Joe Louis in trilogies with Peter Jacksn, Sam McVey, Sam Langford & Harry Wills

This is a bit of a dream thread for me.

Peter Jackson
Verry hard to judge. Jackson, relative to the rules of his era was about as complet a fighting machine as you could get. He also had the strength to counter Louis's main weakness. He could make split second adjustments of tactics during a fight. If the fights happen in Jacksons back yard or on neutral teritory I think he would get past Louis at least once.

Sam Langford
If they fight three times then I think that Langford would get past Louis once. Langford had everything as a fighter including those things that would trouble Louis eg, fast mind, mobility, infighting skills, ability to land a punch from nowhere. Langford in some ways was an even better finisher than Louis. He killed people with one shot where Louis would need a combination.

Harry Wills
This is one where I think Louis takes all three. Wills, might have been the greatest heavyweight of the three but he was tailor made for Louis. Anybody who tries to fight Louis at mid range is going to loose. Probably badly.

 

I think Langford may be able to pull one out but it would not be easy. Joe Louis was complete, he had a strong Jab a great hook as well as a great right and could uppercut with either hand (this would be effective vs Langford) I think Louis would chop down Wills and Jackson would not be able to deal with his power but they would not be blow outs. I think Wills is made to order for Joe

 

I think i give Jackson the best chance of the three. Jackson was probably physically as strong and hard hitting as Louis. I also get the feeling that he would fight Louis at distance and in a style that was almost a cross of Max Schmelling and Billy Conn. Id favour Louis, but a Jackson win would not surprise me. AS good as Langford was, i think Louis causes tremendous problems for him and i cant see Sam winning a fight, despite probably putting up some game efforts. Harry Wills would be at quite long odds against Louis. I cant see him beating louis at all, and i think Louis would knock him out.

 

On styles Jackson and Langford could beat Louis.

Jackson's skill and speed could duplicate the efforts of Schmeling, Pastor, Conn, Walcott or Farr. Louis could take Jackson out, and he might need to win.

Some old timers though Langford would beat Louis. Louis did not like to be smothered, and Langford was an attack dog in the ring, with an iron chin, two-fisted power, and the stamina to fight all night long.

Wills to me would be in big trouble vs Louis. He was slower, not extremely durable, and not a great boxer. Louis did very well vs bigger / easy to hit targets who did not jab well. Wills only chance seems to be landing an early bomb. It is interesting to note that Wills was a critic of Louis and said he was easy to hit, doesn’t know how to feint, etc….

I think Louis goes 1-2 or 2-1 here. I think Langford is his toughest matchup.

 

There is so much ludicrous supposition and assumption in this thread it boggles the mind and really stretches the bounds of legitimate intellectual debate.

Peter Jackson could do what precisely? Based on some old wag who never lived to see modern boxing? How can you make such fine lines of argument over a guy who- not to his fault- was never properly documented as a fighter. And I do not want to hear tales of foes or wags who never lived to see what boxing became. They are inherently biased and uninformed to make the comparison.

Carry on.

 

90% supposition and 10% skewed evidence does not the basis for a good intellectual argument make, especially when you are comparing to an entity that can present much more evidence in regards to film, the opinions of trainers and fighters who lived to see, or were protean in, the development of the sport to its modern ascendency.

 

Do you accept that Peter Jackson existed and if so what evidence do you have to back it up?