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

There was not really an oponent on the level of Baer around to bring out the best in him but the Louis of the Buddy Baer and Abe Simon fights was certainly a more polished article. On film his punches are shorter and he aplies more pressure.

The question you have to ask is what performences dose Louis have pre 1938 that compare to Schmeling II, John Henry Lewis or Buddy Baer II as a measured destruction?

 

What does serving in the army have to do with how good of a boxer you are?

 

I agree. Louis of '42 was much better than that of '35. He wa bigger, and his punches were shorter and he tightened up his defense better.:good

 

Joe Louis fought all challengers, sizes,shapes,colors, he defended his title the most times and was in the war effort for a few years, he beat many former Champs and Champ to be Walcott. If anyone deserves to be the #1 heavyweight it is him, even Ali lost to Frazier and Norton and had close fights to them as well as Young, I dont think Louis would have had any problems with Norton,Frazier or Young

 

Ali wouldn't have any problems with Max Schmeling or Tony Galento either, but I'm not going to use just that to justify his being number 1.

 

Joe Louis would take Foreman out like he did Max Baer.

 

It definetely wouldn't be that easy.

 

Nobody saw any chance fo Walcott against Louis, either.

This isn't math. It isn't about the sheer number of title defenses or the noble act of "taking on all comers." Quality of opposition is firmly in Ali's favor here. That counts for a lot. I applaud Louis as a great champion, and he DID take on everyone there was to take on. It's not his fault his quality of opposition doesn't stack up to Ali's, but there we are.

 

Muhammad Ali's legacy is unsurpassed in the heavyweight division. He is unquestionable, for me at least, the greatest there has ever been. Nobody else actually comes close.

 

Baer,Braddock,Schmeling,Carnera,Conn,Walcott,Baer,Farr,Godoy,Marciano,Charles

Foreman,Frazier,Norton,Liston,Bugner,Lyle,Young,Foster, Chuvalo,Quarry

I dont know Frazier was the toughest, Foreman was the strongest of Ali's bunch but both were beatable, I would not say Ali's bunch was better, in fact I think Louis guys would beat all of Ali's with only Frazier and Foreman and Liston beating some and not all

 

Louis' offence may have been already as good as it had ever been against Baer, but what about his other fighting qualities?

Bear had as good as no defence or footwork; Louis couldn't miss him with any of his punches. Just watch the fight for that. It was more like a heavy bag session and a test for his chin. Schmeling was a completely different fighter who used outstanding footwork, timing, counterpunching and technical ability. Baer was bigger, stronger, more powerful and more durable but those assets don't mean much if you're fighting Louis and that's all you have.

Louis grew a bit bigger and more important, he was more experienced in the early 40's. He learnt to deal with a swarmer (Godoy), a runner (Conn), a skilled counter puncher (Schmeling), etc.

 

Yes, Louis did become a more complete fighter 1938-42, and in some of those fights he did put it all together to produce performances that were technically superior to what he needed to shine against Max Baer.

Thanks Janitor, Chris P, and others for pointing out which fights demonstrate this.

Still, I think it's a stretch to "excuse" his loss to Schmeling by way of saying he was "green" or "not prime yet" since he was already a more complete fighter than almost every other fighter, and had already earned the right to be considered the world's top fighter. This wasn't like losing a fight on the way up, Louis was number 1 contender and had a better record than the champ Jimmy Braddock, who was considered inferior.

 

The 30 and 40s that Louis dominated was a pretty dismal era of HWS.

 

Based on WHAT do you believe that Louis guys whould beat Ali's guys .

I think that you are overstating the capabilities of Louis opponents to strengthen your case that Louis was Number 1.

Louis was champ for a long time and dominated his era but let us not make the men he fought into something that they were not.

 

Actually, it works the other way round too.

Saying (Ali opponent) was better than everyone Louis fought, or that he beats them all, is based on WHAT ?