Comparing Joe Louis title defenses to modern heavys is foolish

You should be thanking them, they leave a piece of themselves back in those battlegrounds. My grandfather was traumatised when he served in Nam too. He still thought it a necessary tragedy because he was devoted to the cause.

 

No he didn't. Not always. Look at my mention of Johnny Davis above.

Louis was badly hurt and nearly KOed by a light punching middleweight, and knocked down by bar room brawler Tony Galento. He has more than his fair share of embarrassing moments.

 

Yeah, I won't defend Louis in a H2H (he gets eaten alive by many of the more modern HWs) but as a champ he was one of the all time greats. Professional, exciting, a true sportsman with great comportment outside the ring.

 

He did. Who around at the time did he not face? Davis was a soft touch. Louis beat every contender from his era. Bar none.

 

¤wrong thread

 

I was responding to your statement that he never fought less than the best. Occasionally it was inevitable.

Who around at the time didn't he face? Lem Franklin and Roscoe Toles spring to mind.

 

How so? Not trying to argue. Just curious what you mean by that.

 

Most of his 25 defenses were against top 10 ranked contenders. Not sure what the thread starter is smoking.

How many fellow Hall of Famer's did Joe Louis fight and beat? A boat load.

 

Roscoe Toles? The guy that lost to a bunch of guys that Louis had beaten or would go on to beat? Lem Franklin? You'd be calling them "bums" if he had faced them.

If he hadn't fought Tony Galento or Gus Dorazio or whoever else, you'd be naming them here too. 25 defenses. Naturally, he can't fight all of the practically infinite boxers around. You're fighting a losing battle. And it's a losing battle for good reason.

 

You have an admirable and valuable job. As the son of a combat veteran who suffered from PTSD for over 50 years, I saw how it affected my dad. He never spoke of his combat experience until late in his life. He was also among the most ardent anti-war advocates I ever knew. Once people see and experience the real devastation of war (on the military and civilians) they rarely want to ever see it again or have anyone else experience it. My dad was patriotic til the end and was proud to serve in the US Army.

Joe Lewis was a great man. We need more guys like Joe in the fight game. It’s too bad he never experienced the financial success he deserved.

 

This is true but it’s hard to compare this to modern boxing. Fighters in those days fought with injuries and in many cases before they were fully recovered from a previous fight. They also fought with training camp injuries and with gloves that had less hand protection than modern fighters. They were also punched by opponents with less hand protection. I also believe boxing was more corrupt in the older days when the mob was stronger and had more control than present day.

Not saying today’s boxers have it easy because they don’t. Fighters are better conditioned, they study film and have to fight chemically enhanced opponents. It was a brutal sport back in the old days and is brutal now in different ways.

Louis only lost a couple times in his prime and lost his last fight against Marciano. I’ve only seen his major fights and only a handful. No doubt he looked bad on occasion against inferior oponents. Just pointing out the difference in eras. Three losses is still pretty impressive considering the guys he figure snd the amount of times he fought. I’m going IFF memory and probably screwed up his record but I’m at lunch and too lazy to confirm. I’m sure someone will point it out if I’m wrong.

 

I don't generally call any fighters bums in a serious sense. I find the term disrespectful, and not conducive to a level, reasoned discussion. I'm not criticising Louis for not fighting those guys, merely responding to George Crowcroft's question of which contenders Louis didn't fight during his title run, since he seemed to think he completely cleared out his division.

Both Toles and Franklin were more than worthy of challenging Louis over some of the guys he fought, and it's a shame they never fought (in Franklin's case he got beaten by Bob Pastor who went on to fight Louis, though Simon lost to him during that time and still fought Louis straight after, so losing shouldn't have automatically barred Franklin from a shot).

Anyway, like I said, I'm not criticising Louis for skipping them out. That needs to be established here.

 

It was a different dynamic, certainly. Fighters that succeeded in the modern era wouldn't necessarily have fared as well in the past over the course of a career, although I do believe H2H most modern heavyweights obliterate guys from Louis's era. Toughness was certainly at a premium back then, and it was a lot harder to be consistent and in the winning column due to the often hectic fight schedule and amount of travelling that fighters had to do, which is why it should be praised when it occurs.

 

Usually Wilder's resume is picked a part name by name. With the key question -how many ATG's did he beat.

I just looked at Joe's record again, with a Boleslav Chrzanowski aka Young Stanley Ketchel...can't see anyway possible that Wilder at 29 fights taking this guy on who lost his previous 4 taking on Joe would not have been clowned for doing so.
But Joe fought this dude...who lost his next 5 fights.
Seems we would have clowned Joe had he did that in this era of the internet instant info & forums of self-made boxing experts aka fans!

But Joe it is about (well they were all top contenders) then proceed to give names of people that barely have footage on them.

Now I don't rate Wilder with Louis, but I darn tootin' sure won't use 2 different vetting processes. One fighter I have to name how many guys he ducked, how many ATGs did he fight, how many times did he get dropped.
Then when we get to the proven ATG of Joe...it seems to go pretty vague and general when describing his foes bar maybe 10 fighters?
How would we not have clowned him the way we did AJ when Max whooped his ass all night long?
Surely we would be divided on the rematch of Joe vs Max.

As I mentioned on a few threads...if Joe fought those guys today, how could we get on this forum and talk him up against 3-3 Johnny Davis, how do we not clown him and say amn...took U that long to get rid of a fat 2ton Tony? LOL!
Who here dogging Wilder would've defended Joe getting is ass handed to him by a LHW...saved by what? A puncher's chance!
Not denigrating Joe...just moving him into our era and asking if we do this to Wilder...how could we have not nitpicked Joe's career?

When it is said & done i see it that while Joe beat many..MANY of tomato cans...it was sprinkled in with some young guns, prime fighters & ATGs that makes JOe's resume complete. He is an ATG. Wilder is not.
But Wilder isn't running from challenges...he's fighting in an era that had Joe fought in...he may have told us...maybe I am not fighting all the best, because there are too God damn many promoters highjacking fights...threatening me to sign with them or face obscure competition as a consequence of not signing to fight with the biggest stable.
That is what Wilder fights today and Joe didn't have to deal with.

[edit] my questions aren't too you, just in general...as I agree with your take!!

 

Respect