The Louis that fought Rocky was not shot.

It's no more impressive than any year in George Foreman's comeback before he fought Holyfield. Dwight Qawi was a Hall of Famer. J.B. Williamson was a former light heavyweight champ. Bert Cooper was a longtime contender.

Seriously.

In fact, it's less so. Because Foreman was off for a decade before coming back and beating those guys. Louis never actually retired. He was in the ring boxing all of 1949 and 1950. Between actual fights and exhibitions, he fought Agramonte nearly a half dozen times.

 

Has anyone beat five journeymen and a washed up Jimmy Bivins in a year? Yeah.

 

These were writers who watched Louis' career from ringside. They weren't judging two fighters across eras. They were firsthand witnesses to a single fighter's development and performance over time.

1951? KO'ing a Beshore who came in 1-5 over his last 6? KO'ing an Andy Walker who was stopped in almost a quarter of his fights? KO'ing a Savold who was 150 fights into his career and stopped 10 times? That was his resume of KO's. Not exactly the stuff of legend when you are talking about one of the greatest KO artists of all time.

 

Trevor Berbick beat John Tate and Muhammad Ali and lost a title shot to Larry Holmes in a little over a year. Berbick's not an all-time great.

What Joe Louis "accomplished" in 1950-51 isn't anything special. Joe Louis got ranked #1 because he 'was' Joe Louis. Not because he beat anyone good during that time. Because he didn't. Close to 70 guys beat Savold and Bivins before Louis did. And those were the two best guys he beat in that year.

 

Joe Louis won seven fights in 1951, and he fought one of those journeymen twice. So he beat six people. The only one who was rated was Lee Savold, who was a journeyman and was never a great fighter even when he was young.

Louis doubling up on journeymen he routinely boxed against in exhibitions simply wasn't a big deal then ... and it isn't now.

I know you're trying to rewrite history, but it isn't happening.

 

I disagree. Joe, though still somewhat formidable, was past his prime, considerably. He looked old, was slower and was not the perfect fighting machine of his glory days. Though not as pathetic as the terrible beating that Ali received against Holmes, it still was a sad ending to a brilliant career.

 

He was a shadow of his former self.

Prime Louis was a whipper snapper . A striker as sharp as a cheetah.

This Joe was plodding and pulled his punches.

 

Wasn't Walcott the same age as Louis?

The question really is, was it the abilities of the above fighters, possibly the 3 best he fought that made him look bad or older age. The truth could be somewhere in-between.

Charles really beat on Louis, and since we know he was better than Conn, who almost beat Louis, or Godoy who might have earned a draw in the first fight, you have to wonder if he would have beaten Louis years before he did.

 

Check the films. Bivins was always a good fighter. He fought within a very competitive circuit of talented black guys who could not get fights with top contenders. After losing to Louis he only fought good guys. He beat Dejohn. Jimmy knocked out Coley Wallace. Doc Williams was good. For the next years only Tommy Harrison, Ezzard Charles and Bob Baker could beat Bivins. And only on points!

Why can’t it be that Savold was a rated guy for many years because he was a good fighter? Whatever way you look at it Savold still finished his career at the top. He was legitimately rated as high as he was. He climbed the ratings through beating other contenders. Nobody gave Savold that rating. He beat Woodcock. And he had to wait for a return fight to do it since the first time they fought Savold was robbed of a win. He decked Bruce with a blow to the head then was disqualified for hitting low once Bruce got up.

Savold fought a who’s who of the division. He scored the fasted recorded knockout at a main event in madison Square Garden it stood until 2007. Some feat since main events are 50-50 fights on paper. Savold was in the ratings for over 10 years from 1939.

Brion was a better fighter than given credit for. He gave all the guys he fought everything they could handle. Actually when Louis beat Brion, Cesar’s next fight was with Rex Layne who was fresh off a win over Jersey Joe Walcott. The crowd booed the verdict that Layne was awarded over Brion. Nobody booed when Layne was awarded the decision over Walcott. So if Brion is considered merely “fringe” at this time what does that make Walcott? After Louis beats Brion he still gives Charles everything he can handle in a tough fight in 1952. So here we have Brion holding his own with Louis and Charles and getting the better of Layne who beat Walcott. That is not a fringe guy during a period where Charles, Walcott, Layne are considered Elite is it?