"Joe Louis Not Great"

Fighter A, as he's 3-0. Usually, the champions talked about all have top records. The rounds won to rounds loss ratio shows who the best boxers regarding the ability to win rounds are, not who the best punchers were or who the most durable were.

Its a way of looking at who are the hardest boxers to out point, if you will.

With Louis, I do not view him as a top boxer like some here do. The examples shown are compelling, and few, if any would figure the top champions after him, would have similar troubles.

Louis to me was a top-level puncher. He had very good combinations and very good hand speed. When his man was hurt, he closed the show...but it took him a long time to land his best stuff in many fights.
If he fought under the 12 round format, he losses to Conn on points, and likely Walcott 1 ( I'd have to check the cards after 12 rounds ).

If Louis had trouble vs Schmeling, Charles, Conn and Walcott on the score cards, how does he match up with a bigger skilled boxer, who hits harder than Charles, Conn and Walcott ( Neither known for good heavyweight chins ) ?

I think he's in more trouble if the names were Holmes, Ali, Lewis or Klitschko, don't you?

Defense, footwork, the ability to hit moving targets and Ring IQ? Not his best stuff.

 

This content is protected

[url]http://www.espn.com/espn/classic/news/story?id=2442810[/url]

But 169, or 174, Conn wasn't a puncher. He hit like a jr middle landing often but stopping few. Not only did Conn outbox Louis, who had 25 or more pounds on with more reach, he stunned him in round 12.

If you look around, you'll probably see more in the 160's for Conn.

 

All completely reasonable comments and questions to me.

 

Not really considering Louis was far past his prime vs Walcott and even further past his prime against Charles in 50.

How do you think Charles and Walcott do with a 1930s louis?

 

Charles gets knocked out eventually (I really don't think that highly of him at heavyweight, fwiw). Walcott still troubles Louis with his movement but probably fares marginally worse than he did in his actual fights with Louis.

 

But he didn't...he only won 44%

I think we can agree Norton Witherspoon Tyson Holyfield and Spinks were the best Holmes fought correct? Most fans would agree with this

Holmes won only 7 against Witherspoon OUT OF 12

Holmes won only 7-8 against Norton out of 15

Holmes won only 3 against holyfield out of 12

Holmes won only 1 against Tyson out of 4

Holmes won 14-15 against spinks out of 30

Holmes was past his best vs spinks Holyfield and Tyson...but so was Louis against Walcott Marciano and Charles

 

So you agree Charles and Walcott win less rounds against a prime Louis...my point is made

 

If that’s all your point entails then Mendoza’s post is still completely reasonable. Anyone with two eyes can see that Louis at times struggled with mobile and skilled opponents, at various points throughout his career.

 

Here's where your wrong. Mendoza implied Louis struggles with boxers because he only won 40% of the rounds vs the five best boxers he faced (conn Schmeling Walcott Charles Marciano)

My counter argument is Larry Holmes, whom Mendoza loves, only won 44% of the rounds against the five best boxers he faced if you apply mendozas logic to Holmes


I think we can agree Norton Witherspoon Tyson Holyfield and Spinks were the best Holmes fought correct? Most fans would agree with this

Holmes won only 7 against Witherspoon OUT OF 12

Holmes won only 7-8 against Norton out of 15

Holmes won only 3 against holyfield out of 12

Holmes won only 1 against Tyson out of 4

Holmes won 14-15 against spinks out of 30

Holmes was past his best vs spinks Holyfield and Tyson...but so was Louis against Walcott Marciano and Charles


So does Holmes struggle with good boxers too?

 

His point is unreasonable in one key respect.

He has hand picked the mobile or skilled boxers that gave Louis trouble, regardless of how far past his prime Louis was.

He has omitted the mobile or skilled boxers that did not give Louis much trouble.

 

Pretty much..Bob pastor was one of the best skilled boxers of the 40s Louis went 2-0 against him...won a majority of the rounds.

 

Lewis and Klitschko's weren't moving targets were they? Conn and Pastor danced all over the ring and both were knocked out by Louis.
Louis has a track record of blitzing big lumps like Lewis and K2 so his struggles against smaller nimble footer's isn't applicable to SHWs like Lewis and K2.

Why not hold both Klitschkos to the same critique as you do with Louis ?
Wlad used illegal holding as a substitute for the movement he was unable to employ around the ring.
Vitali could barely put a glove on Byrd.
Wlad struggled badly with the movement of Williamson and avoided the rematch after the controversial decision.
He was totally befuddled and lost by Fury's ring generalship. Show me another Wlad opponent to was fleet footed like Fury was?
You are you not consistent in your criticisms and most know you only post here to promote your biases and favoritism.
At the end of the day losing rounds to a novice like Jennings is a lot worse than losing rounds to a guy like Walcott.

 

If you are not taking account of fighters being past their prime, then why not throw in Jack Sharkey, John Henry Lewis, and Jimmy Bivins?

 

So Bob Pastor belongs in the same company as Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Max Schmeling, and Billy Conn now? Are you being sincere?

 

Let's compare the 6 Holmes fights you've mentioned (Witherspoon, Norton, Holyfield, Tyson, and M.Spinks x2) to the 6 Louis fights (Schmeling x2, Conn I, Walcott x 2, and Charles).

Age (mean):
Louis: 29.4 years old
Holmes: 35.9 years old

Opponent age (mean):
Louis: 30.5 years old
Holmes: 28.4 years old

Opponent weight (mean):
Louis: 189 lbs
Holmes: 211 lbs

Opponent reach (mean):
Louis: 74 in.
Holmes: 76 in.

Opponent losses (mean):
Louis: 8.5
Holmes: 0.667

Holmes was much, much older than Louis during these fights and much, much older than his opponents. Holmes' opponents were younger than Louis's. His opponents were much bigger and stronger than Louis's. Other than Norton, none the Holmes opponents had ever tasted defeat as professionals. Numbers like this obviously can't tell the whole story but I think they're pretty useful in assessing your counterargument.