The version of the fighter from 1950-1951. This version of Louis managed to climb the rankings, getting to number 1 ranked contender before running into Rocky Marciano. How good was this particular version of Louis? Not in terms of what he used to be, but in terms of what he could still do. Would he have been able to rise the ranks in other eras, particularly those that came afterwards? I reckon he could realistically have climbed the rankings when Patterson/Liston/Ali were champs. But after that it's a struggle envisioning him putting a run together imo. Under Holmes run at the top we had the likes of Tate, Weaver, Dokes and Thomas taking that number 1 contender spot, does Old Louis compete with those guys? 1994 saw Foreman, McCall and Moorer taking up 3 of the top 4 spots, does Old Louis compete with those guys? Between Vitali and Wlad we had a top 5 of Byrd, Rahman, Toney, Brewster and Ruiz. And then when Wlad took top spot we had Peter and Maskaev in the top two spots. I'm not expecting Old Louis to compete with the champions that came after, but could he have realistically attained the rank of next best, particularly in the era mentioned? Today we have Fury/Joshua/Wilder so I doubt he'd have a look in, but it wasn't that long ago when the next best after Wlad was considered to be Stiverne so even in more modern times there's a chance for him. I'm keeping an open mind here, but for context I've always considered the Old Louis to be a Shot Louis and to have been the beneficiary of a very weak era but I'm open minded in this topic.
He was competent. He wasn’t really knocking out anyone quality anymore. But he held wins over an old (not as old as Louis but as a fighter he was more shopworn) Bivins. He held two wins a piece over Agramonte and Brion. And a win over Savold. Not to mention in an era where many exhibitions were fought as if they were real fights he ko’s Valentino and Valdez. Not a stellar group but he could creep into a lot of era’s top 10 with that type of run. He was basically fundamentally sound and heavy handed at this point. His athleticism was totally gone. He doesn’t look great but his technique and experience would see him pull out wins against B level guys that were inconsistent
Old Louis lost to 180 pound club fighter Marciano. That is how bad he was. But that whole era was bad. Even in Louis prime the fighters he were facing were worse than Buttebean.
Dangerous fights for him all of them. Big solid guys - depends on how the fights play out. Take Stiverne for example - he was a quick counter puncher with some pop. With Joe’s reflexes gone he would be very susceptible to that- and could be ko’d. On the flip side - Stiverne is absolutely atrocious against anyone with a jab. Louis jab was slow but still text book and quite efficient. So I could see multiple scenarios against each one of these guys. Personally I don’t see him going 3-0 against that group nor do I see him going 0-3. My guess is Louis goes 2-1 in 3 competing bouts
Yeah Louis was fundamentally sound but his snap was gone. He could still KO by attrition but I don't see him one punch stopping anyone.
No his one punch was gone. But really Stiverne only has two wins over Chris Arreola and one is def past prime and both maybe past prime. Arreola was crude face forward slugger at his best. So I would think Louis’s class and jab would see him through against Stiverne. Weaver and Brewster are tougher - Brewster was a gamer - high activity - big punch aggressive. The Brewster that beat Golota and Wlad and fought that war with Liakhovich (I think I’d have to check wiki) I think has too much for this version of Louis. And i’m Assuming you mean these guys at their peak because Brewster went on too long and past prime Louis beats past prime Brewster imo. Again same thing with Weaver he gained confidence after the Holmes bout and was a dangerous fighter for a period but throughout his career he was also chinny. But could Louis with no snap take advantage of that? I would say yeah cause it’s Louis but who knows. He is very slow on the footage we have at this point in his career
He's very slow, but a lot of that is in comparison with the LHW/CW fighters of that era. Would he still look slow against the bigger guys, I'm not so sure. I'm beginning to wonder now if he could have gained a high ranking in future eras. I mean if he can beat Stiverne, based on that one win alone he could have been the number 1 contender to Wlad as recent as 4 years ago.
Pretty bad. He waa equivalent to post prison Tyson: his hand Speed and ring generalship were still top notch with respectable power, so he made short work of bums. But against any elite, he came up short. What is particularly noticeable in my eyes is that he went from taking a non stop barrage of right hands from schmeling for 13 rounds, getting off the floor to ko galento (who had a hell of a hook and good chin if nothing else) and slaying giants like abe Simon and buddy Baer to getting beat up by skinny light heavy Charles and short volume puncher rocky. This tells me his killer instinct, chin, and overall punch resistence got way worse. He was also much more gunshy and wouldn't throw the right hand enough with worse reflexes. You could compare him to the current version of Manny Pacquiao. The fact Louis was #1 says more about the weakness of that era than Louis still being good, because he wasnt even competitive with the 2 best fighters he faced. Hmm he could manage a very close controversial split decision against weaver. His jab was still sharp and accurate and it would land practically at will against weaver who lacked defense and was willing to brawl. However, Joe would get nailed at some point and go down at least once. It might end up looking a little but like golovkin vs canelo 2 mixed with a slow motion bootleg version of Holmes vs weaver. Brewster gets tagged a lot and his left eye swollen shut but eventually walks louis down and kos him in 4-5 rounds tops. Just too big and durable with explosive youth and a willingness to take 1 to give 1 is a pace that old louis hated. Prime stiverne of the arreola fight stops Louis in 10 rounds. Any other version gets embarrassed and Louis puts on a clinic, winning a lopsided decision. Tate weaver and thomas would be close competitive bouts, he may even win. Prime dokes would be too fast. That handspeed combined with height and athleticism is too much for plodding old joe and he'd lose the decision. Against McCall his best bet would be to land a big combination and make McCall go into his shell. Thay way he can win rounds by default due to aggression a d activity. McCall was very hot/cold and not always focused or in shape so joe may very well have won that. Moorer would stop joe late. On top of being a south paw he had youth, explosiveness, and great technical skill. Old foreman wouldn't show him any respect after realizing how gunshy and slow louis was and busts him up with his own jab, negating the only good thing louis had going for him. Foreman ko round 5 or whenever honestly. Byrd boxes circles around him using Charles blueprint and shuts him out. Rahman wins with a big 1-2 in round 7 in a fight that starts off competitive but slowly gets ugly. Toney is a mystery. Id have to really think about that one but it would be competitive as toney was shorter than louis and lacked ko power. I already addressed Brewster. Louis wins a very ugly decision over ruiz in one of the worst fights of all time. Trash would be thrown DURING the fight. Louis schools Samuel peter for 10 rounds but finally gets caught in the 11th and cant beat the count.
And that right there underlines my thought process exactly which is why I wonder if I was under rating Old Louis. You state there it's down to a weakness of his era, but then there's a list of other weak number 1 ranked fighters who this shell of a man could still beat which makes you wonder if it was just a bad era or if he would always have been able to achieve a high ranking. I think the one fight out of the names I listed that I would be most certainly of beating Louis would be Byrd. He would box circles around that man, I agree. Stiverne looked pretty good in the rematch with Arreola. But it's the only time he ever looked good.
Ah but rankings and mandatories can be deceptive. Don Cokkel becane #2 I believe and he was absolutely horrible even by his own era's standards. It was a clear case of strategic management to maneuver a guy who his own managers knew wasnt great. Or stiverne who you brought up. He lost his belt to wilder then beat a bum with 10 losses and did NOTHING for 2 years and somehow becomes #1 wbc mandatory??? Its easy to sift through the rankings and cherry pick key moments when the division was weak and find guys ranked in the top 5 who hustled their way there. If we use this method we can find plenty of other "high ranked" opponents in other eras and pretend like an old Joe Louis would be "competitive" in that era.
They can of course be deceptive but they're the only things we can go off really in terms of who a man beats. And that's where we're different. I never previously believed it would have been easy to make a case for Old Louis gaining a high ranking in anything than the era he did it in. Now I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps you're right and a case can be made in other future eras.
Old Luis would absolutely be competitive with the likes of Ruiz Tooney Brewster (who wasn’t very good at all) wouldn’t be ranked one but def top ten. I could see him out smarting Quarry or Lyle or shavers but def falls short to the champs of the eras.
The only lineal champs i give him a chance against are Floyd due to his weak chin, roy jones for the same reason, possibly primo Cabrera since he beat him before (I have doubts), John Ruiz, and the old ass holyfiled of the early 2000's. Those are about the only times hed be able to be recognized as "the man" of the division if he stepped out of a time machine and managed to get a ranking high enough to fight for a real Championship. Not counting all the fringe paper belt holders like charles martin or Bruce seldon.
