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

Don't think those are two very good examples. Louis first victory over Walcott is generally accepted to have been a robbery, and Schmeling comprehensivily beat Louis in their first meeting.

So if Louis meetings with these men are his greatest claim to greatness I would agree that he's overrated. He did beat a shitload of others though, but probably no really great ones.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong, i think Louis was in his prime for the first Schmeling fight. Not at the peak of his powers, but it's not like he was oblivious to the boxing game. Like you put it, i think the Baer fight is a fine argument that Louis was in his prime for Schmeling I. Just that he went on to improve even further after that.

 

I agree 100%

 

Foreman Frazier and Liston are top 10 or near top 10 HWS.

the only guy from the Louis opponents that Bummy provided who is a legit top 10 ATG HW is Marciano.

The era that Louis dominated was overall a pretty dismal era i give Louis credit for dominating it so long .but not for the class of men that he fought.

 

That's not written in stone. YOU might have them in your top 10, but that's just an opinion.

Well, again, that's down to personal opinion.
Walcott and Schmeling, and even Baer, have appeared in top 10 lists.

Which eras do you rate highly for heavyweights ?

 

Actually, the panel of historians/experts assembled by the AP in 2000 to pick the top ten heavyweights of the 20th century rated Walcott #10 and did not rate Foreman.

 

Thanks for the info.

Perhaps it's only here on ESB classic where such a ranking is seen as blasphemy.

Or perhaps the AP panel were the same old guys who haven't changed their rankings much since 1980, and ESB might be more representative of the next generation.

Either way, it backs up my point against the "Foreman, Frazier and Liston were all top 10 all time HWs, no one Louis beat was top 10 all time HW" stuff that people here are spouting as if it's gospel.

 

You can make cases for Frazier Foreman and Liston for a top ten ranking based on ability and skill and achievements.

there is no logical case to be made for Schmelling Walcott or Baer for a top 10 ranking based on records abilities and achievements.

Fighters are ranked on ability records achievements and longlivety Schmelling Walcott and Baer fail on most points.

The 70s and the 90s where overall the best eras.

the 80s was the best era in regards to pure talent but loses points because of being the Coke era and overall lazyness of contenders.

 

Actually, the AP panel rated both Sonny Liston and Joe Frazier above Jersey Joe Walcott, so I guess it supports both sides of the debate.

But panel is just a few nore guys with a few more opinions. And that's exactly my point. Ratings are just opinions.

 

A man with 16 losses is top 10 material ?.

 

But Walcott and Schmeling probably beat more of the genuine contenders of their era than George Foreman did. Foreman has a padded record.
Foreman's superior "skill" is not apparent to me, he looked amateurish against Ali.

Liston punked out in two fights with Ali. Liston was pathetic quitting like that against Ali. That could be used as a legitimate reason to place him down the rankings.

 

opinions have to be backed up with facts.

The facts dont support a top 10 ranking for Wallcot.

 

I think the 80s was probably better than the 90s, to be honest.

The 60s, and the EARLY 70s was a pretty good era.

From the mid-70s through to around '82 was rather bad really. Ali fighting wrestlers and ****, Chuck Wepner, Ali-Young YUK !
Zaire and Manila were good fights, but the rest of it after that was really awful.

 

That's just another opinion.

 

Not to mention that Frazier beat him thoroughly when both were closest their best.