Could Louis go through Holmes championship opposition undefeated

The jab is the key.

Ken Norton had a great jab. It's what made him such an awkward opponent for both Ali and Holmes. They had amazing jabs, and Norton jabbed with them. Guys with great jabs don't tend to like eating a jab in return. It throws them off their games.

Joe Louis also had a tremendous jab, but he didn't like to get hit with them, and tended to have difficult times with guys who had them. Which is yet another reason why IMO he'd have trouble with Norton right out of the gate. And Ken didn't throw a weak or pawing jab. It landed with force.

I just see Joe having all kinds of problems with Norton. I think a lot of guys just say "Norton had problems with punchers" and leave it at that.

Norton fought 50 times, he got stopped four times. He didn't have THAT big of a problem with punchers. No more than anyone else. Let's be honest.

And even the smallest of fighters, like Billy Conn or Bob Pastor, could give Louis fits with "THE JAB."

Especially (unlike them) if a bomb of a right hand is coming behind it. And you haven't yet peaked yet, like Louis hadn't.

 

If Ken Norton had a broken right hand and a broken left wrist, like Baer had that night, I'm sure Ken Norton would be in trouble against Joe Louis and probably goes down for the count without quitting (like Baer did).

No doubt.

But the Ken Norton who fought Larry Holmes in Larry's first title fight DID NOT have a broken right hand or a broken left wrist.

The Ken Norton who Larry Holmes faced turned in a pretty great performance himself. And he was still throwing bombs in the 15th round.

There's a big difference between fighting 25-loss, two years out of the ring Jim Braddock and fighting Ken Norton, who was on a major role and was active, in 1978, like Holmes did.

And Louis still had to get off the floor to beat Braddock.

1937 Louis and 1978 Norton is NO GIMME for Joe Louis at all. Ken Norton was an outstanding heavyweight going into that fight with Holmes ... and he was an outstanding heavyweight IN that fight.

 

Louis would KO Leon in a few rounds. The Mike Spinks that beat Holmes was too fast and good and imagine as big and heavy as Louis also.

 

Someone mentioned Norton as trouble for Louis but I think the Abe Simon 2 version at 207 and very experienced would stop Ken in spite of the weight difference.

 

Louis probably wouldn't go through Holmes title defenses opponents undeafeated.
But it doesn't mean Louis in his prime couldn't beat Holmes in his.
Styles make fights, Holmes was dropped and seriously hurt by many of his opponents, many times by the right hand.
If Louis landed the shots Snipes, Shavers, C.Williams , Witherspoon, and Norton landed, and hurt him as badly as they hurt him.
I don't believe Holmes survives.
Louis hit just as hard as all of them with the exception of Shavers, plus he was much quicker of hands , and better skilled, with his intuitive and deadly combination punching.
So yes Louis probably would lose to some random Holmes opponent.
Doesn't mean he couldn't beat Holmes more times than not.
Holmes had a lot of holes in his game.

 

We can agree to disagree. I've already shown he wiped out Godoy 4 months later after having more trouble with him than he had with Pastor - in 1940 to boot...3 years after he fought Pastor and 2 after he fought the Schmeling rematch. Did that mean he made big improvements between Godoy fights? Hell no. In 1947 he struggled to a controversial decision over Walcott.......and smashed him 6 months later. Same with Conn but over a much longer break. Louis was famous for his brutality in rematches - at all stages of his career. The Pastor fights in isolation mean very very little.

In Ali's case I'd be inclined to take your stance. But Louis wasn't Ali. Louis had devastating wins over multiple contenders (including the top contender) and not long dethroned world champions.

I believe Louis and Baer were rated #1 and #2 when they fought. You can try and minimize it but Louis not only pole axed the top contender in the world, he beat him into fearing for his life and health. He had only been knocked down once, and never stopped. All of that was shattered inside 4 frightening rounds.

Ali didn't have close to that smoke behind him. He had a great number of critics, Louis, not so to put it mildly.

We'll disagree. He may have got marginally better but the base was indeed, well and truly in place.

Again, peak is not prime.

You keep harping on Louis getting off the floor to beat Braddock. Louis often got off the floor, just like he dominated rematches. 12 months after he beat Schmeling Louis was dropped and staggered by Galento. Galento wasn't that good. Does this mean Louis was still improving greatly because he was dropped by Galento in 1939 when you consider him prime? He was dropped by Buddy Baer in 1941, surely he was prime then? He was dropped twice by Walcott in 1947.

The fact is Louis was dropped at various stages of his career - and not necessarily by elite fighters. Getting dropped by Braddock in isolation means very little. The fact is it was a flash knockdown when he was caught by a super counter with his feet squared. He invested too heavily in a right hand that missed in an attempt to put Braddock away. It was no big deal. It happened multiple times.

Bobick was a bust, a hyped up guy that folded like a cheap tent. Name what top 10 fighters Bobick had beat. Zanon was a fringe contender euro level fighter. The year prior he'd been stopped by someone called Dante Kane. The decision over Young was controversial, to this day. Young was beaten two times in a row by Ossie Ocasio in his next two fights. Norton was undeniably past his best. 9 months later he was knocked out in less than 2 minutes by Shavers. Journeyman Scott LeDoux dropped him twice next fight.

Norton didn't throw bombs for 15 rounds, he played possum for numerous early rounds incorrectly thinking Holmes would gas due to inexperience over the distance.

No but he was a guy that laid on the floor every time he faced a quality puncher. Louis, is better than a quality puncher, he is considered by most to be the greatest puncher ever.

You said earlier "Norton fought 50 times, he got stopped four times. He didn't have THAT big of a problem with punchers. No more than anyone else. Let's be honest."

Why don't you name the punchers Norton actually beat. He lost to every high level puncher he fought, and one other lesser level when he was pre prime. Futch said he kept him away from punchers. What more need be said.

You are trying way too hard to discard the likes of Baer and Braddock. It shows. It's extreme. It doesn't come off well.

He wasn't quite at his extreme best but he was very very close. This is about prime, not peak. Did Godoy illustrate he wasn't at his best in 1940? Did Conn demonstrate that in 1941? He struggled mightily with both.

Norton lost to every big puncher he faced. No sane person would argue Louis wasn't an immense puncher in 1935. Norton hated being walked down by huge hitters, that bucket on his rear foot got uncomfortable. Louis was a forward moving fighter, looking to KO you.

In even worse news Louis has a full arsenal, power in every shot and isn't afraid to smash the body. His left hook and uppercuts would find homes on Norton's chin. His defensive style is vulnerable to uppercuts and hooks mixed in with straight punches.

Louis would go thru him like a hot knife thru butter............and in 1935 to boot.

 

I'm not trying hard to discard Baer. He had a broken hand and a broken left wrist. HE did. Look it up. And he could obviously get up and chose not to. He even said it. Look that up, too.

And I said if Ken Norton had a broken right hand and a broken left wrist, like Baer, Joe Louis would've stopped him, too. Basically, nobody beats Joe Louis with a broken right hand and a broken left wrist.

Most orthodox fighters with a broken right hand and a broken left wrist fighting anyone are in big trouble going in.

I acknowledge those injuries played a huge role in the win. They'd play a huge role in any loss, especially for a puncher like Baer.

You're trying to hard to dismiss his injuries, like they were meaningless. You can't simply ignore the fact that BOTH of Baer's hands were injured before he got in the ring. It's documented.

So don't act surprised I brought them up. We'd bring them up if it were a factor in any major fight.

And, last I checked. Muhamamd Ali stopped more top heavyweights from the 1960s and 1970s than anyone. Ali stopped Foreman, He stopped Frazier. He stopped Liston. He stopped Lyle. He stopped Bonavena. He stopped Quarry twice. He stopped Ellis. He stopped Patterson twice. He stopped Cleveland Williams. He stopped Zora Folley. And on. And on.

Nobody stopped more top heavyweights than Ali. Then or now.

Did Ali stop Ken Norton? Did he put Ken Norton down? Did he even rock Ken Norton? Because he sure as hell rocked those other guys. And I know he wasn't "carrying" Ken Norton like he carried some overmatched guys.

In their 1973 rematch, Ali was arguably in the best shape of his life. He wanted nothing more than to stop Ken Norton for embarrassing him and breaking his jaw. He never came close. In fact, Ali arguably lost again.

Seems like Ali should've been able to over three fights if Norton had such an awful chin.


Larry Holmes stopped Shavers. He stopped Weaver. He stopped Bonecrusher. He stopped Leon Spinks. He stopped Cooney. He stopped Snipes. Larry beat up a lot of names throughout his reign. Beat the hell out of them. Even broke Joe Louis' record for consecutive knockouts in a reign (with eight).

Did he stop Ken Norton? Did he put Ken Norton down?

Frankly. Ali and Holmes stopped more name guys than any big puncher from that era, including those big punchers themselves. But the didn't put a dent in Ken Norton.

Because Ken Norton had that jab that kept them off and rattled. Like he'd rattle Joe Louis with the jab.

I'm not saying Joe Louis stopping Norton is impossible at all. I'm a huge fan of Joe Louis. Always have been.

I'm not saying Ken Norton in 1979 doesn't lose to Joe Louis in 1938. I think Louis probably blasts him out.

Louis got better after 1937. Ken Norton got worse after 1978.

But, in 1937, the Louis against Braddock against the Norton who Holmes fought in 1978, I don't see it.

The timing for Louis isn't right. Norton was still on point against Holmes. Louis was still struggling with guys like Pastor, Farr and even Braddock.

Rightly or wrongly, I'm just not the type of person who goes "he loses to all punchers" and stops there, taking nothing else into consideration.

I agree to disagree, too. Thanks for the discussion

 

Louis did a much more impressive version of what Holmes did. There is no question he could do it. Before Louis lost his power theres nothing anyone can do. And Louis equalled Holmes's run a full 6 years before that happened. Only thing is hit Louis so hard he doesn't get up and Cooneys the only one whose got a prayer of doing that. Cooney couldn't beat Michael Spinks.

I will go one further and give at least 6 of Louis's opponents Braddock, Farr, John Henry Lewis, Godoy, Buddy Baer and Conn all a good chance to run Holmes's table. Maybe even Abe Simon and Carnera. Schmeling and Sharkey were not active enough and Max Baer wasn't consistant enough. Mann, Pastor and Mauriello are probably too small. But they all(14 guys) should go well over .500. If they can defeat Norton their chances of finishing the rest of the job increase dramatically.

You can laugh at Godoys 22 losses Braddocks 25 losses and Farrs 34 losses. But Braddock started his career 30-2 and ended it 7-1. Godoy started his career 31-2 and won 19 in a row during the WW2 years. Farr was on a 21-1-3 run going into the Louis fight. If they undergo this challenge at the perfect time they can do it. Remember that Farr, John Henry Lewis, Buddy Baer and Conn all hit the scene in their early 20s while Holmes didn't debut at the top level until 28.

 

You lost me right out of the gate with Braddock. In a 12-year career, he only managed to go unbeaten in four of those years. (And in one of those four years, he didn't have a fight, so he couldn't lose.)

He lost all the time. But he's going to pull off a seven-year, 20-successful defenses reign?

I don't know how you overrate Braddock and underrate Holmes so badly. That's pretty baffling. Prior to 1988, Ossie Ocasio likely beats Jim Braddock, for Christ's sake.

 

Except, he didn't. He drew his very first fight. He started 30-2-4 with one no contest when he lost his rematch to Joe Monte, who also fought him to a draw prior, to go to 30-3-4 with one no contest. And those were all light heavyweight fights, well under the 175-pound limit.

But he's going to tear through the heavyweights Holmes faced for seven years?

No.

 

That was speed boxing which is easy to draw. These are going to be full fights. The LHW experience probably isn't valid either but Braddocks record weighing over 185 pounds is 3-1 with a loss to Joe Louis. His record over opponents weighing above 200 pounds is 5-0. All of Holmes's opponents will be over 200 and Braddock you assume will be far north of 185 pounds.

To highlight the difference in winning 10 round fights if Holmes's title fights were 10 rounders he would not have beaten Norton and Cooney and the Weaver fight would have been a 1 round win.

 

None of those 24 guys were good enough to stop Braddock. The other knockout Braddock sustained was from a cut he got in a previous fight.

 

Braddock's record at heavyweight ... where both he and his opponent weighed 176 or above ... is 17-19-1 ... by my count.

17 wins in 37 fights.

A losing record at heavyweight.

There is no way in hell Jim Braddock beats Ken Norton and everyone Holmes successfully defended against to equal Larry Holmes' reign.

This Jim Braddock stuff has gotten ridiculous.