Just curious of people's opinions Is there any you think wouldn't likely lose to any previous heavyweights? Let's say unlikely to lose once out of a trilogy if you insist, but go with what definition you'd like. If so who? Apply it to other divisions too if you like
Wait, I think I get it. For example, I have Louis losing to a few guys afterwards, buy no-one before? Ali only loses to Frazier imo.
nope, unless the ruleset is bias to their era, talent is randomly born and superiority has to be taken on a case by case basis i think the best example i could come up with is dempsey, not only do i think he doesnt lose to any heavyweights before him (not because of some modern=superior agenda, but because I think he was the superior clay with the superior sculpting), but he increased boxing's popularity by a decent margin, allowing for more athletic and toughman talent to find their way to the ring In that sense i would also call Lewis or Wlad anti watershed heavyweights, making boxing much less popular and more difficult to get into with the absurd notions of needing to train since childhood and ridiculous amateur careers had by some, causing a lackluster crop. But again, talent is randomly born, and even if boxing is not at its height of popularity and sought after as it used to be, a man could be born whom is better than the rest
Can't see a prime Joe Louis losing to anyone before his era except possibly Dempsey if he blitzes him early without getting himself knocked out. There's a reason Louis was considered the Dawn of the modern era and modern techniques.
For you Bits Greek: Onomatos Euthymos Melankomas (May as well be mythical, if his stories are true the list ends here) English BKB Broughton Slack Mendoza Belcher Jem Mace Gloved John L Sullivan Jack Johnson Jack Dempsey Gene Tunney Joe Louis Ali (List should end here. Can think of anyone I'd favor with confidence. Tyson, Holmes,Lennox, Wlad and Fury could make a case)
Genuine examples are probably few and far between. For example I don't think that Sullivan would lose to any gloved fighter before him, but can you say that Jeffries wouldn't lose to Sullivan in a series of three, or that Johnson wouldn't lose to Jeffries in a series of three?
I think that he was better than anybody who came before, him but that does not mean that he would beat them all. A very good version of Joe Louis lost to Max Schmeling for a start. Lets say that he fought a trilogy against Dempsey, or a trilogy against Tunney, or a trilogy against Johnson. Wouldn't there be one of those scenarios where he would pick up a loss?