Whats with this idea that Joe Louis was a weak champ or not as great a fighter as once thought?

Then there are those who watch and learn NOTHING throughout the years. Every nuance of greatness missed. All fighters the same except for size. Bigger is better. EVERY TIME.

 

Tucker didn't have fast feet. He was an ordinary big-footed ponderous heavyweight, not fast, but mobile enough for heavyweight boxing. He had some decent boxing skills,he was a decent fighter. Nothing special but he was a good well-schooled boxer deserving of his world ranking and IBF belt (in 1987 at least).

 

What are you on about? Im not talking about size or weight. Im talking about a tall, quick mover who louis would struggle to land more than one shot at a time on

 

Maybe later in his career he was. But in his 20s he was very mobile. Cocaine addiction has robbed more than one very good boxer of his legs, think michael dokes after his prime and pernell whitaker in his last fight

 

Joe Louis had better skill, better power, better speed.
People mention Billy Conn but every time I watch that fight, Louis knocks Conn the **** out. And that was Louis having "a bad night".

 

He was mobile enough but when was he fast on his feet ?
Which fights do you mean ?

This is Tucker's best :

This content is protected

 

It is amazing that Tucker who was really nothing much during a terrible heavyweight era post Holmes, is considered so well. Like you said to elevate Tysons questionable stock. The Brown Bomber by 10 count in 4. Conn by EASY decision in 10. Tucker was nothing during a fatboy slovenly Tubbs Page Bigtit Witherspoon Bcrusher Smith era. Now the bum troubles Louis. He would not trouble Leroy Jones.

 

It seems that these things go in cycles. Currently it seems to be fashionable to downgrade Louis, Liston and Jeffries, upgrade Holmes, Wlad, etc., and argue over Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Lewis, Tyson, etc.
Healthy debates. Happy days.
Next year it will be somebody different.

 

Exactly.
Tucker was a medium-typical contender/"alphabet champ", nothing more, nothing less.
He was worthy enough in 1987 to hold the IBF belt for a few months. He was a top professional for maybe a few years, a ranked fighter. But that's it.
There have been hundreds, possibly thousands, of that type in the heavyweight division.
Tucker can be proud of what he accomplished in the sport but he's a far cry from being able to compete with a legend like Joe Louis.

 

I loath being accused of having an agenda or for discrediting a fighter to suit my views. It's easy to strip down any career to make a point. But I know Tuckers career. It's not difficult for me to see where he was lacking enough not to make a comparison with ANY great fighter.

And I say this fully recognising the talent and attributes he did have. Tony was a fine fighter for what he was. He should be proud. Maybe if every ounce of publicity and matchmaking and funding had of went into making Tucker look like the "next big thing" right from the beginning perhaps we would think he was better than he was.

But that did not happen. So I agree with this over view of his career written by someone else that I found years ago.

"Tucker went 34-0 (29) 1NC prior to facing Tyson. He had beat Buster Douglas for the vacant IBF HW world title, WTKO10. The fight was even after 9 rounds. He also beat James Broad W12. Broad had been stopped in the 2nd round by Tim Witherspoon and outboxed by Marvis Frazier, L10. He decisioned a washed up Jimmy Young. The other guys he beat prior to facing Tyson really sucked. If any of these guys even dreamed about beating me... they better wake up and apologize. One of the worst 34-0 records I've ever seen.


Tucker lasted 12 rounds vs. Tyson... he should be happy with that. I'm not sure he could have ever done any better.


He won his next 14 fights, 10 by KO. 12 were bums, the other two were Orlin Norris and Oliver McCall. The fights with Norris and McCall could have easily went the other way. Norris did beat Tucker in a rematch.


Tucker went the distance vs. Lewis but was dropped twice.


What else did he do? Tucker didn't lose much because he didn't fight decent fighters very much. The only time he fought 3 name fighters in a row, he lost 3 fights in a row... LKOby7 Seldon, L10 Akinwande, and L10 Norris.


If Tucker had something special he never proved it to me.


He beat Douglas and went the distance with Tyson and Lewis. He also won fights vs. Norris and McCall that could have went either way. What else?"

 

Best post of the day.

 

Ill take bigger heart toughness hungyer fighter mental toughness ring iq over some big lug on steroids who only fights twice a year.Joe Louis fought big men too you saw what happen to them tiiimmbeerr !!!!!!

 

To be fair to them, many have started learning about boxing from the present, and worked backwards. This is going to make it hard to pick out just how good Louis was. His resume is a list of forgotten men, if you have not researched the era. Some fighters just look better the closer you get to them, and Louis is such a fighter.

 

isn't that how we all of the over 18 age bracket learned? I mean the real boxing lovers. We studied the whole history ofthe sport and still do. But jees, when I was starting I never relagated a Leotis Martin to be as ting Louis. Common sense man. Or just the inability in some people for the eye yo define quality in certain sports. Btw, Louis KO 3 Martin

 

I only recently learned how good some of Louis's pre championship guys were. And I thought I knew everything. You can't ever know everything. If we don't. The adults who have researched for years. Then The kids know less.