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

[ripcity]

Originally Posted by Gesta

I think the rest of your top ten would be......

Ali , RJJ, Floyd, Toney, SRR and Louis ?

I like Toney but I don't think he finds his way into my top 10. As for the rest? Lets see Ali yes I can see himmin the top 10. Same for Juniors, Jones and Mayweather. Robinson is in at #3 so I can't rank him twice. I know he's good but he can only be ranked once. Louis very likely makes it in.

[slugger3000]

Originally Posted by janitor

I would put him above Ali and Tunney and that is about it.

same here.

[Swarmer]

Over Ketchel, Burley, Ross and Tunney for sure.

[Seamus]

I think Louis' status as a heavyweight is unduly penalizing his position in this argument. It is as though NO heavyweight could rank LB4LB. Yet, Louis dominated his division far more thoroughly and with more longevity than any fighter listed. What other criteria could there be than how a man performs within his own division for this mythical LB4LB title? Yet you want to penalize him because there was no division higher for which him to perform? Ridiculous.

Methinks some boxing observers need a few rudimentary classes in logic.

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

I feel exactly the same as you about this part. It seems like some asshat heavyweight snobbery trend here and I've never bought into it.

Well, yes and no. On one side PP is right here, when a hw faces a size disadvantages it´s not something talked about often. BUT on the other hand, there are diminishing returns. The higher the weight the less of an advantage a higher weight is. At a certain point, I think, size even can or will become a disadvantage. Somebody like Lewis, Bowe or the Klitschkos are exceptions. Most big guys are less coordinated and slower. And this is a big disadvantage. I don´t think it really matter if a fighter is 180 pounds or 210 pounds. In that weight range it doesn´t mean that much. It does matter if a fighter is 180 pounds and 230 though. But when you take your average tall 250+ guy his size will be at least as much of a disadvantage as it will be an advantage. Oh, and these days most heavy hws are just fat, which doesn´t help much either.

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by Seamus

I think Louis' status as a heavyweight is unduly penalizing his position in this argument. It is as though NO heavyweight could rank LB4LB. Yet, Louis dominated his division far more thoroughly and with more longevity than any fighter listed. What other criteria could there be than how a man performs within his own division for this mythical LB4LB title? Yet you want to penalize him because there was no division higher for which him to perform? Ridiculous.

Methinks some boxing observers need a few rudimentary classes in logic.

Ali and Louis are at least in most people´s Top15/20. I think that´s right were they belong.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by bodhi

Ali and Louis are at least in most people´s Top15/20. I think that´s right were they belong.

If neither of the two outstanding HWs crack one's top 10 that would be a sure sign of bias against HWs in my eyes. I have both in my top 10.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Bokaj
If neither of the two outstanding HWs crack one's top 10 that would be a sure sign of bias against HWs in my eyes. I have both in my top 10.

It can't just be because there are 10 more accomplished fighters? There's usually no Flyweights or Bantamweights on top 10 lists either.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by the cobra

It can't just be because there are 10 more accomplished fighters?

Louis holds the record for title defenses of any weight class. That's pretty accomplished in my book.

I mean, if that isn't enough to crack top 10 what is? 30 defenses over 15 years? And for the top 5? 50+ defenses over 20 years?

There's usually no Flyweights or Bantamweights on top 10 lists either.

True. It's more likely that that is because of lack of knowledge than bias, though.

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

If neither of the two outstanding HWs crack one's top 10 that would be a sure sign of bias against HWs in my eyes. I have both in my top 10.

I disagree. There are toher fighters who fougth at hw and are in the Top10. Like Charles, Walker, Moore. Bias against hws? No. Those men just happened to done more in their career.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by bodhi

I disagree. There are toher fighters who fougth at hw and are in the Top10. Like Charles, Walker, Moore. Bias against hws? No. Those men just happened to done more in their career.

Again, what more could Louis have done? He has 25 title defenses and is 26-1 in title fights. That is just amazing. It's better than any other fighter (Ali is probably the closest with 19 title defenses and a record of 22-3 in title fights), but not enough for the top 10? What would it take then?

Why shouldn't he be above Pep and Leonard, for example?

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Again, what more could Louis have done? He has 25 title defenses and is 26-1 in title fights. That is just amazing. It's better than any other fighter (Ali is probably the closest with 19 title defenses and a record of 22-3 in title fights), but not enough for the top 10? What would it take then?

Why shouldn't he be above Pep and Leonard, for example?

He couldn´t have done more. Neither could have Ali. But that´s not what it is about. It´s about that others did more. See, what I wrote in my initial post. I wrote that Louis can be possibly ranked above Pep and B. Leonard. I don´t rank either in my Top10 btw.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by Seamus

I think Louis' status as a heavyweight is unduly penalizing his position in this argument. It is as though NO heavyweight could rank LB4LB. Yet, Louis dominated his division far more thoroughly and with more longevity than any fighter listed. What other criteria could there be than how a man performs within his own division for this mythical LB4LB title? Yet you want to penalize him because there was no division higher for which him to perform? Ridiculous.

Methinks some boxing observers need a few rudimentary classes in logic.

Yeah. I'm still waiting for an answer on what it would takee for Louis to be in the top 10. Would 30-35 title defenses over 15 years be required or should he have dropped 30 lbs to challenge for the LHW title?

He beat world class fighters in the range of 100 lbs for godssake. What more could he have done?

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by bodhi

He couldn´t have done more. Neither could have Ali. But that´s not what it is about. It´s about that others did more.

So you say he couldn't have done more, but others did more. How does that compute logically?

At the end of the day Louis beat world class fighters in a 100 lbs range (Conn-Carnera). What more can one ask for?

See, what I wrote in my initial post. I wrote that Louis can be possibly ranked above Pep and B. Leonard. I don´t rank either in my Top10 btw.

Fair enough. Strange, but at least consistent.

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

So you say he couldn't have done more, but others did more. How does that compute logically?

At the end of the day Louis beat world class fighters in a 100 lbs range (Conn-Carnera). What more can one ask for?

Very few achieved more than Louis - Armstrong is actually the only one that comes to my mind right now - but quite a few have a better resume, and some by quite a bit.

My view on hws and size I´ve xplained above - diminishing returns and I might add, thanks for mentioning Conn, many hws although beat up smaller fighters.

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Fair enough. Strange, but at least consistent.

Strange? Really? My Top8 are set in stone. Robinson, Armstrong, Fitzsimmons, Greb, Langford, Charles, Walker, Moore. I don´t think one of the 4, B. Leonard, Pep, Ali, Louis belongs above them. The last two spots are occupied by two of those 4: Duran, Gans, Ryan, Ross. The aforementioned 4 would be next together with McLarnin and Canzoneri.