Yeah. Mike Tyson circa 2000-2002. Tyson wiped out guys like Lou Savarese, Andrew Golota, Frans Botha, etc. all in a couple rounds. He was dismantling guys easier than Joe Louis was in 1950. But against someone like Lennox Lewis, he was certainly a shadow of his 21-year-old self. Joe Louis turned pro at 20. He had beaten four world champions and was the undisputed champ himself by the time he was 22. But Louis was in no way, shape or form anything like the destructive force he had been in his early 20s when Marciano knocked him out. Against Agromonte, he basically just jabbed all night. Louis had gotten to the point where he had to see an opening and think about it before he threw a shot. But his jab alone busted Marciano up.
He was pretty far gone to what he had been. That’s all. It’s inarguable that Louis was still a good #1 contender. His 8 fight streak proved it.
Beating 8 guys a year near the upper rankings is an insane feat. Oh, unless you’re rooting tootin’ Joe Louis from the olden times. Then, it’s just part of the “magic,” no big deal.
yes. This is undeniable I don’t think anyone is saying (in any shape or form) that Louis was like the destructive force he had been in his early 20s Louis decked Agramante with a hard right hand. If he basically jabbed all night, how did he do that? This is not what the film shows is it?
My point still stands. Louis struggling with walcott, charles, and rocky looks even worse if you dont think he was "shot" but "still very good".
Again, and exaggeration of his condition for the first Walcott fight. He was by no means "severely depleted" as you put it.
Not really. What was Bivins like 6-4 that year? Lee Savold was a journeyman at the end of a long career who won on an injury over Bruce Woodcock. Brion was fringe at best. Agramonte, Beshore and Walker were journeymen. There was nothing there. It was a motley bunch at that point. I don't know why you're trying to hype them?
I’m acknowledging the level of the feat in proper context. Beating 8 people a year is usually something done in your first year or two as a pro, when you’re coming up fighting club fighters. It’s very unusual and impressive at the level of Louis’ opponents in 1951. You’re not even describing what level of opponent would be required to make an 8 win / year accomplishment look good for a worn fighter in his last year. Probably because anything more would be unreasonable and unrealistic. Hence the impressive nature of the feat.
The most Kirk Johnson fought in one year was 6 times, and that was against club fighters his rookie year. Louis beat 8 high level fighters, a few top 10 ranked, in his last year.
He fought a lot because he was broke. And they put him in with journeymen who couldn't punch, so if he couldn't score a KO he'd win by just landing a few jabs a round. That's the proper context. He fought 25 times the year before in exhibitions. Most seasoned pros don't do that either. But if you're broke, you do. I'm a big Joe Louis fan. Don't get me wrong. But those final wins weren't impressive to anyone at the time, and they aren't now. Honestly.
No, two of the fighters were top 10 ranked. You're way off. And him being broke doesn't lessen the feat, no idea what you're insinuating with that. Winning is winning. You still haven't described what would make the feat impressive within a realistic context. So everything you're saying has no anchoring to any kind of level of standard. What kind of fighters in Louis position put together as many wins against as highly ranked opponents as he did at his stage of his career?