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

I've never heard anyone under-rate Joe Louis, hes consistently ranked in the top 3 in most ratings .. A quality fighter, the hardest punching Heavyweight of all time in my opinion. Hes on the top tier of fighters for me .. I dont think he'd beat Ali or Holmes, but a prime Louis could beat Tyson, Frazier, Marciano and Dempsey ..

Im thinking Foreman and Jack Johnson would give him serious trouble and i'd be interested to see how Tunney and Holyfield would have fared against him .. But Joe Louis was a sensational fighter and certainly one of my all time favourites ..

 

Okay. You believe bigger is better. You're entitled to believe that. I think that (in a boxing ring) once a man gets past about 180 pounds, he gives up something for whatever every additional pound adds to him...so it's a wash. (For the record, this opinion is coming from a 6'7" man, who weighed over 250 very solid pounds when I young. I'm 85 now, and still weighed 237 this morning.) I know that's not a popular opinion these days, but it's always been mine, and I have seen nothing recently that changes it.

 

based on accomplishments? He's #1.
h2h, he's a very very well rounded boxer, he would be able to hang in there with anybody, Vitali might beat him (MIGHT) and wlad would probably get KO'd.
i think hes great

 

i've always had trouble believing that then i watched louis dismantle carnera and holyfield dominate foreman. the better athlete and more importantly the better fighter, will win

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion sir.

 

Louis's paper resume is hard to fault.

He had 69 professional fights 34 of which were against fighters currently ranked in the top 10 by ring magazine. Thats 49.3% of all his professional fights.

His critics might argue that he chould have beaten Schmeling first time round and there is some truth in it. If he had done that however he would have been 59-0 at the time of his first loss with half his fights being against ranked contenders. Perhaps something had to carry away somwhere? Given the abnormaly high percentage of his fights that were against ranked contendeds it is remarkable that he picked up only one loss in his first 59 fights.

Head to head is always going to be speculative relative to resume. What we can see on film however is that Louis has the best punching form of all the heavyweight champions and is probably the best finisher the division has ever seen. Taking this in combination with his paper acomplishments, the idea that he would have done verry well in head to head matches should fall on verry fertile ground.

 

Agreed.

 

as well put an argument for h2h status as i've ever heard. well done

 

I think Louis is one of the best.

I rate him at #3 under the only two heavyweights who I think can beat Louis decisively. Those two men are Muhammad Ali (#1) and Jack Johnson (#2).

I agree people underrate Louis, but it's understandable. I used to look at Louis footage and not see anything very remarkable that would make me think he was one of the best. But further research into his career, and further understanding of the false perceptions people have when viewing very old film made me realize better.


One of the bigeest misconceptions about Louis is that he is slow. There has never been a bigger misconception about a heavyweight great, I think. Louis appreared to be slow, be he was always cautiously awaiting for an opening.

To paint my picture more clear.....when you see Louis stalking someone, taking baby steps towards the opponent, he might look slow. But notice how every feint the opponent makes, Louis is ALWAYS ready and anticipating to duck or parry it. You cannot have that style if your moving around the ring like Ali.

 

Joe cleans house

 

An era that has no color line and loaded talent at heavyweight is what I was talking about. Like the 60's, 70's or 90's. Louis did not give title shots to Bivins, Ray, or Murray. And Walcott was robbed in their first fight.

 

true and he was faster than some give him credit for but his foot movement was relatively weak and i think the conn fight at points showed this. he had very fast hands and was very good at cornering his opponents but his feet, and head movement, was not near as effective.

 

Originally Posted by Mendoza

This content is protected

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.

Maybe so, but the truth should be good enough. I have seen all the films, and read many of the news reviews.

 

exactly right, but foreman was old and was faster in his earlier days. but I think Holyfield would probably beat Foreman again. It would most definitely go the distance.