Prime Louis Vs Prime Usky

Oh Conn is great all right. In his era. Head too head with Uysk, not so much. I'm putting you on ignore now. I don't care to talk about boxing with a disrespectful idiot like you.

 

Considering you initiated it? I started the conversation with “not to be disrespectful” and you tried pulling rank with zero points to make “If you know boxing” followed up with all that “I’ve been training fighters for 20 years” talk. If you can’t present your arguments with all this alleged experience do you really know what you’re talking about?


But just to address what you said. I didn’t say H2H for one. While exceptional he is not even the best fighter of his era. I do think If Billy kept everything and was the size of Usyk he couldn’t lose.

 

why some people considering usyk stronger than louis? because of weight? joe louis used to walkaround 220-230 in good shape there are footage of him in exhibitions coming lot heavier but he was fighting at 198-207 lbs super slim because of 15 rounds and back then they used to do more calisthenics and cardiovascular workouts. Usyk is 220 pounds doing deadlifting a lot of weights consuming whey protein creatine maybe roids and all the new stuff.

 

I have to question your opinion here again, because Conn didn't fight that way against Louis at all.

 

Pastor, Sharkey, Paychek, McCoy, Bivins and yes, Conn and Walcott twice.

 

I definitely wouldn't say he was prime for Schmeling at 20 years old. He was still physically developing, had yet to physically fill out, and neglected training ahead of the bout.

 

You could argue him prime but you can't argue him anywhere near his greatest and he was indeed not in the best of shape.

Just like Lewis with McCall, this was the loss Louis had to have. It saw him reset and go on to great things, just like Lewis. He shored up his defensive deficiencies and certainly didn't shirk training again. Lewis probably did more again, changing trainers, shoring up his defense and settling into a style of fighting that worked best for him. He also bulked up. He really rounded out his game. Wlad you could argue would fit the conversation really nicely as well.

 

What took you so long?

 

Louis was basically the same size in his best fights of the 1940s. I get that he wasn't at his peak and he underrated Schmeling before the bout, but it doesn't make him out of his prime.

It reminds me Tyson fans calling him past prime against Douglas. By such definition, a fighter is in his prime only when he wins the fight.

 

It definitely wasn't Louis' best fight. Schmeling taught him a lesson and Louis wasn't at his peak but already prime. Louis wrote in his biography that the Max Baer fight was his best fight. He was 21 then. I wouldn't disagree with Louis' statement. When he later lost to Max Schmeling he was 22.

 

I already mentioned that Conn and Walcott gave him huge trouble. And neither was that big, they were small HWs.
You could argue Walcott won their first fight. And that Conn could have done the same had he not been dumb enough to trade.

Pastor, Paychek and McCoy are bums.
Sharkey is average at best.

Put Louis against a good mover like Holmes, Ali, Holyfield, Young, Usyk and he gets destroyed.

 

You can't argue that he won the second and Louis was past prime in both fights.

That's a myth which isn't backed up by the footage we have. Conn lost because he got nailed by Louis, time and time again.

All of them were credible contenders.

Lineal HW champion with Sharkey's resume and skillset can't be called average by anyone who isn't ignorant.

I don't care about your hypotheticals, I care that your take is wrong. Louis beat all the movers he faced and he lost against flat footed fighter.

 

Usyk trashes Louis. He's never seen that level of footspeed

 

But Usyk has seen that level of punching ability?

 

Louis doesn't punch that hard. And Usyk isn't gonna stand there and let Louis hit him. Louis will have a very hard time landing.