Why was Joe Louis so horrible?

Some of these points are good, but:

1. "Just imagine turning Young loose in the mid-1940's. He would have been a star."

He was a star in the 1970's. He beat Foreman decisively and many thought he got the better of Ali. His fought Norton on even terms. As Janitor pointed out, it is an act of faith to assume his cautious style gets him the close decisions back in the 1940's when aggression was even more highly valued.

2. Walcott before and after the war--Walcott was an ordinary fighter before the war who beat second-raters on the whole and lost when he stepped up. He was 0-4 against opponents rated when he fought them. After the war, he defeated rated fighters consistently. The Boxing Register lists his record as 12-9 after the war against rated opponents. That is more victories over rated opponents than Liston, Frazier, or Foreman had.
You have good points that he was erratic and lost 6 of 8 to Louis, Charles, and Marciano.
As for how embaressing the losses to Maxim, Layne, and Ray were---All of these men beat other heavyweight champions and Hall-of-Famers. Who is the second best opponent Leon Spinks defeated?

3. WWII brought short-term losses to boxing, but desegration brought long-term gains which in my opinion overwhelmed the impact of the war on American boxing. As late as 1960, 15 years after the end of the war, three of the top six division champions--Archie Moore, Sugar Ray Robinson, and Joe Brown, were WWII era fighters. Robinson and Brown were actually WWII veterans.

 

I think the boxing register left off his knockout win over Tommy Gomez who was rated monthly in top 10 when Walcott cleaned his chin. I just ordered the 4th edition so Ill check(I lost my last one 3rd edition dammit)

 

Of course numbers dont tell the whole story here considering he went 2-2 vs charles, thats a wash. he arguebably went 1-1 with Louis making it a wash, and he did go 0-2 vs marciano but of course he was up on the cards in the first fight late. I mean he was giving 3 legends of the ring(2 of which were in there prime, the 3rd past it but still deadly) dead even fights and giving them absolute hell in each ecounter save marciano II. Walcott is an ATG.

 

Just watch some of Louis-Walcott I again. Louis really does look awful in that fight. For those who haven't seen Louis, this is not a good fight to judge him by.

 

He was 1 of 3 against Charles. He caught some lightning in a bottle in fight three. Charles was far and away his superior.

 

That only would suggest he hadn't improved if his competition had remained the same all through that time. But in fact it hadn't.

ALL but 2 of his 10 post-comeback losses were against HOFers. Moreover, they were often to the same HOFers - two to Louis, two to Charles, two to Marciano.

Conversely, none of his pre-1944 losses were to HOFers. Moreover, he only fought about 4 or 5 times against rated contenders in that time and lost every time. Post-comeback, he fought consistently against rated fighters and beat numerous of them, including the top rated Jimmy Bivins who was on an incredible winning streak at the time.

 

I see what you're saying and can appreciate some of it. However, being an all time great takes a bit more than merely troubling great fighters. Jimmy Young was an incredibly good boxer who beat George Foreman, Ron Lyle, drew with Earnie Shavers and was possibly robbed in his matches with an aging Ali and Ken Norton..... For that, he is arguably a top 40 heavyweight, but ATG??? I don't know. Walcott deserves credit for earning his place at the top of his division during his era, as well as his galant efforts against the best once he got there. Being an all time great though, needs to go further than just having your name associated with legends....

 

Ever wonder that some tricky guy in the ring may have had something to do with louis looking "bad"

btw, I dont think louis looked bad, I just think walcott made him look 2nd rate with his cleverness and tricky traps. Louis though did show a fine left jab, hurt walcott badly in the 9th pounding him with combinations, louis still posssessed terrific handspeed. Louis was still a great fighter in 1947

 

I see your point...but let me ask you this


Did Jimmy Young defeat 13 different Ring Magazine rated top ten heavyweight contenders? Did Jimmy Young in a three year period clean out the heavyweight division by beating 8 different Ring Magazine top 10 including the # 1, # 2, and # 3 heavyweight contenders in the division going 9-1 against Ring Magazine in that 3 year period? Did Jimmy Young defeat 5 different hall of famers?


I usually classify ATG as top 20 all time in your weight class, which I consider Walcott to be. If not ATG, walcott certainly earned the classification as "great" fighter

 

atsch btw 2nd 3rd and 4th fights were on espn classic in case u missed it. Walcott-Charles 4 was clearly very close and the announcer even said it was too close to call, Ringsiders were split 24-17 on who won.

 

You are some infantile kid sitting behind a computer who would **** his pants if he had to get into the ring with any profesional boxer and you are calling former heavyweight champions bums?

 

Agreed.

Woddy is a moron of the highest order. These men were champions, all-time greats, and yet he can't handle that fact, so he badmouths them.

I can only imagine who his favorite fighter is. I can bet whoever it is, they aren't better than Louis or Walcott.

 

Walcott was certainly no bum.

 

"Jimmy Bivins was on an incredible winning streak at the time"

So was Elmer Ray. And Ezzard Charles in 1951.