Could Louis go through Holmes championship opposition undefeated

Baer didn't have a "broken left wrist". He had a bone chip. There's a big difference, obviously. His left hand wasn't overly considered a problem. Broken hands also come in varying types and degree's. Baer decided it was good enough to fight. He could have postponed. He chose not to. He had multiple shots of Novocain, supposedly.

Baer flew both hands with gay abandon in the latter half of round 1, landing some serious leather before louis turned it around in the blink of an eye and unleashed on him. Baer let fly with both hands at the end of round 2 as well, showing no problem putting bombs together and no ill affects when they landed.

I didn't see Baer thrusting forth hand excuses after the fight and nor did i hear of him clamoring for a rematch and how he'd beat him with two good paws.

Again, 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."

I asked you to name the punchers Norton beat. If you claim he didn't have that big of a problem with punchers, no more than anyone else, then i assume he must have beat his fair share of them. Or at least one of them?

Alas however you can't name a single puncher he beat. How is that not having "THAT big a problem" with them? He never beat any. He lost to all three elite punchers he faced.

Ali and Holmes aren't big punchers, lets not run away from the statement. Norton could take more than his share of punches off NON PUNCHERS like those two. They stopped people on accumulation and class differences.

Berbick took Holmes punches for 15 rounds without looking like wilting. He looked like he could go many more. Yet when he faced Mercado, a big puncher, he couldn't get to the bell ending round one and was pole axed by big punching Mike Tyson in under two rounds. Berbick was fine taking plenty of punches from the likes of Holmes, but when the stakes were raised to higher quality big power he capitulated. Norton was the same. They had a decent chin, up to a point.

Eddie Futch was no fool.

Prior to Braddock, only 4 out of 31 opponents lasted the distance vs Joe Louis. 2 were in his first seven fights when Louis was really truly growing into his frame. He was sub 190. Next was Natie Brown in his 17th fight. Louis was filling out and had put on half a dozen pounds or more. Last up was Pastor. Everyone else was getting belted out. Pastor was tough, and after 5 early knockdowns still took Louis 11 rounds in the 1939 rematch. Incidentally Louis was lighter in the rematch than in the initial fight.

Well me too. The trouble is he did lose to every puncher he faced as you showed above, by not being able to name a single puncher he beat. Not even one. I like Ken. I want to feel he can win against certain punchers. I just can't supply evidence he can, because he didn't. He was a bit unlucky to face a few of the most extreme punchers. to be fair. But the trouble is Joe Louis himself is well and truly among that bracket. And yes, in 1937.

I will concede that Joe Louis did get somewhat better post 37. I contend it wasn't all that much. I'm also repeating peak is not prime. Prime lasts longer.

Yes, cheers back at you.

 

He was giving up absurb amounts of weight as a power fighter. He was terribly mismanaged.

Most of Braddocks losses came during a 9-19 run in the middle of his career. This included
a stoppage from a cut in a prior fight
a DQ for not trying
2 fights where he broke his hand
split decision losses to Schaaf and Retzlaff
losses to John Henry Lewis and Gainer maybe the best 2 LHWs. Both would beat the everlasting hell out of Michael Spinks
loss to Shucco who was ranked 2nd in 1933 and 1934
loss to Yale Okun who was ranked 5th in 1927
Baxter Calmes two months after the 1933 NBA tournament where he didn't actually lose and beat Olin who'd become champ in 1934.

This accounts for 12 of the 19 losses.

Before this "rut" Braddock was 35-6-6 and after it he was 7-1.

Most of Braddocks HW losses were against guys ranked at LHW whose primary division was LHW but were a few pounds over the limit. He was still on the "LHW circuit". Most LHWs fought the majority of their fights at HW but many still fought primarily fighters ranked at LHW. During his 9-19 "rut" the only HW mainstays he fought were Schaaf, Jack Roper, Retzlaff,Parrille, Ettore and Dynamite Jackson. He went 3-3 with two SD losses a DQ for not trying and 2 wins.

 

I literally went into detail about Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes' KO lists.

Could Ali and Holmes not punch? Between them, they stopped freaking everybody ... except Norton.

Foreman. Frazier. Liston. Patterson. Lyle. Bonavena. Shavers. Quarry. Ellis. Cooney. Weaver. Spinks. Snipes. Folley. Bonecrusher. Bey.

Who stopped more names in the 60s and 70s than Ali? The answer is Nobody.

Who was second (only to Mike Tyson) in stopping more names in the 80s? Holmes.

Norton beat Ali (some say all three times) and went to a 15-round split decision with Holmes. Was never dropped. Never stopped. Never wobbled. And they sure as hell didn't "carry" him ... and both Muhammad and Larry were known to do that on occasion.

In fact, Liston was never the same again after Ali stopped him. Frazier was never the same again after the beating he took from Ali in fight one. Foreman took a year off after getting KOed by Ali. Quarry was beaten half to death in their rematch. Oscar Bonavena was stopped once in his long career, in which he faced everyone. And Ali was the guy who stopped him, dropping him three times. And one right hand by Ali sent Lyle into a corner and spelled the end for him.

And it's not like Holmes didn't deliver beatings that changed the course of fighters' careers. Shavers wasn't the same after Holmes beat him up and stopped him. Neither was Cooney. You could argue neither was Norton. He fell off a cliff after the war with Holmes. But he took it and nearly won.

On the other hand, the guy who took the most punishment and was hospitalized in the Ali and Norton series was Ali.

So, YEAH, I don't think Norton had more of a problem with punchers than anyone else. It's not like everyone went the distance with Foreman and Shavers, and Ken was the only guy who couldn't last the distance with them. Right? They had 138 KOs between the two of them.

It's not like Greg Page getting knocked out twice by journeyman Mark Wills, a guy who only had nine kos in his whole career, two of them coming against Page.

And it's not like all the big names went the distance with Ali and Holmes when they were going all out, is it?

Should a guy with a bad chin have been able to go 54 rounds combined with those Ali and Holmes on even terms? Hell no. Did they take it easy on him? Hell no.

Four stoppage losses in 50 fights (only one taking place in his prime) isn't demonstrative of a bad chin.

If Norton had a bad chin, then Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Patterson, Lyle, Bonavena, Shavers, Quarry, Ellis, Cooney, Weaver, Spinks, Snipes, Folley, Bonecrusher, Bey, etc. were all worse.

Because they couldn't take it from Ali and Holmes going all out like Ken did.

But just so you don't miss it again ... the best puncher he probably beat was Muhammad Ali. Heard of him? He stopped better heavyweights than Joe Louis. Ali stopped all the best heavys in the 60s and 70s, except Norton. Lost to Norton, too.

And a close second he faced was Holmes. Who had nearly as many KOs (against better fighters) in his 69 wins than Joe had in his 66 wins. And their fight went to a 15-round split decision.

Going 54 rounds with Ali and Holmes at or near their very best and fighting them on equal (OR BETTER) terms and never going down or even noticeably wobbled PROVES you have a good chin. More than proves it.

It's not like they couldn't punch. They stopped nearly every big name they fought, except Norton.

 

And he wouldn't be giving up absurd amounts of weight to Holmes' opposition?

Braddock would have no chance of sweeping Larry Holmes' title defenses. None.

He lost all the time. He's not going to magically go on a seven-year, 21 title win run against heavyweight contenders and champs in the 70s and 80s if he couldn't beat all the journeymen middles, light heavys and 180-pound heavys in the 20s and 30s.

If you believe he could, fine. I disagree wholeheartedly. Nothing in his history supports your claim.

I have no more to say on the topic.

 

People seem to be pretty flexible in terms of what qualities as a puncher. Lots of guys cite Morrison, Ruddock, Wilder and Briggs as big hitters when they have virtually nothing in the way of quality kayo wins. If these guys qualify as punchers based on beating terrible opponents than someone like Bobick would probably qualify.

 

Who stopped more names than Ali? Hell, after Norton beat him (arguably twice) in 1973, Ali stopped Foreman, Frazier, and Lyle over the next two years. And in the roughly two years before Ali lost to Norton, Ali stopped Oscar Bonavena, Jimmy Ellis, Bob Foster, Floyd Patterson, and Jerry Quarry.

But Ali couldn't even wobble Norton, and arguably never beat him. And Ali was probably in his best condition during that period for the Norton rematch. Which, again, was a toss-up.

Ali was the best puncher Norton beat. And that should matter. But people get stuck repeating whatever they heard someone else say, and don't look at the actual picture.

Norton didn't have any more problems with punchers than anyone else when you actually examine it.

 

Baer was a stud for his day but skill wise was really a glorified club fighter. A decent boxer could take out ox him. Braddock wiped his butt.

 

Ali and Holmes were never considered punchers. Not ever. I could post a dozen paragraphs and prance around left, right and center as to why but i may as well be saying water is wet, and the sun hot.

We are at the end of the road, cheers for the debate

 

I hypothesized just that here a few years ago but some decent opposition to that theory was posted and i let it go. It didn't really hold up. I'm trying to remember if Bobick even landed on Norton.

 

Ali and Holmes were never considered punchers?

They just stopped practically all the biggest names they faced ... and I remember when it was a big deal if someone lasted the distance with them when they were on top.

In fact, they'd be criticized if someone went the distance with them. ABC filmed and refused to televise Ali-Mathis in its entirety because Ali carried Mathis and wouldn't put him away. And the only guy to stop Bonavena and Foreman in their 150 combined fights just happened to be Ali. How interesting. They weren't exactly known for being chinny, as I recall.

Holmes stopped 11 of his first 12 title challengers. I remember the outcry when Cobb became just the second guy to last 15 with Holmes in a title challenge, and people feared he was being beaten to death by Holmes on national TV. People don't usually fear for a guy's life if he's fighting someone with no power.

There's no denying they could punch when they went after a guy. Ali and Holmes proved it by stopped practically all the top names ... except Norton. And they went after him.

Agreed. This has run its course. Have a good weekend.

 

Not on the scale of Foreman, Shavers and Cooney, in terms of raw power, no. Not even close.

Ali and Holmes may (and in the instances of Shavers and Cooney definitely could) stop opposition those huge punchers couldn't, but entirely owing to attributes other than raw power.

Norton's durability and punch resistance was unusual in the sense that if a punch wasn't quite powerful enough to wobble him, he could eat it, on repeat, frequently, for 15-rounds, whereas most other fighters would be worn down and eventually stopped by frequently taking punchers that were almost hard enough to wobble them when fresh. Norton never proved that he could survive a huge power puncher, though.

There are fighters who could avoid and/or withstand the less frequent, more powerful individual blows of Foreman, Shavers and Cooney, that would be stopped by the more skilled and frequent (particularly later on in the fight) punches of Ali and Holmes. With Norton, it was the opposite. As the old saying goes, styles make fights.

 

Including his stoppages of Liston and Foreman to win the titles, Ali stopped 13 of the first 16 guys he faced in his two reigns as champ. When Jimmy Young became just the fourth challenger to go the distance with Ali in a title fight, it was a huge shock because Ali was a 15-1 favorite to beat and stop him. Let me repeat that ... 15-1.

So, it was a huge deal, not only that Young lasted 15, but lots of folks thought he won.

Larry Holmes stopped 11 of his first 12 challengers, as I pointed out earlier. And, again, for the first four or five years of Larry's reign .... which was the majority of it ... it was a big deal when someone went the distance, because so few did the first four years.

At their best, Ali and Holmes were most certainly considered punchers.

But, over the years, fans put fighters in boxes. Their knockouts started becoming less frequent, and Ali and Holmes were put in the category of boxers, not punchers.

Just like, as his career started to come to a close, Norton was put in the category of chinny, when he wasn't any more chinny than any other heavyweight out there during his best days.

Hell, Norton was the favorite to beat Shavers in 1979, too. But, today, fans just go "Oh, yeah, Norton had a bad chin. Everyone knew that." Was Earnie not considered a huge puncher in 1979? Of course, he was. So, why was Norton favored? Because NORTON WASN'T CONSIDERED CHINNY when he was at his best.

And when you get in discussions like this, people don't look at facts. They just easily slide fighters into categories that they heard others label them as, and don't bother to look at the facts.

I personally remember when it was considered a big deal to last the distance with Ali and Holmes. So nobody is going to say "they were never considered punchers" ... because I know that to be patently wrong.

And Ken Norton was never considered chinny, until his career was winding down. And now, people just regurgitate it every time his name comes up.

It's really too bad for him. But I see fans doing it to fighters all the time.

Sometimes I choose to chime in, like this time.

Even though it's like beating your head against the wall trying to get people to look at what actually happened and not just fall back into the easy labels we put on fighters.

Anyway ...