I don’t have the rankings in front of me but when was the last time old Holyfield was a ranked one or in top ten? I feel old Louis was better then old Holyfield but who knows that would actually be an interesting fight lol
Because if I talk about Louis, most people would assume he could climb to the throne in any era. But I'm specifically talking about the 1950/1951 version.
He was good but no longer great. I don't think that he could have beaten Charles or Walcott at this stage. There were probably a couple more contenders around, that he was about 50/50 against. A good win for Charles and Maciano in the context of the times, but not much more.
I love watching the "old Louis" fights. He's no longer a kayo puncher, and his speed and reflexes are shot when compared to his glory years, but his ringcraft is a thing of beauty.
I know two things for sure: he looked fifty when he was thirty-seven, and, more substantially, if the medical report Mcvey (or was it Janitor?) posted an excerpt from few months ago is real, the asymmetrical grip strength mentioned is a tell-tale sign of hemisphere-specific brain damage, probably as a result of (obviously nonfatal) cerebral hemorrhaging. I think it's fairly clear he was a shell of himself when he fought Walcott, and certainly when he fought Marciano.
I remember reading about his grip strength in one of the Louis biographies I bought years ago. Anyone who took the extended amount of punishment that Louis took from Schmeling in 1936 was bound to eventually show brain damage sooner or later, IMO. Add to this not only his recorded fights (and the training he did for them), but the his countless boxing exhibitions for the troops during World War II and the exhibition tours he did at the end of his championship tenure, and he has a recipe for a downward mental slide the rest of his life. Marciano didn't help him any, either.
The point is though, the shell of a great fighter can often still beat a good fighter. As we saw with Pacquiao against Bradley for example.
Can you post a link to this report again. I vaguely remember it as well, but that is was during his comeback... not before the Walcott fight
I would certainly call him a good fighter at that stage. He'd be able to rise through some rankings in various eras.. Sometimes to 1, maybe other eras to 8... Point is, he was a good fighter, just not great anymore.
I didn't post it, Janitor or Mcvey did, and as far as I can tell this site only allows you to keep track of your own posts/replies from the past week or so.
Quite true. I'd say '51 Louis is about on par with '76-'77 Ali, if such a comparison makes any sense.
It was not my post, but you are quite right. There is circumstantial evidence that Louis might have failed the medical today.
Old Joe Louis ( 1950-1951 ) was a solid older fighter. Not in Holmes or Foreman's class, and miles away from where Wlad and Vitali were at a similar age. Louis had three things going for him: 1 ) He still had a good jab, as long as the other fighter didn't have a lot of power or speed, this was good enough to earn decisions. 2 ) He was usually the bigger man. 3 ) The competition he faced wasn't very good ( except for Charles who gave him a beating and Marciano who knocked him out )