Joe Louis is still the greatest combination puncher in heavyweight boxing history

I had to put someone on ignore because he wanted to have the last word and when I say the conversation has reached an impasse and there’s no point to continuing it, I don’t permit someone to have the last word. I try not to be an arsehole when I post here, but I don’t have the time or the inclination to keep going around in circles when we’re at an impasse.

 

Amazon? Haha (Shrooms™)

Imagine the reviews.

 

So, are you suggesting that AJ would lose his Millennial Mandible once he arrived in the '30s?

I'm going to hazard a guess here and suggest that glass in the 1930s shattered in the same way glass does today.

 

i
If you truly think he's that skilled , it's more about your lack of knowledge than his skill level.

 

I voted Yes.

 

Don't agree with that myself, especially when considering the very rich history of great combo punchers the last century.
From flyweight to Lt.heavy ?
Doubtful, but he'd be in the top 20-30...
Best at heavyweight

 

Seems like I have more knowledge then you considering you didn't even know Usyk uses head movement lol
But sure show your knowledge, outside of Louis or Holmes who are on the same level, name a more skilled HW I'll wait

 

How many would you like me to name? There's many.
And some never won a championship...

 

Name any besides the one I listed that are actual HWs and what they do that makes them more skilled then Usyk

 

Ya cause hes way smaller than modern day heavyweights

Smaller figthers are generally better combination punchers

 

It's debatable but there's noway i myself would have many in front of him let alone 20-30. One has to take into account P4P too, to be fair. There's barely ever been any great combination punchers at heavyweight. Louis engulfs them. Ring mag did name him the #1 greatest puncher of all time in their top 100. Greatest encompassed lots on intangibles, power, precision, combo's etc.

 

Yes, he would be facing inferior boxers who could not reach that mandible. He is just a good enough boxer, and certainly a far better athlete, to pull it off.

 

I understand your point, and generally agree, But my reasons are competition.
It's far easier and spectacular looking to land beautiful combinations against a Sharkey, Schmeling, Galento, Baer or even Conn.
Than Sanchez over Gomez,
Duran over Leonard,
Leonard over Benitez or Hearns
Whitaker over Chavez and Ramirez
Benitez over Hope , Cervantes, , or Leonard( Losing effort)
Nelson over Fenech
Robinson over Turpin
And I can go on for literally 100's of fighters fighting better competition pound for pound than anyone Louis faced .
Arguably, Ali landed better combinations against much better competition than Louis did.
It's far easier to land highlight reel combinations against Louis's competition, than a rampaging Frazier, ( 1st fight)
The paint Job Ali put on Liston, right after being blinded in their 1st fight.
14 th round in Manila, after a brutal war of attrition, Ali put on an exhibition of will power and combo punching, against a man who would've rather died than lose to him.
Arguably when factoring in the competition level, Ali can be placed right up there with Louis.
Though, personally, Louis is my 1st choice at heavyweight for offensive skillset.
But would that skill set look as awesome if instead of Galento's sweeping left hooks, that were generally telegraphed,
What it was Joe Frazier in 1971?

 

It's looking like you don't have a high opinion at all, of Joe Louis and his opposition. You're not alone, but I've never jumped on that bandwagon. Ramirez wasn't hard to paint, Camacho painted him all night. When talking quality of opposition Hope is hardly a name to throw forward either. Turpin's middle of the road as well in the big scheme of things. Louis fought better fighters than all those guys.

We'll have to agree to disagree old mate.