Joe Louis: can we be honest with ourselves?

Yeah . . . this is silly. He is was able to have those post prime performances because he was THE FORCE! Who was a real contender when he won title and was even relevant to when you imagine he beat Walcott? No one!

Schmelling! Really?! The fact that a 23 year old got caught and ultimately learned from a veteran former champion who could swat is part of his greatness! No one had much of a chance to become great because . . . JOE LOUIS!

Have a sandwich, take a nap, get your mind in order.

 

I can honestly say that he was a credit to his race.

 

The human race.

 

You could make an equally negative thread about Ali, Marciano, Klitschko, etc. Louis should be in everyones Top 3 HW of all time list.

If you think his Army Exhibitions detract from his reign duration record, you can look at the equally impressive 26 title defenses record.

Ali is respected for winning his rematches against opponents he lost to such as Frazier, Norton, and Spinks. Joe won a rematch to an opponent he lost to, Schmeling, by KO in 1 round. Remarkable.

I find it very impressive that he beat Walcott twice! The same Walcott that almost beat Marciano, and smashed Ezzard Charles with a legendary left hook.

Walcott, Charles, and Marciano are part of the post-Louis generation. And yet, Louis was in the mix. And his record against them is 2-2.


If all of that aint enough, just crank up a youtube video of his highlights. Greatest puncher ever.

 

That's the thing, and I know it's not popular to say, but the reality is he didn't look very dominate against the best fighters he faced. His title reign was appropriately called what it was AT THE TIME. Not some revisionist boxing experts doing, it was called that at the time. Which presents the obvious deduction, don't most people look pretty good against inferior competition? I'd say the answer to that is a resounding yes. Thus, why are these same matches used to show his greatness, when in reality, it was subpar completion? That is something I just never understood about people and their rating of Louis. Don't get me wrong, I have him rated in my top 3 simply because I think he's one of, if not the best combination punchers of all time. That, and despite me feeling like it was subpar competition, he still managed to not lose for that long, which deserves a lot of credit. So in my reality, as a HW champion he's one of the best of all time. In terms of h2h, I think he's vastly overrated, and a quite a few guys would beat him h2h. He isn't the h2h force he's made out to be.

 

Obviously in terms of h2h we can favour him over people he sparks in real life

Sharkey, Carnera, Schmelling, Baer, Walcott.

The fact he dominated those men makes it easier to favour him over many others due to the difference in styled against those he beat.

Admittedly favouring him to beat the likes of Lewis, Tyson and Liston is a bit of a leap but not much given how we saw him fare during his career.

 

He never dominated Walcott, in fact, he lost the majority of the rounds scored. Just something you'll have to accept buddy

 

At the end of the scored rounds one man was left standing.

Louis was superior to Walcott. He would always have beaten him.

Something you'll just have to accept.

 

The "bum of the month club" phrase is more of a testament to Louis ability than his opponents lack of.

Ali made Williams, Patterson, Moore, and Liston look like bums.

 

You've seen the COMPLETE fight?

 

Being a "bum" is relative to the field, not relative to the champion.

 

You're trying to justify your own conclusion first, instead of looking at the evidence and then coming to a conclusion. It's like this Big J, if somebody faces inferior competition, they faced inferior competition, and just how it is and what we must call it. Nobody is claiming there were better people to fight, or that he didn't defend against his no. 1 contenders over and over. But if the competition or era is subpar, it's simply subpar. For example, I would call Frazier beating Ali in the FOTC, worth about 10 or more of Joe Louis title defenses. Which is to say, beating an all time great like Ali, counts that much in my eye to beating the men Louis beat. What defines h2h matchups for me is how how you did against the all time greats you faced. It's a reality that Louis struggled with his, and lost the majority of those fights. Sure, we can infer he was past his best, but it's simply a reality. Thus, I simply can't rate him high h2h, but do rate him high in terms of a champion.

Let me ask you this J, do you not think it's easier to look good against subpar competition, which in turn, might make you look better than you really are? Could this be the case?

 

You listed guys that were champions who proved their worth. They are well above the vast majority of his title reign

 

Louis volunteered for the Army to avoid dangerous contenders such as:
Thompson
Murray
Baksi
Scott
Toles