Joe Louis's record vs ranked opposition

followed your advice and here's what Chatgpt has to say

• Muhammad Ali (1966–67) – The perfect mix of speed, reflexes, footwork, and ring IQ. At his peak, you basically couldn’t hit him clean.

• Mike Tyson (1986–88) – Short prime but absolute predator. Explosive speed + terrifying power + impeccable defense under Cus D’Amato’s system.

• Lennox Lewis (1999–2003) – Tall, powerful, disciplined, and capable of boxing or brawling. Virtually no style could consistently trouble him at his best.

• George Foreman (1973–74) – Raw, clubbing power and physicality that broke men down mentally before the fight even started.

• Larry Holmes (1978–82) – One of the best jabs in boxing history, granite chin, and elite adaptability.

• Joe Louis (1938–41) – Textbook perfection, precise punching, and surgical finishing ability.

• Evander Holyfield (1990–93) – Warrior spirit, combination punching, stamina, and chin to go with solid technical skills.

• Wladimir Klitschko (2010–2014) – Near-untouchable when fully disciplined; master of range control and power delivery.

• Riddick Bowe (1992–93) – Complete skill set with underrated infighting for a big man, plus heavy hands.

• Sonny Liston (1960–64) – Unnerving intimidation, crushing jab, and overwhelming strength.

 

The answer is that Joe Louis would be regarded as the Goat PERIOD

 

R

Ranked by who exactly?

 

I’m not really bothered, resume, length of title reign means something, head to head who wins in their prime is most important. For me anyway.
I already agreed Wlads resume is better.

Fury beat Wlad. Joshua beat him. Those are facts. The context means nothing according to your logic

 

The Ring

 

Wlad was 70 years old!!

 

The National Boxing Association was the sanctioning body at the time. It collected the fees. Fighters had to pay them to be considered for a shot.

Not Ring.

Ring ratings were never official ratings. Especially, not then.

 

I know, that was my point!

 

it is cuz i said so

 

You seriously dispute that Usyk has improved since Beterbiev?

And at around 30 Lewis lost to McCall. He was better at 35,.when he flattened Grant. Most of his best wins and performances came after 32.

But this is all besides the point really. It is a fact that Wlad dominated contenders for a decade. Dominated in a fashion no one has hardly done before. You have yet to explain to me why none of those matters because he was in his 30's?

Were they giving him a senior's handicap? Was his age contagious and suddenly transferred to them? What exactly is the unknown factor here?

 

So you base your opinions on fantasies, got it.

 

See I was right

 

Yep, whats to dispute if there is only one champ. You are either the champ or you are not.

 

Nobodies ‘better’ at 35 than 30-32
With peds vs no peds, maybe

 

Well, Wlad was as dominant at 30-32 as he ever was probably. His improvement came in his late 20's.

One last time (third?), why does wins matter less if someone is in his 30's than it does if he's in his 20's? Why aren't wins just wins?

And as for your insuaniation of PEDs, I wouldn't be the least surprised if Wlad was on them, but the fact is that he unlike Povetkin,.Fury and others never pissed hot.

We have good reason to believe that Fury was on them when he beat Wlad, and Povetkin when he lost to him, but less so about Wlad himself.