Joe Louis v Holmes Title Opponents - 49 - 0?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Fergy, Jul 7, 2022.


  1. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,547
    9,593
    May 30, 2019
    How so?
     
  2. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

    29,753
    20,212
    Apr 3, 2012
    Spinks was lineal heavyweight champion for starters.
     
  3. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,547
    9,593
    May 30, 2019
    Sure, but we're talking about his pre-Holmes career. Besides, you use Holmes fight as a proof that Spinks was greater than Conn, who lost to Louis and you conclude that... Holmes fought better competition - because he lost to them.

    In reality, Spinks resume at HW relies heavliy on Holmes wins, one of which is disputed.
     
  4. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

    29,753
    20,212
    Apr 3, 2012
    I concluded that Spinks has a better heavyweight resume than Conn and that Louis probably wouldn’t match Holmes. You invented every other conclusion.
     
  5. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,581
    11,093
    Oct 28, 2017
    Take away Conn's fights with Louis and Spink's fights with Holmes and Conn was much more accomplished at the weight.
     
  6. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

    29,753
    20,212
    Apr 3, 2012
    That’s a big takeaway.

    Conn wasn’t fighting modern sized heavyweights anyway. Qawi was probably bigger than most of the heavyweights Conn beat.
     
  7. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,581
    11,093
    Oct 28, 2017
    So Holmes losing to Spinks wasn't bad because Spinks beat Holmes.

    So it wouldn't have been as bad if Louis lost to Conn because then Conn would be a more proven heavyweight.

    This is impressively terrible reasoning.
     
    Fergy, 70sFan865 and George Crowcroft like this.
  8. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

    29,753
    20,212
    Apr 3, 2012
    You’re lost. Louis would’ve had to beat a bunch of guys before making it to Spinks. Spinks was better than Conn and more proven.

    Holmes losing to Spinks has nothing to do with proving that Louis would match his reign. His performance against Conn suggests he wouldn’t.
     
  9. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    52,252
    27,784
    Jan 3, 2007
    Well yes assuming all those same opponents are available and ready within that time frame. Holmes reign was about 7 years. Of course I think Louis could still blow through 20 title fights in four years and maybe instead of waiting for guys like Spoon, smith and Williams to come around could have fought others line Dokes, Coetzee, and Tate
     
  10. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    52,252
    27,784
    Jan 3, 2007
    I don’t see the comparisons. Conn was a more elusive boxer while spinks was sort of a boxer-puncher. Also Louis being a fast hand puncher while Holmes was a boxer himself ( and an aged one at that ) I believe Louis style might be more detrimental to spinks
     
    Fergy likes this.
  11. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,547
    9,593
    May 30, 2019
    So you don't even know who Conn faced?
     
  12. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,547
    9,593
    May 30, 2019
    There is only one lost poster here and it's you. @BitPlayerVesti explained it as easily as possible, yet you still fail to see lack of logic in your argumentation.
     
  13. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

    29,753
    20,212
    Apr 3, 2012
    180 pounders like Pastor
     
  14. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,547
    9,593
    May 30, 2019
    So actually bigger than Qawi?
     
  15. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

    29,753
    20,212
    Apr 3, 2012
    No, Qawi was draining for 175 and putting weight on, and later fought at cruiser. So actually smaller.