I love how any mention of Marciano v Louis automatically turns into a consensus of opinion that “Prime Louis brutally destroys Marciano”
Louis got by in his last few fights primarily on his jab and experience, there was none of the old magic there. When you say good relative to what though ? Your comparing Louis with Berbick who was very solid fighter game fighter but very limited skill wise. If you mean good in relative to what Louis was capable of at his best ? Then no he wasn't good.
There didn’t have to be old magic there. Louis was enough to beat good fighters without the old magic. When the old magic was still there for Louis, it wasnt the key requirement to win him fights. It just meant he won with more ease. The old magic is not some missing ingredient that always prevented Louis from winning. nobody was asking that he was relative to what Louis was at his best. I was comparing 1951 Louis to a “Trevor Berbick Level” fighter. As in can win the fights Berbick woukd win. Technically different yes. But capable of winning at Trevor Berbick level. 99.9% of every champion matched with a prime Joe Louis gets beat. Not just Marciano. Yet there is no desperation to remind everyone in the other 99.9% of fantasy match ups that they get “brutally destroyed” by Joe Louis.
Which good fighters are these ? a shot Jimmy Bivins who never won another meaningful fight ? or Lee Savold who retired less than a year later ? So Louis not having a right hand anymore, or his blistering combination punching or accuracy, nor his legs anymore. Or the fact that Louis was shopworn from having 68 professional fights and almost 30 championship fights is not that big of factor to you ok then. Actually you've made your own definition no one made any rules here on what they can or can't compare, your logic is flawed because your comparing an ATG to a mediocre alphabet champion. The logic doesn't work because Louis's peak level was so far above Berbick, plus their style of fighting is completely different. Berbick relied on his bull like tactics and conditioning to win fights. Basically Berbick had a lack of talent and won fights through sheer will aggression, Louis had talent in abundance but by the time he fought Marciano. His reflexes, timing, footwork, legs, were completely shot so it's a bigger factor. As i said comparing Louis's performance vs Marciano relative to what he was capable of in his prime then no he was not a good fighter, because none of the attributes that made Louis an ATG were on display against Marciano. Also going by your logic Marciano should be credited as if he beat mediocre alphabet champion, if Louis was at that type of level at that time according to your definition. So how much credit should Marciano be given for that then ? Also how many champions past/present do you think that version of Joe Louis would've beat ? Well i haven't said that at all have i ? all i've said is that comparing Louis at his best to his performance against Marciano is like watching two different fighters. And there was nothing in the Marciano fight on display from Louis that made him special. The OP said and i quote...... "I sort of think Rocky doesnt get much/enough credit for this win Yes, Louis was past his prime, but he came off a winning streak, was a top contender and a 37 year old atg is still a very good fighter. I think Rocky would have given a prime Louis a tough fight, he didn't like swarmers. I love Louis as a fighter and he gave it his all, but I think this is always a bad match up for him." He's saying Marciano doesn't get enough credit for beating a shadow of Joe Louis ? and he still thinks he was a very good fighter and i don't agree with that either. He also thinks Marciano is a bad style match up for a prime Louis, which i don't understand how he come to that conclusion based on this fight which was a shell of Joe Louis is actually baffling.
I think he means good relative to solid top rated contenders. During his comeback, he did defeat prime Bivins, who is a HOF fighter (correct me if im wrong) and considered to be one of the best ever at light heavyweight and a pretty good heavyweight.
Off the top of my head, I will take this one step further: I believe THAT version of Joe Louis could probably beat about a dozen Lineal Champions, if he was refreshed after each fight. I will now take a page out of my late Grandfather's book, put on a helmet, and hide under my desk, or behind my sofa, in an effort to avoid being hit by flying fruit, vegetables, and other assorted projectiles!
Bivins was not in his prime he was shot when he fought Louis, so that point doesn't make sense. He wasn't a top 10 ranked Heavyweight and he never won another meaningful fight. Savold was at that end of his career and would retire less than a year later when Louis beat him. Louis was also going the distance with mediocre fighters who he would've brutally KO'ed in his prime. You also say solid top rated contender ? could that version of Louis beat the likes of Moore, Charles, ? no. Well we already see what Charles did to Louis. Could that version of Louis beat Walcott in the 50s ? again probably not since Louis didn't have right hand anymore, plus Louis had enough trouble vs Walcott in the late 40s. So i wouldn't say Louis was a top contender at that time because he wouldn't of beaten any of the top contenders at that time. Louis got an inflated rating for beating an over the hill Lee Savold who was somehow recognized as a champion for beating Bruce Woodcock ?
I could see that version of Louis being better than many of the guys Patterson defended his title against. Also better than some of the guys Holmes defended against.
Perhaps I'm mistaken about Bivins but I still say he was better than say many of the men Patterson defended his title against. And no he didn't beat Charles, but he did better than some of the younger fighters Charles defended his title against. I freely admit that it wasn't the Louis of 1941. I'm just saying that he wasn't someone that any old contender could automatically be picked to clobber.