Did Joe Louis' comeback damage his legacy ?

Yeah, me too,....as an avid BE reader, i almost know what he's going to say before he says it. Needless to say, this has caused me quite a few psychological problems,...but I'm getting some help:good...

 

It shouldn't but it does. Check out threads that ask how a prime bomber woud fare against opponent X and invariably someone will bring up his post prime.

 

This is a great post.

 

It doesn't change his standing as far as I'm concerned. I think those 2 that beat him when he came back would have been stopped had he been prime.

 

Considering he's near universally regarded as the #1 or #2 heavyweight of all-time, I'd say no.

 

does Ali losing to Spinks damages his legacy?

The answer is clearly no to both.

 

His legacy was already established by the time of those defeats to Charles and Marciano.

 

:good Roy Jones Jr. should not be penalized for all his past-prime losses either.

The reason he wouldn't crack a top ten is because of his relatively ordinary quality of opposition through his prime years.
I'd rate him about the same as Floyd Mayweather Jr., at least, and probably higher.

 

No.

 

It doesn't to me I still rate him number 1. However many who place Ali above him, which is totally fair, would probably have a harder time doing so had he retired at 58-1.
Klompton is totally correct about too much emphasis today on won loss records but I think whether subconsciously or not 58-1 may give him more of a leg up on Ali.

 

Ali gets rated number 1 because he stopped Liston, Frazier and Foreman.

 

He's not the first or last fighter to carry on past his prime.
Robinson, Ali, both Leonards, Ezzard Charles etc etc they're still greats and he's still the most technically gifted heavyweight (in my opinion) there's ever been

 

Brion was a tough contender who arguably bested Layne.

Bivins would continue to make waves with some good wins and performances. And he was still younger than Louis.

Lol..when did Charles hammer Louis...can't take this seriously.

The only fighter who regularly gets rated above him was Ali. And Ali had a far worse closing to his career.

 

It shouldn't damage his legacy, and for me it doesn't. Even in the Marciano fight, he still won a few rounds with essentially just his left jab.

I once read a story that in 1949 Nat Fleischer had rated Jack Johnson and Joe Louis the #1 and #2 heavyweights, respectively. When he published his all-time rankings in all divisions in the late '50s, he still had Johnson as #1 but Louis was #6. The writer wondered what had happened between 1949 and 1958 that dropped Joe that far in Fleischer's ratings. Has anyone else heard of this story, or know whether or not it is true?

 

I do not believe that's true.

Fleischer wrote in the late 60's/early 70's that he saw no reason to alter his original listing. That listing had Johnson first, Dempsey 4th and Louis 6th.

It is interesting however that during the computerized all time tournament Not was interviewed regarding the potential outcome of a Louis Dempsey bout and his pick was Louis in six rounds.

So although his ranking remained unchanged his thoughts concerning these two fighters had changed over time.