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

You nailed it.

 

Page did not beat Douglas. He lost to him.

Holyfeild beat Douglas but it's hardly his only good win. Sure he could trouble Louis. I was thinking more along the lines of guys who's best win was over Douglas. a David Bey, Jesse Fergusson or Mike white who beat Douglas.

Mcall lost to Orlin Norris. Do you see Norris bothering Louis? How about Mike Hunter? He beat McCall too.

 

There's no shame in losing to Schmeling anyway. Max had the perfect antidote that night. Any fighter at his best will lose if the other guy knows what you are going to do before you do it. So long as the other guy is capable, a comparable level he will win even if he is he lesser man On paper.

Too many people accept an excuse. Or look for one. I don't care how good any fighter is, even on his best night, if the other fellow has his number everything will fall in place for the best guy to lose. The same thing with Tyson. He was in shape. Louis was in shape too. There is no shame in it.

I never heard that quote from Jack Blackburn, but he was right about a loss helping a fighter. Louis came back from it and always set a good example. That loss rightly never hurt his resume. IMO Louis was as good losing to Schmeling as he was winning his best fights just like Tyson with Douglas.

 

Schmeling was a great fighter and fought a great fight to beat Louis. It's a blemish on Louis's record but he didn't lose again for a long time.

 

Louis took that loss on the chin. Literally. He was a great fighter before it and he was a great fighter after it.

It's only really a blemish if Louis did anything wrong. I don't think he did. Schmeling had all the answers that night. He simply waited until he new exactly what Louis was going to do before he did it. once he hurt joe he kind of kept him hurt all through the rest of the fight. There is nothing Louis could have done without knowing this.

If a guy knows what you are going to do before you do it your done for. That's why Joe jumped on Schmeling the way he did in the rematch.

Nobody can say a fighter can beat Louis if he did what Schmeling did. If it was as simple as a counter over the jab everyone would have tried that before Schmeling did. And a Joe never fought the rest of his fights the way he fought Schmeling in the rematch either.

Like I said, I think Louis was great before, during and after fighting Schmeling. Joe overcame that loss like it never happened. He proved never to be susceptible to a blip in form.

 

There is no shame in losing to Schmeling, nor did I allude to that being the case. Schmeling is actually underrated these days as a whole.

 

The bottom line is that there have been many cases of experienced fighters who might have lost a step, beating inexperienced fighters. Sometimes it is just part of the learning curve. The Louis that Schmeling beat would have gone through any other heavyweight in the world at the time, but he was still not the finished article. His punches became more compact later, he became more economical in his movements, and better at jumping on opponents early.

I guess you either treat a fighters status relative to their prime as being a direct function of their age, or you treat it as being a function of the results that they were getting at the time.

If you think the former, then you have an argument here.

If you think the latter, then you don't.

Personally I think that Louis took a lot of ring wear before the war, and then never recovered from the layoff.

But Lewis would have won the fight whatever Tyson had done, for two reasons.

1. Tyson took a lot more ring wear when he was younger.
2. Tyson simply had a style that was not suited to longevity.

That is why age is just a number.

The older Lewis was always going to outlast him, and Walcott was always going to outlast Louis for the same reason.

You do not have to say that a fighter is in their prime, in order to place a high value on berating them, don't you get that?

The Louis that Marciano beat, might have beaten any other heavyweight around barring Charles and Walcott, but he was still a shadow of the prime version.

The Louis that Walcott beat, could still just about edge any other fighter in the world, as he proved against Walcott, but he was still a shadow of the prime version.

The Louis that Schmeling beat, could probably have beaten some all time greats on that night, but he still got somewhat better after that fight.

Schmeling eventually met a prime Louis, while Walcott and Marciano were luck that they never did.

 

I don't buy this whole notion of Louis was screwed that night and didn't have a chance. You're grossly exaggerating the sequence of events that night. Louis wasn't a helpless school boy in there with a grown man who was also a mind reader. The way you make it seem, Louis could only fight one way and was physically prevented from fighting any other way. That is simply not true. He could've chosen to adapt to what Schmeling was doing or adapt what he was doing. There were many variables Louis could've tried, and likely did try, they just weren't successful.

 

Schmeling boxed a great fight.
Louis did improve after that, through experience gained.
Louis was prime, just entering his prime really. His "prime" can be anywhere 1935 to 1942. That's a long prime.

It was a loss. It counts against Louis.

But I fail to see how Louis is "overrated". He went on to win the title and defend it 25 times. He had 4 years out during the war and came back and was still defeating contenders.

His record was 58-1 when he retired (before his ill-fated, tax-debt-driven comeback brought him 2 more losses and 8 more wins).

He was beating ranked contenders his entire career. He was ranked as a contender a few months after he turned professional in 1934, and stayed ranked until 1951 (apart from the short retirement 1949-1950). Most of those years he was the undisputed champion.

 

Don't disagree that this hasn't occurred before, and will so again. That said, it also doesn't change the narrative here at all. Louis was very near his prime, Schemling was past his best, and the fight really wasn't all that close.

No, there are two different aspects at play here:

1. Your physical prime
2. Your mental/experience boxing prime

Those aren't mutually inclusive. It's without question that Walcott was past his physical peak, and by a decent margin. Yes, he had gained some valuable experience as he got past his peak, and thus he was likely mentally near his prime for the Louis fight. That doesn't change the fact that he wasn't physically prime, and there is no disputing this fact.

I reject the notion that Louis had more ring wear on this body. Louis had the best trainers, equipment, nutrition that money could buy from a very early on. Walcott was the exact opposite of that. Often fighting with very little training, diet and equipment. That would've take a FAR greater toll on his body than the former. There is simply no way to get around that.

Don't think I didn't notice that you didn't address your continued statements that I was just throwing fighters out there, as if they weren't the best he fought. They unquestionably were, and I accept the concession on that point.

 

AWESOME ANALYSIS CHOKLAB!

 

Don't every recall saying he was overrated, but maybe somebody else did. I've only said that I feel he's slightly overrated h2h, but has an underrated title reign as a whole. That is how this whole discussion took place since. I feel this way because, as I mention, Louis often struggled mightily with or lost to the best he faced. Thus, why would I think Holyfield couldn't beat him h2h. I don't look at the so so guys he destroyed and go, SEE, look he destroyed them, he'd also walk through Holyfield. Holyfield also would've destroyed those guys. As my analogy illustrates, just because NE beats the crap out of the Browns, would I go, SEE, they'll walk all over the Steelers. No, I wouldn't, because that is a whole level of competition at play here. People get so carried away with Louis destroying ham and eggers, and the awesome skills on display, and think that would just translate to anybody. It wouldn't. Bad competition allow you to look better than you might be. That is just a fact. So, Louis is top 3 for me, and likely no. 2 ATG Heavyweight. That doesn't mean he'd be in my top 5 of all time great h2h HW's. Though, he'd be close

 

His competition was relatively good. Look at the other much-discussed heavyweights. They fought loads of ham and eggers too.

I seriously doubt he'd walk through Holyfield. I'd pick him to win a fight with him though, but Holyfield has a very good chance, and probably gives him a very very hard fight even if he loses. I'd pick Louis to beat most great heavyweights but not all of them. Some I'd make a clear 50-50 against him. He'd lose to some, inevitably. Louis is probably the best h2h in my book, and that would explain how he managed such a great record and reign too.

I've seen polls on this forum lop-sidedly have Tyson beating Louis, I've seen Liston and Foreman quite heavily favoured against him too. I rate him higher than that (though Liston would have about a 50-50 chance, in my eyes). So I can't agree he's being overrated h2h.
He had a great skillset and a great record to reflect it.
Someone has to be the best, and i think it might well have been Louis.

 

The evidence on the first Louis Schmeling fight is complex, and frankly fascinating.

There is no doubt that Schmeling planned well, and prepared well.

Louis always explained the loss as being down to his poor preparation, and he probably believed it, whether it was true or not.

There is a myriad of testimony evidence from Louis's team, both before and after the fight, to suggest that his focus was well off.

On the other hand Louis often expressed his admiration for Schmeling before the fight, and there is even an article written shortly before the fight, where he gives him a glowing write up based on the Stribling fight.

The footage of the fight clearly shows a very dangerous Louis.

Clearly nothing like the lethargic head hunting Tyson that came out of his corner to fight James Douglas.

He is sharp, crisp, active, and dominating the fight, until Schmeling's plan undoes him.