Louis was certainly a more complete fighter and if he survived the early onslaught his chances of winning would increase astronomically .I just don't think he does. Sonny Liston had a singularly undistinguished reign, does that mean he would not be a nightmare for many other champs? Ernest Hemingway wrote a very fine piece on the respective merits of Dempsey and Louis.He was big for Louis. I really don't think anyone can get too upset about such a hypothetical question. I have Johnson and Dempsey 2 and 3 respectively I'm certain neither you or Seamus would be on the same planet as far as that's concerned and you may well be correct. It 's so subjective that its silly to get steamed up about it don't you think? I don't feel the need to explain my rankings but if some one expressly asked I would. Seamus is a good poster we just rarely agree. Whose to say which of us is right?
Joe Louis stays #1 for me. Occasionally, I waffle with Ali... but only very occasionally. I soon come to my senses. Dempsey is around #20. See, I have a heart.
Of course he would be; from '59 to '63. Louis would be a nightmare for anyone from '37 to '48. These dates are arguable, but the overall point is not - Louis is a nightmare for any fighter, ever, for more than a decade, Dempsey and Liston for a handful of years - for months. What I'm saying is that even on pure head to head lists, this should be a factor. Even if Demspey would beat Louis for three of their "tramlined" years (highly debatable), he wouldn't be doing sh!t with Louis for four or five entire years; he was clearly better for a huge wedge of years. That should be a factor. Who indeed? It's interesting, don't you think that yourself and Mendoza are the only regulars who are hell bent on h2h rankings, and the two regulars most likely to disagree. H2h is infinitely debatable. Other ways of ranking are not quite as malleable.
Yes no way, Ali's resume is pretty much the pinnacle of fighting the best of the best. Louis also did so, but his resume is lacking the same ATG's that Ali's has and by a BIG margin. The ATG's he faced he either lost to, had to comeback against or was past his best himself. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.
My sentiment as well. There's hardly anything between them, but daylight between them and the rest. Louis was a great, great fighter. He had his struggles, but that comes naturally from always facing the best out there.
H2H is not the only basis to rank someone. But many think, he loses to Ali, Foreman, Dempsey, Marciano, Lewis, Liston, Klitshcko's and any number of former champs and fighters, I even have Tunney giving him a rough go. With that many H2H losses possible, I don't see how anyone can rank him No 1. I wont say they are wrong, because H2H is so debatable. BUT... for me, it keeps him out of 1st place.
I don't think you can possibly put too much emphasis on h2h. You wouldn't be doing yourself any favour's if you didn't ask how you thought Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Klitchko et al would have faired against Joe's opponents. Would they have struggled? Would they have gone through them like knives through butter? On that basis I don't have Joe in the top 3.
I've always said "this guy - he's a real goat spooner". Haven't I always said that? Eh? Merv? Another rye, Merv.
Louis never beat an ATG.His only one ATG opponents destroyed him. I never was big fan of the longevity (Joe Louis,Holmes,Wladimir) -Joe Louis' longevity is based on his opponents' questionable quality . - Holmes wasn't undisputed champion this is the reason of his longevity. But at least he beat some good dangerous fighters . Other question he went a 0-5 against his best opponents(Spinks 2times, Tyson,Holyfield,prime Mccall). -Wladimir is the worst case he wasn't undisputed champion and his opponents are/were jokes.He never beat an ATG.