaosns for picking him. Liston had maybe the best jab in heavywieght boxing. maybe not the fastest, maybe not the most dextrous. but power it certianly had.

Louis's jab was arguably as hard and twice as fast.

If this fight comes down to a jabbing matcgh then Liston has already lost it because slow jabbers tend not to beat fast jabbers.

liston just too strong hits to hard and form a distance and can back much stornger,bigger men up.

In a jabbing match between two imobile fighters a guy with shorter reach is prety much on a level playing field.

if joe can be backed up i think the fight is all over.

Louis never took a step towards his oponents if he could make them take a step towards him.

If Liston tried to back Louis up he would be playing into his hands because he would be walking forward into his punches. Thinking that the way to beat Louis is to back him up is your most fundamental error in this entire post.

It is not a given that Liston had the better chin of the two either.

Your last two analyses are esentialy sound having made the above observations.

[Marciano Frazier]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Tommy Farr was a small fighter who would not be in the heavyweight business in a modern ear of heavyweight boxing. Lou Nova is a decent fighter, but having him ranked as the #1 guy??? Egads!

Why is that so ridiculous? He was a young, hungry and skillful contender. Within the last eight months he had beaten Max Baer (for the second time!) and Pat Comiskey. There's no reason he wasn't qualified for a #1 ranking at that time.

Wrong. Galento was colorful mob connected journeyman with a punch. Simply check his records and you will see what I am talking about. Galento lost many matches to nobodies. He was stopped three times before facing Louis, and two of those people who stopped him were nobodies.

Joe Louis saw Galento flail away at ringside and figured he would give Galento a title shot. Galento was near the end of his career. Then something unexpected happened. Galento's nearly upset Louis. This fight proves how vulnerable Louis was to any many that can punch hard and land it on him. Is Louis was in there vs a more skilled puncher he would be in serious trouble. Anyway, Galento then defeated Lou Nova , then lost two straight via TKO to the Baer brothers.

This is a badly biased account. Galento was on a run of 11 consecutive knockout wins when he fought Louis, and they were all against at least moderate quality opponents, with several over contenders. Galento had been stopped three times earlier in his career, but they were all on cuts.

Louis never meet Maxie Rosenbloom, who his management felt could defeat him. Rosenbloom was a skilled guy who threw a lot of punches, and was hard to hit on defense. Rosenbloom would have make Louis look bad. Maxie was one of those people with no power, but a great chin and defense. Indeed, Rosenbloom was only stopped 2 times in 298 fights! Toward the end of his career, Rosenbloom beat a #1 ranked contender in Nova, and beat many of the same people Joe Louis did such as Toles, Levinsky, Ettore, John Henry Lewis well before John Henry was shot. Louis beat a sick and shot John Henry, and only gave him a title shot because he needed money. Ronenbloom also fought and defeated the some black fighters that Louis did not in Tiger Fox, and Leroy Haynes. Even Bert Sugar says Louis avoided Slapsie Maxie.

I've never read or heard that Louis' management felt Rosenbloom could/would beat him, and I don't believe that was what Sugar said, either. What was said was that they didn't give Rosenbloom a shot because, although he couldn't actually beat Louis, that he would make Joe look ugly and go the distance.

Louis did not give black fighters like Obie Walker, Elmer Ray, George Godfrey, Turkey Thompson, or Lem Franklin title shots. Louis management was close to giving Elmer Ray a title shot, then saw him live at the Madision Sqaure Garden and changed their minds. So Louis did not fight the best out there in a down era of heavyweight boxing. To suggest he did is not factually true. Louis management used the color line in many cases.

How would Louis have given Godfrey a shot when Godfrey retired a month and-a-half after Louis won the title??? Walker was never in the top five during Louis' reign. Nearly all of Thompson's high-level success came while Louis was on military hiatus; in fact, about the same time Louis got back from the service, Thompson suffered three defeats out of four fights and then went on a two-and-a-half-year layoff! You're really desperate if you attribute ducking here.
Only Ray has a case as an opponent who Louis' management genuinely avoided, and while it is true that he was pressing for a shot, I'd like a source for your claim that Louis' management "changed their minds" about giving him a shot after watching him at MSG. Ultimately, while Louis' management seems to have been wary of Ray, he would almost certainly have received a shot had he won his rematches with either Walcott or Charles; in fact, Louis did fight "the best" instead.
Ultimately, nearly every champion has at least one elite opponent he failed to face. This is nothing unusual. Louis cleaned out his era, particularly in the earlier part of his reign, as thoroughly as nearly any champion has ever done.

Louis looked very good vs journeyman in most of his fights, but struggled vs the best fighters he fought in Schmeling, Conn, Pastor, Walcott, Farr, Godoy, Braddock, Galento and company. I don't think the all time #1 or #2 heavyweight should have troubles vs these type of fighters. No way.

Those aren't exclusively "the best fighters he fought"; rather they're the best fighters he fought and also struggled with. Heck, not far back here, you described Galento as a lucky journeyman with mob connections who shouldn't have been given a shot (also wrong, but off-topic); but when it's time to list "the best fighters Louis fought," apparently he's now better than Max Baer, Primo Carnera, and the other top-flight heavyweights Louis mopped the floor with, since it's more convenient to leave the exaggerated impression of Louis' vulnerability.
Louis struggled sometimes against those fighters- that is not a black mark. Ali, Holmes, Marciano, Dempsey, Jeffries, Johnson, Lewis, etc. all struggled with guys no better than them. I don't think Machen could fight well at 210+. The extra weight would rob him of speed and stamina. And the fact is that Louis dominated a heck of a lot more often than he struggled. You're just running a highlighter over the spots on his record where there are less flattering moments.

Most of the fighters Louis fought were not that good to begin with and would be looking up a the lights vs other all time greats too. If Louis knocked everyone out easily, then why did he need so many re-matches? The answer is because he did not look good in the first fight, was sometimes knocked down, other times looked bad in distance fights.

Jimmy Young at his best was a very good fighter. However, who else did Foreman look bad against? No one really besides Ali. By Contrast, Louis had far more shaky performances vs people who were not even as good as Jimmy Young. See my point?

Ever heard of a fellow by the name of Ron Lyle?
This is an utterly unfair comparison; Louis fought literally dozens of contenders and fringe contenders ranging all the way from within his first year as a pro to 16 years later when he finally retired. Foreman fought hardly any ranked opponents for most of his career. 16 of his first 37 opponents had losing records. He beat only two (maybe three, if you stretch it and include Kirkman) contenders before getting his title shot, and they were nowhere near being top-five-ranked. He then beat Frazier and Norton, lost to Ali, beat Lyle and Frazier, and lost to Young. He had a total record of 5-2 against ranked opponents in his first career; I don't need to tell you how ridiculously small and weak that looks compared with Louis'. And he lost or nearly lost in three of seven fights, which is a much higher fight-by-fight rate than the one at which Louis lost or nearly lost in his own big fights.

[RoccoMarciano]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Well, we can certainly ad Max Schmeling to that list, given that he actually DID beat Louis.

... I suppose Schmeling also lost to the best Louis though..

[AnthonyJ74]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

I've noticed that Joe Louis is regarded by many people here as number 1 or 2 heavyweight of all-time.

On the other hand, I see he gets picked against a lot in head to head match-ups.

Also, I've learned that Louis "has trouble with swarmers", "wouldn't do well against guys who stick and move", "would be at a stylistic disadvantge against big skilled punchers" and "would have nightmares with counter-punchers" "was troubled by fighters with good lefts" and "was troubled by fighters with good rights" ...... In other words, this great Joe Louis, who used to be praised for being a near perfect complete boxer-puncher, is actually a bit of a lousy bet against all styles, and against other great fighters he'd be up against it.
Sound preposterous to me, but I'm here to learn.

Which former heavyweight champions would you favour over Louis ?

Riddick Bowe would have beaten him!

[Mendoza]

Marciano Frazier Why is that so ridiculous? He was a young, hungry and skillful contender. Within the last eight months he had beaten Max Baer (for the second time!) and Pat Comiskey. There's no reason he wasn't qualified for a #1 ranking at that time.

Do you think Lou Nova is a good #1 contender? I do not. This is the key point. If you think Nova is a good #1 contender say so. Someone has to be #1. Nova occupied this spot because #2, #3, #4, and #5 were worse. Baer was lazy and often out boxed. I can think of, oh at least 50 heavyweight fighters who were never ranked #1 that were better than Nova.

This is a badlybiased account. Galento was on a run of 11 consecutive knockout wins when he fought Louis, and they were all against at least moderate quality opponents, with several over contenders. Galento had been stopped three times earlier in his career, but they were all on cuts.

Galento has a journeyman’s record. This is because he is not very good. Galento could hit, but so could Bert Cooper. And yes, Galento was mob connected. In addition, Galento lost to some average fighters. Many punchers can bowl over a moderate collection of opponents based on power alone.

I've never read or heard that Louis' management felt Rosenbloom could/would beat him, and I don't believe that was what Sugar said, either. What was said was that they didn't give Rosenbloom a shot because, although he couldn't actually beat Louis, that he would make Joe look ugly and go the distance.

Sugar mentions it quite a bit. Considering the trouble Farr and Pastor gave Louis, Rosenbloom could do even more, because he was quicker of feet, and threw more punches. Maxie also know how to steal rounds. Louis did not.

How would Louis have given Godfrey a shot when Godfrey retired a month and-a-half after Louis won the title??? Walker was never in the top five during Louis' reign. Nearly all of Thompson's high-level success came while Louis was on military hiatus; in fact, about the same time Louis got back from the service, Thompson suffered three defeats out of four fights and then went on a two-and-a-half-year layoff! You're really desperate if you attribute ducking here.

Only Ray has a case as an opponent who Louis' management genuinely avoided, and while it is true that he was pressing for a shot, I'd like a source for your claim that Louis' management "changed their minds" about giving him a shot after watching him at MSG. Ultimately, while Louis' management seems to have been wary of Ray, he would almost certainly have received a shot had he won his rematches with either Walcott or Charles; in fact, Louis did fight "the best" instead.

Ultimately, nearly every champion has at least one elite opponent he failed to face. This is nothing unusual. Louis cleaned out his era, particularly in the earlier part of his reign, as thoroughly as nearly any champion has ever done.

Well, Louis gave Sharkey a shot and he was done for. Why not Godfrey who earned a title shot but never got one? Who cares is Ring Magazine never rated Walker in their top 5. The bum of the month club was full of non-top 5 opponents, and you know it. And what about Fox or other black heavies of the era? Thompson had the power and style to bother Louis ( a ko over Ray ) and would have been a fine choice. We agree on Louis management avoding Elmer Ray. I agree with you that a champion cannot fight everyone, but Louis avoided the top black talent in general. That is my point, and he had 25 matches to defend. To only pick two black men ( one was shot and it was a personal favor ) does not seem fair. The black heavyweights back then were not that bad. If you factor in a down era in talent, things like this mean something.

Those are not exclusively "the best fighters he fought"; rather they are the best fighters he fought and struggled with. Heck, not far back here, you described Galento as a lucky journeyman with mob connections who shouldn't have been given a shot (also wrong, but off-topic); but when it's time to list "the best fighters Louis fought," apparently he's now better than Max Baer, Primo Carnera, and the other top-flight heavyweights Louis mopped the floor with, since it's more convenient to leave the exaggerated impression of Louis' vulnerability.

I think the best fighters Louis fought in order were Marciano, Schmeling, Walcott, Charles, and M. Baer. He has a losing record vs these fighters and that includes a gift win over Walcott. Baer and an older Carnera were slow fighters who did not run. Tailor made for Louis speed and power.

Louis struggled sometimes against those fighters- that is not a black mark. Ali, Holmes, Marciano, Dempsey, Jeffries, Johnson, Lewis, etc. all struggled with guys no better than them. I don't think Machen could fight well at 210+. The extra weight would rob him of speed and stamina. And the fact is that Louis dominated a heck of a lot more often than he struggled. You're just running a highlighter over the spots on his record where there are less flattering moments.

Here's where we disagree. Yes, all time greats often had 1 or 2 non-elite fighters they struggles with, but Louis had several, and they happened when he was in his prime. I just can't see the likes of Braddock, Pastor, Farr, Godoy, Galento, Conn, Mureillo, and others giving other all time great as many problems. Regarding Machen, make him 210+ if you wish, but also slow him down, and limit his stamina. Then tell me if you have a better fighter. You don’t.

Ever heard of a fellow by the name of Ron Lyle?
This is an utterly unfair comparison; Louis fought literally dozens of contenders and fringe contenders ranging all the way from within his first year as a pro to 16 years later when he finally retired. Foreman fought hardly any ranked opponents for most of his career. 16 of his first 37 opponents had losing records. He beat only two (maybe three, if you stretch it and include Kirkman) contenders before getting his title shot, and they were nowhere near being top-five-ranked. He then beat Frazier and Norton, lost to Ali, beat Lyle and Frazier, and lost to Young. He had a total record of 5-2 against ranked opponents in his first career; I don't need to tell you how ridiculously small and weak that looks compared with Louis'. And he lost or nearly lost in three of seven fights, which is a much higher fight-by-fight rate than the one at which Louis lost or nearly lost in his own big fights.

Yes. Lyle would be a legit #1 or #2 person in the mid 30's to early 40's. Foreman having trouble with Lyle is more excusable than say Louis having trouble with Galento. Foreman and Louis both had a lot of power, the difference is Foreman went at his guys, and had more range, while Louis was slower and methodical in his approach, which is a reason why he had fits vs boxers. Foreman didn’t care if he was in there vs a quick Boxer. He cut off the ring, and traded punched. See my point?

I will be creating a new thread on Louis' low guard, stick your face forward style, weakness in clinches, and slow / predictable feet as its own thread. I linked some Louis fights to watch for Sonny's Jab but saw no replies from anyone.. I think I am correct and these drawbacks are why Louis struggled as much as he did despite an amazing arsenal of punches, power and hand speed.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

I think the best fighters Louis fought in order were Marciano, Schmeling, Walcott, Charles, and M. Baer. He has a losing record vs these fighters and that includes a gift win over Walcott.

Isn't he 4-3 up? Or are you including Walcott as a loss? At any rate it's harsh, he was past it vs Charles and Marciano. We could say the best fighters Holmes fought were Norton, Spinks, Tyson and Holyfield and he is 1-4 against them, but the truth is he was past it for near all four losses really.

[Mike South]

Originally Posted by Woddy

I wouldn't bet money on any of these men, but I think Ali, Holmes, Lewis, Tyson and possibly Frazier could have beaten him.

I just watched Ali-Folley last night on TV.

It was the 'Classic Sports Network' version with excellent interviews with each before and after the fight. Ali made some interesting comments to Don Dunphy about Folley after the fight:

Ali said Folleys right gave him some trouble, and that Folley hurt him to the body once or twice. Most interestingly, Ali admitted that his manager Herbert Muhammad between rounds admonished him for being flat-footed, and Ali's response and rationale for his flat-footedness was that Folley wasn't moving - he had planted himself in the center of the ring, so Ali's usual tactic of floating like a butterfly had been negated.

I found this especially interesting because often the argument is made that 'the shuffling Louis' would never catch Ali, but Ali himself raises the question as to whether or not a 'shuffling Louis' would even have to chase Ali. Louis certainly had no doubts on this issue.

Summary: I think Louis would have a much tougher time against Frazier than against Ali, based on Ali's post-Folley comments.

And let's get one thing straight right now: Folley was no Louis.

If you disagree with anything I've written here, please cite the same sources as have I to refute my argument, rather than doing it on blind faith. The world is suffering from a severe case of blind faith right now, and blind faith is no substitute for clear reason, nor is it a substitute for empirical evidence (and for those visiting from the lounge, empirical evidence be when da umpire call muthaf****a out at home, yo and he go to da replay an shit).

Cheers.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

Isn't he 4-3 up? Or are you including Walcott as a loss? At any rate it's harsh, he was past it vs Charles and Marciano. We could say the best fighters Holmes fought were Norton, Spinks, Tyson and Holyfield and he is 1-4 against them, but the truth is he was past it for near all four losses really.

Um, didn't Holmes beat some guy named Ali?

You think Spinks is better than Weaver, Shavers, Witherpsoon, Berbick and others!! I don't think you do. I know your rather high on Weaver. IMO, Witherpsoon is better than Spinks too. Holmes did beat Spinks in the 2nd fight, but he was not as loved and lacked the connecitons Louis had so they robbed him. I think you looked before you leaped on the above paragraph.

If you want to comapre Holmes at 35 and over to Louis at 35 and over, Holmes is by far the better fighter.

In the ring, Holmes was much more consistant than Louis. A prime Holmes and did not let small / limted power guys make him look bad, nor was he floored as much by joruneyman, nor did he use the color line, ect...

[Bokaj]

Well, Folley himself said after the fight that were no way to deal with Ali when he was moving and that he couldn't see how flat-footed Louis could win against Ali. He is quoted as saying this in Hauser's biography of Ali and the quote has been used in other threads on this forum.

[Marciano Frazier]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Do you think Lou Nova is a good #1 contender? I do not. This is the key point. If you think Nova is a good #1 contender say so. Someone has to be #1. Nova occupied this spot because #2, #3, #4, and #5 were worse. Baer was lazy and often out boxed. I can think of, oh at least 50 heavyweight fighters who were never ranked #1 that were better than Nova.

You're not necessarily better than everyone else simply because you're ranked #1 at a particular moment. Archie Moore was ranked #1 going into his title fight with Patterson, but he wasn't the better fighter. Nova was deservng of a #1 ranking at that moment- that doesn't necessarily mean he was actually the best, just that he was putting together as good or better a string of wins as anyone else at that moment.

Galento has a journeyman’s record. This is because he is not very good. Galento could hit, but so could Bert Cooper. And yes, Galento was mob connected. In addition, Galento lost to some average fighters. Many punchers can bowl over a moderate collection of opponents based on power alone.

I'm not arguing Galento is a legend, here; rather I'm pointing out the heavily-slanted nature of your description of him as a lucky journeyman with mob connections who was just tossed a title shot. In reality, though he was certainly not one of the best contenders to grace the ranks, he was, in fact, on a big knockout streak over strong opposition going into the Louis fight, and was a legitimate contender. He may have been crude and fat, but he was a tough mother with a big punch and a sturdy chin, and was far, far from being one of the worst fighters to receive a crack at the championship.

Well, Louis gave Sharkey a shot and he was done for.

The Sharkey fight was nearly a year before Louis won the title.

Why not Godfrey who earned a title shot but never got one?

Like I said, Godfrey retired a month-and-a-half after Louis won the title. Arguing that Louis ducked Godfrey is deeply, deeply desperate. If Louis' management had somehow drug an old, washed-up Godfrey out of retirement for a title fight, you'd no doubt be on here criticizing him for that.

Who cares is Ring Magazine never rated Walker in their top 5. The bum of the month club was full of non-top 5 opponents, and you know it. And what about Fox or other black heavies of the era? Thompson had the power and style to bother Louis ( a ko over Ray ) and would have been a fine choice.

The question isn't whether or not he could have given people shots, or else literally every champion has ducked all kinds of opponents. There are only so many title shots to be handed out. Unless a fighter was a pressing contender, you can't argue that the champion "ducked" them simply on the merit of comparable fighters receiving shots.

We agree on Louis management avoding Elmer Ray. I agree with you that a champion cannot fight everyone, but Louis avoided the top black talent in general. That is my point, and he had 25 matches to defend. To only pick two black men ( one was shot and it was a personal favor ) does not seem fair. The black heavyweights back then were not that bad. If you factor in a down era in talent, things like this mean something.

I think the best fighters Louis fought in order were Marciano, Schmeling, Walcott, Charles, and M. Baer. He has a losing record vs these fighters and that includes a gift win over Walcott.

No, actually, it's 4-3. Two of those were while he was an old shell- it's shameless to keep plugging that number when it's so obviously misleading.

Here's where we disagree. Yes, all time greats often had 1 or 2 non-elite fighters they struggles with, but Louis had several, and they happened when he was in his prime. I just can't see the likes of Braddock, Pastor, Farr, Godoy, Galento, Conn, Mureillo, and others giving other all time great as many problems. Regarding Machen, make him 210+ if you wish, but also slow him down, and limit his stamina. Then tell me if you have a better fighter. You don’t.

How did that Machen text get into this thread?
Anyway, Louis just plain fought a heck of a lot more contenders than most champions do. And in large part, you're stretching the degree to which he struggled out of proportion- the Mauriello fight is a brutal one-round knockout over the #1 contender, for example, but apparently because Louis briefly looked stunned before leveling him, it's a telling sign that he's an overrated media-build-up.
Let's compare, here. You list Braddock, Pastor, Farr, Godoy, Conn, Galento and Mauriello as being "non-elite" fighters who gave Louis trouble.
There has only been one other champion who fought as many contenders- including non-elite ones- as Louis did, and that's Ali. Ali had struggles with Sonny Banks, Doug Jones, Henry Cooper, Oscar Bonavena, Chuck Wepner, Ron Lyle and Earnie Shavers in his own time- and many of them he didn't rematch and dismantle the second time around the way Louis did.

Yes. Lyle would be a legit #1 or #2 person in the mid 30's to early 40's. Foreman having trouble with Lyle is more excusable than say Louis having trouble with Galento. Foreman and Louis both had a lot of power, the difference is Foreman went at his guys, and had more range, while Louis was slower and methodical in his approach, which is a reason why he had fits vs boxers. Foreman didn’t care if he was in there vs a quick Boxer. He cut off the ring, and traded punched. See my point?

A bigger difference between the two is that Foreman telegraphed his punches, had crude boxing form and little combination-punching skill, and had terrible stamina by championship standards, while Louis was lightning quick with textbook perfect offense and championship endurance that allowed him to score several post-10th-round knockouts in big fights.
And saying that Louis had trouble with boxers but Foreman didn't is just plain ridiculous.