Is Joe Louis The Most Complete Heavyweight?

yea,blocking,slipping,rolling and countering with a right uppercut to the body in the first holyfield fight against a prime fast handed atg is really nothing compared how lennox lewis wore his trunks to chest to defend body punches plus running and leaning on the inside,that's true skill

 

Compare Joe Louis to these 4, and what does Joe do better or worse than them?


Bowe
Larry Holmes
Holyfield
Schmeling


Bowe - Much bigger and more powerful, excellent inside and outside... Not a particularly good mover though. So the only ( better ?) thing is size.

Schmeling. - Perhaps his power is lacking vs Louis, But he could do it all

Holmes - He to me is superior in the movement area, his inside game was not as strong.

Holyfield - Not sure, if there is anything at all.... This one I am still thinking about.

 

maybe,but he's way too small,something like 190 lbs 73 inch reach 6 foot...how the hell is he gonna even reach bowe with disadvantage like that in height and reach??
bowe would just walk through everything he has with no respect and knock him out cold

 

And? Louis had a worse chin that Ali... Louis was a plodder and could be outboxed. Can't say the same for Ali. Ali's movement was exponentially better. Louis struggled a lot more with the best men he fought than did Ali... that counts for a lot in my book. I could continue to name things Ali did better than Louis but you see where I'm going here.

To answer, no he's not the most compete fighter nor most complete HW, but that isn't a requirement for greatness

 

If you take an absolute novice, would you rather have them copy Louis or Ali?

Louis was very technically complete, but as you say, it is not a prerequisite for greatness.

 

Ali... because to me he was the greater fighter. I don't get caught up in Louis did this better than Ali or was technically better at this or that. The proof is in the pudding. Ali beat the best he fought more convincingly than joe did, along with fighting exponentially better people than Joe did overall. The proof is always in the pudding.

My whole point in listing those things... is to respond to the post of unforgiven who listed things ali did wrong or Joe was better at. I was simply illustrating the point, that I could do the same.

 

I happen to think Louis was greater, but that is irrelevant.

I have them both well above any prospective third place candidate.

But:

If you told a novice boxer to copy Louis, he would do as well as was possible.

If you told a novice boxer to copy Ali, he would not get past his first day at the gym.

 

Ali had trouble the first time he fought great fighters like Frazier, Norton, and the non impressive Leon Spinks. Louis won on the first try usually by KO.

 

Let's be honest here, Ali without his supreme toughness would have lost about a half-dozen more bouts than he did. On a technical level he was far, far from complete.
Great instinctive fighter sure, but Louis technically was a level above.

 

Bowe is up there. He could be hit so could Louis though. I always say it but any newbies check McGrains Joe Louis article. Opened up my eyes, and a great study.
Louis was an artist in there. Complete is different from H2H. Louis, Tyson, Bowe, Ali are all up there. You can make an argument for Lewis. I mean he had the humiliating KO losses, but he could box, brawl, and adapt. In Ali does his extraordinary athleticism elevate his status towards being complete although he was technically flawed? What do you guys thing of Walcott?

 

Let's not forget that Ali was suspended for 3 years which for all we know could have been his golden years.

 

Bowe's great defense was the reason he almost made it to 28 without being shot.

Defense of a broken screen door.

 

no question he had a ridiculously short prime.that's what's so tragic about him,showing his talent and skill in holyfield fight,than ruining it all...