Did Joe Louis' comeback damage his legacy ?

Yes it does. Assuming you define legacy as the way they are perceived by the public you can not deny it. The further you get away from the event the fact that they were past their prime becomes all the dimmer.

 

Depends on the public. Are we talking misinformed public or the intelligent public who would take the misinformed public to school?

 

Golovkin at 33 has 34 fights, Louis at 33 had 57, add to that during the war years and after before Charles he had alot of layoff time in between fights, two years 8 months off between Simon and Davis, 1 yr 7 months between Davis and Conn, then after the war 1 yr 3 months between Mauriello and Walcott, 6 months between the Walcott fights then 2 yrs 3 months in retirement before Charles, so yes, Louis had a lot more wear and tear and mileage on his clock than those guys you mentioned and was clearly a different fighter at that age in his comeback

Mayweather 38 (retired) - 49 fights
Stevenson 38 yrs old - 28 fights
Povetkin 36 yrs old - 31 fights
Lebedev 36 yrs old - 30 fights

Louis 37 (Retired) - 69 fights

He was clearly a different fighter and had a lot of fights by then, he only lost to Charles and Marciano, its not as if he was losing to b level guys, when people think of Louis they dont automatically think of a forced comeback Louis, id imagine most think of a prime bomber, anyway hes almost always rated 1 or 2 in the heavyweight rankings, even if he never came back I dont see it getting any better than that for him, id still rate Ali at 1 and Louis at 2 if Joe didnt comeback and lose to Charles and Marciano.
And I dont imagine many knowledgeable boxing fans rating them lower (or having their legacy noticeably lessened) by their losses to Charles & Marciano, or Spinks, Holmes and Berbick.

 

It isn't just age, it's the mileage.
Golovkin has 34 fights
Stevenson 28
Povetkin28

Louis had 69 fights! He had 12 fights in his debut year!
Plus due to WW2" he was inactive from
March 1942 until Nov1944 and from Nov 1944 until Jun1946. Louis was the same age as Walcott but he was undeniably more past prime than Walcott was when they met.

 

Yes indeed. You can not refute this at all. Unreal that he brought up age to begin with as if every fighter ages the same way. Different styles, layoffs, injuries and competition are huge factors when determining a fighter's mileage.

 

Yes.it does

 

Another good question to ask, do modern fighters age better than fighters from years ago. I'm guessing 38 these days ain't half as bad as 60 years ago....

 

Have Golovkin, Pov and Lebedev already demonstrated 10-12 years of dominance over their divisions? How f*cking long are we going to expect fighters to remain prime? How long was Jeffries' or Johnson's or Dempsey's or Frazier's prime? Ali?

This is just getting ridiculous.

 

That just goes to show what an amazing career Mayweather has had...

 

Most aren't fighting 8/9 times a year.

 

But if you're winning those 8-9 fights comfortably without recieving too much punishment it can be argued that it would be beneficial for a fighter.

 

IF is only two letters, but sometimes mighty a long word!

 

Tbh Joe Louis fought in his own words "The Bum of the Month Club."

 

In part, yes.

 

this thread does more damage to who started it