Why did Louis go down against Galento, Baer, Braddock, and Walcott?

They were so talented and powerful they would have dropped any ATG that stepped in the ring with them.

 

Ray Mercer didn't seem to suffer from that tragic disease.

 

Because he was punched in the face?

 

Cool story never heard that

 

That's really good thread, some quality discussion. A shame that clips are no longer available...

 

Thankfully we have film to judge why.

1 ) Chin. Louis' chin by the standards of heavyweight champions is average at best. When you badly rocked by 168 pound Billy Conn who could not even punch his weight and stunned by the lines of Tommy Farr, it becomes hard to argue he had a good chin. Louis is fortunate his time had few skilled punchers. Schmeling and Marciano qualify. They KO'd him. Max Baer qualifies as a puncher, but Max didn't land much of anything in his fight with Louis. I always say chins are best graded when hit, and guys like Galento, Walcott, Buddy Bear, and Jimmy Braddock quickly floored Louis based on one punch. Mauriello seemed to stun Louis in round one, but was taken out in the same round. Guys with very good or even good chins do not go down this quickly from punches of this quality. A fluke would be one of these guys flooring Louis. It happened too often to be a fluke.

2 ) Balance / Footwork. Harder to define, but Louis was not very good with balance. He needed his feet set to land more often than not. Louis had below average footwork, the term shuffling Joe was not a compliment rather a way to make light of his slow and predictable footwork. Short counter shots floored him ( Walcott ) partially because Louis did not have goof balance.

3 ) Defense. Louis had a few flaws on defense. His guard was often low. His stance featured Louis sticking out his face forward and high too often, which is an absolute no no. And he wasn't very strong in a clinch. Combined with slow footwork, quite a few boxers his size dominated the score cards on him. They are Schmeling, Conn, Walcott and Charles, the best four boxers he fought. Judge the rounds won to round lost here, and you might be surprised how far behind Louis was.

4 ) Quality of opposition. The mid to late 30's had weak competition. Ring Magazine who loves Joe Louis called it the least talented decade ( Circa 2015 ). This limited Louis being tested. Had Louis fought in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's he would be the smaller man against top competition, be facing a much better class of boxers, and better punchers. IMO would have been floored more often.

5 ) The best defense is a good offense. Gifted with fast hands and power in both fists, Louis had a way of stopping most people before they could take advantage of flaws #1-3. If he wasn't an all time puncher, these flaws would be magnified.

 

So basically, Louis sucked. Not nearly as much as Jack Johnson, but he wasn't anything special.

 

I'm calling it exactly as one can see it on film. I think he stood out thanks to his offensive skills not chin, footwork or defense. If you disagree with any comment on a filmed fight, we can go over it in fine detail. It's hard to argue against film, which by Louis era was plenty and clear enough in almost all cases to judge. I have seen all but one Louis film out there by the way.

I view Louis as a top 10 ATG. He didn't suck. He did have noticeable flaws, and I went over them.

 

Mendoza what hard to get Louis films are out there and which is the one you haven’t seen?

 

what he said Mendoza

 

You analysis kind of collapses under the weight of it's own inconsistencies.

If the above was true, then he would definitely have been stopped a few more times.

He simply had to have something that made him difficult to stop!

 

How so? The analysis was spot on in his time. It's not up for debate it happened.

Don't you think heavyweight boxing had more talent in the 60's, 70,'s 80s and 90? I certainly do.

 

I don't and it's not backed up by anything.

 

A fighter cannot be successful for no reason.

If Louis was fighting top ten ranked guys in double figures, and not getting stopped for over a decade, then he must have had some attribute that made him difficult to stop!

I don't see how it can be otherwise?

Either he had a better chin than you are giving him credit for, or his defense was pretty darn good!

70s and 90s yes.

60s and 80s no, or certainly not by any appreciable margin!