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

Little bit different when you're a past prime fighter with a career divided by four years of inactivity and facing a peak contender, as opposed to being a world champion at your pinnacle best against a declining veteran, and one with fare less physicality than the previously mentioned foe...

 

A fair post.

 

Really? I think the first fight was.

 

This one has been talked about at great length.

The conclusion seemed to be that Walcott probably took it on ballence, but that a strong argument could still be made for Louis under the conventions of the day.

 

Common.. Braddock was 32 years of age, off for two years, had arthritis, was a relatively light hitter and had 25 career losses.. Not only did Louis get decked, but it took him 8 rounds of pounding the **** out of him to take the belt.. Now, if a 20 year old Tyson had been decked by Trevor Berbick in his first title fight, would you have ignored it, despite the fact that Berbick was an ACTIVE fighting champion, had just beaten the #1 guy in the world, was in better shape than Braddock, and lost in only two rounds with no trouble?

Find me some dirt on Louis during the time of those fights, then we'll talk... Tyson's problems were widely known even BEFORE his loss to Douglas.

Was not aware of that, and it should be taken into consideraton... But bare in mind that Tyson wasn't exactly defending his title against men like Abe simon or Jack Roper either.

That's going to the extreme... Tyson never lost to a fighter of Tye field's calibur, and men like James Douglas, Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis were far beyond the abilities of most of the men Louis ever fought, let alone beat.

Well I'd make more concessions for him losing to a 28 year old active contender who stood 6'4", 230 lbs and had everything to gain from the fight than a 6'0" tall, 190 lbs, ex champion who hadn't fought in a year, had lost 4 of his last 8 fights, was a former light heavyweight, and a citizen of nazi Germany fighting in New York of all places during a time when it wasn't exactly the best way to win the love of the home crowd...

A " barometer" that doesn't factor into the equation the styles they fought, the tendency to age differently, inactivity, and facing much bigger men... If you want to seriously include his KO losses to Lennox Lewis, Kevin McBride and Danny Williams when he was a shell of the man who terrorized the division 15 years earlier, then that's your perrogative... Frankly, I don't see Tyson Losing to Max Schmeling at 23 years of age ( same age as Louis when he got lambasted by him. ) Nor do I see a prime Tyson struggling to take the title from Braddock or getting decked by one of the worst physical specimens in heavyweight history in Tony Galento.. I DO however see Louis losing to Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Kevin McBride and Danny Williams at a comparable stage of deterioration - A stage that he arguably never even reached because his career was over before he had fallen that far..

When did Louis go a full 4 years without a single fight, let alone a period spent in prison? He was never gone that long without a single fight.. Plus he was in the military, staying fit and sparring in exhibitions as opposed to being in a jail cell.

Heres the difference.. Tyson spent his ENTIRE career fighting men who were bigger, with few to almost none who were inferior in size... Louis sometimes fought men who by modern standards would not even qualify as heavyweights and even got lambasted by one of them.. furthermore, men like Buddy Baer who was TKO'd by Eddie Blunt - a fighter who was dwarfed by him and had a 30% KO ratio, was not of the same breed of big men who Tyson often fought.

How many did Louis? and how well did these guys do at that stage?

That Former " light heavy weight" was 6'3", 212 lbs, undefeated 31-0, had never been floored, was holding the lineal title, was one of the very best light heavys of all time and LOST in 91 seconds.. Louis fought numerous light heavy weights and there are three in particular that come to mind.. The first nearly killed him.. The second was holding the heavyweight title and had him on the canvas in round one.... and the last was outboxing him for the bulk of the fight before finally falling... None of these men had Spink's size or credentials.

How were they superior and how were my criticisms misleading? were they not correct? Or are we simply basing their " quailty" on what they did in their OWN time and without considering the drastically effecting factors that would raise the bar in years to come?


In conclusion - Louis will always rate higher on my list from a legacy standpoint. But using the legacy badge, established in an era spanning nearly 50 years earlier, and under dramatically different circumstances to justify a head to head win, is something that has never sat well with me... Particularly when it comes to matching Tyson and Louis..

 

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

 

I think LOUIS Has the edge against all of them, Ali and Marciano would have been troublesome fights because of styles but that works both ways, Louis had a tremendous Left hook and followed up with a 6 piece combo, I favor him over Ali

Marciano because of his pressure and power would be trouble but a younger version of Louis was faster and that speed helped his power...the fight in there primes may have been a faster pace but Louis would be better equipped offensively, I favor Louis but not as sure thing

As far as Louis hitting the deck, he did go down but he was also dropped by sharp-shooters like Walcott or other men that could hit but Joe always got up, Tyson went down but never got up to win, big difference in those 2 scenario's

 

I'm disappointed. I was hoping you'd get upset and turn this thread into another comedy fest.

 

...i read only the starting thread....skipped all the following posts because too much wordage for the correct answer.....those agreeing with rick are wrong and those disagreeing are right. this is really an obvious one.

 

As far as his accomplishments, there's no denying it and i rate him as the second greatest heavyweight ever. That said, head to head (fighting against each other) hes most certainly overrated. I see most people picking him beat a prime Foreman, and that is ridiculous IMO. I even see a few people picking him to beat Ali as well. He was great but come on. He gets the Frazier treatment against a young George and Ali (especially the one that fought Liston)??? Its pretty obvious as to what would happen. I think fights between him and Frazier, Evander ect would be good even fights.

 

Welcome back, Magoo! :good