Joe Louis: can we be honest with ourselves?

I rate Louis number one, but can see how people rate Ali the best. Both must be right up there, though. I don't see how you can rate them lower than top 5 at worst.

 

Louis actually looks like what people claim Dempsey would look like. He is fluid, he is explosive, he is fast, he is patient, he punishes a single mistake, he invariably timed everyone who was faster than him.

Yes he was countered to death against Schmelling, but he never again left himself so open, even Walcott who was able to time him could not win more than 8 rounds on any one score card presented and only won 5 consensus rounds that everyone agreed upon (which I why talk of a robbery is mental).

Even on his comeback he was out classed only by a peak Charles.

Watch the way he dismantles Primo Carnera. It isn't hard imagining him dismantling someone a bit quicker and a bit smarter.

Louis is impeccable on footage.

 

I have often wondered why his critics don’t make more of the first Godoy fight.

They tend to go after him using fights that are not that damaging in context, because the person he was fighting was genuinely good, and probably got their head caved in anyway.

Godoy was genuinely nothing special, and he took Louis to the brink of disaster.

Wouldn’t that be a better line of attack than trying to build the Conn and Galento fights into something they weren’t?

 

There is no doubt Louis was a great one, but I don't find him as great as others do when matched vs the best he fought.

Re-posted:



Joe Louis' scorecards vs the best boxers he fought.


Some believe Louis, who in my opinion and many others fought in a down era of boxing was a near perfect boxer. I'm not one of those who thinks that way because I have seen his films vs. men who in many cases were giving up height, and reach to him. Yet they had no issues landing on him. With the superior firepower power in all cases, if Louis was this master boxer type ( Offense and defense ) he should have dominated on the scorecards. Yet he was often floored or behind.

Let's add up the rounds were given to Louis vs the best four boxers he fought. To use a qualifier, I'll average out score cards given, and not penalize Louis for knockdowns in the round because back then there were no 10-8 rounds. In the case of Schmeling vs. Louis 1, I could not find score cards so let's say I'll be very generous and give Louis 4 rounds of the 12.

The best four boxers Louis fought in my opinion were:

Schmeling
Walcott
Conn
Charles


1. Schmeling-Louis and Schmeling fought a combined 13 rounds. Louis won but 5 of 13 rounds, and I'm being generous to Louis. Schmeling was thought to be passed his best for the first fight, meanwhile, Louis was coming off his best career filmed performance vs Max. Baer

2. Walcott vs Louis. Both men were the same age in both fights. 26 rounds fought, and an average of 12 of them went to Louis. The first fight was rather controversial and the second one, in my opinion, had Walcott well out in the lead. But I'm using the judges official cards since we have them.

3. Conn vs Louis. 21 rounds were fought. Conn looked terrible in the rematch and retired the same year, but hey that's part of it as Schmeling was thought to be passed his best in the first Louis fight. The score cards awarded 10 of 21 rounds to Louis on average

4. Charles. This time, it was Louis on the decline. 15 rounds were fought Charles stood right in front of Louis, who was on big time winning streak and still had his jab and power and whipped Louis badly. Louis won three rounds on average and, to be honest, that seems a little high.

Summary. Louis won just 30 of 75 rounds fought. This is just 40% of the rounds fought.

The surviving film, combined with a thunderous boo of the crowd at the ending of the fight supports the above.


The second fight was, even more, lopsided in terms of boxing / rounds scored.

I think Louis had the corner advantage. Was he not sharp or injured coming into either match?

A better explanation I think Louis had trouble with technical boxers with speed, and Walcott is but one of the four best that Louis fought where he struggled. The theory of mine is likely correct.

 

I agree. Louis, however, wasn't likely to lose a decision with Donovan as the ref and judge in MSG.

Godoy was a notch or two below the best Louis fought and highlights a stylistic weakness of Louis, who when he lose to Marciano said he couldn't beat him because Louis didn't like to be crowded. Godoy sometimes fought up close, and pushed Louis around the ring.

 

I can't believe he's reposted one of the worst arguments he ever made on this site!

 

You can knit pick EVERY hwt champion in a similar fashion. Look at the trouble Ali had with so many of his opponents yet he is pretty much universally considered the best ever (and rightfully so).

ATG attributes can be found within only a small percentage of fighters through the years. Louis was one of these fighters. He revolutionized boxing with skills to this day that are unmatched. How certain writers or judges scored specific bouts is inconsequential.

 

And what directly refutes what I initially said? Facts only apply, not fanboy shoot the messenger types.

 

Who did not directly say what I wrote was not true! But films, facts, and compiled data don't seem to matter when you're being observant on someone else's icon.

Do you think Louis competition in the 1930's was good, Mcgrain?

 

To tarnish the reputation of the prime Joe Louis because he lost many rounds to many of his opponents is rubbish. Louis was always a patient man in the ring and
what ONLY counts is the final results which almost always culminated in his
opponent visiting dream land....To his detractors on this site, give me any of your favorite heavyweights, and I will nit pick the close decisions they had, the many times the "rope-a-dope ' was used because of the inability to punch hard enough to ward off your opponents offense, and you will not be so ready to
criticize the greatest combination puncher who ever lived...And one other thing
Arturo Godoy was as tough a heavyweight as George Chuvalo to hurt, rugged as hell and the crouch he used to avoid being kod by Louis in their first fight
made hima tough target to nail properly. But Joe took care of him in the second fight with devastating uppercuts. Yes Sir !

 

Wut??? This is just plain false. The term bum of the month, IN NOW WAY solely reference to how frequently Joe fought. The idea that the term Bum was just some non descript adjective thrown in there for ****s and giggles and didn't actually mean bums is ludicrous. Simply ludicrous. There are too many articles questioning how good some of these guys were, and to try and rewrite history to, oh yeah... that just mean he fought frequently is being disingenuous

 

All of the titles in boxing were frozen during World War II because the "world" was at war.

The question is why were healthy, professional athletes like Thompson, Baksi, etc., not in the military?

Slackers.