Joe Louis vs Jack Johnson

I have provided a quote in a newspaper interview where he states the exact opposite.

 

I didn't want to get into this because I was sure we would talk past each other which we are.

Here's the problem with your argument. It's all based on supposition. Essentially you're looking at what Walcott did in his thirties (and you bring up age 40 even though Walcott never had a fight that that age; he was in his early thirties a very, very different age), which is exceptionally impressive and extrapolating backwards into making him some super fighter. Well Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs at age 32. He didn't hit 65 or 70 at age 25. I don't know if Walcott would've been a much better fighter in his twenties, even if I concede he was a better physical specimen because fighters are more than the sum of their parts. Saying that he and Louis were the same age and thus Louis couldn't be more past his prime is ridiculous and you have to know that. I'm honestly unsure what you're trying to prove.

 

Johnson ripped Louis, and pointed out his flaws. While I think Johnson was correct on Louis' flaws, I also think Louis had too much power and skill, and would eventually stop him.

Here's what Johnson said:

This content is protected

 

What I'm saying is.. You can't use Louis being past his best as an excuse for losing to Walcott the first time out.. when Walcott was older than Louis. That is a non starter right there. Obviously some fighters can age differently than others and some be further past it than others. But there is zero conclusive evidence to support such a claim that Louis was further past it being younger than Walcott. No way to prove such a conclusion. Thus, it's safer and more logical to not even bring up such an argument that can't be proven.

I'm not saying Walcott would've been some super fighter in his 20's had he been given all his was in his 30's. What I'm am saying is.. if you follow a logical line of progression.. It's logical to think he would've been just as good IF not better when he was more physically prime. Not really sure how you could argue such a point. I never said I know how good.. but I would think it's likely he would've been better having such things when he was younger. Not really sure that point can be argued.

You also think it's worse to be a little further past it but with the best trainers and support money can buy with a wealth of experience.. than it's to be inexperienced with no support and training but younger. I totally disagree with such a premise. Even if you don't think Walcott was starving doesn't matter. I would still rather be a little past it than a part time fighter with no backing. That to me is clearly worse conditions.

 

Knocking on Johnson by saying his opponents were smaller or weaker is not his fault, if that's just how they were built during that time. And to match styles with Louis' from 30 years later is a void argument. Johnson developed his style because it was what was needed to defeat fighters of that era. Had he came along 30 years later, he would have been smart enough to game plan on how to beat the best of that time.
But, IMO, for sake of the "video game fight" argument -- Jack was pretty darn quick. He probably would have danced around with Joe for at least 20 rounds tiring him down and staying out of the way of the big shots, looking to go the distance. And if the distance was, say, 40 rounds...no decision (as declared by the local newspaper).

 

Though he made a fool of Sharkey in sparring, they never fought in an actual match.

 

I think it is generally accepted that Louis was past his best when he fought Walcott and that Jersey Joe retained more of his prime .

 

Loved this comment

No bitterness or bias there

 

Louis P4P is probably the greatest Heavyweight ever. However, head to head is a different story.

I suspect Johnson would frustrate Joe with his awkward slippery defense and take it on points.

 

I think you mean Achievements wise/career wise rather than P4P.

 

And that is what P4P is. Well done for trying I guess.... atsch

 

Johnson's ranking of Mick Dunne is very interesting.

This probably needs its own thread, but here is an excellent article on Mick Dunne.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/133436411?searchTerm=mick dunne reminisce&searchLimits=

 

Jack Johnson was the one who tOld MaX Schmeling the weak point of Louis.Jack Johnson what tOo Smart for him.Johnson by late Ko

 

It all sounds good but I don't know if I agree that Louis was the better conditioned fighter. They fought in different eras. Sometimes Johnson had to be prepared to go 20, 25, or even 45 rounds! Louis was definitely a well conditioned fighter though.

 

LoL Joe Louis bettEr conditioned than Johnson lol what a f****** ignorant