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

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by bodhi

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.

I think you complicate matters too much. One can only beat what's there to beat, and a fighter that beats the best there is in a 100 lbs range over an almost 15 year period deserves to be among the very top p4p.

Yes, there are diminishing returns, but you can only take that argument so far until it gets absurd. Armstrong makes almost everyone's top 3 for beating the best available in a 20-25 lbs range over 3-4 years but Louis doesn't crack top 10 when beating the best in a 100 lbs range over almost 15 years? That's taking the argument about diminishing returns into truly surreal terrain.

[Bokaj]

I still haven't got an answer as to what Louis would have had to have done to crack the top 10 for those that don't have him there. I can only surmise that they think it more or less impossible for someone active in only one division to crack the top 10, especially a HW.

[D.T]

Louis is the 4th greatest of all time.

[Boilermaker]

It all depends on your criteria, but being favourable to louis, and using dominance in his own time, over his own division, as criteria, i think Louis is as good as anyone.

Langford - As much as i love langford, and his giant killing efforts were brilliant, and he was rorted by the colour line and Jack Johnson, he was never at any weight division, close to as dominant as Joe Louis. Answer: Yes you can place him above Langford.

Robinson - Tough call, and it is hard to believe really that Robinsons' legend has grown so much in recent years. Probably the greatest welterweight ever, but really, he was not as dominant as Louis was. In fact, prime welterweight was run a lot closer, a lot more often than prime Joe Louis ever was. And when Ray finally stepped up, he was great, but he still struggled, the giants never really worried Joe, in the slightest. I dont think placing him above Robinson is anywhere near the stretch people make out.

Armstrong, - Triple crown was impressive, but his longevity doesnt really match up to Louis. Louis could easily rate here.

Greb - Very tough call this one. But in reality Joe Louis was certainly more dominant than Greb. Yes, Greb fought more often, but Louis didnt often need a newspaper to win, and if he had fought more often, there is not really any doubt that he would have won more often. IN fact, many of his exhibitions might as well have been Newspaper decisions (or KOs). I think Louis could justifiably shade him.

Charles, - Not that much difference in size, and while Charles beat old Louis, lets get real here most never thought he was in Louis' league.

Walker, - Louis definitely more dominant.

Pep - Tough one, but Louis was the better performed fighter in his weight difference.

Moore, - Louis dominated more than Moore dominated. In fact, there were arguments that Moore wasnt even the no 1 heavy of his era, let alone all time. Quite amazing really, but Louis was a better heavy than Moore was at light heavy.

Duran - Another very tough one, but i think louis has the longevity and dominance to beat him.

Fitzsimmons, - Definitely the toughest. Fitz was more dominant against his middleweight and light heavyweight opponents. In fact believe it or not until he met Jeffries (when past prime), he was probably more dominant against heavyweight opponents too. Louis probably had better activity but Fitz had better longevity. Very close when taking louis case at its highest, but I think Fitz Just shades it,

Ali, - Louis was definitely more dominant in his own era than ali.

Burley,- Louis far more dominant.

Benny Leonard, - Tough call, but i think Louis had the better longevity.

Sugar Ray Leonard,- Definitely louis with dominance and longevity.

Barney Ross, - Louis, dominance again.

Gene Tunney. - Closer than most will believe, but again, louis has the dominance.

[/quote]

All in all, i think that it is actually possible to justify Louis as high as no 2, and with the right criteria, no 1 is touch and go also.

[goat15]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

I still haven't got an answer as to what Louis would have had to have done to crack the top 10 for those that don't have him there. I can only surmise that they think it more or less impossible for someone active in only one division to crack the top 10, especially a HW.

louis scores highly for dominance (both in the sense of consistently winning and the manner in which he won) but scores less highly for competition beat. i think you're right to emphasise the first criterion, and indeed the weight range over which he did it makes it all the more impressive. it seems that those who rate ten others above him (myself included) think others have a better combination of dominance (+ other achievements) and competition beat/faced.

for the record i think good cases can be made for both louis and ali making the top fifteen, and whichever one you consider the greatest heavyweight of all time could sneak into the lower reaches of a top ten.

[Boilermaker]

Originally Posted by goat15

louis scores highly for dominance (both in the sense of consistently winning and the manner in which he won) but scores less highly for competition beat. i think you're right to emphasise the first criterion, and indeed the weight range over which he did it makes it all the more impressive. it seems that those who rate ten others above him (myself included) think others have a better combination of dominance (+ other achievements) and competition beat/faced.

for the record i think good cases can be made for both louis and ali making the top fifteen, and whichever one you consider the greatest heavyweight of all time could sneak into the lower reaches of a top ten.

Who in the world else would Joe Louis have had to beat to score better on the field of competition. At one stage, he had faced and defeated (in fact probably KOd) every single top 10 opponent of his time at one stage. In fact, there is not a single fighter of the time, who Louis ducked or who you could say might have beaten him. The closest most try to come up with is Elmer Ray. And this is not allowing for the fact that old Louis knocked him out when they fought an exhibition and he took it too seriously. I am actually warming to the idea of ranking him in the top 10 and even much nearer to the top than when i first thought about the question posed.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by goat15

louis scores highly for dominance (both in the sense of consistently winning and the manner in which he won) but scores less highly for competition beat. i think you're right to emphasise the first criterion, and indeed the weight range over which he did it makes it all the more impressive. it seems that those who rate ten others above him (myself included) think others have a better combination of dominance (+ other achievements) and competition beat/faced.

The thing about dominance is that you won't give others much chance to shine. If Ali never had been exiled and never lost to Frazier many could actually rank him lower than they do today. Since Frazier and Foreman perhaps wouldn't be viewed as more than good contenders the argument could well be that Ali never was tested.

The fact that no one, in any division, has enjoyed such a sustained dominance as Louis should tell you that it's not an easy thing to do.

for the record i think good cases can be made for both louis and ali making the top fifteen, and whichever one you consider the greatest heavyweight of all time could sneak into the lower reaches of a top ten.

Having them outside the top 15 is almost unjustifiable IMO. Having them both outside the top 10 is probably not justifiable either.

[goat15]

Originally Posted by Boilermaker

Who in the world else would Joe Louis have had to beat to score better on the field of competition. At one stage, he had faced and defeated (in fact probably KOd) every single top 10 opponent of his time at one stage. In fact, there is not a single fighter of the time, who Louis ducked or who you could say might have beaten him. The closest most try to come up with is Elmer Ray. And this is not allowing for the fact that old Louis knocked him out when they fought an exhibition and he took it too seriously. I am actually warming to the idea of ranking him in the top 10 and even much nearer to the top than when i first thought about the question posed.

louis couldn't have done better against the competition of his time. he ducked no one and beat everyone. the argument would be that the era was not as strong as the ones others dominated (even if they didn't do so to the same extent).

[goat15]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

The thing about dominance is that you won't give others much chance to shine. If Ali never had been exiled and never lost to Frazier many could actually rank him lower than they do today. Since Frazier and Foreman perhaps wouldn't be viewed as more than good contenders the argument could well be that Ali never was tested.

The fact that no one, in any division, has enjoyed such a sustained dominance as Louis should tell you that it's not an easy thing to do.

Having them outside the top 15 is almost unjustifiable IMO. Having them both outside the top 10 is probably not justifiable either.

completely agree, dominance makes everyone look bad. it just depends whether you think he was that good, or the opponents were not so good (or any degree in between). this 'weak/strong' era debate is a minefield, and is always being had in tennis too. i tend to say 'he was just that damn good' (what i consider the simplest explanation), but the thing with boxing is that its history is so rich, and there were so many extremely stacked eras, that even a very decent one like louis' can pale in comparison.

i agree with your last statement about top fifteens and top tens. as i said, there are good arguments for having both in the former and at least one in the latter.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by goat15

completely agree, dominance makes everyone look bad. it just depends whether you think he was that good, or the opponents were not so good (or any degree in between). this 'weak/strong' era debate is a minefield, and is always being had in tennis too. i tend to say 'he was just that damn good' (what i consider the simplest explanation), but the thing with boxing is that its history is so rich, and there were so many extremely stacked eras, that even a very decent one like louis' can pale in comparison.

Yeah, this always a difficult discussion. As a general rule I don't think an era will be weak for more than a couple of years, though. During a ten year period there should in most cases at least be a couple of years that are pretty stacked with talent.

For example, in the cases of Tyson's title reign and Ali's first one you can make a decent argument that a previous generation was fading out and hadn't really been replaced yet. But it would be wrong to say that those decades as a whole didn't contain plenty of talent.

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

I think you complicate matters too much. One can only beat what's there to beat, and a fighter that beats the best there is in a 100 lbs range over an almost 15 year period deserves to be among the very top p4p.

I don´t. I use 4 criterias when ranking fighters. That´s not complicated. And your 100 pound argument isn´t a strong one either. Conn was as much smaller as Carnera was bigger than Louis. If Louis would have moved up from 167 pounds, where he would have fought Conn, to 200 pounds where he would have fought Carnera it would have been more impressive than what he actually did. Which is still impressive enough.

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Yes, there are diminishing returns, but you can only take that argument so far until it gets absurd. Armstrong makes almost everyone's top 3 for beating the best available in a 20-25 lbs range over 3-4 years but Louis doesn't crack top 10 when beating the best in a 100 lbs range over almost 15 years? That's taking the argument about diminishing returns into truly surreal terrain.

Absurd? Armstrong, like Louis set a record of defences at a weight AND won titles at other weights too AND had a unique achievement in holding more than 30% of all titles in the original weightclasses at the same time. He did more than Louis in less time actually. And has a more impressive resume.

It´s not about Louis not beeing amongst the very best. It´s about others doing even more impressive work.

Originally Posted by Bokaj

I still haven't got an answer as to what Louis would have had to have done to crack the top 10 for those that don't have him there. I can only surmise that they think it more or less impossible for someone active in only one division to crack the top 10, especially a HW.

Yes, it is. Why? Because there are fighters like Greb, Robinson, Armstrong and Duran who reigned one weightclass as dominant as Louis did his for a long time and did great work in other weightclasses too. I simply can´t rank someone like Louis, Ali, Monzon and so on over them.

[goat15]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Yeah, this always a difficult discussion. As a general rule I don't think an era will be weak for more than a couple of years, though. During a ten year period there should in most cases at least be a couple of years that are pretty stacked with talent.

For example, in the cases of Tyson's title reign and Ali's first one you can make a decent argument that a previous generation was fading out and hadn't really been replaced yet. But it would be wrong to say that those decades as a whole didn't contain plenty of talent.

agreed, transition periods last for four years tops (again, same with tennis). to claim that a decade is weak tends to be a bit of a stretch.

the most interesting debate regarding louis, for me, is whether he's the greatest heavyweight. i often change my mind about this, but today is a louis day.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by bodhi

I don´t. I use 4 criterias when ranking fighters. That´s not complicated. And your 100 pound argument isn´t a strong one either. Conn was as much smaller as Carnera was bigger than Louis. If Louis would have moved up from 167 pounds, where he would have fought Conn, to 200 pounds where he would have fought Carnera it would have been more impressive than what he actually did. Which is still impressive enough.

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.

Absurd? Armstrong, like Louis set a record of defences at a weight AND won titles at other weights too AND had a unique achievement in holding more than 30% of all titles in the original weightclasses at the same time. He did more than Louis in less time actually.

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.

Yes, it is. Why? Because there are fighters like Greb, Robinson, Armstrong and Duran who reigned one weightclass as dominant as Louis did his for a long time and did great work in other weightclasses too. I simply can´t rank someone like Louis, Ali, Monzon and so on over them.

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.

[goat15]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

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.

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

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by goat15

agreed, transition periods last for four years tops (again, same with tennis). to claim that a decade is weak tends to be a bit of a stretch.

the most interesting debate regarding louis, for me, is whether he's the greatest heavyweight. i often change my mind about this, but today is a louis day.

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