"Joe Louis Not Great"

It’s fair to hold against Holmes too. Boxing fans wildly exaggerate the gap between “ATG” heavyweights and the best of the rest, imo. Bottom line. I dream of a day when we’ll be able to discuss great fighters as imperfect human athletes instead of comic book superheroes.

 

McGrain,

Lets look at the math. An early KO is usually a 90-100% rounds won to rounds lost ratio. Do we agree there? So KO 1-3 for Louis helps him, not hurts him.

The punchers actually benefit from it as a quick stoppage prevents them from being out boxed vs. good boxers.

Going 12 rounds, in my opinion means you are more at risk of losing rounds. So Louis was out boxed or lost too many rounds, before delivering his power late.

Louis just struggled more often vs. good boxers and movers. Far more than a few others, who I consider harder to outbox.

 

Dino!!!

Louis 199.5 pounds. Conn 174 ( I've read less ). 199.5-174 =

This content is protected

.
15 pounds you say?

LOL, this is a reason why few take you seriously. I choose to reply back for humor, and because I think your an inept hater, who is so bad you have the opposite desired effect. I'm not saying your a bad person, but man...

Wlad destroyed Byrd 2x winning the majority of his rounds and beat Haye by 6-8 rounds in a 12 round fight.
What happened, wasn't CST80 giving you lessons? If I had the time, I could tutor you a bit.

As Shakespeare once said, I'd challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed.

 

Almost, if a round is even, a fighter does not win it. I ask you to re-think it, you might find some value in the concept.

My formula is I take the average of the judges scores, then divide the number of rounds won, vs. the amount of round fought. If one judge offers a terrible card, I throw that out and just use the other two.

So if a fighter wins 4 rounds in a 10 round fight, ending in KO, he won just 40% of the rounds.

Come back KO's in boxing are pretty uncommon. Its the power that often bails them out.

The top boxers seldom lose rounds in victory, and often do not drop 4+ rounds top ten opposition in their prime years. Guys like Mayweather, Jones, Klitschko...master boxers in terms of the score cards.

There are many way to win rounds, but landing more punches and harder punches works best. Defense ( Duck, slip, footwork, or block ) to me is factored in automatically as it takes away from the other guy landing. Ring IQ in fighting smart matters too.

 

A wins 100% of the rounds.
B wins 75% of the rounds.

So by that question alone, A.

However, B certainly gives one a good baseline vs. the best in his career, on a rounds won to round lost ratio.

The key point is it's the sum of rounds won to rounds lost vs. fringe contenders / top ten competition that I look at.

So by adding A and B, you get the score.

 

The official weights were 199 1/2 and 174. It is clearly announced on the film.

I am old enough to recall a lot of commentary on the Louis-Conn fight and no one questioned the weights in the old days. This story seems to have come from Bert Sugar, who I would not consider a reliable source. He was just a BS'er. If he liked a story he told it regardless of any facts.

Just looking at the film, Conn doesn't appear all that small. He was tall, close to as tall as Louis, and with fairly broad shoulders. 25 lbs. seems about right. If Conn was really a super-middleweight I think he would have looked a lot smaller next to Louis.

Bottom line for me is that the Conn weighing in the 160's is a myth unless someone comes up with real evidence, and Sugar is not my idea of real evidence.

 

Here are Billy Conn's listed weights for his last 8 fights before going into the service, including the Joe Louis fight.

Ira Hughes---182
Danny Hassett---181
Gunnar Barland---178
Buddy Knox---180
Joe Louis---174
Henry Cooper---182
J. D. Turner---183
Tony Zale---176 (Zale weighs 164)

So Conn was actually at his lightest at the listed weight for the Louis fight.

I think any claim he weighed in the 160's is total nonsense.

Conn didn't even make 175 for his fight with the middleweight champion, Zale.

 

Jump for joy Doza , i made a slip up , it happens. Most of the time you don't respond back because you can't debunk any arguments i present you with. My mistake is your victory.

p.s.. lol@ at the irony of you calling anybody a hater.. Anybody arguing the greatness of Vitlali Klischko over Joe Louis is chugging the haterade by the gallon.

 

You slip often. Learn form the corrections, its free and I correct you often. Your examples and analogies are rather poor. I reply back when I choose. I can't monitor you 24 x 7 so don't confuse a non-reply by me = you being right.

Most here know your anti Klitschko. A given. You need a 2nd and 3rd act.

PS: I never said Louis wasn't great or Vitali has a greater legacy. You're making things up. Louis is very popular, so showing things that don't cast him in a good light is a quick way to become unpopular. I don't care about being popular here. I'd rather see new stuff to be honest. Boxing is an odd sport, the fans are often at odd. Few if any say the data I present is wrong.