How would Joe Louis have done in the 90's era?

:d

 

Louis was the most talented hwt ever to live. A fighter would need to be of that level of quality to beat him. None of the fighters mentioned rate anywhere near Louis in any category. The level of boxing knowledge on these boards is the worst I have ever seen.

 

If all that would have been the case, Douglas would have had a better career. One fight does NOT make you beat any ATG. Yes, douglas did whip Tyson, and badly.And while Tyson had his problems it was much more Douglas than those that made Mike lose.
But you can´t take a one of fight and use that one to judge how he would do against other ATGs. Especially not when the question is how a fighter would do in a whole era. You need to look at how he normally did. And this Buster Douglas would get whipped by Louis. Badly.

 

Joe Louis gets koed at least 5 times

 

Brilliant stylistic analysis there.

 

I think Byrd has a noteworthy chance of squeaking an upset points win over Louis, especially in an era of 12 rounders. Just a styles thing. However, I like his chances versus Bowe, Holy, and pre-Steward Lewis.

 

Not really, Douglas was a prodigy but a man who wasn't dedicated to the sport as his father forced him into boxing. HE showed no heart or fire for much of his career. For his title shot he put all that talent together with hard training and a guttsy performance.

Outside of the Tyson win, his performances against McCall and Berbick were good ones. His losing performance against Tucker was a very good one and some the heart he showed against Tyson may have seen him win that fight and certainly his early career stoppage loss.

Douglas has already beat 1 ATG, picking him over another at his best is not off base especially when it's a nightmare style for Louis.

Akinwande has a better chance of winning a decision than Byrd, as does Toney (although this is 90s)

 

So, because he had one good and two decent showings you favour him over an ATG. Well, I rather even it out with his crappy outings to get a more balanced view.

Throughout his career he rarely showed the determination necessary to be even a contender. What makes you think he would here? Because of a fluke? Nah, sorry don´t buy it. The possibility of the Douglas who lost to Holy showing up is higher than the one who fought Tyson. Meaning him getting beaten up badly is higher than him having a chance of winning.

 

But, if you read articles about boxing published while Louis was active, you will learn that the heavyweight division was at its all time worst and his opponents constituted a group of fighters known as "The Bum of the Month Club". So Louis was the king of rubbish. If an aged arthritic Braddock could floor him and a one-handed Max Schmelling could beat him, I'm fairly sure modern fighters would expose him.

 

Right,

I have yet to see the same person win the lottery more than once in a life time, and frankly while Douglas performed well against Tyson, I'm not so sure that Mike was at his best that night either. Its the Tony Tucker, Jesse Ferguson and Evander Holyfield fights that were far more typical of Douglas, than a one night wonder and against a champion who's focus was going south anyway.

 

I don't buy into the excuse train, because I don't think that not having prepared properly is a particularly good excuse.

It comes down to this.

Either Douglas went from being a fringe contender to an ATG beater overnight, then back again overnight, or Tyson met him somwhere in the middle. The bottom line is that Douglas would likley loose to any top 10 heavyweight who prepared properly for the fight. He might give them hell, but they would find a way to pull out the win.

 

Indeed, that opinion was brought up again. but when you see those fighters in other fights but Louis this opinion vanishes quickly. It was Louis who made them look like bums because he was so good. Every writer in every era thought his era is the worst. Which is as wrong as the glorification of the past. Bum of the month is, of course, catchy and brilliant sensationalism but in the end just empty and without substance.

 

I think Blackburn has zero problems finding major league flaws with the 90's guys and scouts them properly and has his guy prepared and ready on fight night. And in the brown bomber, you have an opportunist and finisher of the highest order and that is the worst of all attributes the 90's guys need to face.

 

This may sound harsh, but i dont think louis does too well.

Hes too flat footed and imo, there are question marks regarding his chin, especially in a era of huge punchers.

Tyson, Holy and Bowe beat him, Lewis most likely would, i dont think lewis would stand there smiling at Louis like he did to rahman.

 

There was no fluke, he beat a top10 ATG by putting in a great performance. Sometimes fighters build to being great and then stop trying. Douglas clearly wasn't trying against Holyfield

Bowe too had only a few really good showings. Baer went from beat Schmelling and Carnera to losing to Braddock in consecutive fights, supposedly not training for that fight. Duran according to his fans went from putting in 1 of the best performances of all times to being a much lower level fighter

Sometimes in other sports this happens. IE Rodal the 800m Olympic champion ran 1 of the fastest ever times for his distance. But was only world class for 1 year