Joe Louis title reign simulation 1942-1945

exactly :good

 

That's an aggressive schedule, particularly '43. Although he did fight just weeks apart a few times in reality.

Good thread, it'd be interesting to see some or all of those fleshed out into more detailed fight summaries.

 

There is one point about this era that you and many others miss.

While there wern't any truly great heavyweights in the mould of George Foreman or Joe Frazier, there were a whole shed load of verry good heavyweights.

Fighters who could have broken into the rankings in the 70s were ten a penny, and you typicaly had to fight three or more contenders to get in the ring with the champion.

 

Louis and Conn could both be expected to look less than optimal coming off their wartime hiatuses, but Joe appeared to regain his stride in squashing Mauriello, and he claimed this was the last time he really felt like himself. However, Walcott used some tactics Pastor had success frustrating him with a decade earlier, so maybe this was always a situation where Louis would have struggled if Walcott enjoyed reasonably good training conditions. (It should also be considered that 15 months elapsed between Mauriello and Walcott I, and Louis was typically far busier than that. Even in 1951, he won seven matches before running into Marciano, and not against tomato cans either.)

Mannie Seamon was a fine trainer, but he wasn't Blackburn, and the fact is that Joe did not again defend his title during WW II after Blackburn died. Without Blackburn, could he have improved at all, or was he then guaranteed to stagnate and regress? Joe was extremely busy in 1951, just as he'd been in 1941, but his activity level dropped way off as a postwar champion. Did this reduced activity hinder his efficacy, and if so, to what degree?

(The hard hitting deaf Irishman decking a peak Charles in my current avatar was also considered a potential challenger for Louis, and that would have been very promotable in early 1947, after he knocked out Valentino, then floored and decisioned a much heavier Savold. He probably would have gotten a shot then, if Louis had resumed the competitive frequency of his prewar years.)

 

I know about most of these guys, but its true that I don't really care enough to actually go banana's over some of these guys' reps and pro records, cuz either its so old or they never went anywhere in the lime-light for me to give the hair off a rats ass.... Most of these guys outside of Joe Louis have very little film footage available for review, as well...... I'm not all that interested in reading other people's press clippings or stories stemming from 65 yrs ago....... I prefer a visual of what really occurred....... To me, seeing is believing.....

MR.BILL:bbbhat

 

I too like to speculate on "Dream" fights........ However, I prefer making matches between fighters from different era's / times...........

I never cared for trying to add to one's legacy by assuming what he could've done in his prime if he had only fought this available opponent, etc.......

I love Muhammad Ali and I know he was stripped of his title in 1967 and was inactive until Sept. 1970. Of course we all wonder how great he'd have been in his best yrs of his career in the late 60s, but by 1967 when he KO'd Zora Folley, Ali had pretty much already cleaned-up the division.....

I never think back as to say what Ali would've done against Thad Spencer or Amos Lincoln or whoever else wanted a piece of Ali back then..... Ali never fought them guys, well, no biggie, he's still "The Greatest."

MR.BILL:hat

 

Mr Bill, man you took some hits on this post bud. I for one respect what you know about boxing although you do seem to have an anti Louis bent to ya. Suzie Q, man your edgy, is it the Navy SEALs training? Just wondering though, when my nephew was on his way to becoming a SEAL he didn't have time or access to the internet. Can't help but notice the difference here, not suggesting anything, just wondering.

 

Louis was the class of his era. As far as being Great goes, it would depend on what you call Great. The only so called Great fighter IMO was Billy Conn, and he was a Light Heavyweight.

He did beat very good fighters in Baer, Schmeling & Walcott. Some of you might call them Great as well.

 

My main complaint was the "smoke and mirrors" jibe and similar statements. You implied young fellows who think well of forties contenders are obviously biased. What extra knowledge do you have to think poorly of these fighters? You were at ringside in the forties? You have seen film unavailable to others? You have done more research? Cynicism based on limited knowledge has no greater claim than admiration based on the same limited knowledge.

 

I can see Jimmy Bivins beating Louis during this period. He won the duration LHW title and went on a nice run beating Maxim, Mauriello, Pastor, Charles, Marshal and Murray, and Sheppard and Moore before the war was up too.

Jimmy put up a decent fight against what Suzie considers to still be a very good Joe just two months prior to the Marciano bout, and while Bivins was younger he had an extra 30 fights on the clock compared to Louis at this point.

 

Maybe he should have come in a touch heavier and it was a clear victory but Joe was made to work for the victory.
Jimmy was further removed from his best years despite being the younger man. Joe didnt break through his shield then so why would he when hes in with a better Bivins than the one he fought.