Joe Louis Never Proved That He Deserves The Number One Slot ATG Heavyweights

far past his best but still crsuhed patterson twice.

 

I agree. Sorry for misunderstanding the direction of your post.

Yeah, rating fighters fairly is a harder task than we all give it credit for being. I don't even know where I rate fighters anymore. Frankly, I think Joe Louis deserves to be regarded as one of the very best though. Of course that statement is much like saying water is wet. Louis's greatness should be very obvious to any boxing fan, no matter what level of fantatic you're at. But now I'm stating my opinion again.

 

Yeah, Norton is possibly one of the most overrated heavyweights ever.. It seems like people just toss him in there to be able to make Ali sound better..

 

I assume that was sarcastic? That is pretty much my argument, though: he came off his two best wins and destroyed Patterson twice. Don't see how that is so much past it. Peak? No. Prime? Yes.

 

I've always put Ali ahead of Louis for the #1 slot, but I consider it completely reasonable to have either man ahead.

Personally, I do have Jersey Joe Walcott, who Louis knocked out in their rematch, in my #14 all-time slot, and perhaps the majority of fans would agree with me in placing him at the end of the top 15. I only have two of Ali's beaten opponents in the top 10 (Foreman and Frazier), with one in the top 15 (Liston) and two making the top 25 (Norton, Quarry). For Louis, I have Walcott (top 15), Schmeling (top 20), Sharkey and Baer (top 25). Hence, Ali has the edge in this department, but I don't view it as an insurmountable gap.

 

Louis won the most important fight in boxing history; that by default made him top 10 all-time Heavyweight, before you even add up what else he achieved.

 

I have Ali rated ahead of Louis. Ali beat much better fighters, but above and beyond that, Ali had the better chin by a good margin. The puncher chance is more of a factor vs Louis and it’s magnified by slower feet and a low guard.

We know Ali could beat Shavers and Foreman because he took their shots. Louis could beat them as well, but I think he could also lose via TKO. This is a difference.

I also tend to think that Ali was better vs Boxers, and slightly better vs swarmers.

Louis of course was the KO artist with speed, power and technique in both mitts, but there's a lot more than punching that goes into ranking ATG's.

My $.02

 

I think 70s Foreman has become overrated.

Sure, if you add up what Foreman did in the 70s with his epic comeback in the 80s/90s then it's fair to call him one of the greats.

How many good boxers did Foreman beat in the 70s ?

Frazier plodded straight in and got clobbered, he probably would have lost to other big punchers with that strategy, in that condition. Some of you guys here reckon Frazier AT HIS BEST loses to big strong punchers, yet Foreman's whole reputation is built on this.

Norton, according to his own trainer, couldn't cope with big punchers.

These are good wins for Foreman.

Norton and Frazier are very good wins for Foreman, and outside of that he's got little else in the 70s. He's a big ox with a monster punch, but I dont see him beating lots of good boxers or even semi-skillful punchers. Ron Lyle had him in all sorts of trouble, and Foreman had to hit Lyle hundreds of times to finish him off.
Jimmy Young beat Foreman. Ali knocked Foreman out.

I respect Foreman for his monstrous strength and power and mostly for his MENTAL STRENGTH in his comeback, but he openly admits to avoiding good boxers his entire career. He played the "monster" role and was pitted against cannon fodder, tomato cans, most of the time.

If Ali had gotten the Frazier rematch in 1972 and won, Foreman would never have been champion.
I dont want to devalue his win over Frazier too much, it's a great win, but Frazier was not at all sophisticated in his approach and was made-to-measure for Foreman.

Any decent heavyweight champion would spear Foreman with straight punches, left jabs and straight rights, and duck or smother his wild swings. He's too unpolished, and he's open. And after 6 or 7 rounds George is useless.

That's the way I see it.
The only way I would rate Foreman above Walcott is because Foreman has the amazing comeback - that's the only thing that really justifies him being put in the top bracket. Walcott beat more contenders, more good boxers.

Frankly, head-to-head, I see Walcott making a fool out of him with right hand counters - like Lyle should have done - and boxing skills.

 

You could be right.

Walcott was without question the better pure boxer in the purest sense. He possessed a subtle relaxed style, feinted with his body, created innovative angles and was a superb conterpuncher (one of the best ever). That said I would have concerns my if Foreman were to catch him clean very early on. My manin concern regarding Walcotts chances are that his achillies heel is that is chin (whilst hardly china) is hardly top notch either, Foreman is a monstorous puncher and once he hard you hurt and reeling he more often than not overwhelmed you.

Hard matchup to call: Walcott has what it takes to win a decision, but a Foreman TKO win wouldn't raise any eyebrows from me either. I'll ever so slightly slightly lean towards a Walcott UD.

 

I agree.

 

I too think Foreman is a bit over rated.

 

I am actually awed by '70s Foreman. If you attempt to spear him, you're most likely within his punching range and he's going to hit you back and before long you'll end up on the canvas.

Norton was actually counterpunching him fairly well, to absolutely no avail.

Champion Foreman believed himself an unstoppable juggernaut, and he just kept coming coldly and methodically. He cut off the ring and closed the gap very well. He could jab with an aggressive jabber like Chuvalo and of course win a shoot-out. He was very scary.

If he had only two title defenses, it's because he ran into Ali.

I see him clobbering the quite stoppable Walcott like he did Norton. I agree with Frank Lotierzo in that you can't outbox Foreman. Even Ali couldn't escape him more than a couple of minutes in Round 1; if the steel-willed Ali had been any less durable, he would have been kayoed by Foreman, boxing skills and all.

 

Norton was tentative against Foreman. His own trainer reckoned he froze in front of punchers, and he wasn't a fluid counter-puncher or backpedalling man, that wasn't his style at all. Norton didn't commit to solid punches unless he was coming forward. You cannot compare him to Walcott.

Ali didn't really try outboxing Foreman, he came straight at him and speared him with a fast lead right, wobbled him in the opening round and then played tough man against the ropes for the rest of the fight.

Ron Lyle was doing okay when he boxed with Foreman. But he got dragged into a street brawl. Again, he showed Foreman was a SUCKER FOR RIGHT HAND COUNTERS AND RIGHT HAND LEADS.

Walcott's speciality was catching guys with right hand counters and right hand leads, punches that he could throw while backing up or dancing. He was a master of that punch.

Jimmy Young outboxed Foreman, and knocked him down.
Walcott would probably have outboxed him for a while and knocked him out.

Foreman avoided good boxers. And his flaws were exposed against the best boxers he fought.

 

It's interesting that you speak of a "puncher's chance" when Louis did not lose a single time to an opponent's puncher's chance.

In about 40 fights against top-opposition, no one was able to capatilise on a the available puncher's chance, despite that being magnified by slower feet and a low guard. So what chance are we talking about then? Less than 2,5% anyway.

Maybe you pronounced "Louis" and thought of "Lewis", hence the words "puncher's chance" coming up?

 

I think a punchers chance against Louis would be about as usefull as half of a pair of scisors.