Joe Louis or Sugar Ray Leonard - If You Had To Pick One as the Greater

The Great Ugandan ruined Kudo's life.

 

Kalule ruined him. Serious. You seen that KO? There's no coming back from that.

 

Mental. I'm that mashed I had Ho Joo in mind, I typed Ho Joo, yet somehow my fingers typed Kudo.

Numerous times atsch

Just to confirm, this never happens. I do know who these Oriental blokes are, I can assure you

Kudo was a rugged basic customer. He knew what his limits were and he fought well with it. You'll find a lot of talented Asians packing it up after a high profile loss. I mean, plenty of 'em that hang it up after a single f'n loss.

 

To make up for it, here's Kalule's Louis-esque demolition of The Korean Badass

[yt]0GuetcvGWGw[/yt]

 

To me they are incomparable. I love SRL, what a fighter, but at the same time Joe Louis is Joe-****in-Louis, forgive the tmesis (ive been waiting a long time to squeeze that word into a sentence)

 

Tough one. As has been stated, it's long term dominance vs quality. It's what you prefer I guess. Me, I'm a bit partial to long term dominance, so probably Louis by a slight margin. Can't really be fussed about the difference, though.

I think it was a more interesting question who the more skilled was. Both differences and similarities in their skill-sets, and then it's also a bit disadvantage for the HW, since they just aren't as skilled as WWs in general. And who was the more p4p skilled is perhaps too complicated a question. So I'll think I'll leave that be, on second thought.

 

Louis was, Taking his size and his speed for that size into account, the better puncher, in combination even (that won't be popular)

Ray's feet were much, much better in terms of using the ring and for defensive purposes. He could pot shot and he was a deadly banger. Louis' punching was dependent on his feet, but he was less diverse than Ray. He shuffled forward and was always in a position to punch. Functional footwork at it's utmost.

What do you like for both aspects really but for me Louis is the greatest puncher ever, that's a pretty high level of kudos considering what the sport is all about.

 

Depends on criteria

P4P Ability - Leonard
Being in the biggest best division (which is greater) - Louis
Being in the best era of all time - Leonard
Longevity - Louis
Best win/wins - Leonard

People saying Louis on dominance, well he went 1-1 with Schmelling and likely went 1-1 with Walcott. Leonard went 2-1 with Duran and 1-1 with Hearns, so about the same dominance wise.

No, it's called boxing not punching

 

atsch I've already discussed the all round merits of both, don't condescend me when you understood my point.

 

Well it's called football but you still need a goalie.

 

BB- Holmes is at least a top 5 heavyweight. Behave now.

I rate Leonard higher, ATG wise. Louis obviously more historically significant.

 

Joe Louis for sure.

 

Leonard, easily. Fought better opposition, was better H2H and P4P.

 

I see your point. Personally, I put more emphasis on the fact that Leonard's versatility enabled him to outpunch guys like Kalule and Hearns, and outbox a guy like Hagler.

The Kalules of this world gave Louis fits, and how he would manage against a HW boxer-puncher with Hearns ability one can only guess. But if he went up against a Hagler-like opponent - someone who's a skilled boxer and also is bigger, stronger, has better stamina and undentable chin - it can only end in one way, I think.

 

Can't take anything away from SRL, his wins over Duran, Hearns, Hagler, etc is extremely, extremely impressive, and I think he's technically brilliant. However, the one crtical aspect of his career he missed out was longivity.

Now when you compare his accomplishments to Louis, I think the lack of longivity is a determining factor. Technically they are both brilliant, so it becomes a question of accomplishments.