Did Joe Louis' comeback damage his legacy ?

Yes, I remember the computerized tournament in 1967 and was surprised to hear Fleischer pick Louis over Dempsey knowing that he had rated Dempsey #4 all-time and Louis #6.

 

I think we take our ratings much too seriously.
Who cares if Joe Blow rates Louis at #2 or #20.
Louis was what he was.
If we don't like his failed comeback attempt, Louis doesn't care.

 

How was it new? It happened to Sullivan, Jeffries, etc.

 

It doesn’t change it one way or the other.

It is more or less exactly what you would expect to have happened.

 

Pretty much on point.

 

Doesn't change his rank or respect for his accomplishments but it makes him a sad figure. Add in the fact that he ended up being a greeter at a casino doesn't help either. In other words the image of Louis falling through the ropes does diminish him.

Same goes for Willie Mays. It was very sad to see him stumbling around in center field.

 

I suspect that if Louis could have had his time again, he would not have made his comeback.

He probably hated losing as much as any heavyweight in history.

Having said that, the results of his comeback, don’t really change anything!

 

I think it did a bit.

It may have inflated Marciano's a bit, as well. Although, objective observers shouldn't give Maciano's too much credit for beating a used up version of Louis.

 

Every loss you suffer when you are the favorite going in hurts your legacy.

Louis was favored over everyone he lost to.

All three losses hurt his reputation. He could only avenge one of them.

 

2 losses to ATG's past his prime, I mean, waaaaaaaay past his prime, does not deter his legacy one bit. And like Klompton Jr. posted above, Louis f*cked up both of their faces in the process.

Joe Louis #1 heavyweight fighter of all time.

 

Sure it does. His reputation wasn't the same as it was when he retired as undisputed champion with only one loss (which he avenged on a global stage).

And the losses will diminish his standing when someone comes close to his mark ... and the difference is Louis was stopped two times and lost one decision.

If he'd bowed out the first time and never came back, he'd be nearly impossible to ever pass.

Of course it hurt his legacy. Getting knocked out by someone you're supposed to beat hurts your legacy. Losing a wide decision to someone you're supposed to beat hurts your legacy.

 

Geezus! You can't win them all! Louis was old as f*ck. The fact he damaged their faces at that age attests to how great Louis was. How does that damage his standing when the guy was probably suffering from arthritis in every single joint?

 

Louis was 36 years old when he lost to Charles. Hell, Golovkin is going to be 34 in two months. Is he "old as f*ck" too? Alexander Povetkin and Denis Lebedev are 36. Adonis Stevenson is 38. Mayweather's going to be 39 next month. Are they all old as f*ck?

It hurt his legacy. He retired as undisputed champion ... any losses after that hurt his legacy. His legacy wasn't as good when he retired the second time as it was when he retired the first time.

Therefore, his comeback negatively affected it.

 

Rule #1, fighters age differently in boxing. It's basically a rule of thumb, something you should know in order to post here.

Do Ali's losses to Holmes and Berbick hurt his legacy?
Do Foreman's losses to Holyfield, Morrison and Briggs hurt his legacy?
Does Wlad's loss to Fury hurt his legacy?
Do Holmes' losses to Tyson, Holyfield, Nielsen and McCall hurt his legacy?

If you answer "yes" to any of the above than you fell off that turnip truck one too many times!