Joe Louis, Underrated or just not that great???

but how could he be number #2 if a great number of "lesser"/lower ranked fighters could beat him?

 

Because in his prime he was a big cruiser fighting cruisers and unskilled big men, I just feel that Modern GREATor very Good heavys would beat him at least for the most part. Dont get me wrong a 1940 200lb Louis still beats any Heavy today not named Klitchko, but i also think Liston,Fraizer(probably,Foreman,Holmes,Tyson,Ali,Holy,Bowe,Lewis,Klitchkos beat him and these guys would have a hell of a shot too.
Lyle
Shavers
Cooney
Witherspoon
THomas
Page
Bonecrusher
RUddock
Tucker
Mercer
Ibeabuchi
Tua
Douglas
But technichally he was a great fighter and capable of Knocking any of those giants out^^ .
Pfp Maybe the hardest puncher ever, i just dont think his chin would hold up to these bigger heavys, however if these guys were 190 or 200 Lbs , Louis probably beats all of them except for Ali. Although a few others could go either way.

 

that's fair enough. it's still the skilled big man vs skilled smaller man argument. i just looked at how louis handled larger men of his time and don't think his size would have been too detrimental. like you said, many of them were unskilled but many of them were top notch and he destroyed them. as well his athleticism was brilliant and his hand speed would have compensated for quite a bit

 

Are you serious?

 

I'm not about to write Louis off as not being able to beat a " a bigger skilled man ", but using men like Buddy Baer, Primo Carnera or Abe Simon as measuring sticks is not something I'd do either.. While all three of those guys were good fighters, their mobility, durability, and skillset don't impress me the way that future giants like Bowe, Lewis, Wlad, or Holmes did. I dare say that even Gerry Cooney would have fit in nicely with the bigger heavy's of the 1930's and 40's, and might even have been a bit better than some of them..

 

Studying his performances against his larger foes is fine.. At least it tells us that he was not intimidated by bigger men, nor hindered by their size advantages.. There are some however, who have used these fights to create an argument that Louis would fair just as well against later giants of comparable size, based on these showings.. The problem that I have with that, is that there is a difference between a big athlete who has only some good attributes, and one that has a more rounded and complete package.. Folks may argue until they're blue in the face with me on this, but I really can't picture Abe Simon as even being a top 15 heavyweight in most modern periods of the sport.. Put him in 1990, and he'd likely be getting beat by Francesco Damiani, Jose Ribalta and Orlin Norris..

 

true and carnera is another example routinely brought up. size alone does not make a fighter nor does it determine success. louis had great success with larger fighters and predictions should be made based on quality and style of the opponent and not merely physicality

 

Another good post.

Don't think there's another poster on this forum whom I so frequently agree with. And that must mean you're quality, mustn't it?

 

That theory works for me :good

 

Right. Here's is the thing. Louis had trouble with good jabbers, good movers, and good boxers. The best boxers he fought were Schmeling, Walcott, Conn, and Charles. If you give Walcott the nod in the first fight, Louis is 4-3 in these matches. While Louis did beat Conn twice, he was badly exposed in the first fight. While Louis did KO Walcott in the second fight, he was behind on points. Some may cry foul on the Charles match, because Louis was older. My counter point is Louis vs. Chalres was not close. Charles merely did what the other good boxer did on Louis youth.

The best modern heavies not only have the skills of the above men, they also hit harder, and have a greater reach, height, and weight advantage. Since Louis had average footspeed, he could not pressue the best boxer movers as well as say Frazier or Tyson could.

 

I think you oversimplify things to fit in with your preconceived opinion.
Lee Ramage ,and Bob Pastor were as good ,if not better boxers than Schmeling at least.
Louis beat them both, twice,second time Ramage, appreciably earlier.
Louis had trouble with Billy Conn, so did a lot of fighters, he was as fast as lightning and very elusive.
Schmeling had essentially spotted a flaw in Louis's defence ,he did not bring his left hand back all the way ,after jabbing
.Max beat Louis by crossing his right over this, by drawing the left lead and countering over it.he did not out box Louis
.Louis out jabbed Schmeling in this fight.
Schmeling's eye was nearly closed as early as the end of the first round,a s a result of Louis's jab

Schmeling was not a particularly good jabber, nor a good mover, he was a patient counterpuncher, who possessed heavy, and also short artillery.

Louis had massacred Baer ,who had stopped Schmeling, consequently for the only time in his career, Louis underestimated an opponent and trained accordingly.

Walcott went close with Louis in their first fight true ,Walcott had a great night.Louis was a diminished fighter his reflexes were eroded,he was prime before the war. Prime for prime Louis kos Walcott.

Charles beat Louis, but Charles was prime, Louis was a former champ making a comeback for financial reasons , after being retired for over two years. Prime for prime Louis kos Charles.

You gave two examples out of three where Louis was past his best ,and by a considerable margin.
And one, where he severely underestimated his opponent,through the hubris of youth.


"Louis had trouble ,with good jabbers,good movers,good boxers".

Well, tell me who doesn't?

 

Louis was such a fantastic fighter that he dominated in an era with a lot of tough fighters, guys who fought a lot, were strong and in shape. He was so good that even virulent racists had to tip their hats to the guy and admire him. There was no arguing or denying it.

Remember, Louis struggled with Walcott when Louis was past it. Keep in mind he did very little legit training or fighting other than short rounds exhibitions during the war years. Still, a past-it Joe who was dying to retire managed to KO Walcott in the rematch, sooner than a prime Marciano. Also Savold. Louis twice KO'd Abe Simon, a guy who KO'd Walcott. Watch footage of his KOs. Guy was poetry in motion with speed, power, placement, timing. He was rock solid at 200, and I don't think these biggger guys today would beat him. Louis was good enough that he'd offset their size advantages. The first Schmeling fight was an aberration. Louis didn't lose for well over a decade after that, and brutally avenged the loss. Joe struggled with Conn, but let's face it, anyone would against a guy that fast, who could move that well, in that great a shape, who can also throw blazing fast combos and keep it up round after round. And STILL, Louis KO'd him, TWICE.

 

I beleive you have just endorsed my post!
Possibly unintentionally ,but still.
Mendoza is fond of quoting you ,I wonder what he will make of your response here?
No quotes this time ,that's for sure.