Could Louis go through Holmes championship opposition undefeated

Not necessarily. Louis won the title at a younger age than Holmes and would be younger than he was against Walcott by the time he reached Spinks

 

Do you honestly think that Renaldo Snipes, Bonecrusher Smith, Mike Weaver, and Trevor Berbick had MORE skill than Joe Walcott Max Schmeling, Billy Conn or Bob Pastor ?

 

Billy Conn and Pastor were light heavyweights someone as crude as Smith or Berbick would run them over. Max Schmelling is the only one who was consistent, skilled and big enough to compete in the 80s and he beat Joe Louis. Walcott was talented but he lost 1/3 of his fights so clearly he wasn't that good.

 

That's not really a foregone conclusion, Smith and Berbick got outdone by smaller men like Marvis Frazier, Michael Moorer, and S.T. Gordon. Smith especially could be inconsistent and go from looking like a powerhouse against Weaver or Witherspoon to looking like just an "ok" fighter (couldn't stop Ferguson, couldn't stop Bey). I don't think many of us would be surprised if Conn pieced the **** out of either man.

"Consistent, skilled, and big enough to compete in the 80s" is pretty funny when you consider that 80% of title holders/contenders weren't all that consistent, 50% weren't all that skilled, and the most well renowned and dominant champion of the era was Mike Tyson... A man who was 5'10! Michael Spinks (6'2, 173 -> 199 at heavy) rose from LHW to beat Holmes, and Holyfield (186 -> 208 at heavy, heavier as time passed) rose from cruiser to become champ, there's no reason that Conn (6'1, 174) or Pastor (5'11, 183) wouldn't have the chance to do the same in an era like the 80's.

I'd figure that the " but Walcott lost 1/3 of his fights" argument would be retired now considering that he gave Charles, Louis, and Marciano some of their hardest fights, but here we are. 11 of those losses came before he really had any consistency, once he became the Walcott that most recognize, he only ended up scoring losses to ATGs and solid contenders like the aforementioned three, as well as Layne, Ray, and Maxim.

 

Spinks, Holyfield, Fraizer would destroy Conn and Pastor. A different level of skill, they're not a bunch of 185 pound stiffs who have no idea how to use a high guard, angles, and punch between punches while remaining defensively sound. Joe Louis is not going through Holmes resume unbeaten. Even limited Smith is 3x more talented than any big man in Joe Louis's era. Witherspoon is straight up more skilled than Joe Louis. Renaldo Snipes has better fundamentals than everyone in the 30s and 40s bar Joe Louis, Walcott and Ezzard Charles.

Mike Weaver was inconsistent but wasn't as terrible as the average top contender as far as technical ability goes and probably hits harder than almost all of them. I see it with my own eyes when I watch film, the game has moved on. Most heavyweight contenders before the 60s and 70s cannot compete in the modern era

Imagine dropping Carl Williams in the 1940s. Who's beating this guy besides Louis ? Nobody

 

And there we go with muh high guard

 

Have to mostly agree here. Although some Louis standouts like Walcott and Schmeling were on the level. In general the guys Holmes fought had a greater general technical or physical quality than the guys Louis fought.

 

That's a point for Louis, that his 'era' as a prime-time (divisional 'prime', not necessarily Joe's prime') heavy was '35-'48; as champion (after Mr. Schmeling has chastised him0 '37-'48. That (even the shorter reckoning) is quite a bit longer than the 'Holmes era', so in justice to Louis we don't need to be positing a 'last fumes of greatness' Louis against Spinks.

 

Marvis Frazier would destroy Conn and Pastor lol that's a new one. Spinks and Holyfield would have a tough time with Conn, but yeah they'd beat Pastor, Billy did as well. Joe Louis could very well go through Holmes' run unbeaten considering that he became champ earlier and also aged better during his title defenses (though Holmes was obviously better after that), he would have trouble more often compared to his own run but I don't doubt that he'd win cleanly. Smith was talented sometimes if he chose not to just lumber around, and he himself wouldn't have a 100% bet to win over a Baer or Carnera, you yourself admit Schmeling was a skilled man and Baer beat him. I'm a big Witherspoon fan even I wouldn't agree on him being more talented than Louis lol, Snipes could be good at times but he straight up would not win over Schemling, and I would not be surprised if he dropped decisions to others as well.

Weaver wasn't as bad as the average top contender cause he wasn't the average top contender, not even in his own era. He arguably should've been a two-time champ after the rematch to Dokes, it's not a surprise that he's better than the average. The funny thing is that I'm not even that big into old time fighters, but what you're saying is pretty egregious.

Schmeling, Baer, Conn... Williams would not beat Schmeling and he would have the potential to trade bouts with many fighters. And again, Williams isn't a low bar, he was a 6'4 fighter with good skill and a great jab.

 

Conn was 170 pounds against Joe Louis and lost to a couple journeymen, yes, Fraizer walks him down and beats him up. Smith would absolutely destroy Carnera and Baer. Not only is he a similar size but he's more skilled. He looks limited against 80s contenders, he'd fit right at home in the 40s, because they had worse defense, less head movement, different kinds of gloves which effected their punching technique and didn't counter punch or use angles as effectively as 80s heavyweights and Smith was better at delivering his power than any big man in the 30s and 40s

Snipes might beat Schmeling, I don't see Snipes losing to Gipsy Daniels or a total bum in Jack Taylor. Schmeling isn't defensively better and fought in a lesser talent pool, he has better footwork, hit harder, had a better jab, but he lost to much worse fighters than Snipes.

Williams would smoke everyone in the 40s apart from Joe Louis. 84 inch reach, 6'4, could box on his toes, had rapid handspeed even compared to the smaller guys back then, had a very good jab, good fundamentals, and his footwork and fluidity was leaps and bounds better than HWs of a similar stature. He was more skilled than Max Schmeling and bigger

This content is protected

And you think Baer and Con could beat this guy ??????

 

He went through slightly tougher in his own time, so why the hell not?

 

Um, no. I don't think so.

I don't even know if the 23-year-old Joe Louis (only three years into his pro career), who got floored by a comparatively average Jim Braddock in his first title fight, would've been able to beat Ken Norton over 15 rounds in 1978.

Norton was still formidable that night. And Louis wasn't at his very best yet. (Hell, Tommy Farr fought him close in Joe's first defense.)

I wouldn't bet on Joe Louis even winning the title against Norton.

I don't think Joe Louis even gets out of the gate and wins against Larry's first title opponent. Forget the 20 title defenses. Joe isn't guaranteed to get past fight one against a fit and motivated Ken Norton, the night Larry won the belt.

I don't think Joe Louis ever beat anyone as good as Norton.

 

A prime Joe Louis’ punching ability and precision combinations would be horrible for a 35 year old Ken Norton.