There could be some debate on this as some of his wins were close in quality. But I’m going to say: 1. Max Schmeling - it was a huge rematch win against an ATG. 2. Joe Walcott II - he cleared up doubts about the first fight and then walcott went on to becoming champ. 3. Max Baer - a recent former champ and a very dangerous man. honorable mentions: Primo Carnera James Braddock - Louis won the title
Pretty thin really. Schmelling finally got old in the second fight after Max straight up knocked Louis out in his prime in the first match. Walcott win was legit but not close to dominant. He should have lost the first one as well. Max Baer broke his right hand in round 2, taking away his money punch. He basically became a one armed fighter and target practice after that round. Louis did finally get him out of there. Primo was a solid win Braddock was very good, but stationary, he also had Louis down in that fight. You add in him losing to Conn until Conn got stupid, and struggling with Godoy and the fat man Galento - and it adds up to some serious questions about his resume. Let's not forget Marciano knocking him out of the ring. I have seen him ranked as high as #1 and have no idea why that is even considered a legitimate take away.
What H2H abilities? If his reputations rests on H2H ability then he wouldn't even make it to many lists. Louis reigned in a very poor era.
Im talking about the quality of his opposition and yes, there are ten ATG's that have a better resume in that aspect: Marciano, Ali, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, Tyson His best two best wins are Walcott and Schmeling. No disrespect to them, but its not that hard for the Top 10 heavyweights to come up with 2 better quality wins.
How does Marciano have a better resume when his best opponent lost to Joe Louis at the end of his career ?
Marciano has arguably the worst resume of these 10, Nonetheless its a valid argument to say Louis > Marciano. What about the other guys?
Elaborate, please. I can think of a few fighters with what I would consider better resumes off the top of my head. Ali Frazier Foreman Liston Holyfield Lewis Tyson. Okay, so ten better resumes might be a bit of a push but if you're basing greatness on resume rather than how fighters would do H2H then Joe falls off the top tier for me. There are a lot of smaller men, a fair few older fighters and, let's be absolutely frank, a real obvious lack of black fighters on his resume. Not saying Joe drew the colour line but it's not racist to say that from 1940-2000 or thereabouts, black fighters dominated the division's top ten and yet, despite his longevity, they are conspicuously absent from Joe's resume. Not saying he loses to any of them but it has to be a black mark that we cannot say categorically that he cleaned out his division and why some may think his resume rather slim. I'm not rating Joe one way or the other, here. I'm just backing up @Omega74 in what he says which I thought was fair enough, or certainly close to fair enough not to be considered an 'astonishingly bad post'.
Well it seems like many people on this forum think Louis was some kind of superhero, but lets be honest and unbiased here. His resume is Definitely not Top 5 worthy. Maybe top 10, but as I said, thats debatable. Its the lack of Quality opposition in his top 5 best wins, that makes me rate his resume lower than other ATG heavys. Im as interest as you are in, why this claim is "astonishingly bad"
What is wrong with his forum recently? Louis not having top 10 resume? Bowe with better resume than Louis? What's next? I seriously consider stopping posting here at this point...
