Joe Louis vs modern giants: settling tbe debate.

The fact that he had to get up six times vs these guys suggests a lack of defense, and chin. All the video and ring cards suggest Louis lost the first Walcott fight.

But let's say a skilled super heavyweight hits him. I think its an entirely different case. Braddock, Galento, and B Baer were mediocre at best boxers, not hard to hit, and IMO would not be in the top ten today.

 

Janitor,

I think we need to set some ground rules here. No one saying Louis could not beat say Adam Kownacki who's currently ranked 9th at Ring Magazine. Kownacki will be out of the top ten once he fights someone else in the top ten or when some of the younger prospects gain experience. Whichever happens sooner! Kownacki is another Buddy Bear type. Hardly the best big man around today. Can we agree here?

Okay with that put to bed, can you show me which big man over 215 pounds did Louis beat that could realistically better the 15 skilled to semi-skilled super heavyweights I listed below? This will be interesting.


Joshua
Wlad
Fury
Vitali
Lewis
Bruno
Bowe
Tucker
Douglas
Old Foreman
Ibeabuchi
Maskeav
Sanders
Peter
Pulev

 

Of course they could be ranked in the top ten today.

Even if they were as bad as you say, you could get them a ranking by matching them against weak opposition.

You don't have to beat anybody close to the top ten to get a ranking today.

 

I would give some of the big men that Louis beat a good chance against Bruno, Douglas, Old Foreman, Maskaev, Sanders, Peter and Pulev.

 

Do you not realise how much you shoot your argument in the foot by including Maskaev.

Tell me how he is any better than Galento.

 

Yes Joshua, Fury and Wilder look really good right now and this could easily be a golden era similar to Ali, Frazier and Foreman. But once you get past that top echelon let's stop pretending we have a host of super skilled fighters.

Plus we don't actually know how good the top 3 will end up being. Right now they could be 3 ATG guys in the making, or one man could step above the rest with the others dropping a level or two.

But Wilder struggled against Szpilka, Ortiz and Fury. Yes he knocked both of them out but is having to rely on power to bail you out really a fantasy fight winning trait?

Joshua looks the good but he was very nearly derailed against an old Wlad and Takam had moments of success against him as well. He's shown lots of vulnerabilities particularly with his fitness.

Fury looks the hardest to beat because of his speed and style, but remember this is the same man who was dropped by Cunningham and struggled with McDermott.

So the top 3 look good at times but also look vulnerable as well, just like a lot of champions throughout history. They aren't a new age of unbeatable fighters.

I've no issues giving them the benefit of the doubt but we can't just assume they crush any previous champions.

Let's enjoy the HW division as for the first time since the 90s we have some legitimate rivals who look likely to all face each other. They might be less skilled than the K brothers, but they're gonna fight each other to determine a king and that alone makes this era better than the last one.

 

So which of them will be regarded most highly when the dust settles?

Regardless of who is most successful when they actually meet, I suspect that it will be Joshua.

He is the most consistent performer of the three, and he has the style best suited for longevity.

If he can't beat Fury and Wilder, then he can certainly out last them!

 

Hard to say, there could be a standout or there could be a trio of greats.

Either way I'm excited to find out.

 

People are very dishonest about what it takes to get a top 10 ranking in any era.

 

And guys like Foreman also fought way more no-hopers further into their careers than today's top contenders. How many of his 40 opponents had pulses, two? His last five fights before challenging Frazier for the title included guys who were: 4-15; 48-15-13; 15-5-1; 3-25-2; and 1-14-1. Not sure what knocking off guys like that really proves.

And I'm sure there were plenty of other fighters in Foreman's era who got title shots in fewer than 40 fights.

 

It proves nothing, but knocking out Frazier and Norton proves a whole lot more.

 

I tend to agree