Does Joe Louis stand the test of time?

While having a total of 69 professional bouts during a career which spanned from 1934 to 1951, Joe Louis won 66 times, stopped 52 opponents, lost only 3 times and was stopped twice. Louis lost by a decision to Ezzard Charles and was stopped by Max Schmeling and Rocky Marciano. When losing to Schmeling by a knockout in the 12th round during 1936, Louis had been in the professional ranks for only two years. It is generally agreed that Louis was well past his peak when losing to Charles during 1950 and Marciano during 1951. Louis became a top fighter less than a year after entering the professional ranks in 1934 and remained one while fighting just about every top heavyweight until his career ended in 1951. I might also add that Louis was the world heavyweight champion from 1937 to 1949 while making 25 successful title defenses during that time. Under the circumstances, how can anybody question Louis's credentials as possibly the greatest heavyweight ever to lace on a glove?

- Chuck Johnston

 

A fair post, but Louis is lucky he didn't face any movers with better power then say Walcott or Conn.

Walcott likely won the first match based on sports reporting giving him the nod via 2 to 1 margin, and had the Conn fight been 12 rounds, Conn wins it. While Louis did win the rematch via KO, he was well behind on the cards.

The best boxers who could move a bit in Schemling, Charles, Conn, and Walcott pretty much were better on the score cards until a stopgape happened.

I agree Louis liked to fight a bit up closer, a pocket fighter as you said, but I think he has a lot of issues with good jabbers and fighters with straight right hands do to his stationary preference ( I said slow feet ) low guard, and stick your face forward style, therefore matching up with future heavyweight with skills who were bigger than he was and didn't allow him to get in pocket distance means trouble for Louis.

Great in his time for sure, but great vs biggest skilled fighters from the 1990 to present is unproven, and I lean toward no.

PS: Charles did not move around that much for Louis. He essentially engaged him, and beat him to the punch.

 

Big difference here is that Lewis' hollow result, was over an opponent who should have been under psychiatric care, while Schmeling was a "live" opponent.

 

Fair enough - Though, it seems you are picking points over semantics and comparisons of style with other Heavyweights in history. Perhaps, if I had suggested he was 'widely considered as a boxer who had it all'?

With the thread title in mind, you're also fixating on a particular couple of overlapping Louis facets (movement/footwork) and seemingly unable to connect the dots; between these aspects and the complete Louis style, as well as to how this allowed him to beat 66 out of 69 opponents (52 inside the distance).

Stating that "His feet never presented any problems to anybody" is a bit like suggesting Schumacher's gear-changing never troubled his F1 competition. However you want to interpret and describe it, the Louis movement and footwork was part of an all-round package that worked, leading to huge success and inspiring the OP's question: Does Joe Louis stand the test of time?

All things considered, I think the answer to this question is, Yes.

 

I cant see Louis hurting the big guys of today. Infact he gets stopped by all I think. Klits, Lewis, Bowe etc are all too good skill wise to let such a size advantage slip away from them..

 

The guy shattered bones with his punches, but you don’t think that he would be able to hurt the big guys of today?

They are only human at the end of the day you know!

 

Yep, and theres weight categories for a reason.Unfortunately for Louis there isn't at heavy..They absorb his punches far better than the little guys he was fighting and they punch and move far better than the big guys he was fighting. I got no probs him being matched up with the 70's lot but not todays super heavies

 

No human being, however big, can absorb the kind of punches that Louis could throw.

He stopped guys who were bigger than the fighters you mention, and he stopped guys who were more durable than the fighters you mention.

Jack Dempsey hit hard enough to hurt these guys as well incidentally.

The left hook that he threw that caved in Jess Willard's orbital bone, would have done exactly the same thing to Bowe or Lewis, if it had landed in the same circumstances.

 

So, I'm assuming that you protested against the likes of Byrd, Haye and Mormeck being opponents for Wlad then? (two of whom managed to go the distance with him)

Even Chambers weighed in lighter than the above mentioned.

 

He made a 6"5 250lb do a full 360 with one punch.

 

More falsehoods.

 

I couldn't see Joe louis fighting to survive like any of the above or on the back foot looking for the counter..Joe would be in front of any fighter he ever fought, and that's where his size or lack of it comes into play..If he was fleet footed id agree with you. He isn't, and he has much much bigger men that are skilled with 3 stone on him..I believe Holyfield would fare better than him and hes the same size roughly but more robust imo and look what he could do with the big guys when they were on form..Bowe ****ed him up bad and Lewis should've knocked him out in their first fight but held back thinking Holyfield was playing possum

 

nothing false bout any of it, its fact

 

Holyfield did take a punch better than Louis, but he didn't hit nearly as hard.

Give Holyfield Louis's power and he would likely have put Bowe away every time.

A past prime Holyfield even had Lewis in some rough spots.