"Joe Louis Not Great"

This content is protected

SuzieQ49, post: 19154795, member: 2387"Come on...don't try to make these guys into something they are not...

Solis was fat lazy unmotivated fighter who couldn't even beat Tony Thompson. Solis never achieved anything. He was a huge bust

This content is protected

Gomez was a smallish weak hitter with no chin. He never achieved anything at heavyweight

This content is protected

Adamek-- please. Good cruiserweight, not a good heavyweight. No punch, weak chin, got outmuscled often, not very athletic. Another who didn't achieve anything at heavyweight

This content is protected

Donald- A gatekeeper, a joruneyma . Another who never achieved anything at heavyweight besides rolling over the corpse of Holyfield.

This content is protected

These guys were nothing!

Briggs- what was he 40 years old? Guy was just looking for one last pay day, he was shot by 2009..

This content is protected

Hide- decent win, good cruiserweight..but another who hardly achieved or amounted to much as a heavyweight

This content is protected

Peter- good win..but this version of peter who showed up was in dreadful shape. He couldn't even beat eddie chambers in his next fight.

This content is protected

Sanders- Vitalis best win...but sanders was a 3 round fighter at this point...he hardly trained, was 39 years old and ready for retirement

This content is protected

I'll say this...vitalis resume hasn't aged well

This content is protected

 

Also, besides the points you just made, you lose the last round which you obviously won rather decisively on all scorecards if anyone would keep a scorecard for a KO round.

 

We are back to an argument that boils down to mediocre modern guys, because they are so big, are better scalps than really talented fellows from the old days.

I have mentioned my thinking was clarified by a call to a sports talk show defending an NFL team with a terrible record--I think it was 4-12--as really being better than multiple championship teams of the past like the sixties Packers and the seventies Steelers, because players have grown so large.

(for non-Americans, I understand you may not know or care about the NFL, but I think w/o knowing anything about the sport, it is still easy to grasp that losing 3/4 of your games makes you poor in your own time. Winning 4 or 5 championships in a decade indicates you were a dominant team)

Rick Barry, the ex-NBA star who hosted the talk show, replied that this is ridiculous. No one really cares what you could have done 50 years ago against smaller competition. You are no good in your own time.

Vitali didn't really cut the mustard resume wise in his own era for whatever reason. He fought two first-tier talents and lost both times. The rest were so-so. On Rummy's list of the top heavyweights off The Ring rankings decade by decade, there must be hundreds, and I mean hundreds, of heavyweights who beat guys who rate higher on these lists than the best Vitali beat--Adamek at #7, and Peter at #9. A couple off the top of my head. Roy Harris who beat #6 Pastrano and #7 Baker. Manuel Ramos who beat #5 Terrell and #9 Machen. If you haven't defeated higher ranked competition in your own day than Harris and Ramos, you haven't done much.

As for rounds won, I think this a goofy statistic, and as the NFL coach Vince Lombardi put it,

"Statistics are for losers."

All that matters is winning or losing. No one cares how many hits a baseball team has that lost, or what shooting percentage a basketball team has that lost, or how many yards a losing football team runs up. If you lost, all of this means nothing. And if you win, poor stats don't mean anything either.

 

Bowe lost 0% of his fight against Hide. Vitali lost 50%. Two fights after Vitali Joseph Chingangu won 100% of his fight against Herbie Hide.

Both Bowe and Joseph Chingangu lost 0% against Hide , whereas Vitali lost 50%.

Bowe beat prime unbeaten Hide who turned up to win yet lost every single round and was dropped about 14 times in 7 rounds.

Vitali fought a past prime Hide who decided to quit in the second round.

Bowe fought prime unbeaten Donald who was athletic enough to move all over the ring.

Vitali fought a shot to bits Donald whose legs were completely gone. Vitali wouldn't have landed a glove on the Donald Bowe fought and Bowe would have destroyed the shot Donald who was standing right in front of Vitali within a few rounds.

Want more?

 

Seriously , why are you mentioning guys who were shot to complete bits as good wins? And why are you trying to claim those ghost versions that Vitali fought would have been a threat to Joe Louis?

The Washed up Sam Peter Vitali fought was toy'd with and knocked dead by Robert Helenius.

The old , inactive , half retired and woefully out of shape Sanders would have been easily beaten by just about anybody.
Prime Sanders from the early 90's who could move , would probably beat Vitali based on how he dominated him for the only two rounds he had in his tank.

Shannon Briggs prime was in the mid 90's. Not 2010 when he was a complete non-factor.. What did he do to get a title shot?
Lewis barely gets any credit for beating prime Briggs , but you shamefully want to plug an old washed up asthma suffering Briggs as a good Vitali win and as somebody who could floor Joe Louis?? What would the Briggs Lewis fought do to Joe? Beat him?
Vitali can't even claim to have wins over prime versions of these guys. Its like bringing up Olly MaCall as a good win for Franny Pianeta .

Gomez was a C- level Cruiser weight who never achieved anything yet he exposed Vitali's crude unrefined skill-set.... Don't believe me , the footage down bellow is proof.

This content is protected

Its unwatchable tbh ^. There was a slightly better version of Vitali in the 90's and his name was Jorge Gonzales.

 

Ed,

One person lamely tried to absolve Louis having trouble with sub 200-pound men by comparing him to a modern champion. The problem the modern champion who fought cruiserweight types, losing maybe 1 round in the process and was not floored, hurt, or needed a come from behind KO vs. a smaller guy like Joe Louis did.

That my friend is apples to apples. Do we agree here?


Apples to apples... You don't compare a 13-3 NFL team to 4-12 team. That is apples to sour grapes. You can compare the 2018 Philadephia Eagles to the 1967 Green Bay Packers. The Packers were more dominant in their era, but if they played a game in 2018, the Philadelphia Eagles would slaughter them, end of. Being great is not only who you beat, but how impressively they beat them. If you put the Eagles of 2018 in 1967, they in my opinion would do as well or better than the Packers.

If winning a championship to use your words for 4-5 years says your dominant, Vitali and his title record also qualifies. On the one hand, you can say Louis was the best in his time ( I agree ), but he beat the mediocre opposition and struggled too often. Flim and historians agree there. If a champion struggles with opponents that today in many cases would not be relevant, apples to apples, he does not know stand with the very best of champions.

You can't quote Vince Lombardi by saying "Statistics are for losers.", Then pivot and pull a double stand by saying Vitali's statics using Rumsfeld's opinion mean something. It doesn't work like that. You're too smart, so you can take that back at any time.

If winning is all that matter, literally, then Marciano is the best of all time as he never lost, and so is Calzaghe at 168, and anyone else who was champion that retired undefeated. Are you going down that path?

Boxing may be the only sport where fans or historians pick athletes 40-100 years ago to defeat modern athletes. How come no other sport sees it this way? Athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, etc...in the heavyweight division, that matters. Not so much if we are talking lightweights.

 

"pull a double standard by saying Vitali's statistics using Rumsfeld's opinion mean something."

Well, Rummy isn't giving exactly an opinion. He is rating the best by decade according to their placement in The Ring's yearly rankings. Frankly, I don't see this as a statistic.

"If winning is all that matters, literally, then Marciano is the best of all time as he never lost"

Over what period of time you are dominant and if you fought the best available matters also, not just avoiding defeat. But Marciano fought the best of his time and defeated them clearly. So he does rate highly with me, but not at the top.

"You don't compare a 13-3 NFL team to a 4-12 team."

Why not? The guy who phoned in was right about the poor modern team probably being able to beat the 1960's Packers. The heaviest Packer was 260 lbs. Their Q-back weighed about 190 and was short. I can understand why you want to restrict this to championship teams, because it veils the weakness of the underlying premise. Size is credited above accomplishment. No doubt modern athlete's are bigger, but the bigger argument is as correct for the mediocre as for the outstanding.

"Apples to apples."

Why aren't different NFL teams apples to apples? The sense in which you can't is that the rules have changed and even things like the size of the rosters. If you watch the film of the 1958 championship game, for example, you notice that the Giants had to move an offensive tackle to defense after an injury. The roster was only 33 players I think. Now it is 55. That and different rules are what makes it apples to oranges. A 2017 NFL team that goes 13-3 is certainly apples to apples with a 2017 NFL team that went 4-12. Same world, same rules, same rosters, same everything. The apples to oranges is when you try to take a team back in time.

"Boxing may be the only sport in which fans or historians pick athletes of 40-100 years ago to defeat modern athletes."

Baseball. Many still pick Babe Ruth as the best ever baseball player.

But concerning boxing, I wouldn't myself at heavyweight as I do think size matters, if we are talking h2h. But in my judgment relying on size ends up with a pointless and, by the way, shifting standard of greatness. A modern guy is big compared to the guys of the 1980's, and the guys of the 1980's were big compared to the 1950's. It is certainly possible that the champions of the 2050's will be huge compared to the best of the recent past.

Accomplishment is what stands out over time and lasts. I think it is the only valid standard of greatness. How great were you in your own time? Louis fought and beat the best over a very long period, was champion longer than anyone, and defended the title more often than anyone. These are real historical accomplishments and put him at or near the top.

Vitali? Whatever potential he had, he just never managed anything to match Louis' resume. On the basis of beating the best, he is actually rather shockingly lacking.

Bottom line is I agree with another poster. If Joe Louis isn't great, no one really is.

Also, harping on the size of Louis' opponents for me misses the salient point that Louis himself wasn't that big and fought quite often prior to WWII at a weight which would make him a modern cruiser. This is the same old size argument coming in the side door. But off the film, these smaller men were more polished all-around fighters than the modern giants, as they were compared to the giants of their own era, which is why the old-time giants didn't really do all that well.

 

It's wrong because he doesnt' agree with it.

 

This content is protected

That is what's wrong ^^^

Example few took rounds from Liston, Lewis, or Wlad Klitschko. They were punchers and IMO far harder to outbox in comparison to Joe Louis.

While each of the above punchers fought their share of smaller guys, how come, Lewis, Klitschko, and Liston seldom round to their smaller guy, but Joe Louis had all sorts of problems, often needed a comeback KO to win? Other times he didn't look good or was floored.

Please answer that question as to why Louis could not win the majority of the rounds vs. the best boxers he fought, but the other punchers who you think this type of viewing is rigged against did???

We'll see if a debate can emerge. Before you point out the obvious, I want to say that the weight disparity between Louis and Conn is in most cases greater than the majority of Lewis, Liston and Wald opponents.

 

Come on Suzie,

Holmes won the majority of the rounds vs. the best boxer he fought including Witherspoon and Norton.

Berbick and Ali were good boxers too. Holmes swept Berbick 15-0 on one card and took it easy on an older Ali dominating him 9-0.

In terms of winning rounds, Holmes towers above Louis. He was longer, better on defense, had a better guard and much faster feet. All givens not even worth debating.

Quicker hands in my opinion as well, and had the ability to hit his guy when the opponent was moving, something Louis struggled with.

 

Louis had 15 pounds over Conn.

Wlad had -
16 lbs over Povetkin.
30 lbs over Haye
15 lbs over Jennings
19 lbs over Sultan
16 lbs over Chagaev
28 lbs over Chris Byrd

You can see here that the weight disparity between Wlad had the best opponents he fought was in most cases bigger than the weight disparity between Joe and Conn.

Also remember that Byrd was 210 lbs and had never seen footage on 244 lbs Vitali when he beat him off the back of 1 weeks preparation.

And least Louis knocked Conn out and more importantly didn't avoid a rematch in which he knocked him out again.

 

Conn is believed to have actually weighed 168lbs for the first Louis fight.

 

The records told me it was 174 vs 199 so i'll edit it to Louis having a 31 lbs weight advantage?