Holyfield was a better fighter than Schmeling i agree. Just trying to make a small point that Schmelings skills wouldnt beat louis at his best. I think their second fight proved that. As for holy vs louis, I would think it would be competitive, close decision for Louis. Or if Holy decided to exchange more Louis by tko late rounds.
You say Schemling beat a green Louis, but don't take into account that Max wasn't the fighter he once was when he lost to Louis. Even the Louis win wasn't in Max's prime, and yet he still beat an undefeated contender who was a heavy favorite. If you're going to use context one way, it serves you best to use it both ways.
Thats a good point. I think Louis improved/adapted after his loss to Schmeling. Schmeling lost a step as he got older as well. Prime for prime though, Louis should have the advantage.
Ok your showing Louis vs Schmeling #2. But their was a #1. Point being is Schmeling isn't thought of as being a ATG in anyone's book, but he did take a prime Louis apart in the 1st fight. All the excuses be damed Louis was also put on his butt multiple times by fighters not close to Holyfield in ability. This would be a tough fight for both men. Louis wouldn't stop prime Holyfield in 5rds as some have wrote. I don't know if Superman could pull that off. And yes Louis was slow footed or plodding( But excellent at cutting off the ring, Arguello was very similar) But would he be effective doing that with Holyfield? I don't think he would. If Holyfield fights patiently, and not go to war as he often did, he could beat Louis, probably stopping him. But if Holyfield's heart got in the way of his head, and after he got nailed a few times he plays the "I must hit you back immediately ". Game he would walk into something or " be their waiting for a receipt "and get stopped in a later round.
I don't see this fight going to a decision - whether it's 12 or 15 rounds! Have we ever seen Louis go 10+ rounds in a real battle, where he had to fight for his life throughout against a physically strong opponent? It seems to me, that the pace in many of his fights was rather slow - with Louis patiently stalking his foe, until he was able to finish him off. We never saw him in a give-and-take slugfest (a la Tua-Ibeabuchi) - for the simple reason, that none of his opponents could stand and trade with him over a prolonged period of time. Much has been said about Louis' fantastic combinations of short punches - but I think, Holyfield isn't far behind in this category. He, too, was able to throw bunches of short, powerful hooks - without falling into a clinch, from where he had to regroup. He was actually a lot like Louis in that respect! I see a fight where Louis would have to end it early - or face a real danger of being ground down late by a strong, aggressive opponent.
Yeah Schmeling beat Louis, and not a single other fighter managed in over 50 fights until Louis was seriously shot. Schmeling is a vastly better fighter than Moorer who beat Holyfield "All the excuses be damed"
If we're talking about losses, Holyfield had far more and had them against much worse opposition. It's weird that a single loss to Max Schmeling, avenged emphatically, is all people seem to want to talk about.
I agree with the general point, but who did Holyfield lose to in the 90s who was "much worse" than Schmeling? I mean he did only lose to Moorer, Bowe and Lewis. Moorer, whilst arguably worse than Max, "much" worse is a massive overstatement imo.
Moorer is much bigger, stronger, and faster than Schmeling, plus he is a southpaw, I don't see any reason that he would be "worse" than Schmeling. I think a sure bet would be that Louis or Holyfield would take a fight with Schmeling over a fight with Moorer. IMO, if Louis had fought Moorer, he would be the best opponent Louis fought.
I don't either, but I'm a huge Moorer fan so I didn't want my argument to be written off as a fan boy.
It's not being a "fan boy", it's common sense and seeing fighters fight. For a lot of people on this forum, it must be a knee jerk reaction to take the "guy they've read about beating Joe Louis" over the "guy who got knocked out by old Foreman?" They apparently don't notice that the second guy was much bigger, much stronger, faster, a southpaw, etc. I like Joe Louis from what I've seen of him, but his opponents were so weak (not Louis's fault) that I have to wonder how Louis would do against people who matched up better with him in physical ability and skill. IMO, Louis beating a Baer, Galento, Carnera, Simon, or Braddock is not impressive and it gives me no idea how he would match up with better opponents. If Louis had fought anybody as good as Moorer and won, I'd have a lot more confidence in picking Louis to beat some of the better fighters who came along after 1960.
Like an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object. Louis would probably find Holy's darting style to be rather odd and at first flummoxing. But then he'd start landing the jab, and the combinations would come. He'd start moving forward when he realizes Holy just doesn't punch super hard. Holy at first takes a couple of crunching right hands like a champ, but when Joe starts bending over and really driving his shots in combination he falls four times before the ref stops the fight in 7. Holy at the end is a bit like how he looked at the end of the third Bowe fight, obviously unable to continue and helpless.
