He didn't but he had good enouch chin to survive the best punchers of his era and he was knocked out only once by great boxer Schmeling who hit him with hundreds of punches. Putting Louis down is not enough. Shavers also put down Holmes and it didn't change the outcome. Louis would destroy Shavers.
1? Better say 2. Just like Louis recovered against Marciano and Tyson was bigger faster stronger and did hit harder than marciano
Marciano fight is meaningless. Louis was almost 2 decades from debut, way past his prime and after lots of grueling battles. Only a fool use this fight to conlcude how durable Louis was. Not to mention that Louis did fairly well given circumstances and Marciano was a tremedous puncher. Outside of Schmeling fight (which wasn't one punch recovery but long beatdown), Louis always recovered from even the hardest punches. He faced all dangerous hitters of his era and beat them all, sometimes visiting the floor. Look at Buddy Baer KD for example - he dominated him seconds after layong down and Baer never came back.
So you have the balls to mention the Tyson ko for Holmes and still you say that i can't mention the Marciano ko against Louis? Lol. End of the conversation
Yes, because I'm showing you how silly your arguments are. Every fighter has some down moments, Louis had one against Schmeling. He also proved many, many times that he could take punishment, even get hurt and come back to win the fight. He did that many times, one example of him losing to elite fighter in Schmeling doesn't change that. Shavers meanwhile was not durable at all. He was knocked out multiple times against far lesser fighters and punchers than Louis. He's not bigger, he's not more skilled, he'snot better defensively, he's not more durable, he's not better conditioned and he doesn't have better recovery ability. What is his case over Louis? One big punch can't beat Louis, he faced comparable punchers who were more durable than Shavers and beat them all.
HOLMES NEVER!!! GOT STOPPED IN HIS PRIME.AND LOUIS DID!!! AND YOU ARE DEBATING THAT HOLMES DID NOT RECOVER HIMSELF BETTER THAN LOUIS.THEN YOU MENTIONED THE TYSON FIGHT BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE DURABILITY OF A PRIME HOLMES, AND I ANSWERED TO YOU MENTIONING THE MARCIANO KO OVER LOUIS. SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS GARBAGE NOT MINE. YES. LARRY HOLMES RECOVERED HIMSELF BETTER THAN JOE LOUIS AND THE FACTS PROVED IT.
Using capslock doesn't make you look more convincing. So one fight is a proof? Against someone as good as Schmeling? I don't buy that. I also don't compare Louis to Holmes, you did that. I just question your opinion that Louis didn't recover well. I'd say that Holmes and Louis were similary good at that, the difference is that Louis was much more offensive minded figher than Holmes, so he took more risks.
This one was your inital answer to my post " i would say that Larry Holmes did recover himself a bit better than Louis" So yes, you was debating what i said
As I said, they are comparable. You can argue that Holmes was tougher to knock down, but it's more because of his style, defense and probably durability. Louis recovery ability is undeniable though, he got hurt and then destroyed opponent in a split second.
I didn't notice that paradox when I wrote it, lol. So I should specify: The evolution of sport is when athletes and the sport itself keep getting better with time, But I do think that HW boxers peaked in the 70s with guys like Ali, Holmes, Frazier, Norton, Foreman, (specifically the first 5) Shavers, Lyle, Quarry, the list goes on.
It's close. There's very little if anything between them. Against Schmeling he was in terrible shape and Blackburn noted it prior to the fight. He was extremely worried. He also had a technical deficiency that he shored up after the whupping. Prior to the rematch Blackburn was immensely confident saying he was in fantastic shape and fixed all they had to.