Why was Joe Louis so horrible?

ridiculous

the best fighters Larry Holmes fought were Mike Tyson, Michael Spinks, and Evander Holyfield. anyone care to guess Larry's record here?

As you see its not that simple, 4 of those fights you mentioned above took place when Louis was past his prime. You also didnt include Billy Conn on the list.

Louis footwork in the 1930s was quite good. Watch the Max baer fight, how fast and smooth he slided in and out of range....louis faced alot of fast feeted boxers during his career yet caught up with all of them. Louis chin was good, he faced a large group of punchers and none of them caught him cold, like the way lennox was caught cold TWICE by rahman and mccall. Louis defense was also outstanding, he carried a high gaurd, he blocked and parryed punches very well, he also ducked punches very well louis was a very effective counter puncher making the other guy miss and countering with deadly combinations.

He'd knock great fighters flat too, and he did.

 

Now that is a littel disrespectful to the Klitschko brothers, isn't it? And ignoring the fact that sports evolve. Boxing is the only sport where some fans believe a hero from the 1930's would have any chance at all today, when in swimming, track and field, weightlifting or any other sport that can be objectively measured, the evolution of athletes is obvious.

Louis fought with 6 oz gloves. Give the Klitschkos these gloves and they are even more menacing punchers than they already are. Louis was decked by undersized fighters who would never lay a glove on either Klitschko. Louis had incredible combinations, very good power (although less than Wladimir, considering the gloves). He did have shaky chin, very little footwork, an OK defense. He would never be able to trade with Vitali and would have serious problems getting past Wlad's ramrod jab. Sure, you can point out the losses of either Klitschko, but I take Corrie Sanders over Max Schmeling any day. If Bradock could floor Louis with one hook, what would Wlad's first left hook do to him? If all show up on their best night, both Klits win.

 

Wow, those are pretty much my exact thoughts!

 

Walcott was NOT a better technical boxer than Ezzard Charles was. Jersey had the advantages of power, size and maybe even toughness. But, Ez' beats him in the skills and speed department. Although a bit younger, I think Charles burnt out at an earlier age than Walcott did, due to starting his career at middleweight and constantly fighting the very best at lightheavyweight and heavyweight. Not to mention having more career fight overall, and systematically taking on big men in matches that went many rounds due to his style. Charles is one of the greatest heavyweight boxers of all time.

 

I can see by your avatar and by previous comments that you like Walcott a lot. I respect that. His life makes him an appealing historical figure. He was the quintessential underdog, the perfect Cinderella story. But your assertion that Walcott was just as good or better than Charles is contradicted not only by comparative facts but head-to-head facts.

The comparative facts are difficult to overcome: Charles, unlike Walcott, did not lose to Joey Maxim; Charles, unlike Walcott, defeated Rex Layne; Charles, unlike Walcott, defeated Joe Louis; Charles, unlike Walcott, went the distance with Marciano. Charles, a natural light heavyweight, successfully defended the heavyweight title eight times.

However, the head-to-head facts are the real killer here. Charles defeated Walcott three times. All three times, and one of those times is recorded as a win for Walcott, it was clear that Charles was the superior all around fighter. To be sure, Walcott caught lightning in a bottle one time. But losing three of four times in head-to-head confrontations is the sort of direct evidence one needs to make a definitive statement. We don't have to speculate. Charles was better.

Make the match earlier in time and Walcott has an even tougher time of it. Charles was slowing down by the time they met, while Walcott was peaking. The only real reasons Walcott was competitive with Charles was this and because he was the naturally bigger man. On talent and skill and accomplishment, Charles swamps him.

Ezzard Charles is an all-time great. Pound-for-pound arguably top five all time. Jersey Joe Walcott is an interesting story. He is not an all-time great.

 

Yes but Louis fought and defeated 3 black hall of famers Jersey Joe Walcott, John Henry Lewis, and Jimmy Bivins

Walcott also held huge advantages in Jab, Footwork, Strength, craftiness, and movement. I would also question Speed. Walcotts feet were faster than ezzards, and i see no difference in handspeed, they were pretty much equal in handspeed. Walcott head to head was defintley the better heavyweight than charles.

 

Yeah, but I was referring to the era pre WWII, where Louis had his best years. It should also be noted that John Henry Lewis wasn't really well then they met.

 

Excellent post, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Charles was the better heavyweight from every standpoint, and on an all time p4p list it isn't even close.

 

I mean ya, but I also realize Walcott is the better heavyweight than Ezzard Charles. Head to Head and accomplishment wise.

Walcott-Maxim I decision was dubbed by the newspapers as being a very "unpopular and controversial decision". AP scored it for walcott. Take note Walcott clearly beat Maxim the next two fights.

Charles had more than one oppertunity, take note charles also LOST to rex layne. if walcott had 3 matches with Layne, I see him going 2-1 vs Layne also. Layne was an off night for Walcott, kind of like the way charles lost in clear fashion to Journeyman Nino Valdez. Walcott would never lose to Valdez.

Charles fought a much worse version of Louis. Older, much slower, less powerful, much more rusty, and overweight version. Walcott fought a Championship version of Joe Louis and most believe that Walcott deserved the nod in the first fight, it still remains as one of the worst decisions in ring history. I will tell you, charles face was marked up alot worse than walcotts was coming out of the ring vs louis, and walcott faced a much better version. I might also add Joe Louis once said Walcott was better than Charles, and he knows, he fought em both.

Walcott floored and was ahead on the cards after 12 with Marciano. Just because charles survived the distance doesnt mean he performed better. fact is charles was behind on the scorecards after 12, and was not in position to win a decision, walcott was 2 rounds away from a unanimous decision victory and floored marciano, which ezzard charles could not do.


I see you hadvnt mentioned Harold Johnson. Charles lost to harold johnson, while Walcott knocked him out. Johnson did not hurt his back until after walcott knocked him down with a volley of punches in the 2nd round, so dont go trying to tarnish this victory. Harold Johnson was a hall of famer, so charles losing to him while walcott beating him is a big deal.

I think the wildcards here are Lee Q Murray and Harold Johnson. Now it depends on what you think of them, but I rate them both in my top 50 heavyweight of all time list, and Walcott beat BOTH of them by stoppage. Charles on the otherhand does not hold a victory over either of these men....and his wins over Ray and Bivins were leftovers after Walcott had already done the job of ending there 4 year Win streaks.

Technically since he didnt win the Linear title until he beat Joe Louis, charles has only 5 real defenses. I might add, 5 out of those 8 defenses were against unrated IBC controlled ham and eggers....Washed up Lighteavyweight Lesnevich, Old Fat Lee Oma, C level Freddie Beshore, lightheavyweight B level Nick Barone, and the unimpressive pat valentino all were totally unworthy of title shots. If we go by Linear Title, the out of Charles 5 title defenses, 3 were against Beshore, Barone, and Oma all very unimpressive useless title defenses. Charles management should have been giving title shots to Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Rocky Marciano, Rex Layne, or Roland Lastarza during this time.....and not defending it against IBC controlled trash. Jake Mintz should have stepped up to the plate and put his foot down. Walcott was a good defense. Why Give Maxim a title shot when you already beat him 4 times? How bout some young blood?

On the otherside, I strongly believe Walcotts heavyweight title run 1945-1947 where he went from a comebacking fighter to the worlds # 1 heavyweight contender was more impressive a run than Charles title reign. During this 3 year period, walcott took out EIGHT Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight contenders Joe Baksi, Lee Oma, Elmer Ray, Joey Maxim 2x, Tommy Gomez, Hatchetman Sheppard, Jimmy Bivins, and Lee Q Murray. Murray, Bivins, and Ray were all top rated contenders who were considered the Worlds best heavyweights during the duration period and both Murray and Bivins had picked up a scrap of Duration world heavyweight championship. Fighters like Gomez and Sheppard were considered the decades hardest punchers and dangerous fights for Walcott. Walcott clearly during this period where he went an impressive 9-1 vs Ring Magazine top 10 was fighting much more live dangerous contenders than Charles was during his title reign.

No. The series was 2-2. I dont care what you say about the 4th fight, Fact remains Ringsiders were split only 24 to 17 to who won the fight. It was a difficult fight to score, and charles simply did not do enough in the latter rounds to take the belt away from the champion. Experts were pretty much split down the line to who won this fight.

To me One Decision win and One Knockout Win is better than Two Decision wins. Edge goes to Walcott.

I don't see Charles beating the 1947 version of Walcott that outboxed outmanuevered outsmarted the Great Joe Louis.

Charles was 29, Walcott was 37. I dont think you have a point there. Charles twice lost to an Old Man, once getting his head clocked off. Charles also lost to a 37 year old Elmer Ray during this time. Hmmm


Another thing. Walcott was defeating Prime fighters rated tops in the division coming off the BEST WINNING STREAKS OF THERE CAREERS. Beating Hot fighters on there career best win streaks is the hardest thing to do in boxing, Walcott did it multiple times vs GREAT fighters. Charles on the other hand feasted on Walcott leftovers, like Bivins and Ray after Jersey Joe had already done the hard work of giving them there first L in a long time.

No not at all. Charles does have slightly superior technical skill, but walcott has the clear edge in natural talent. I think this evened things out when the two fought. I think one of the big reasons why Walcott did so well against charles was unlike the other contenders, walcott had boxing skills near charles level. So combine that with walcotts other tools and it makes a touch matchup for charles. Walcotts jab and punching abilities were better than charles, and he was a craftier more clever boxer. The speed difference wasnt much of a difference either. Walcott not only had the ability to box with charles, but the ability to knockout charles and outjab him...and this made it rough for Ezz. Now Ezz was a great technical boxer with amazing reflexes, but some of these tools were harnaced at the heavyweight level especially when he ran up against a natural genuine heavyweight like Walcott.

 

Walcott IMO does better against the rest of the field than charles did. Walcott has the tools to defeat very good big men while charles does not. Charles always struggled with tall jabbers, Joe Louis and Nino Valdes busted up his face horribly with jabs...walcotts superior head movement however allowed him to handle tall jabbers much better. Walcott had the best footwork of all time, his amazing feints cute moves and upperbody movement made him a handful for any heavyweight puncher to hit cleanly, his chin during his prime proved very tolerable to big shots as walcott came out alive facing more punchers than anyone in heavyweight history(outside of ali and lennox) and was only knocked out by ATGs louis and marciano and it took them 23 and 13 rounds. Walcotts jab was one of the finest things we have ever seen, it was sharp fast and accurate...he even threw triple jab combinations that looked damm near unstoppable. He could jab with the best of the big jabbers and showed it on film vs 6'6 Hoff. Walcotts shuffle where he would fake walking away then come back with a counter trap is one of the best traps in boxing history, and multiple hall of famers walked into it. Walcott was very strong, Willie Reddish called Walcott and Liston the two strongest heavyweights of all time, and Walcott controlled strong men like Marciano and Ray well in clinches. Walcott could hit VERY hard with each hand, knock you out with one punch. Rated # 66 on Ring Magazine top 100 punchers of all time. It took Walcott just ONE punch to either floor/ or knockout top men like Joe Louis 3x, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano, Elmer Ray, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim. His boxing skills were designed around cleverness and craftiness, but his textbook skills were oustanding too always keeping high gaurd, chin tucked, elbows in, threw straight punches etc. Despite his smallish size 6'0 195lb Walcott proved his ability vs all different styles he could fight aggresivley, or he could box. I think for reasons stated above, Walcott has the best chance out of all the 200lb boxers in history to defeat the ATG big heavyweights(holmes, lennox, bowe, foreman, liston, etc) and his style at his best ranks better head to head vs the rest of the heavyweight field than charles. Walcott has the Jab, Strength, Punching Power that Charles doesn't have to beat the best of the big men. Charles was much greater fighter p4p though at 175lb.

Jersey Joe Walcott is an ATG. He defeated 4 Hall of Famers Jimmy Bivins, Harold Johnson, Ezzard Charles 2x, Joey Maxim 2x(all these 4 under the age of 30 when Walcott defeated them) and if you rightfully count the Louis victory in there, thats wins over 5 different hall of famers. Charles while an ATG and p4p top 5, was not an ATG heavyweight, he was not a better heavyweight than Jersey Joe Walcott. Jersey Joe Walcott had ATG talent, and looking back we find he has one of the better win resumes in history, had a great sweep of the division 1945-1947, gave top 5ers Louis and Marciano there toughest tests, and walcott defeated more big punchers than any heavyweight champion in history outside of lennox and ali.

 

Actually no not at all. checkout my little mini article I made in the "walcott charles" thread made last week about my reasoning why

 

I respect Joe Walcott for everything he acheived and especially under such impossible circumstances. At the end of the day however, Ezzard Charles was an all time great, whereas Walcott simply wasn't. You can argue how Jersery scored the only KO in their 4 meeting, dropped Marciano, was robbed against Louis, etc, etc, etc............But Charles overall body of works was just way better, and I think most historians would see it that way.

 

I already saw Louis beat a more tallented version of Klitschko in Carnera, so why wouldn't he beat Wlad?

 

Walcott won the heavyweight title by knocking out a natural light heavyweight who had twice defeated him. He successfully defended it once in a fight most observers believe he lost. He was knocked out cold in only his second title defense by a 5'10" 184 lbs slugger from Brockton Mass. He was knocked out in the first round of his attempt to regain the title from the same slugger. Before he won the title he struggled with Joey Maxim, a light heavyweight of good but not great ability. Before that he was knocked out by a fading Joe Louis and by one of Louis' hapless victims, Abe Simon. I won't back it up any further than that. I would hope the point has been made.

Walcott was not even an all-time great heavyweight, let alone an all-time great anything. Great story. Good boxer. Let have some standards, shall we?