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

I think Tucker is a top 100 all time heavyweight. To suggest he could not trouble Louis, who had trouble with much smaller men and good boxers or jabbers is not accurate.

Tucker went the distance with Tyson ( Injured himself after a good round one ) and with Lennox Lewis.

So the Louis KO 1-4 picks are a bit unreasonable.

He did defeat McCall, Douglas, Norris, Jaco, and Broad.

From 1985-1994, a good talented time, he was a contender. I'd pretty much pick him to beat Charles, Conn, and others who gave Louis some trouble.

My best guess would be Louis in a tough fight via later round stoppage or decision, as Tucker to me didn't have the best heart when he was losing.

 

Tucker was a good amateur but his pro career didn't pan out to be anymore than it was. He had no Olympic platform. He was best placed with the right investment to make an impact on the last years of Holmes reign. Unfortunately too many wasted years. It didn't happen.

With hindsight, I truly believe circa 1986 the best young heavyweights who in another era would have been poised to face one another (to determine logical contender status to an undisputed champion) were Douglas, Tucker and Tyson.

We didn't know it then but had each of the three been given the shared equal billing on the same platform that Tyson had things might have been different.

This was when heavyweight boxing was screaming for a new face. But the landscape was the HBO tournament and the round robin of has beens. Douglas had no money behind him. Tucker lacked exposure.

But Tyson got boosted ahead of them and the resulting "Tyson mania" eclipsed even the strap wearing ABC title holders. And looking back it was based on no more than what any half decent prospect was brought up on. The only difference was Tysons early fights got promoted. And they were just mismatches. Who did he beat on the way to the championship fights? Frazier and Ratliff??

Tyson bypassed meetings with Douglas or Tucker on the way to the belts. He got to the tired selection of strap wearing, lost generation of early 80s heavyweights before they did. The path was cleared only for him.

Because he got Berbick and Smith before they did and he was kept so active, Tyson ended up having the edge. He benefited because Nobody else in the top ten could get fights whilst everyone was being lined up for Tyson.

If you look at that top ten the contenders were not fighting each other! But imagine if they had of been? Or if the declining ones were lined up for other prospects too, rather than just Tyson? Maybe the winners might have been better prepared for Tyson? We will never know.

That's why the Tucker we did get to see was not able to be the fighter he might have been. Not just him but many others too.

We can only use the Tucker we did see. And who was that exactly? A man who fared fairly respectably in losing to a young Champion who possibly benefited from being made to look better than he was?

I don't think Jaco or Broad should make a highlight reel list of Tuckers. This leaves Mcall and Douglas. Norris beat Tony both times. So This is a very thin resume.

Who else with a win over Douglas and Mcall to his name would you back to trouble Joe Louis?

 

It's like this, I do think Louis gets overrated h2h, but that doesn't mean he's even thinking of losing to Tucker or Williams or the like. It's simply a fact that he either struggled, lost, or barely won against he best foes. I'm referring to Schmeling, Walcott, Charles, Conn and Marciano. Those were his best foes, and he had very mixed results. Granted, some of those were past his prime, but he wasn't for Schmeling, nor Conn, and people claim he was for Walcott, but that wasn't very far past his prime if at all, and frankly, Walcott was older I believe anyways. He was more past it for Charles and Marciano. However, what "Prime" wins of Louis am I supposed to be impressed with h2h, that would give me pause for thinking Holyfield could beat him or Frazier or Liston? Are we really thinking that Primo, Max, and Simon give one pause in thinking somebody could beat or trouble Joe? Yes, it's not his fault the competition wasn't the best during his Prime years, but that doesn't mean we can simply dismiss the context of what did occur. During his prime, he didn't beat anybody that I don't think Holyfield, Frazier or Liston (as examples) wouldn't have beat also, and some maybe without getting knocked down in the process. You also can't go, look how awesome he was against those guys, and how it would translate to other greats, when frankly, that is a comparison that can't be made. Would I look at the Patriots kicking the crap out of Cleveland, and go, see look how dominate they are, they'll beat Pittsburgh. Umm no, doesn't work that way, your competition affects how you look, and so so competition can make one look incredible. His championship reign to be gets underrated, and he's overrated h2h slightly imo. Not much, but imo just a little based on the above. However, people do take it too far, and put him in matchups that are beneath him, so to speak.

 

Louis fought a lot of active guys. Many of them are overlooked. I just don't think people know who they were or who they beat. Contenders fought each other over and over swapping wins. It made them tougher even if their records appeared patchy. Others were the kingpin of where they were from.

On the way up guys like Al Ettore beat Walcott. Charlie Retzlaf had a very good record. Red Burman was tough.Tommy Farr, Arturo Godoy, Patsy Peroni, Stan poreda were genuine contenders. They all beat very good guys.

Look at Tony Galento and Lou Nova! Nova beat the crap out of a still good Max Baer no And Pat Comiskey. And Galento beat Nova.

Who were the guys beating who challenged the Klitschkos?

How active were the guys challenging Tyson?

Who were the guys beating who challenged Holmes?

In Later eras mangers sign Amateur tournament winners and line them up a bunch of dead bodies. Bogus 20-0 records that don't mean squat. None of that in Joe Louis's time.

 

I am afraid that you are way off here.

Even if we accept these as his best opponents (they seem to have been selected more for having given him trouble), your assessments of his status when he fought them are pretty wide of the mark.

Louis had only turned professional two years ago when he fought Schmeling for the first time, so it is a bit of a stretch to say that he was in his prime. I don't think that any fighter has ever been in their prime two years after their professional debut.

Louis was not even remotely close to his prime when he fought Walcott, which is why he retired after the fights. So what if Walcott was the same age as him, Lennox Lewis was older than Mike Tyson when they fought, and nobody seems to argue that they were equally past it.

In summary the only fight that you mention where he was close to his prime was the Conn figth, and the common factor in these fighters giving him trouble, was the fact that he was outside his prime.

 

I'm honestly not sure what all this was typed for Chok, it didn't really address the discussion at hand. No, Louis competition wasn't all that good, it doesn't matter that they were active or beating the crap out of each other, they simply weren't all that good when we look back at them now. I admit, it's not his fault, but the context can't be ignored regardless. Him beating Simon, or Primo, or Max, or Buddy, in no way shape or form would give me pause in thinking Holyfield would give Joe a very tough fight or beat him. That's the point.

 

Look at Holyfeilds best win. Bowe. Bowes best win? holyfeild. This is the kind of thing that eliminates Patterson in ATG disputes. Is it okay for Holyfeild and Bowe because their fights were in colour TV?

I loved Holyfeild but he beat ancient Foreman and ancient Holmes. Lewis beat him. Twice. He beat Mercer. Okay but so did Old man Larry.

Why wouldn't Tony Galento trouble Holyfeild? Bert Cooper did. Billy Conn? max Baer? Schmeling? Why not?

Jersey Joe Walcott? Tommy Farr? Why not?

 

I'm sorry to say, but it's you who are off the mark here. Joe Louis was the favorite going into the fight with Schmeling, and that wasn't just happenstance was it Janitor. You strangely make it seem like Louis was green (he really wasn't all that green, maybe some) but than fail to mention Schmeling was past his best. That is the exact reason why Louis was favored, was because Schmeling had mixed results prior to that fight and was on the slide. Which again is evident by his record after that fight.

Of course it matters that Walcott was older, well, because he WAS older than Louis. So no, Louis doesn't get a pass for being past it, well Walcott was older anyways. By that notion, they were both past their physical prime, and Walcott still boxed his ears off for the first fight and most of the second. Your example also doesn't hold water. Lewis unquestionably was past his best when he beat Tyson. That wasn't a prime Lewis, and neither was Tyson prime. They were both past their physical peak, but Mike was more mentally gone by then. If find it hilarious you're not claiming Louis wasn't REMOTELY close to his prime, yet I've seen you want to give Marciano credit for beating Louis, because of the run Joe was on prior. Yet here, 4 years earlier, Joe wasn't "remotely" close to his prime. I might give a little past his prime, but certainly not, "not remotely close to his prime" . You can make up whatever excuse you want, but the best boxers he faced, the boxers that would do good in any era and most comparable to fighters of today or yesterday; i.e. Conn, Charles, Walcott, Schmeling and Marciano, he struggled mightily against. That is a simple fact, and a fact, that gives me pause when I hear people say Louis would make quick work of Holyfield lets say. He beat none of the best boxers he faced convincingly enough for me to say that. He could beat him, but this notion that he'd walk right through him is laughable. Which is my point, underrated title reign, slightly overrated h2h imo.

 

Schmeling Beat Joe, Walcott was boxed his ears off the first fight and for most of the second. These aren't the best examples to use. It has nothing to do with being in color, Holyfield faced the better competition in his time. Maybe I'm wrong, but are you saying Louis' competition was better? No, Conn wouldn't trouble Holy, because Holy had better foot movement than Joe. That is why Joe struggled there, was the speed and movement of Conn, that wouldn't both Holy as much.

 

It is irrelevant that Louis was the favourite.

It is frankly irrelevant that Schmeling was past his prime.

There is simply no way that Louis was at his peak one year and eleven months after his professional debut.

Name another fighter that has been.

It is irrelevant who was older.

Louis's prime was obviously several years previously, and Walcott was obviously never better previously.

Are you saying that it would have been an even fight if Tyson had been more focused?

You can give a fighter credit for a win while acknowledging that the person they beat was nowhere near their prime.

A pre/past prime Joe Louis is still one of the best fighters in the world.

No contradiction there.

Your logic is flawed for two reasons here.

Firstly you reeling off these names without any context.

Secondly you are hand picking your list of the best fighters that Louis faced, to reflect fighters who gave him trouble.

 

Holyfield lost his title to Michael Moorer remember.

If we are not allowing context, then you might as well throw in the Chris Byrd fight, and the James Toney fight.

 

1. Yes, it does mater that Louis was favored, because that is a representation of the current condition at the time of the fight. It reflects how they were doing before the fight, just like in any other sport in existence. Louis was doing much better, much younger, and Schmeling was considered on the slide. To even say it's "irrelevant" that Schmeling was past his best is downright hilarious, and honestly, I can't even believe you said that. You're better than that, and I thought much better. It unquestionably matters if somebody is past their best, and still pull of a great victory, to say otherwise is being disingenuous at best. A past his prime Schmeling, beat a slightly green Louis. No, that isn't a ringing endorsement for Louis, no matter how much spin you want to try and put on it.

2. Again, it absolutely matters that Walcott was older than Louis when one is trying to say Louis "wasn't remotely close to his prime". That is a blatant exaggeration, and you know it. I could use that phrase for his fight with Marciano, but not Walcott. The very best I could give it was, slightly past his best. The point is, both men were physically past their best, period end of story.

3. You acting like I pulled these names out of a hat randomly, and they aren't Louis' best foes he faced. That is also a laughable assertion. But since you made it, please list for me the fighters that were better than the ones I listed. I'd love to see this list.

4. It's unquestionably that Tyson would've done better if his head was right then, just like it was true before when he lost to Douglas and others. He physically wasn't as good, and mentally he wasn't as good either. Of course that affected things. That doesn't mean I think he would've still won, but it's a fact none the less. Regardless, the point is, Lewis was also past his best and still won the fight.

5. Yes, there is a contradiction there, and it's an obvious one. You said it again, a pre prime or past prime Louis is still one of the best fighters in the world. You made this point when giving Marciano credit for beating Joe, and Joe that was on a 8 fight win streak, and beating all contenders. Yet, 4 years earlier, when he clearly looked better visually in all aspects... he wasn't "remotely close to his prime". it's comical. I'll give him slightly past his best, but no more.

 

I don't think Holyfeild beat better competition at all.

Dwight Qawi was no better than a lot of guys Louis fought. Billy conn beats him.
Micheal Moorer beat Holyfeild. We don't know if he would get past Tommy Farr or Lou Nova.
Godoy would wipe the floor with john Ruiz.
Al ettore was better than Bert Cooper. Galento ruins him.
Old man Holmes and old man Foreman were further past their best than Sharkey and Carnera. Neither old man would get would get past even Carnera in my opinion. There is a reason they would not fight bigger men in their comebacks.
Max Baer would flatten Douglas in a jiffy.

This content is protected

 

https://streamable.com/g0ic

Here’s joe Louis with Foreman and Norton. He’s at least the same size.

 

Let's see:

Lewis has win over McCall. So does Frank Bruno

Holyfield has a win over Douglas. So does Greg Page.

That is 4 guys.

Let's reverse it. Who among Louis' beaten opponents would better Lewis, Tyson, Bruno and Page?

I say no one is better than 2-2. Most would be 0-4. A few might be 1-3.