Why was Joe Louis so horrible?

He beat everyone available for nearly 15 years. Even when he lost to Charles and Marciano, both of them knew they'd been in fights, and Louis was way over the hill.


http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Gans-Biography-American-Champion/dp/0786439947/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

 

Joe louis reigned in one of the weakest periods that the division has ever seen. On top of that he had problems with mediocre fighters who were justifiably members orf the "bum of the month" club. Great fighter in his day, but overated on the all-time list.

 

If the guy who started this thread had taken this route, at least there could be a discussion.

 

I think Louis's early works were generally very good. In fact starting the first 3-4 years of your career by establishing a record of 39-1, and beating some 5 past and present world champions is pretty damn impressive. His wins over giants like Primo Carnera, Buddy Baer, Max baer and Abe simon were incredible in terms of how he just anialated them. In addition, to suffer a bad loss, then come back to humiliate your conqueror in a single round is something that few champs in any weight class can steak claim to..

Overall, I'd say the guy was tremendous

 

Conn was 59-10-1 when he met Louis. A 70-pro-fight champion veteran who had not lost in 3 years, and was on a 19-fight win streak against many of the best lightheavys and heavys in the world. The guy was fast as lightning, had plenty of pop in his punches, had beautiful footwork - could move and box well, put combinations together in unbelievable fashion, and was very well conditioned. No shame in struggling with a guy like that. Oh, and Louis did knock him out, twice.


This guy shows you just how silly most of you are and how the guy who made this thread has a point. Billy Conn had alot of pop on his punches? Depending on what site you check out Conn had won between 63 and 70 fights and had between 11 and 15 knockouts. Which mean he had no pop on his punches yet he hurt Joe Louis badly. It is like Chris Byrd almost knocking out Lennox Lewis. Louis had a glass chin, and if Conn could hurt him then fighters like Lewis, Foreman, Lyle, Tyson would of killed him.

They didnt call the fighters Loius fought "Bums of the month" for nothing. He fought nobodies for the most part or people who would be consider a cruiserweight today. Louis is higly overrated. Not quite as much as Marciano and Dempsey though.

 

Using that standard, Ali was the most overated of all who did he beat wideswinging slow heavys like Liston,Foreman and Lyle and Ali was in hell fights with Doug jones,and almost smashed by Henry Cooper. and soundly beaten by 26 fight Joe Frazier...who did Johnson beat an old Jeffries out of the ring for 6 years and the middleweight champ that dropped him...Lewis was KO'd by OLEG Owned Rahman and McCrack McCall....so I guess they are all overated

 

BD.. you gave a better clarity of Johnson's title defenses.... as much as others hate. Its a pity 'fireman' Jim Flynns name was not mentioned.


The more we look, the more pitiful the game was in the days.

 

he was good for his time but if you compare him to new age he was to small and stiff.

 

I'm surprised this thread has stayed on the first page of this forum as long as it has. Since it has, I will respond to it. I didn't until now because I think the way it began was rather off putting. But several of the responses suggest that some balance needs to thrown into the mix.

Joe Louis is one of the finest offensive fighters I have ever seen. He was close to expert in every punch in the text. He threw his punches with great form and tremendous leverage. He was a terrific counterpuncher. He was a excellent combination puncher. Sorry for all the adjectives, but Louis deserves them. Anybody who intends to critique the man needs to be honest about his strengths.

The same goes for his weaknesses. He wasn't a great defensive fighter. He didn't have to be most of the time both because of quality of opposition and because he often got his man out of there first. He wasn't invincible, as Schmeling showed. But he was resilient, which his rising from numerous knockdowns and gutting his way through some tough moments testifies to. He suffers from flaws that spanned his career. He was susceptible to the right hand lead. Duh. He was slow of foot. Duh. He made up for this with precision and hand speed. But against speedy boxers, he could look bewildered at times.

It is true that Louis' competition was lacking, and I think an honest appraisal has to admit this. But he did fight several good fighters for their day (Farr, Schmeling, Conn). And he fought at least one extraordinary boxer who translates well out of the era, namely Ezzard Charles, and a tough fighter with lots of intangibles in Rocky Marciano.

Louis was 36 years old when he faced Charles, and this needs to be taken into account. Charles knew he'd been in a fight, so Louis had a lot left. Look at Charles' face after the fight. If you hadn't watched the fight you might have though he lost. At the same time, Louis outweighed Charles by 34 lbs and, given his status, the loss is meaningful. By this I mean Louis shouldn't have lost the fight, especially by such a wide margin. Maybe Louis would have won if he had met Charles earlier, but I don't know. Charles was really good at that point in his career.

As a point of comparison, one could come back with the observation that Ali lost to Leon Spinks when he was 36 years old. Ali outweighed Spinks by 27 lbs, so there is something there, as well. Spinks won his gold medal as a light heavy. But then so did Ali. 197 lbs is different than 184 lbs. Spinks weighed around 200 lbs during his prime. I don't know how close of an analogy can be drawn there. Ali shouldn't have lost the fight. But he did win the rematch. Could Louis have beaten Charles in a rematch? I don't think so, but I would be interested to know what you think. Then again, Charles was a much better fighter than Spinks ever could have been. Maybe there is a better analogy?

Marciano seems relevant because it is unlikely that anybody Louis faced, except for Charles, could have defeated Marciano the night he knocked out Louis. You could argue that, similar to the Charles fight, the Marciano fight is difficult to hold against Louis because Louis was 37 years old. Also similar to the Charles fight is the fact that Louis outweighed Marciano by 30 lbs. Marciano was shorter than Charles, and wasn't nearly the boxer Charles was. I think we get into the same fuzziness when we try to find an analogy here. But I do believe that the Charles who beat Louis would have beaten Marciano that night. Maybe that's because I'm a huge Charles fan. I will admit my bias here.

At any rate, it's a shame that Louis didn't face a Charles-level fighter in his prime or even better a full-fledged heavyweight near that level. We would have been able to get a much better handle on Louis' relative greatness.

It doesn't matter that Louis beat former world champions earlier in his career. With the exception of Schmeling, I am not impressed by any those former champions. I have no idea how Schmeling could have lost to Baer, unless Yahweh intervened to stick it to the Nazis by letting a Jew beat a German (I'm not serious, so don't jump my **** over that comment).

I think we have to look at his title fight competition and, in light of other eras, we mislead others if we say they were on the whole anything more than ordinary, and many of them did not belong in the ring with Louis. I've read the talking up of Buddy Baer and Tony Galento, so don't trouble yourself with repeating those facts here. I will never be convinced that those guys would have anything other than journeymen in later eras.

Taking everything into account, I disagree profoundly with the claim that Louis was horrible. He wasn't. Not at all. He was an all-time great heavyweight. He advanced the disciplined. He was a joy to watch. He was a wrecking machine. He was spectacular in rematches to close fights. At the same time, I don't think he beats several of the best heavyweights who came after him. His consistent ranking as number one or two is undeserved. That's heresy, I know, so I await the flaming, but it needs to be said.

 

Joe Louis' World Heavyweight Title fights
(and their records when he fought them):

Ezzard Charles 64-5-1
Jersey Joe Walcott 44-12-2
Jersey Joe Walcott 44-11-2
Tami Mauriello 69-7-1
Billy Conn 62-11-1
Johnny Davis 3-3-0
Abe Simon 36-9-1
Buddy Baer 52-6-0
Lou Nova 26-2-4
Billy Conn 59-10-1
Buddy Baer 52-5-0
Tony Musto 28-10-2
Abe Simon 34-7-0
Gus Dorazio 51-9-1
Red Burman 71-16-2
Al McCoy 115-30-20
Arturo Godoy 52-11-7
Johnny Paychek 41-4-1
Arturo Godoy 52-10-7
Bob Pastor 38-4-4
Tony Galento 76-23-5
Jack Roper 58-40-10
John Henry Lewis 96-9-4
Max Schmeling 52-7-4
Harry Thomas 39-10-2
Nathan Mann 40-4-3
Tommy Farr 66-20-13
James J. Braddock 50-25-7

 

I think Louis was great in his era, but is over rated today. The best fighters Louis fought were Schemling, Walcott, M. Baer, Marciano, And Charles. If you give Wlacott the first fight, anyone care to guess Joe's record here?

I still think Louis is a top 10 ATG, but his footwork, defense, and chin would make him vunerable to losses vs many. Sure Louis had great hand speed, power and technique on offense. He'd knock a journeyman flat, but pretty much any skilled puncher would do the same.

 

"Stiff"? He had the most fluid offense ever witnessed in a heavyweight.

I'm one who hates the orthodoxy in boxing history and thinks a lot of it is hero worshipping bunk. But Joe Louis was incredibly dominant, powerful, fast, beat every type of opponent, looks good on film and in record, and did all of this in an era when participation in boxing- from an American standpoint- was at its peak.

It's a shame such simpletons have populated this forum. And I know each and everyone of them places Tyson as the greatest of all time.

 

Well stated Magoo!

The bum-of-the-month thing later on in his career is undeniable. But is it his fault that he was by far the best heavyweight in the world for a prolonged period of years?

How good might Louis have looked if he'd actually been put to the test more often? It would have given him the chance to look even better than he did!

 

Mr. Marvel. you keep talking about Ezzard Charles as far and away the best boxer Louis faced. I disagree, I think the 1947 version of Walcott was just as good if not better than Ezzard charles, and quite frankly I don't think Ezzard charles beats that version of Walcott. Walcott is a great boxer in any era.