Well Patterson defended his title against a fighter making his pro debut from the Olympics, so you can't get much worse than that. Bivins was more known for his Light Heavyweight feats, and was past his best and not ranked in the top 10 when he fought Louis. As i said people keep saying "top rated contender" but realistically could Louis beat any of the known top rated contenders in 1951 ? i don't think he beats Charles, Walcott, or Moore in the 50s that's for sure. Then you have fighters like Baker, Valdez, amongst others.
Joe Louis beat a good fighter in Jimmy Bivins. Jimmy looks good on film a year later beating Charlie Doc Williams. This content is protected after this Bivins even scored an upset over touted 18-1 Coley Wallace that landed him in the rankings again …and much later in 1955 beat Mike DeJohn in his last fight! Lee Savold was coming off his best win. This was a high profile fight. Nobody was saying Savold was washed up BEFORE he fought Louis. Joe was still the returning unbeaten champion. Savold had minor recognition as winning the Euro recognised version of the world championship. Charles having only the American version of the world championship. People forget the significance of Louis winning that fight. Many Savold level fighters retire within a year of losing their most important fight. The decline of a ATG great fighter who is still winning is reduced to mediocre alphabet champion Credit enough for beating a man who was winning the fights he was winning. hard to say. he beats most of the contenders a lot of champions beat though. That’s certain.
Remember Swag, Louis struggled with “movers” also. I just can’t figure how Joe got by for as long as he did - impossible to reconcile. As to dealing with a swarmer, and a very rough and tumble one at that, Louis’ performance in the Godoy rematch is a masterpiece. Short, accurate power punching at its best.- with an opponent in as close proximity as it gets. Joe punches levered Arturo’s heels off the canvas, wrenching him up on to his toe tips, turning him this way and that, making him “dance” - as if Joe was master puppeteer pulling the strings on his marionette.
Gonna hafta go w general census that Louis was faded but still a contender due to lack of top talent. Always find this fight hard to watch to no fault of Rocky for beating Louis
Was it lack of talent though? Or was it that a declining but active Joe Louis was still beating good fighters? I’ve seen the film of Louis in his comeback fights against Brion, Savold and Agramante and to me, they all look good fighters.
That's fair but I meant in a sense of HOF/ATG/H2H elite tier fighters. Not to fault Louis you can only fight who's in front of u.
He was but a couple of wins away from getting ranked again when He stopped Coley Wallace. It was a very competitive division. have you seen Bivins vs Doc williams?
The top of the division was Charles and Walcott. In a HOF/ATG/H2H sense these two are a strong match against anyone from the last century. Post war Old Louis was 2-1 against them. The division doesn’t have to be bad just because Louis was still good enough to beat the rest of the division outside of Charles and Walcott. There was quite some depth there. Baker. Henry. Savold. Oma. Maxim. Layne. Satterfield. Marciano. Brion. Lastarza. Valdes. Put them against the non champions of the 1970s and they would go 50-50
I'm just not sold on the opposition thats not clear HOFers. Tbf, I will do more research starting w reading Unbeaten.
I really don’t think those fighters are given the proper credit. Charles and Walcott were great. They are sold much too short. As is the declining Joe Louis. I think man for man the top ten contenders at the start of the 1950s could compete in the 1970s. They would all legitimately crack the top ten in that era. That includes old Louis.