Different times, different eras. Honestly, going off boxrec to decide who is a bum or not in your eyes is absurd. Fighters are unquestionably more protected today. If Wilder were to get a shot at Wlad his record would be a gleaming undefeated one, but he's barely fought anyone with a pulse. It would look great on boxrec, but the reality is that Wilder is totally untested and that record means nothing. See what I'm getting at? Conversely, Walcott had a rather poor record, due mainly to him being thrown to the wolves early and having **** management in his early career. If these guys (I haven't kept track of the argument so I don't know who you're referring to) were ranked in the top 10 when Louis beat them, then it's a legitimate title defense in my book. Louis fought some bums sure, but I don't think that you can just arbitrarily decide who was and who wasn't going off just a record or weight. There was no CW division back then. For the era those guys were heavies, except the obvious like Conn or Lewis for example.
You can't change the definition of something to suit yourself, man. They were listed as heavyweights back then and fought in the heavyweight division. They were heavyweights for that era. It is what it is. If in 30 years time they change the limit of the CW division to 230 lbs. does that mean that Holyfield, Holmes, Tyson etc. never won the heavyweight title? Does that mean that we have to scratch off a good deal of their opponents who weighed under that limit? In their era they were heavyweights, and changing that definition 30 years later would be wrong. You have to go by the standards of the day, not what the standards are now. I stand by what I said...modern fighters are more protected, hence the superior records. I think Louis fought a guy with something like 30 fights experience in his first pro fight. Even if the guy was a complete can, he still had an immense edge in experience over Joe. (And Joe was one of the more fortunate ones to have good management.) Take Billy Conn for example, a certified HOF and ATG light-heavyweight. I forget his overall record, but I know he had 10 losses. When last did you see any contender from the modern era with 10 losses? It's virtually unheard of. Reason being (among other things) is that a fighter loses huge marketing appeal after a loss. Guys today get written off and are borderline unmarketable after two or three losses. Look at Price and Mitchell as good examples...from hero to zero in the space of five minutes because of two losses. It's because of TV man, modern day sports networks ruined the era of stiff competition and taking fights that are risky. Back then, losses were not seen as career-ending or this huge disaster. I'm not saying they didn't care about winning or not losing as much, but it wasn't a total disaster. So, at the end of the day you can say that either Conn and all top fighters of that era were borderline bums (totally unreasonable) or that today's fighters are more protected. (More reasonable.)
You wouldnt be able to watch just as im sure you cant watch the second Louis-Schmeling fight where Louis actually trained. It would be an annihilation against the bigger, slower Wlad.
Louis was great in his own time. Nowadays the fight would be a mismatch. Louis is too small to fight someone with skill and size of Wlad. This content is protected
Holyfield was 6'2" and Tyson 5'10". That's about the same difference as Wlad and Louis. Your example only proves that Louis has no chance.