Joe Louis WAS THE BEST PFP FIGHTER OF ALL TIME

Didn't beat great enough opposition to ever be number 1 but sometimes i wonder if he ranks too poor due to being a heavyweight.

 

JT, whether Joe Louis was the best P4P fighter ever at 200 pounds, who can say.? But you say that 'he didn't beat great enough opposition " to be even considered #1 is missing the mark IMO. As has been posted before,
"no one picks there date of birth ", and that includes the Brown Bomber's
fighting whoever was available during his THIRTEEN year title reign.
My take on this is the devastating way that Joe Louis CRUSHED his opponents leaves no doubt in my mind that the prime Louis would have risen to the occasion and beaten anyone after ,til this day. Remember a fighter can only beat someone before him in the ring...Today's posters truly have no idea of what the American boxing fans felt about Joe Louis in his prime ? AWE !!!. No rope-a-dope, no flitting around the ring without throwing punches, no insulting his fellow boxers, none of this JT, but
utter devastation to WHOEVER was in front of him...Cheers...

 

I wouldn't bat an eyelid seeing the great joe louis ranked number 1 all time.

I think he gets a bit too much credit for his long title reign as the 13 year length is misleading considering he spent 4 of those in service.

None the less, 9 years and 25 defences, 20 by knockout, and an utter clear out of the 32-42 era to boot. From 46 he would have benefitted by taking on ray and bivins but the con rematch was a must and joe walcott defeated both ray and bivins (albeit controversially).

Joe louis was created to fight and in terms of a pure fighting machine there's only the great sugar ray i'd personally place above joe (yes I think he's a better h2h fighter than roy jones and whittaker).

I'm currently undergoing a mass review but louis sits comfortably in my top 5 (along with fitz, robinson, greb and langford)

 

Burt, appreciate your real time input but........

Louis did not CRUSH all his opponents in davastating fashion. He had some ugly struggles which actually gives credence that some fighters since could beat him.

Regardless of Ali's personal intricasies i'll take him as the greatest heavyweight anyday. He beat far far better opposition than Joe did and missed his peak period. To beat Liston and Foreman and finish ahead of Frazier in the trilogy defied description for me.

You can only beat what is in front of you but the fact is if fighter B has better fighters in front of him and beats them then this must be heavily taken into account.
Respect your thoughts but there are somel great heavyweights i would take over Joe, Ali especially. Holmes would be hell too among others.

 

Mc. of course many greats "fought whoever was available",is obvious.
Otherwise they would be boxing THEMSELVES, wouldn't you think.?
But it was the MANNER in which Joe Louis disposed of his opposition that tells me that he at ANY other time ,would have been just as dominating.
As we know there has never been a heavyweight that hit with such speed and combination power punches ever. For some heavyweight after, to have beaten him in a 15 round fight is something that I truly cannot envision. The Joe Louis of the Max Baer fight might have been the most dominating
puncher in all history. Yes the Brown Bomber for the ages...Cheers...

 

Since the first Sam Peter fight, no-one has come close to beating Wladimir Klitschko, how highly do you rank him Burt amongst other heavyweights? Does he make your top 10?

 

damn you and damn boxing!

there's too many for a comfotable top 5.

Fine my top 5 is now fitz, greb, langford, robinson, louis, armstorng.

All are interchangeable and I don't give a damn about anyone telling me I have 6 boxers in my top 5 because they all belong there! ::

Although to answer your actual question that started off my mini rant very hard splitting them. Armstrong did a heck of a lot in a short time but his WW run slightly concerns me because of some guys he didn't face and when you're only champ for a short time, not facing (infact blatantly not facing) your top contender is slightly disconcerting.

I'd have to consider the question in more detail but from the top of my head, Louis has beaten better men.

 

Mc good points you make...But I am talking about Joe Louis [prime] and Ali [prime] H2H...What you are saying in essence, that no heavyweight champion who had less than stellar opposition, can beat [had they ever hooked up] a champion from an era where he in general had better opposition ? How do you know that were Joe Louis in his prime, he would not do better than Clay/Ali against a Doug Jones, a Henry Cooper, a George Chuvalo, A Ken Norton,who might have won all 3 bouts, etc.? Even though
Clay/Ali had for the most part better opposition than Louis did, you are saying that Ali HAD to be better H2H than Louis, because poor Joe Louis
was born 28 years before...Yes the chances would favor Ali because he met
in general better opposition, though he eeked out many controversial decisions over his opponents...But in human history a person is born with certain attributes that transcends his era. Call it genetics, or whatever, Joe Louis overwhelmed his boxing era as no one else in heavyweight history...
So Ali fought tougher opponents.
Joe Louis in prime catches up to , hurts and with blistering combos that Clay/Ali never ever saw before, tko's Ali in later rounds. Joe would be MOTIVATED.... Take care...

 

Joe Louis chose Sugar Ray Robinson over Joe Louis.

Here's the thing, there are many older folks would choose Louis as the best fighter, P4P, ever. And they do so really for the same reason that baby-boomers choose Ali as the best fighter, P4P, ever. That reason is a poor one -they figure in inane factors like "impact on the sport" or "glamour" and that makes it easy.

Neither Louis or Ali have any business whatsoever over Greb, Robinson, Armstrong, or Charles.