Joe Louis's record vs ranked opposition

Unbeaten is much easier when you haven't faced anyone dangerous. Neither Cooney, Weaver or Witherspoon had beaten a ranked fighter when Holmes beat them. And Witherspoon was close as was Norton. So I think it's fairly close. Easily beating Byrd twice is up there with Holmes's best. Holmes best win might actaullay be Mercer.


.

Holmes never beat the nr 1 contender as his time as champ and stopped facing the best when the scene was hotting up with new talentt.

Despite that I have mostly had him at nr 3 and ahead of Wlad. Lewis has a good shout for nr 3 as well, though. But, yes, both of them probably ahead of Wlad.

 

You didn't mebtion the fact that Weavers wins came later and that he had journyeman status record when he faced Holmes. And Witherspoon was on less than 20 fights and quite green. Norton had clearly slipped and the fight was close. Fiver yeras younger Norton would probably have won it. The Weaver fight was also hard fought.

The Mercer win is higher than you have it imo. A top contender and he made it look easy.

It should be said that Povetkin hadn't faced many dangerous fighters either, but at least one ranked opponent in Chagaev. Chagaev also one or two.

When you factor in how easily Wlad's best wins came I think it's fairly close between them.

 

Cooney had just demolished Young, Lyle and Norton in less than 6 rounds.
I think it’s not unreasonable to have Wlad a bit outside of the top ten, getting back to my first point.

 

Holmes was old as hell but Mercer isn't definitively better than Witherspoon, Berbick Cooney, Shavers or an old Norton. Snipes was also unbeaten.

 

Hardly. I directly addressed this when pointing out that, inside a year of losing to Holmes, Weaver became the WBA Champion.

If you want to class a World Titlist, only nine months removed from his first title shot who then went on to twice successfully defend his belt, as a "journeyman", be my guest. But that's not my definition of one.

Witherspoon also found himself a Champion inside a year of losing to Holmes. Strange that, isn't it?

Clearly? Tell me, in what way was that actually evident against Holmes?

It's a Marquee win - something Wlad does not have on his ledger.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to indicate.

Sure. You can place him as you see fit, but it doesn't really take away from the main thrust of the point I was making.

Well - that's just it. Thin résumés abound. But, more importantly, is that the Wlad/Povetkin bout was pretty much the worst Heavyweight Championship fight I can remember seeing.

I would have to disagree. When a 17st. guy's best win is a chubby light heavyweight, it raises questions, in my opinion.
Couple that with the bad losses Wlad suffered and it's not close at all.
Wlad is Top-20 - not Top-10, for mine.

 

But they weren’t top opp, they were nearly all mediocre. The Byrd wins are good, but the second of those Byrd was well past his best, Mercer, Rahman, the same.
Thompson is one of the better fighters on Wlad’s record imo, a bit underrated. Again Thompson was an old guy when he fought Wlad.

 

You'll have to read the context I left in an earlier post. I'm not repeating it.

 

If Holmes had rematched either Weaver or Witherspoon we'd know how much the improved. He didn't.

Norton was in his mid 30's and his best win after Holmes would be an SD against Cobb.

And as for thin resumes, Cooney is the king here. He never beat a ranked opponent.

What does Byrd's size have to with anything? He had been a top HW for years when Wlad beat him the second time, beaten the likes of Vitaly and Tua.

And however ugly the Povetkin fight was, it was a very clear win for Wlad. Unlike ageing Norton and greenish Witherspoon for Holmes.

Wlad easily beat these guys when they were at the best and legit nr 1 contenders. Holmes never beat anyone who was a legit nr 1 (although a case can be made for Norton), never mind easily.

 

Washed up versions, yes. Neither even ranked. He never beat a ranked opponent.

To have him lower than guys with so much less dominance is something I very much disagree with.

 

Wlad was also never defeated in his prime. His prime just happened later in his career.

Byrd, Povetkin, Haye, Chagaev, Pulev and Ibragimov are very similar top scalps to those of Holmes.

 

Which top opp besides Vitaly didn't he beat 2005-2014 do you mean?

Why do you bring up Mercer and Rahman in the conversatioon when I haven't even mention them as good wins? No one, not a soul, has said he beat good version of them or that those wins count as anything special. Byrd, on the other hand, was nr 1 ranked when Wlad beat him the second time.

Except for Vitaly, Wlad beat everyone who mattered for a decade. Few can say that.

 

If you do a Top 10 ranking for the period of 2004 to 2015, you will find out that Wlad beat at least 7 of them. That's legacy right there.

 

Baer never defended his title, is he a worse heavyweight than say, John Ruiz?

Duran never defended his at welter, should he be lower at 147 than Thurman ?

 

So he has Byrd and Povetkin, Haye.
He had a long reign but the opp wasn’t great.
Put it this way, without his ko losses , he makes my top ten, but he has them so he’s just outside.

 

Look at Marciano, a somewhat polarising heavy among fans, especially when it comes to his rank.
Some have him really high, but he’s often not in anybody’s top ten, despite being unbeaten.
Imagine if the Rock had a few devastating KO losses on his record, would he be in anybody’s top ten ? Probably not