"Joe Louis Not Great"

Sure. You can see who they fought and how they did. You can see the fighters condition, their technique and their weight(class).
Of course you can tell by weightclass alone that eras were non-homogeneous.

 

I think Louis was among the best, but can anyone say what the author wrote is not true? If the answer is no, then he has his points even if they are agenda points. Facts are facts.

I once took a look at the best boxers Louis fought and noted he didn't win the majority of the rounds. There's a thread on it for those who care to read it.

Short summary, The best boxers Louis fought were Schmeling Walcott, Conn and Charles. Most agree with this. Then the roof was raised, Louis won just 30 of 75 rounds fought on official score cards. This is just 40% of the rounds fought.

If greatness solely means legacy for boxing and successful title fights, Louis is #1 or #2! No arguments there.

But I also define on based on the quality of opposition beaten, losses taken and if the fighter struggles vs. lesser competition. Louis to me doesn't rate highly in this part of the equation.

Head to head, vs. history I don't see Louis as #1 or #2 either, and despite being an all-time puncher and finisher. He has flaws in his game that would cost him vs. better competition, mostly footwork, defense, and just an okay chin. If you combine this with lack of size, he would be as big of a giant in other times.

Historians who lived though Louis activity and died in the 1950-1960's, seeing 50+ years of boxing didn't rate Louis #1-3 for the most part. This makes one pause and ponder if the fighters before him were actually better. Usually Jeffries, Dempsey, and Johnson rate higher than Louis on lists from the 50's and 60's.

 

Pastor was an excellent boxer and very hard to look good against if he boxed backwards on his push bike like he did against Louis.
It was a testament to Joe's ring craft that he was able to track fleet footer Pastor down and knock him out. If Bob was around today , he'd be rated as highly as Alexander Usyk.
Who is the author of this write up ?

 

A champion should only ever be rated for what they did in their time. In that respect, yes, Joe Louis was an ATG.

H2H's another matter entirely however.

 

I skipped that long winded post eventually. Terrible and agenda driven.

Louis destroyed Baer, Carnera, Sharkey, Braddock,

Then went on to make 25 title defenses avenged his 1 Loss by first round KO.

And beat a slew of capable fighters Like, Pastor, Farr, Conn, Walcott when he was past prime,

The guy was a beast and he also doled out beatings in many exhibtion bouts all the way from the 30s through the 50s like an entire undocumented career, over guys like Roscoe Toles, Elmer ray, Valentino and Valdes.

Guy was a fistic machine. And he lost 4 years because of war.
Retired at 60-1 with the one loss avenged. Before the comeback

 

Anyone doubting his pedigree needs to be taken no notice of.

 

What you say is reasonable enough, as far as it goes, but I don't think that we can be much more specific on the matter.

Without the time machine you will never know!

 

Is that revolvers article?

 

A case can be made that Fury and Joshua are the best Wlad met. So he's in that case 0-2 against the best he met.

Vital is arguably also 0-2 against the best he met.

Golovkin is a a draw and a close points win against the best he met. That's a fact. Isn't it fun with facts?

 

It was.

Those were dark times!

 

Has he been back since under an alias?

 

Now you put it that way......................

 

Based on your logic I can play this game too

The best boxers Larry Holmes fought were Holyfield, Tyson, Norton, and Witherspoon.....most agree with this. Then the roof was raised, Holmes won just 19 out of 43 rounds fought on the official scorecards. This is just about 44% of rounds fought.

 

I don't think so.

The world is safe for now!

 

Fury wasn't the 2nd best Wlad met. Wlad was 39 for that fight. Wlad at 41 almost beat Joshua. Louis wasn't close to that age in the examples I used. Come now.