How Joe Louis rated his opponents

"What do you think of him now, Joe?"
"I like this dude. My fist feels good on his face! He's much better than I thought!"

 

Louis thought that any fighter who wouldnt trade punches with him wasn't quite playing cricket.

 

I think Hagler had the same notion...

 

The reasoning is:

"I can beat anybody who goes toe to toe with me so anything else is cheating".

 

Primo couldn't have been that bad if Louis had him in his top 5.

 

The high ranking of Braddock is interesting.

Louis said that he had hit him harder than Schmelling.

 

That's because Shavers hit harder.

 

Really? Do mind telling me how it felt when both men nailed you? I myself have never been in the ring with either, so frankly I can't draw any conclusions and with the type of strident conviction that you just did.

 

I was in the ring with both men yes.

 

I must say, Louis' non ranking of Marciano as a top 10 fighter, is nothing short of Astounding! He rates Marciano behind two guys - Walcott and Charles, who Marciano beat. I am guessing that Louis must think both fighters were past it by this stage?

Baer's high rating is interesting. I think that most people tend to forget that Max had that foreman/Tyson/Liston type aura and ability. Maybe, just maybe he was on their level and maybe he was better than them.

The other very interesting thing is Louis seemingly rating his early career opponenent from the 30s ahead of those from the 50s. AS others have said not too dissimilar to Holmes rating 70s guys more than 90s. Both have fought both and earned the right to comment. Both are better credentialled than any of us to draw the conclusion. It must be given at least some respect.

But why Louis' comments are interesting, is that many people, and i tend to think i agree to an extent are of the opinion that Joe Louis was the first boxer with a modern style and that he revolutionised/modernised the sport with Stance, style etc. In fact JOe was modern in every sense of the word.

So my question is that if he thought the 30s fighters were better fighters, and the fighters from the 30s didnt really use the modern style, is the modern style really that much effective than the older style, where there was more clinching, different weight distribution etc.

Interestingly, Jack Johnson, another ATG, was always adamant that the modern stance put fighters like Louis at a massive disadvantage (rightly or wrongly), while results during the 'crossover' period certainly dont seem to show any particular dominance of the modern eras in this period, other than the obvious ones which are due more to old age than anything else.

I find this list from JOe Louis extremely interesting.

 

Do you mind revealing yourself to us?

 

I am well aware of his claim, and have no partialness to it one way or another... My initial point is that its not uncommon for some champions to rate the abilities of their victims higher than that of their conquerors... The fact that Louis does not even have Marciano listed among what he rates as his best opponents speaks volumes in my opinion..It is based largely on ego, and Holmes was guilty of this more so than others..