Joe Louis V ...

As Joe Louis once said: "Well they'd be on the tour"

This content is protected

 

Taken in isolation, with Joe at his best each time, he beats them all. However, if he's to go through this list as he did after he won the belt, and had to defend against each one, he'd likely lose at least one somewhere in there. Joe Louis was only human and some fights he may underestimate a foe, or not be quite at motivated etc etc.

One thing we can say for sure is, this list would be quite a bit more difficult than the list he had to navigate while champion.

 

Debatable I would say!

You are basically comparing one weak era against another, so how do you favor either group of men by any appreciable margin?

 

I wish some actual scientists who study sports and athletic performance would weigh in on this--it's a shame we have to rely on a reporter's off-the-cuff calculations and assumptions.

 

It would only be debatable if we never watched any of them fight.

But for anyone who has watched them, it should be pretty obvious that the 80s heavyweights were a far more formidable group.

 

Why so?

Why do they look more formidable, and why would them looking more formidable guarantee that they were?

 

Short answer: size, athleticism, skills, pedigree.

But before I type out a full response, do you really believe that guys like Johnny Davis, Tony Musto, Gus Dorazio, or Al McCoy would quite possibly fare well against the guys in the 80s list? Be honest.

 

Are you doing the trying to be obtuse thing again? You know damn well that the list of fighters presented, would be at minimum, marginally better than the list he did go through. This should be plainly apparent for anybody who can see, and knows what they are looking at. All strong or weak era's aren't the same. This is true for all sports and you know it.

 

Davis, Musto and Dorazio were not the best or brightest of the era, so no I would not expect those men to fare well against those on the list.

Now if I could hand pick the best of Louis's title challengers, then it is game on!

 

I am sorry but in the absence of any direct evidence, I cannot assume that they were better than the best men Louis beat.

I find the eras very similar to be honest!

 

I'm just spitballing, but would I be wrong in saying that Max Baer would be Holmes best win?

 

You think the eras were siimilar with respect to the actual skills and physical talent of the fighters?

Or do you just find them similar in the meta-sense, due to the ups and downs of the fighters and their inability to demonstrate their clear superiority over the other contenders, etc.?

 

He would be Holmes's best win on paper, no doubt at all.

You could possibly argue for the Mercer win being better, taking his age at the time into account.

 

Primarily the latter.

A weak era tends to be one where no single contenders stays at the top for very long.

In a stronger era, you get strong contenders, who are power brokers for years.

As for the skills and talent of the fighters, that can be argued either way.

Was Mike Weaver more skilled than Billy Conn for example?