He lost a single fight when he was even vaguely near his prime. Like I said, who fought even half as many top contenders and didn't have hard fights? That's completely normal. People seem to live in a deluded fantasy land, where fighters just blast away all their opposition with laughable ease. Ali was dropped by Henry Cooper, lost to Norton and Frazier etc., Larry Holmes was fought close by Norton and an inexperienced Witherspoon, was dropped heavily by Shavers etc. Lennox Lewis lost to McCall and Rahman.
You do raise some good points. Walcott beat him the first time by my card and Charles but that was not the real Brown Bomber. Marciano? That was Louis at the very end of the line and yet in all three fights he made a good showing of himself. Schemling beat him but had a great boxing mind- Schemling was also crushed in the next fight some time later. Consider Conns chin, cagey style and mentality going into that fight and understand why he was such a difficult opponent. Also ever the fan of rematches Louis turned Walcott into dust when Jersey Joe tempted fate in the rematch. He had four losses truthfully. All to ATGs and three of those losses were at the very end of the line. He was a model champion who got the job done.
bums compared to 70s-90s none would make hw in these years have you seen these years to ask a dumb question
facts and people say now still that he could beat a lennox or George when he obviously would be outmatched and dropped fast and brutal
Yes he would lose to guys like Lennox and George but that doesn't deny the fact Louis was one of the greatest boxers who ever lived. You're just saying that he would lose to some boxers today, anybody can say that
Admittedly, they weren't technical wizards on the level of a Deontay Wilder, say. But few men rise to that level of skill.
I dont know what that means anybody can say that if your trying to act like thats not true well it is look at how the people he fought and look at those 90s-70s big difference
Among the many completely biased analyses of the OP, thankfully seemingly long gone, it is telling that when he was calledd on facts-like Louis supposedly being an Olympic champion-or there were detailed arguments discrediting his onw-he ignored them. This is a sign of someone who is insecure & just looking for an ego boost, not honest & searching for the truth. One thing nobody addressed is when he falsely claimd that Braddock beat Baer so badly they made a name for it. I di not know what he is talking about, what name? And even in the maligning portrayal of Baer in CInderella Man, they never portrayed it as any kind of a beating. Braddock survived to outpoint a ferocious puncher. It was by no means even a blowout, let alone a one sided beating. Things like this totally erode the credibility of the original poster.
I can only imagine how boxing fans in the 1940s would be totally blown away by all the sharp, crisp, punches of Fury Wilder III. Poor old shuffling Joe Biden, sorry I mean Louis, couldn't never throw such clean punches.
Biden's superior modern debate training and nutrition would allow him to roll over verbal primitives like 70s Buckley, Chomsky, or Vidal on the debate stage. And you know it.
right another person who can see Louis was overrated he did great vs dudes who would never make pro in 70s-90s
