Joe Louis -vs- Lennox Lewis:

Although this question was intended for Janitor, I'll chime in by saying, no. None of Joe Louis's opponents were capable of executing the skills that you mentioned to the extent that Lennox Lewis could. In addition to him having sharper technical skills and speed, I would also venture to say that he hit harder than virtually any of them. Buddy Baer for example had the second highest number of first round knockouts topped only by Jack Dempsey. This statistic may look good on paper, but when you look at the names and records of the men he Ko'd, the appeal quickley disappears.

In only some 44 pro fights, Lewis defeated at least 25 ranked opponents. In only his 14th bout, he defeated Euro champ Gary Mason, who was 35-0-0-32. Granted, Mason's previous opposition was crap, but he was a large hard hitting fighter with no previous losses or knockdowns. Not an easy test for a prospect with 14 fights in my opinion. I'm also not sure that Joe Louis or any of his opponents would beat a fighter like Razor Ruddock in only two rounds the way Lennox did. In fact, I would venture to say that Ruddock would be a very formidable opponent and contender in the 30's and 40's. He might even prove to be a nightmare for Joe Louis. A hard slugging caucasion like Tommy Morrison would blend right into the 40's era, and would likely be listed as one of Louis's best challengers. I'm not even sure that a 36 year old Holyfield or Vitlai Klitschko for that matter would go titleless during that period. The list goes on and on.

In my opinion, the only champion who beat comparable or better opposition as/than Lewis is Muhammad Ali.

 

Joe louis hit harder, punched faster & was a more complete skilled boxer than anyone lewis ever fought.

I picked joe by ko.

I thought louis`s peak was vs schmelling, although I was impressed by the way he beat walcott in the rematch after tasting canvas.

If your talking primes then I cant see lennox beating joe louis, just watch the footage of this guy, his handspeed & power would give lewis fits although he`d have to get inside more often than not as lewis has that massive reach but joe never had any probs adapting to styles even if sometimes it did take until the 13th rd (conn) or the rematch (walcott & scmelling)

Im actually suprised how many people picked lewis, must be the size thing they are banking on because I cant see any other reason.

 

I could of course cherry pick things that some of them did better like feinting for example. Your point that Lewis is in a class by himself among the big boys stands.

That dose not however alter the dynamic of any stylistc matchup that he is involved in.

 

The heavyweight division of the 30's and 40's was full of journeyman in those days. The war had stripped boxing of much young talent, while the sport had discriminated against minority fighters, especially blacks. Most of the top contenders were merely the best among equals in a large pool of trialhoarse type fighters. It was from this crop of fighters that a man like Louis was able to emerge as the best of his era. It is difficult to image the Braddocks, Carneras, and Baers of the world, being as successful in a more organized and competitve period in the sport. When one disects the career path of Joe Louis and his pears, he needs to proceed with caution, as there were many components to examine, before deeming the decade(s) as one of the better periods in boxing.

 

This is getting sad. Your far too intelligent a poster normally to write this so obviously biassed anti-Lewis crap. On ESB Haters and nuthuggers are considered the lowest of the low. Do you really want to be numbered amongst them?

 

But 'success' is far easier to come by in modern "more organised" boxing, as you call it, because they have artificially inflated the number of 'champions' with fake ABC titles and numerous extra weight categories. Boxers can fight for championship belts of dubious value after far fewer fights in modern times. It was far tougher to be THE champ in the old days than it is to be A champ in modern times. It should be obvious which of the two holds the greater value.

 

I would pick Lennox to win the fight. Louis could win if he is able to fight at close range then his wicked shots would take there toll on Lennox and he would prolly stop him however he wouldn't be able to consistently land those devastating short combos in my opinion if i were to bet on the fight. Lennox was very hard to nail cleanly when at his best and fully focused he didn't take much punishment. Both fighters have a good jab except Lennox has the reach, height, and heavier jab which i believe would enable him to get the better of the jabs. On the occasions Louis would get in Lennox would prolly try to catch him coming in with a uppercut if it doesn't land he would clinch. If Lennox gets a groove going and starts landing his right hand he will put Louis out much earlier than Schemling did.

 

I don't think it's all that difficult to pick who the likely winner is.

Lewis has the height, weight, size and reach advantage. This is known.

Power advantage is a bit unknown but it's probably close. Same for the chin.

So the question is rather simply. Can Louis with his better skills and faster hands, compensate enough to over come Lewis' advantages in height, size, strength and reach.

Personally, I think the answer is no. Against other fighters who weren't as good fundamentally as Lewis the answer was yes.

But those guys didn't have extensive amateur experience to the point of winning silver and gold metals..Lewis does. In fact Lewis would likely make very short work of the Carneras, and Baers of the world.