Joe Louis' scorecards vs the best boxers he fought.

Huh? How can the rematch tell us everything, and yet, a more likely than not victory for Walcott in the first fight tells us nothing. That's odd. Forget the fact that even in the 2nd fight (which you say tells us everything) Louis was being clearly and decisively outboxed. Literally, and I mean literally, when Joe put Joe down for the count.. Walcott was so confident in his victory he continued to showboat. He did so the first fight.. and for most of the second fight. Yet only paid the price, after what, 26 rounds? I'd hardly call that a showing for Louis that "tells us everything"

 

Lol. You cherry pick bouts when Louis was past his prime and infer in some way this indicates he was not as great as everyone believes? You think this is logical in any way in that very small mind of yours?

Again the sorry logic you continually use can be applied to many fighters. Pure garbage. By cherry picking Frazier 1, Norton 1 and Holmes I am doing the same. He lost all three and lost the majority of rounds if you compile the scorecards. Ali was not as great as people say. Pure garbage but exactly what you are doing.

You would do better disparaging Jack Johnson and let McVey clean your clock again.

 

John Henry Lewis was a very sick man??? Pure hogwash. He had a cataract in his left eye. Which btw, he had had since before he was ever a champion. Like I said, 7 months earlier he beat the **** out of Violent Ray who you seem to think Louis ducked.

You have no problem using Louis past his prime bouts but refuse to include Bivins had defeated some of the greatest boxers of his era and who had more in the tank than Louis when they fought and Louis still beat him easily.

Whatever man. Why not just say "lets look at Louis' first fight with Max Schmeling to see how bad he really was." If you are going to use some ridiculously arbitrary criteria then the exercise becomes entirely pointless.

 

The basic premise here is flawed. Louis was past his prime for Conn, Walcott, and Charles
And let's face it, his motivation was not to win a decision in any fight prime or not.

I hope no one is going to argue that Schmeling was a better boxer than Louis. Please.

 

Um.. :blood

 

TS is obviously not a mathematician nor a scientist, because this sure isn't being played by the rules of scientific methodology. You don't pick three data points that prove your hypothesis, you use ALL the data to figure a result.

Everyone has the right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

 

Does that mean he had to be perfect every night? That he found a way to win anyway isn't enough?

 

Does it not tell us Louis was able to adjust enough to take Walcott out, while Walcott was unable to sustain his winning ways? Why does it even matter if he lost rounds, it's who wins the fight that counts.

 

Well, the boxers in question Louis is being compared to are really excellent, and I'd not be surprised if he dropped a bunch of rounds to them. It shows the standard that he was at. He also KTFO some of the fighters in question, which shows that if his plan A wasn't working, he did have Plan B

Maybe Mendoza is annoyed with the worship that Louis gets, which may lead the casual to imagine that he had no flaws? I don't think that this thread is worthless by any means.

 

You're saying the second fight tells us everything... My problem is, it doesn't near tell us everything. Or even most everything. You'd have to completely discount the first fight for that to happen, and I'm sorry, but that's not how things work. The first fight did happen, Walcott should've won, and he was clowning Louis for portions of it. The second fight was much the same for 10 rounds. Walcott outboxing Joe, even knocking him down, all the while STILL clowning Joe. In fact, when Joe landed the combo that KO'd Walcott, Walcott was clowning him he was so confident. That tells me Walcott felt he could outbox Joe and did so for 26 rounds until he clowned one to many times. My point is, that is hardly what I'd call a great showing for Joe, that "tells us everything"

 

How was not clowning him right before the ko blows were struck. He was doing the Walcott shuffle which was a way for Walcott to make his opponents lead into him so he could slip and then counter. Louis was waiting for this all night and as per his strategy he steadied Joe with his left and came over with his right hand stunning his opponent. The bout was over 20 seconds later.

 

The Shuffle was about a great number of things... countering.. repositioning.. angles etc etc. Another thing it was, was a sign of confidence and clowning. You him do it most often when he's comfortable and confident. He didn't do it when he was getting the **** kicked out of him. Which is the point, he had been outboxing Joe for 25 + rounds, and was thus very confident.