Damn. Manny Stewart quotes are taken pretty seriously around here. I just watched the interview. He doesn't say that Rocky is not in his top 10....
I don't see why we have to compare Foreman to Louis. Foreman is not the benchmark for being good when old. He surpasses the benchmark by quite a distance. Falling under him does not make you a shot old fighter, so the whole argument seems silly to me. I do wonder though, how many of the 25 or so exhibitions Louis fought in 1950 would be million dollar pro fights in the 80's?
Does it say he is? The point is you cant cherry pick quotes from the same source to suit your agenda. ps.It's Steward.
He doesn't say either way. But he also had some criticisms for others in his top 10. So it's unclear. I didn't pull the quote. My argument is actually similar to yours. You can't use him to suit an agenda and dismiss him when it doesn't.
Louis was not at his best against Marciano, which is agreeable. When people use "shot" to describe a fighter the implication is they are so far removed from their best they are no longer any good fighters in general, little if any credit is deserved. Was Louis so far past his best he could be described as "shot" Nonsense, he was active, fighting frequently and winning against good to solid comp, in great shape, and considered a leading contender. Also, consider the extreme weight discrepancy Marciano was at. Its a great win.
Louis of the marciano fight could still beat somewhat decent opposition. Tyson beat a decent string of guys before Lewis including 2 good wins in Botha and Golota but got crushed against the champ. Holmes beat Mercer, gave Holyfield a decent fight and almost beat McCall several years after losing the title. Holyfield scraped by Rahman before getting picked apart by toney A champion can be far past his best and still beat some decent fighters. But that doesnt change the fact that he is no where near what he was. It just means that the remnants of what once was are enough to get by some fighters
Yeah. I don't think "shot" means "not prime." It means they are a worn out, broken fighter that lacks competitiveness. Which I don't think Louis was at all.
We are discussing degrees and context here. How far gone was Louis for the type of fighter Louis once was, is the question. For what he once was, a brutal, finishing combo puncher with great balance and trip hammer reflexes (note: homage to our old Burt)... he was shot. For a guy who had enough ring IQ and muscle memory to one-hand his way thru middling opposition, he was functional.
The weight discrepancy would be a factor if it was a good weight for Louis This is a reasonable assessment imo.
Yeah, I think Louis being shot for the Rocky fight is a commonly known theme. Which I think most people in this thread understand, which is why it is being discussed for 10 pages.
Disagree. I think "shot" is a low baseline measurement. Not the distance between peak and average. I've always assumed that's how it was universally understood.
If he wasn't "shot" he was damn close. I am not interested in semantics. He owed a ton of money but didn't dare fight again to recoup his losses. The public had lost all belief or interest in him. Perhaps there was a reason for this.
How “shot” was Lennox Lewis against Vitali Klitschko? It was his last fight wasn’t it? Lennox was past prime but still beating rated fighters.