Comparing Joe Louis title defenses to modern heavys is foolish

Good Post, With all due respect, A fighter can only fight the competition of their respective era;s, what is put in front of them. Fighters back then were responsible human beings, had families to feed. They were not these whiney athletes that cry over these mega purses. They took the matches regardless of the amount of money, it was the Great Depression era. His era, athletes were great role models, and he served our country. If there was a draft in this era, as in Louis's, athletes today probably would not serve, it would cost them a new mansion. Athletes like Louis did not run off at the mouth, their dukes did the talking. I have seen the heavyweights of the modern era, too spoiled, never learned coping skills as children, my way or the highway attitude, want more money, lack of prestige in this sport, and over payed. Just my opinion.

 

I totally acknowledge that and agree in the main. Fighters in Louis's time were under tremendous pressure to take whatever purses came their way, often in less than ideal conditions, which is why I don't judge them by quite the same standard as I judge modern boxers who have ample time to prep for fights and recover between bouts. And no champion should ever be judged on the standards of another era except in a H2H sense, which is mostly subjective anyway. That goes both ways.

As a champ Louis is fard to fault. He did almost everything expected of him, fought almost all the top fighters there were to fight, and helped raise the profile of boxing in the States and worldwide considerably during his time. He was a great man and I have utmost respect for him. About the only time I'm critical of him is when assessing his chances against later champions, as I find he has a number of weaknesses which can be exploited, but which his fans and people who consider themselves boxing historians seem loath to admit.

 

Good Post, I just wish that today's athletes could conduct themselves as adults and positive role models as Joe Louis, and could be less verbal, fighters are supposed to fight in the ring, promoters are supposed to promote.

 

Wlad, and to a certain extent Joshua, handled themselves well as champs, I feel. It's the Wilders of the division who really let the side down.

 

Wilder's 10 title defenses might not consist of high quality opposition (by today's standards) and he might be just a single titleholder of the 4 belt era, but Joe Louis has the most exaggerated record of any boxer in history.

Yes, most of Louis' defenses were against contenders, but (1) those fights happened during or immediately after World War 2 when most countries didn't even have athletes competing in sports, let alone top level pro boxers for obvious reasons. To put into perspective, Olympic Games only took place in 1948 (after 12 years break, and were very modest) and FIFA World Cup in 1950 (also 12 years break). So Louis' "world" title defenses were anything but "world".
Also, (2) those guys were not even comparable to today's heavyweights in skills and talent. Even Wilder's opponents would look like monsters if compared to some of Louis' "defenses".

However, Wilder still has a lot to do to beat Louis in all-time rankings, mostly because of that historical number 25 (after all Louis was the world/lineal/undisputed champion and not a single beltholder) but that number is the primary reason Joe Louis is rated so highly and it's very exaggarated.

 

Agreed which is why i'm more impressed with Wlad than Louis in terms of number of defenses.

 

damn right its foolish to compare todays sluggish turds with Joe Louis.

 

I dunno what these idiots get out of trolling everyday...

 

It's a legitimate question, worthy of debate.

 

With all due respect, you like the fighters of your era, that's cool. But today's could not survive the Great Depression era, too spoiled, too mouthy, which would be a turn off to most people.