Joe Louis h2h against other all time greats.....

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Ravishing Rick, Sep 20, 2011.


Page 10 of 12
  1. mhubbard

    mhubbard New Member Full Member

    90
    0
    May 3, 2010
    Watching fights with my uncle in his basement in New York. Four is my earliest recollection of watching fights. I must have about 500 or so including oldies on video tape and DVD.
     
    mhubbard, Sep 21, 2011
    mhubbard, Sep 21, 2011
    #136
  2. mhubbard

    mhubbard New Member Full Member

    90
    0
    May 3, 2010
    Ignor me all you want but I didn't like the quality of Joe Louis's opposition. Yeah Max Baer, Schmeling and others were ok but not like the quality of opposition that someone like Ali fought that's for sure. I am not discrediting them I just didn't see them as tough.
     
    mhubbard, Sep 21, 2011
    mhubbard, Sep 21, 2011
    #137
  3. mhubbard

    mhubbard New Member Full Member

    90
    0
    May 3, 2010
    Primo Carnera had no boxing technique, Baer had a good right hand and was tough, Schmeling was good, Jack Sharkey was ok, the rest of those guys were bums.

    Tyson was good with Rooney. After he dumped Rooney and started switching trainers, he was done. I will give you this though Louis had a bigger heart than Tyson and was a better finisher and fought somewhat bigger opposition.
     
    mhubbard, Sep 21, 2011
    mhubbard, Sep 21, 2011
    #138
  4. burt bienstock

    burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,285
    400
    Jan 22, 2010
    mh,I don't mean to pile on,but you find the great Joe Louis inferior to most any modern heavyweight including Mike Tyson, yet you state "Louis had a bigger heart than Tyson and was a better finisher,and fought somewhat bigger opposition than Tyson ", so was it looks that made Tyson a better fighter ? A little reflection will get you on the right track mh...
     
    burt bienstock, Sep 21, 2011
    burt bienstock, Sep 21, 2011
    #139
  5. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    You really aren´t knowing what you are talking about. You may have seen many fights but you obviously didn´t know what you were looking at.
     
    bodhi, Sep 22, 2011
    bodhi, Sep 22, 2011
    #140
  6. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,236
    Feb 15, 2006
    O.K

    If Joe Louis was fighting bums or tomatoe cans, then that would automaticaly imply that there was a teir of better fighters around, who were the contenders of the era.

    Can you tell me who these fighters were and why they were better than the people Louis was fighting?

    If not then your statment looks prety silly.
     
    janitor, Sep 22, 2011
    janitor, Sep 22, 2011
    #141
  7. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    51,115
    25,279
    Jan 3, 2007
    His hand problems got no better by the time he fought Louis. So if you're going to use them as a reason for why he DIDN'T KO as many men as he supposedly should have, then you can't justify Louis's knockdown as being to a hard puncher.


    I am.. I acknowledge that Braddock made the very best of what precious little he had to offer and in the only era that he could have.











    I don't use them to sum up his career.. Only to point out a recurring weakness through out his career that another great champion could have better taken advantage of than the men who caused him problems.


    Size isn't everything, but it shouldn't be ignored.. If it meant nothing then heavyweights would still be weighing in at a 179 lbs, and the cruiserwegith division would never have come into existance.. You also seem to think that the ONLY thing modern heavyweights have over ones of over a half century ago is size, which isn't the case..

    Holyfield is another fighter that I'd pick to beat Louis so you're free to do with that comparison as you wish.


    Works fine for me.. Louis a pro for exactly two years when he lost to Schmeling... Tyson at exactly two years into his career was 29-0, had unified two thirds of the crown and was already seen by some as fairly invincible.... I'd pick him to beat BOTH Schmeling and Louis at that stage.

    perhaps

    The difference for me is that Tyson regularly fought men who would have been considered big back in Louis's time whereas Louis only did it a few times.. Tyson only faced a man who was inferior to his own size maybe a small handful of times in his career.. Hell, the average guy he fought was around 6'3", 225 lbs, and by no means close to the largest he fought.


    I don't.. By all standards and for all practical purposes, Baer should have had a man like Barlund for breakfast at that stage, but didn't..
    I think quite simply he wasn't that good.


    His power was never in question.. But his skill was very amateurish even 50 bouts behind him.


    I don't see much in common between Spinks, Conn or Schmeling. Spinks, with or without any special bulking up techniques developed into a decent sized heavyweight, something that neither conn nor Schmeling did.... He also managed to maintain an ubeaten streak and avoided going down until the night he met Tyson..
     
    mr. magoo, Sep 23, 2011
    mr. magoo, Sep 23, 2011
    #142
  8. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,236
    Feb 15, 2006
     
    janitor, Sep 23, 2011
    janitor, Sep 23, 2011
    #143
  9. piscator

    piscator Member Full Member

    298
    1
    Oct 5, 2010
    Yes it was.
     
    piscator, Sep 23, 2011
    piscator, Sep 23, 2011
    #144
  10. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Evidence? McGrain discussed that already in plenty of threads and brought his arguments to the table, what are yours?
     
    bodhi, Sep 24, 2011
    bodhi, Sep 24, 2011
    #145
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    In fairness, there are plenty of newspaper reports out there that indicate that Walcott won. I don't think they are unreasonable either. But what I have been trying to say is that this isn't the whole story.

    First of all, the footage, which I need to come back to in a moment. It is inconclusive. The minutes we have are close, close. I think that the KD's give an unfortunate overview; I think people get carried away with them. It is important to remember that they didn't herald an extra point in this fight - a knockdown at this time usually just meant winning the round.

    Second, the reports. It's estimated that 2/3 reporters scored for Walcott. That's fine. But it sort of shunts the 1/3 - not a small ratio - who did not score for Walcott out of the limelight. What about them? What did they see? Was their scoring preposterous, or reasonable. If it was reasonable, then the cries of robbery have to stop. Most of the people who scored the fight for Louis did so because he landed more punches. Think about that. Louis was regarded as the puncher (effective shots), was the pressure fighter (making the fight) and according to many landed more blows (scoring punches). What does that add up to?

    Amongst those scoring for Louis were The New York Times and Ring. Let's not do a Mendoza and over-egg it just because it agrees with my position, but the NYT is probably the most oft quoted paper form the era. It said:

    "[Louis] was battered, bruised and bleeding. He was out-manuevered, at times out-boxed, at times mad to look foolish...[however, Louis] made all the fighting, did most of the leading, and, the two knockdowns not withstanding, landed the greater number of blows."

    This is basically how i've always thought of the fight. Louis was made to look dumb by the ultimate HW slickster but in the chaos landed a significant number of punches. Two things. 1) it is perfectly reasonable to score for Walcott in these circumstances, 2) anybody not scoring the fight but taking away a general impression is always going to feel Jersey Joe was robbed.

    In Ring, Fleisher admitted they were in the minority...but scored it for Louis.

    So the largest circulating newspaper and the only dedicated boxing publications scored it for Louis. Enough people scored it for Louis that there is doubt in my opinion. It was nothing like the ratio that scored the fight in Schmeling's favour in his loss to Sharkey (Something like 30-1). That's a confirmed robbery.

    So we have to return to the footage - existing footage of Walcott-Louis I does not support the robbery theory.

    There isn't enough out there to re-write the book on this one. It was thin, possibly harsh for the challenger, and settled in the rematch.
     
    McGrain, Sep 24, 2011
    McGrain, Sep 24, 2011
    #146
  12. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,236
    Feb 15, 2006
    And unless a full film of the fight emerges, this is going to remain the last word on the matter.
     
    janitor, Sep 24, 2011
    janitor, Sep 24, 2011
    #147
  13. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,354
    Jun 29, 2007


    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected
     
    Mendoza, Sep 24, 2011
    Mendoza, Sep 24, 2011
    #148
  14. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,366
    21,814
    Sep 15, 2009
    you say bums, they were the top ranked contenders of his era. ,louis consistently and brutally battered reams of top 10 opposition.

    as i said, if you class tyson as champ since berbick (I do) then his pre title resume is lightyears behind that of louis's.

    you're literally chatting ****. go to the general.
     
    lufcrazy, Sep 24, 2011
    lufcrazy, Sep 24, 2011
    #149
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    As usual Mendoza you set out to undermine sources that don't support your position whilst shoring up those that do - all the while hinting at corruption in the Louis camp with zero evidence.

    Meanwhile, we're treated to a take on the fight every bit as "unique" as your past posts on fights like Louis-Baer, Johnson-Jeffries, Johnson-Johnson, Johnson-O'Brien.

    Not that what you say about the fight is necessarily all the bad, it's a position after all...it's just that, how could you say anything else? You are literally incapable of taking a position other than the one you just took because of your inherent biases. If nothing else I applaud your consistency. I have never seen you take a position that undermined your own agenda.

    Unfortunately this is why, as a poster, you are not worth talking to.
     
    McGrain, Sep 24, 2011
    McGrain, Sep 24, 2011
    #150
Page 10 of 12