A peak joe louis vs a peak lennox lewis

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by combatesdeboxeo, Jan 1, 2011.


  1. FastHands(beeb)

    FastHands(beeb) Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,496
    407
    Oct 28, 2010
    Y'all got that right McGrain.
     
  2. BoxingFanNo1

    BoxingFanNo1 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,867
    13
    Jan 20, 2009
    Sorry McGrain I don't think it is. Why is boxing unique amongst the 100's or 1000's of sports? Every single sport is more evolved, athletes are bigger, stronger, quicker, fitter, how can boxing be the only one which has stood still?

    Now take Joe Louis and place him in the 90's, give him all the benefits of the modern era and he beats Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield 2/3 imo. But place the man who actually existed in today's era and he'd lose to the Klitschkos.

    Sport evolves, boxing is no different, explain why you think it's the one sport that's stood still and doesn't apply to the 'standing on the shoulders of giants' theory.
     
  3. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,800
    11,424
    Aug 22, 2004
    Jesus, here we go again. Not another one. :patsch
     
  4. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    Lewis controls with the jab to set up a mid rounds KO
     
  5. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    :lol:

    Louis by brutal early knockout.
     
  6. BoxingFanNo1

    BoxingFanNo1 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,867
    13
    Jan 20, 2009
    You in denial too huh?
     
  7. FastHands(beeb)

    FastHands(beeb) Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,496
    407
    Oct 28, 2010
    I tend to agree with this. A middleweight is still a middleweight...60 years ago or today. One could argue that a 240lb athlete like Lewis would be too much for virtuaslly any Gene Tunney sized heavyweight and part of that argument would be the size differential, but Lennox has the advantage of being much more athletic and flexible than the average 240lb man, I think Lewis was atypical in that respect.

    One advantage the old-timers definitely had (with a few exceptions) was that the larger number of fights that many of them had meant that they were much more experienced and knew "the wrinkles" better. I also that think that overall the old-timers weren't managed and protected like today's boxers and were by mand large more battle hardened.

    Regarding Louis v Lewis, Joe's record against the big guys is pretty convincing and he's not "virtually any Gebe Tunney sized heavyweight". Lewis had a puncher's chance, sure, but was a bigger target for Joe to hit. I think a peak Joe Louis is superior to, for example the Holyfield that Lewis fought.

    I pick Louis to box steadily, using good, accurate combinations, gradually put more steam on his punches as the fight progressed, use his excellent compact footwork to work around Lewis, hit both the body and head steadily and often, and stop Lennox in around 8 or 9 rounds, with a couple of knockdowns in the process.
     
  8. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    Does he not have a boxers chance given Louis was outboxed by Conn, Schmelling and Walcott? There's a good case that Lewis is P4P better than the first 2 with his explosiveness, speed, accuracy and timing and with the added advantage of that massive reach advantage
     
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,990
    48,069
    Mar 21, 2007
    Firstly, because it's more about heart than any other sport. Furthermore, development has been ******ed and arguably out and out reversed by the following.

    1) The talent pool is tiny by comparison. Although it is growing again, there were more professional boxers in Britain at the end of WW2 than there were in 2000 in the entire world. So, the talent pool was deeper in the UK in in the forties than it was in the world at that time. How can you argue boxers get better when there are so fewer of them?

    2) Boxers train for a shorter distance. How can you argue fighters are improved in arenas such as stamina when they train for a shorter fight? Fighters, such as Ricky Hatton, who wanted to gain an advantage over their peers spoke about "Training for 15 rounds". Normal for those fighters who boxed in the much deeper talent pool of Louis's era.

    3) Fighers fight less. You get better at something by doing it. Why do you think a fighter who boxes 30 times will be better than a fighter who boxes 100 times.

    4) Fighers spar less. The one area that might have helped fighers to shore up the above deficiency has been taken from them by medical research. So fighters fight less AND do precision training less.

    There are other things, but they are more marginal - for example feinting has drifted out as it tends to be less rewarding over the longer distances.


    But the big thing is, "my eyes". You want to name the modern fighters who are better than this man:
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60GuoYpmbJo[/ame]
    Because I don't think he's been born. And even if you think that Roy Jones or Pernell Whitaker or Sugar Ray Leonard are better, you surely can't think it's by much?
     
  10. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,431
    9,419
    Jul 15, 2008
    Joe Louis would win by TKO between five to eight rounds ... Lennox excelled against large, slower big men like the Ruddocks, Golata, Grant ... against a smaller, strong, tough man who could jab and move a bit he looked slow and far less effective as seen in his two bouts against a 37 year old Holyfield ... Evander was no defensive wizard but he managed to avoid the devastating Lewis power pretty well ... he was also able to counter with some success, especially in the third round of their first bout when he had Lennox holding on ...

    Joe Louis excelled at decapitating giants .. he had foot speed and used it when necessary as seen against Max Baer, Buddy Baer, Primo Carnera and Abe Simon .. he cut in and out behind his own jab and hit with such speed and power to the head and body .. he would take Lennox out of his game and chop him up ...
     
  11. i agree absolutely
     
  12. FastHands(beeb)

    FastHands(beeb) Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,496
    407
    Oct 28, 2010
    I personally don't think Lennox would have outboxed Joe like the above did - why?

    Lewis's footwork was nowhere near the quality of Conn or Walcott, Conn was much lighter on his feet, as was Walcott, JJW's footwork was exceptional, and the Louis who fought JJW was clearly past his peak.

    Schmeling - Louis was not in prime condition for that fight - Louis's fault for sure but he trained for that fight on the golf course & in the bedroom, not a mistake he made in the rematch.

    I am also convinced that any edge in speed in this contet belongs to Joe Louis - especiall hand speed at close quarters.
     
  13. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,431
    9,419
    Jul 15, 2008
    Slight edge in speed ? When did the misconception of Joe Louis being slow of hand start ? Just because Ali with his big mouth belched it time and again the uneducated take it as fact ? Joe Louis had laser fast hands in his prime . Lennox punches look like they are under water in comparison ,,,

    Here's how Louis v.s. Lewis would end ... got to about the 4:00 minute mark ...

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ovh8VkTxYI[/ame]
     
  14. FastHands(beeb)

    FastHands(beeb) Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,496
    407
    Oct 28, 2010
    he - I didn't say "slight" edge - I agree with you regarding speed of hand - and of foot.

    I also agree with your comment about Ali!
     
  15. tommygun711

    tommygun711 The Future Full Member

    15,756
    101
    Dec 26, 2009
    Louis wins hands down... Too technically perfect