JOE LOUIS-One of ten Greatest Boxers of All Time

Yes, I can come up with a list of 50 greater fighters with everything considered, not just the winning resume. McFadden and Yanger probably wouldn't be on that list, but the other 9 would be for me. Nine picks from 1890-1905 period. You want to argue Louis or Ali over them?

 

It doesn't make sense.
How would Max Schmeling or Max Baer be a mere footnote on the record of Benny Yanger ? They'd blast him out of the ring.
But of course, this is pound for pound, so you'd have to scale Schmeling and Baer down, but then the physics of that would change them into something else entirely. They'd become more pleasing to your tastes, almost certainly.

He beat 4 former heavyweight champions, 1 reigning heavyweight champion, 1 future heavyweight champion.
He beat 2 reigning light-heavyweight champions.
All undisputed world champions.

His own reign last 12 years. He beat several leading contenders, made 25 defences. Few men at heavyweight had a chance to establish themselves in the face of such dominance.

It's impossible to argue against his record.

 

Joe Louis was greater than Philadelphia Jack O'Brien.
Just for starters.

 

Greater than O'Brien based on what? Resume, boxing ability?

 

Baer was one of the most unskilled heavyweight champions in history. Schmeling may have looked like having good boxing abilities for the division and time he fought in, but he was very far from being a master boxer. Take out the Joe Louis win and his record is pretty much empty of wins or draws with significant opponents.

Does being a heavyweight champion make one an all-time great boxer?

Like I said, rank him high at heavyweight if you wish. But why put him in P4P top 10 with such extremely weak credentials?

 

Abilty, achievement, dominance. What he did.

 

Baer was a terrific puncher, and very durable. He was quite unskilled but this is heavyweight boxing, where consistent HW power and an iron chin have higher value. Louis destroyed him.
Schmeling was very good.

No, but it doesn't make him a bum either.

His credentials are strong.


How many heavyweights would you have among the top 50 pound-for-pound ?

 

O'Brien's cleverness and defensive skills make him equal with Louis' best ability (offensive).
Achievement? You gotta be kidding, unless you totally dismiss the notion that going a draw with a great fighter has any importance. O'Brien had quite a few of those. Dominance? Ricardo Lopez held the titles for 11 years and was pretty dominant to me. So what?

 

He'd be somewhere with Aurelio Herrera, in that class, if not lower, if he were smaller.

Very good heavyweight in a weak era.

Primo Carnera can be considered as such to me.

Strong for a heavyweight, but not for lower weights.

I never made anything more than top 10. But probably none. Like I said there were too many all-time great fighters in history with better wins and with at least as much boxing ability than that shown by Ali, Louis or Lewis.

 

Like, I said, you have a major problem with heavyweights. I think it's a misunderstanding of heavyweights on your part, but you see it another way which theoretically I can accept. Even so, having both Ali and Louis outside the top 50 p4p is so leftfield it should indicate that something is amiss with your method.

 

I'm judging everyone by the same criteria, and don't see why heavyweights should be an exception. If you want to add fame to a list of criteria, they they might be ranked much higher. But I don't care about it, the fact that Ali has over a hundred books written about him doesn't move him one step up the ladder for me.

 

No, it's not making an exception.
I'm not talking about fame either.

If I was to rank track athletes, I wouldn't penalize the sprinters for running less distance, nor would I penalize the 10km runners for being slower than the sprinters. I wouldn't penalize marathon runners from running less races per year.
I acknowledge the difference in the nature of the event, and would rank them accordingly.

The same applies to boxing. Acknowledge the difference between heavyweight and welterweight and bantamweight boxing, and rank accordingly.

 

To be high you need to score either in resume or in ability, or both.

The talent pool (opposition) at heavyweight always was behind other divisions. Nothing can be done with that. For a P4P rating I can't simply rank a fighter based on how he looked against his opposition, without considering how strong that opposition was P4P. That's why Rocky Marciano wouldn't be in my top 200, I'd think (IBRO had him just missing the cut).

And in ability, Louis is lacking too much in cleverness and defence, for his offensive excellence to be able to compensate that, when comparing him with boxers who weren't as brilliant in attack, but who were more well-rounded. And before I'm misunderstood again, this is not meant to say he wasn't clever or lacked defensive skills, he did possess both, but they were not his strongest points.

 

How do you work it out ?

 

Their boxing ability, who they beat, who they lost to, at that weight, at what stage of their career that happened, were there "circumstances", etc.