Please answer the following questions with a "true" or "false" and explain your answers if you can.......... 1: The concept of lineal championships is meaningless since the lineal champion is not necessarily the best fighter in a division to claim a belt. 2: Punching power has nothing to do with body type. 3: A more than reasonable claim could be made for Henry Armstrong being the best fighter in history. 4: Stylistically, Joe Louis stood little chance of beating Muhammad Ali. 5: Bob Foster is an overrated light heavyweight. 6: Defending a single title many times in one weight class (Louis, Pedroza, Monzon) is a more impressive feat than winning titles in multiple weight classes. Generally speaking, of course. Go...........
1. no - title fights mean more so winning the belt in the ring is an achievement on its own 2. no - not directly linked but there are some 3. yes 4 . no - his chances are less than 50%, but not by much imo 5. no - depends how you rank, he looks prety good on film tho and that matters to me, although ive seen people say no lhw could beat him, dont agree with that 6. no - it all depends on circumstances, its certainly not worse tho.
1. False - more true nowadays, but its important to know the man who beat the man. With the fractionized title picture now, its less important and harder to track. 2. True if musculature is what is meant. Body type has a bearing on style and leverage sometimes, but even that doesn't equal more or less power. 3. True. See his resume and accomplishments. 4. False. He can only be questioned in terms of footwork (speed), which is criminally underrated. Louis has as good a shot as anyone to claim a potential win over Ali. 5. True. See resume and quality of opposition. 6. True. Consistency and dominance in defending a title say a lot about their place in a given division. Its impressive to gain titles over several weights, but that leaves room for not fighting the best fighters in that division. Fights that should happen are sure to be missed.
Thanks fellas, good stuff thus far.........my own take on them: 1. Generally true. At some point down the line, it must be reasoned that "the man who beat the man" becomes simply another one of many title holders. The concept might have held water for a few years after the creation of so many titles, but we're enough "generations" removed from those times now that it just doesn't have any meaning any more. 2. True. Thomas Hearns and Rocky Marciano, after all. 3. Absolutely. He was a beast in any measure you rank fighters, if you are one to do that. 4. In the old time machine who-beats-whom thing, Ali poses by far the biggest threat to Louis, who was always troubled by movers. So...true. 5. True. He just doesn't have the resume. That, and I think he also failed to utilize his advantages to their utmost, namely how he used to lean in on many opponents, negating that enormous height and reach. 6. I can't answer this one, personally. It depends so much on whom one is beating, either in defense of a single title or moving up. At the end of the day it's about quality of opposition.
1: The concept of lineal championships is meaningless since the lineal champion is not necessarily the best fighter in a division to claim a belt. dunno...it just confuses me...lists have patterson winning the vacant lineal title after marciano, but when lennox lewis retired its stated on lists as being vacant....most say wladamir, but i have seen heated discussions.....things are too fragmented to be able to follow that too for me. 2: Punching power has nothing to do with body type. true. 3: A more than reasonable claim could be made for Henry Armstrong being the best fighter in history. the BEST ??...ooh..dunno...a true great...but best??....i've read a lot about greb and robinson as a welter and from what i read as much as anything, astute boxing fans at the time regarded benny leonard as highly as welterweight champ robinson....so, i couldn't call armstrong the best.......but i do realise i am not qualified in any way to judge, i'm forming an opinion on words i read, and its not the right way to judge a boxer. 4: Stylistically, Joe Louis stood little chance of beating Muhammad Ali. initially i would say yes, he'd be a target for ali...i do think about henry cooper landing the left hook though in 63 and i can see louis landing that very same short hook, and a lot harder than henrys....who knows if it was 63/64 clay vs louis...66 ali was far superior though vs cooper......and joe louis is one of my all time favourites. 5: Bob Foster is an overrated light heavyweight. no...he was truly superb...truly. 6: Defending a single title many times in one weight class (Louis, Pedroza, Monzon) is a more impressive feat than winning titles in multiple weight classes. Generally speaking, of course. i've thought about this very thing many times....and gone one way and then the other in my opinion.....i'll have to say another i dunno....depends on longevity in either situation for me. sorry for the dunno's
1 yes, basically. This is one of the major reasons I pissed off boxing in the 90's, not so much as who was 'champion' but the 4-5 bodies ranking their top 10 'contenders'? Out of four bodies. ONLY 4 top ten contenders appeared in every bodies ranking????? What? 36 top ten contenders??? **** on modern boxing. I remember going to the barber shop with my dad in the early 60's with a Ring Magazine to read. We ALL knew how the champ was and who the contenders were. Not so anymore. 2 a tough one, many guys not so chiseled could pack a wallop, I'll defer here. 3 Henry may have been the best PVP fighter. I simply don't have the mental chops to break it down objectively. 4 I hate breaking down fighters from different eras, almost impossible because each one would have a different style, body mass, and training regimen. But Joe didn't have a china chin and Ali didn't wallop everyone he faced. Joe might 'slick em' and land some major shots. No real opinion here, just that IMO no way Ali would walk thru a prime Louis. 5 totally FALSE, end of non-issue. 6 maybe not so much in the old days: Henry, SRR, etc... but with lineal 'champs' and weight classes nowadays separated by no more than 5-6 pounds, multi-titles in different weight divisions don't mean jack-s**t currently. My $0.02
1: The concept of lineal championships is meaningless since the lineal champion is not necessarily the best fighter in a division to claim a belt. False: I fell that the best boxer in any division is the guy who has proformed the best against the best in his time. At the end of the day wining a championship from the big 4 matters, but it is not nesscarary to be able to trace that championship to the first champion. 2: Punching power has nothing to do with body type. False!: You can improve power, but A boxer who is tall and long such as Hearns or built like a tank such as Tyson have advantages in power. 3: A more than reasonable claim could be made for Henry Armstrong being the best fighter in history. True: I'm not agreeing with the statment that he's the best ever. Just that a claim can be made. He's in my opinion the best pure pressure fighter of all time. Non stop punching and great head movement. A 3 division champion and he held them at the same time. There is some debate as to rather or not he or Ross who he beat to claim his third championship did it first. I think at the very least you should consider him in your top 10. 4: Stylistically, Joe Louis stood little chance of beating Muhammad Ali. True, but I'd put my $ on Louis anyways. Sometimes the man makes the style not the style makes the man. An older Louis was being out classed by Wallcot, who wis simmiler to Ali in style. Before he knocked him out. Louis at his best may not be slick, but he is cagie and a better defensive boxer than give cridit for. He also has the kind of power that you can't aford one mistake against. 5: Bob Foster is an overrated light heavyweight. False. I won't count his lack of secuess against him at heavyweight. 6: Defending a single title many times in one weight class (Louis, Pedroza, Monzon) is a more impressive feat than winning titles in multiple weight classes. Generally speaking, of course. True: How often do we heir that a boxer has moved up due to the fact he can't make weight any more? The fact is that as we age it becomes harder to keep weight off. This is why anyone who uses the term Natural Weight is wrong. It takes more to stay at a weight than id dose to move up. A boxer staying in the same division is fighting nature not going with it.
1: The concept of lineal championships is meaningless since the lineal champion is not necessarily the best fighter in a division to claim a belt. ANSWER. false. Itst is useful to know who is "the real" champ. The best fighters strive to be recognised and the lineal title is the ultimate passport to that recognition. 2: Punching power has nothing to do with body type. ANSWER. true. punching power has more to do with being good enough to land blind. 3: A more than reasonable claim could be made for Henry Armstrong being the best fighter in history. ANSWER. true. And a lot of others. There is a lot of history after all. 4: Stylistically, Joe Louis stood little chance of beating Muhammad Ali. ANSWER. False. Why not? Louis was a great fighter. 5: Bob Foster is an overrated light heavyweight. ANSWER. False. He dominated a division for a long time. How far can you overrated him among the LH? 6: Defending a single title many times in one weight class (Louis, Pedroza, Monzon) is a more impressive feat than winning titles in multiple weight classes. Generally speaking, of course. ANSWER. Depending on the value of the title yes.
To ask if Joe Louis had a CHANCE to beat Clay/Ali get's my dander up...If Ali had the personality of a say, Sonny Liston, this question wouldn't be framed the way it is...We always refer to PRIMES of fighters in a fantasy match. And in my humble opinion the tigerish trip hammer hitting Joe Louis of the Max Baer fight catches up and destroys an Ali who NEVER met anyone close to the furious combination puncher that was the Louis of the Baer fight...Ali could take a punch for sure, but he never could shake off a lefthook, rightcross ,uppercut, rightcross from this Joe Louis, thrown in rapid succession RIGHT ON THE BUTTON...Of course Clay/Ali had legs to scoot around but this Louis only needed to hurt you once, and you were a goner...Yes I know Bob Pastor, a Billy Conn avoided an early ko, but come it would for sure....As the great Brown Bomber attested, "he can run but he can't HIDE..."
