"Joe Louis Not Great"

Holmes up on the official cards vs Norton and Spoon. He did not need a come from behind KO vs a sub 200 pound man, did he? No was he stunned by a guy under 170 pounds, losing is we are talking 12 rounds...

Holmes 38 vs. Tyson and out of the ring for a while...older than any example I used for Louis. No need to mention his age vs Holy.

 

If only you could show the same understanding to Louis!

 

He wasn't that old vs. Schmeling, Conn, or Walcott, was he? Louis was 36 vs. Charles but active and on a winning streak. It wasn't close.

Fair points, I think. Accurate punchers with some footwork gave Louis trouble, and they could range from 168-200 pounds. Why is another thread? Short answer >>> Slow feet, a bad face forward style with a low guard, and not good hating targets on the move or circling.

I did say he was #1 for legacy to the game and # of title defenses, didn't I?

 

OK, so this is the obviously the case for the prosecution!

 

And Louis had beaten three former champions at an age when Wlad got iced by unranked Ross Purrity. By the age Wlad suffered his third KO loss (was Brewster ranked?) Louis had some 20 defenses of the undisputed title. Far more than Wlad ever managed to put together. You know, if you want to do the age thing.

 

Being 22 and losing to Schmeling far, far better than being 22 and losing effing Purrity.

Being 36 and losing to an undisputed HW champion also far, far better than being 27 and getting blown away by Sanders.

Being 37 and losing to Marciano hell of a lot better than being 28 and panicking like a rank amateur against Brewster on route to being KO'd.

 

Don't play this game of trying to compare the Klitschko's resumes to Louis's.

It always ends badly for you!

If you want to make the Klitschko's look good relative to Louis, you want to avoid the word resume!

 

Louis was certainly on a winning streak versus Charles, but he had laid off for over two years and felt that he was not in top shape at a career high 218 lbs.

 

Rummy is posting a "Top 10 by Decade Divisional Ranking Experiment" right now. He has finished the heavies. His system ranks the top 10 each decade by their placement in The Ring's yearly rankings-10 points for the champ, 9 for the #1 contender, down to 1 for the #9 contender. (#10 gets no points to make the math easier)

I think it more than worthwhile and gives a good picture of both who were rated highly themselves, and who defeated highly ranked opponents. This has only been computed since 1930 and here are the ratings of the best opponents each defeated--
#2*--this #2 ranks behind the fighter, so is the best other than himself for that decade.

Max Schmeling (Joe Louis #1)
Jack Sharkey (Max Schmeling #1)
Primo Carnera (Jack Sharkey #5)
Max Baer (Max Schmeling #1)
Jim Braddock (Max Baer #4)
Joe Louis (Max Schmeling #1)
Ezzard Charles (Joe Louis #1--if old, Walcott & Bivins #3)
Jersey Joe Walcott (Ezzard Charles #2)
Rocky Marciano (Joe Louis #1--if old Charles #2*, Walcott #3)
Floyd Patterson (Ingemar Johansson #7)
Ingemar Johansson (Floyd Patterson #2)
Sonny Liston (Floyd Patterson #2)
Muhammad Ali (Patterson #2*, Foreman #2*)
Joe Frazier (Ali #1)
George Foreman (Joe Frazier #3)
Leon Spinks (Muhammad Ali #1--old & no good second win)
Larry Holmes (Muhammad Ali #1--if old, Tim Witherspoon #3)
Mike Spinks (Larry Holmes #1)
Mike Tyson (Larry Holmes #1--if old, Pinklon Thomas #4)
Evander Holyfield (Holmes #1, Foreman #2--if old, Moorer #3)
Lennox Lewis (Evander Holyfield #1)
Wlad Klitschko (Alexander Povetkin #2*, Chris Byrd #2*)
Vitali Klitschko (Tomas Adamek #7)

As for quantity, Ali beat 16 of the other top 18 in the 1960's & 1970's. Louis beat 13 of the other top 18 in the 1930's & 1940's. Wlad does more than decently by this measure also, beating 7 of the other top 18 of the 2000 & 2010 decades, plus Mercer from the 1990's, giving him a total of 8.

Someone like Marciano is short on quantity with 4, but beat the top man of the 1940's, the top man next to himself of the 1950's, and a close to the top Walcott.

Vitali? He doesn't do well either on quantity or quality. On quantity he has only two, I think, Adamek at #7 and Peter at #9. (Adamek is still subject to falling in rating for this decade) He doesn't do as well as Patterson. One might argue he is somewhat more impressive resume wise than Leon Spinks because of Ali being old, but even Braddock has a bigger win.

In historical placement, Vitali doesn't even belong in the same discussion as Ali and Louis.

 

At least Louis established no doubt in the winner by knocking his man out...while Holmes allowed the judges to decide the fight..and in both cases plenty ringside thought Witherspoon and Norton won.

Walcott and Conn...I think you will find most people consider them better fighters than Norton and Spoon.

Conn was small but consider this...he dominated 3 very good heavyweight contenders of the 40s Lee Savold (rated throughout the decade), Gunnar Barland (Beat Baer) and Bob Pastor (number 1 contender in the world). So clearly the weight didn’t bother him too much..

Also conn had a great style to deal with bigger men..he was tall 6’2 with a long reach. He had beautiful footwork and was always moving, jabbing, fighting from the outside.. he never allowed bigger fighters to maul him in close..and he had plenty of power and fast combinations to keep bigger fighters at bay. Conn is truly one of the best fighters of all time, and would have beaten many heavyweight champions the night he fought Louis..he was a tough out.

Conn weighed in officially 174 against Louis.. not 168 unless you have direct evidence proving otherwise.

Let’s say for a moment you are right, he was 168. Does it really matter? I mean, you give Jeffries a ton of credit for defeating Fitzsimmons whom only weighed in at 165lb and was 37 years old. Bottom line, conn proved himself a difficult challenge for a heavyweight champion.

I think most consider Walcott a top 20 all time heavyweight. It’s rare to see Norton and Witherspoon’s name make such lists.

 

Louis was 36 vs Charles and also out of the ring for a while. While not as old, you could make a strong case he was just as deteriorated. In fact, you could say Holmes had more left in the tank considering he went on to defeat an undefeated Ray Mercer 4 years later... Louis was retired just 1 year after the Charles defeat and never defeated anyone in the 50s of a Ray Mercer caliber...

 

Louis was really over the hill against Charles...don’t know how you could hold that loss against him, other than praise his courage for lasting 15 rounds against a great young fighter.

Louis did not have slow feet. You may be watching too much of the older Louis who fought with his feet stuck in the mud...but watch a young Louis here in 35 vs baer

Here’s Louis footwork at its finest

This content is protected

Louis is quite bouncy on his feet..gliding in and out of range after throwing combinations...Watch in particular 7:40-745 he uses his feet to get in and out of range, firing a beautiful left jab...then he dances up on his toes toward the end to get out of harms way of a baer counter

Ali and Tunney had low guards..two men you hold in very high regard..Louis held a tighter higher guard than both... Louis come forward style was perfect for him because he had the most explosive punching arsenal in boxing history. Any man willing to challenge him toe to toe was going to get knocked out..

Louis faced some of the best movers in boxing history...I mean you find me 10 heavyweights in history who circled better than a prime billy conn, or moved better than a prime Walcott’s waltz? Quite a tough challenge for any champion...

At the end of the day, Louis got the job done. He went 4-0 vs Conn and Walcott.. can you ask for anything more?

Many of your favorite fighters had their own personal demons they battled..

Holmes could never get out of the way of a good right hand throughout his career, avoided Thomas and Page in 83-84, never granted rematches for some of his controversial decisions..never unified the title.


Vitali Klitschko quit on his stool vs a featherfisted cruiserweight, handpicked weak opponents for title defenses in his comeback, never even defeated a top 50 heavyweight of all time..

James J Jeffries: fought to a draw with 163lb Choynski despite a 36lb weight advantage, struggled with a 37 year old 165lb Bob Fitzsimmons coming off a 2 year layoff, nearly lost to a 33 year old Corbett coming off a 3 year layoff, avoided fighting Jack Johnson and retired...

 

Sounds like proudlunatic. I knew a fella what went by proudlunatic on BA forum. He made a thread called "My 3 Saps" it focused on Louis, Marciano, and Tyson.

I argued with him for like five or six years straight. Proud was a typer, loads of words, I am a typer myself....it was looooong. Several hundred pages, several thousand posts, I actually quite enjoyed it. It's nice to have an adversary. Even a stupid one can put you into a position to search for more that may shut them up or shut up yourself.

Proud was great, but in the end I'd wonder if he was still alive...he just disappeared one day.

 

OK...you proved it to me. Louis sucked.

 

Wait, was this written by that "Heavyweight blog" dip****?

I try never to yank the rug out from under some poor dimwit who is making an honest effort to make sense of the world as best his abilities will allow, and I really don't mind arrogance at all if it's matched and warranted with commensurate ability.

But there is something about the combination of rank stupidity and hollow arrogance that brings out my unreservedly sadistic streak and makes me truly relish the puncturing of empty heads.
Christ, what a jackass.