Joe Louis, Underrated or just not that great???

haha, i think RARELY he's sold short but usually (most recently) by trolls. i rank him 2 at heavy all time and very highly h2h only favouring ali over him, 50-50 vs lewis, marciano and holmes. against most heavies all time i think the 1938 louis win by KO and his flaws (not the greatest head and foot movement) were mediated by his many strengths and techincal prowess.

louis gets flack for competition (sometimes unjustly), his knockdowns and occasional lapses in performances. overall though i think he's very well respected

 

I think he's definitely underrated but I agree with many that his fighting style doesn't do him any favors in classic matchups against modern guys.

 

I rank him at #2 all time. I think he would beat all of the fighters on your list except Muhammad Ali...and I'm not all that sure about that one. I certainly would not argue with anyone who ranked him at #1 all time.

Did you ever see Jim Brown get up and return to a huddle after being tackled? He was extremely slow when he could be safely....he rested in between plays. That was Joe Louis. Fast when he needed to be fast.

 

For example, he was a master at control distance and setting up shots but he would never get that chance against some of the larger HWs we've seen in the past 20 years( Holmes, Wlad,etc.) as these guys were far too long to allow him to do his "plod, plod, plod, wait, wait, wait and BAM" routine.

 

I'm not saying that Wlad is better than Joe Louis because that's just lunacy. I'm just saying that Joe doesn't matchup well with him h2h.

 

I do not think he would be out of his depth against any heavyweight. His punching power, accuracy and finishing ability would mean trouble for whoever he fought, a single mistake and it's over. Sure, there are a couple of match-ups where I favour the opponent and some that I think are 50-50, but I doubt anyone would have it easy with Joe and even if they did, Louis would adjust appropriately in a rematch.

 

Personally I think Louis matches up quite well with Wladimir. I'm not saying Wladimir is at a total style disadvantage, he is great at controlling range, has power and is fairly mobile, but Louis would put educated pressure on him and counter with power punches, each of which could potentially end his night. Louis did well against big men, because they presented a bigger target, and with Louis's accuracy he couldn't miss.

 

I rate Joe Louis's legacy extremely high, and currently have him at #2 all time behind Muhammad Ali, but don't have a problem with anyone who rates him #1.. Holding onto a title as long as he did and with that many title defenses, is very difficult for anyone to do, especially with the distraction of having to serve in the military during war time... I don't know if anyone else could have maintained focus for that duration of time nor under those circumstances.

As for head to head, I still rate him very high, and in all honesty he could have potentially beaten anyone on the right night and under the right settings. Ali, Tyson, Lewis, and Holmes are the only champions that I would give any real chances at beating a peak Louis, but like I said, he might have beaten those guys as well depending on how the fights unfolded and how he responded to their various styles.. Opinions vary in terms of when he was at his best.. For me, I'll assign the time frame of 1938, when he was 24 years old and had just demolished Max Schmeling in their rematch.. Joe was avenging a very bad loss against a man who seemed to have his number, and I don't think Louis was ever in better shape nor more motivated.. His record around this time was like 38-1-0-32 or something to that effect, and he had beaten basically the best opponents that he would ever face, depending on one's view of his future rivals.... A peak Louis would have my vote to convincingly beat his eventual conquerors in Charles, Marciano, and would not have likely struggled as much with Walcott.

 

Legends and hero's are never underrated. If you just judge Louis as a fighter, he has quite a few weaknesses that would have cost him some had he fought in a more dangerous or more talented era. Among them were an average chin, average defense, and average footwork.

 

just cause you're bang on doesn't mean you aren't going to get attacked for this post

 

"more dangerous or more talented era"

What era are you talking about???

In the Joe Louis era, we had Jack Sharkey, Max Schmeling, Primo Carnera, Max Baer, James Braddock, Joe Louis himself, Jimmy Bivins, Lee Murray, Elmer Ray, Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, and others.

 

true it was a good era but there are issues with many of those listed. sharkey was past it, schmeling knocked him out, carnera was crap and all the footage i've seen verifies he was an earlier valuev, baer could have been brilliant but wasted it, braddock was a light heavy, bivins was tremendous but erratic, charles dominated a washed up louis, walcott beat a post prime louis and marciano was past louis' era.

that time period is underrated as a whole but the 70s were better and i feel the 90s were also a step above in terms of overall competition. not to say louis' wouldn't have dominated but his era wasn't THAT good

 

I think he was referring to the physical attributes of some of the modern superheavies(Lewis, Bowe, Bruno, Foreman, Ali, Holmes,etc.). There was obviously a ton of talent during Louis' reign but really, REALLY big guys with formidable jabs and athleticism would be a big challenge for any of them.