Joe Louis vs modern giants: settling tbe debate.

Rademacher got a title fight i his debut. Not sure it makes sense to single out individual outliers. Especially since Jacobs isn't even regarded as the "real" middleweight champion.

I agree that elite fighters generally reach the top of their divisions today in fewer pro fights, if that's what you're asking. But once you remove all the no-hopers and noobs from their resumes, I don't think the gap is as big as you're making it out to be. Plenty of undistinguished guys made the rankings in the 70s too.

 

Great post mate and it addresses one of my pet hates about modern boxing. The way fighters sit on unbeaten records and or win some alphabet regional title and wait until the guys ranked above them lose to gain a title shot.

Contenders used to fight each other and it wasn’t considered to be a career destroying loss when one of them was defeated. When there were only two recognised world champions ( let alone one ) fighters didn’t have the luxury of sitting on their ranking and beating up on fighters they had no business being in the ring with.

I do believe the modern way is much better for the fighters themselves but much poorer for the fans.

Cheers All.

 

Foreman had also beaten
Peralta77-5-8 & 82-6-8
Kirkman 22-1-0
Paez 48-15-13
Chuvalo 59-15-2
Rademacher was an isolated one of.
Generally speaking its easier to get ranked today as witness novice Joe Joyce cracking the WBA ratings.

 

Yes I think Louis was too easy to hit. Films shows why. Slow shuffling type of feet, a low guard, and a stick your face forward type of style.

Louis had fast hands, accuracy and power, that was his best defense. Yet his rounds won to rounds lost ratio is a losing one to the best boxers he met in Schemling, Conn, Charles and Walcott. Medium level contenders like Tommy Farr and Aurto Godoy had their share of success against Louis.

Yes, I think Louis chin was average. He went down quickly from shots didn't he? So how would be be considered good? He's lucky he was facing lower skilled men in many cases. While he went many rounds with Schemling that punch had lingering effect for the entire fight. Schmeling just played it safe until eh right moment came. So he could not recover from one hard right hand.

No, its not impossible to have 25 title defenses ( Should be less, Louis lost the first Walcott fight ), If you're competition isn't the best. Proof? Look at Wlad. Did he have a good chin? No.

I do not think Chisora is anything special. We all know Louis can beat a garden variety big man, and Chisora is a shorted armed type, and not puncher. The question is how would he do vs a skilled big man, with longer arms who can punch.

As for Buddy Bear, he wasn't skilled at all. Which films have you seen him in? This is the main problem with the board, Posters really don't watch a lot of film, and because of they they can say did you see what fighter XYZ did in this match, or how fighter XYZ's jab forced the other guy to retreat all night. Buddy Bear lost quite a few time to no-names if you look at his record, and retired young. Your retort for these losses is what? Essentially he was just a big guy who can hit. The heavyweight division if full of his types today.

 

Janitor,

I think we need to set some ground rules here. No one saying Louis could not beat say Adam Kownacki who's currently ranked 9th at Ring Magazine. Kownacki will be out of the top ten once he fights someone else in the top ten or when some of the younger prospects gain experience. Whichever happens sooner! Kownacki is another Buddy Bear type. Hardly the best big man around today. Can we agree here?

Okay with that put to bed, can you show me which big man over 215 pounds did Louis beat that could realistically better the 15 skilled to semi-skilled super heavyweights I listed below? This will be interesting.


Joshua
Wlad
Fury
Vitali
Lewis
Bruno
Bowe
Tucker
Douglas
Old Foreman
Ibeabuchi
Maskeav
Sanders
Peter
Pulev

Who? Which big men did Louis beat would be a the above fighters I listed. A chance, all right, a good chance, you're not being realistic.

 

Of the 15 names I listed, maybe Maskeav was the least. I could swap him out with Valuev if needed. Your bottom fishing trying to prove a point.

But since you asked Galento lost 26 times!!!! Take a look at his record, and please tell me which of the no-names I list that beat Galento were better than Maskeav? That would be zero.

[url]http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/12125[/url]

Maskaev by contrast only lost to good fighters. I'll exclude his last fight due to old age.

McCall in his in 7th pro fight
Tua, whom he was ahead of on the cards until getting caught late in round 11
Kirk Johnson
Lance Whitaker ( who I think was in the top ten in his career )
Sanders
Peter ( Ranked as high as #1 )

Oleg did not match up well vs punchers, but he could box, and hit.

By contrast the fat 5'9" Galento with a 72" reach lost to the likes of:

[url]Al Gainer[/url] 56 -15 - 5 ( TKO'd Galento )
[url]Al Delaney[/url] 33 5 3
[url]Eddie Mader[/url] 33 19 4
[url]Marty Gallagher[/url] 36 21 5 ( TKO's Galento )
[url]Bob Tow[/url] 22 16 2
[url]Unknown Winston[/url] 39 23 4

Now be honest, don't you see a difference in the class of fighters?

I'd pick Maskev to out box Abe Simon, who Louis fought, and would give him the edge over Buddy Bear who wasn't a good boxer at all.

Buddy Bear stood out because he was a big man fighting much smaller men. He did not beat anyone as good as say Hasim Rahman ,whom Maskeav KO'd twice.

 

I didn't have to bottom fish mate, the lower end of the top ten is always a weak point generally speaking.

The reason I picked Maskaev specifically is because he was once ranked number 1 as was Galento. Just watch the two guys fight, there isn't really a lot of evidence to say Maskaev is a different class of fighter. And please don't talk up the loss to Sanders. The guy was dreadful and easily a level below Galento.

 

Of the 15 names I listed, maybe Maskeav was the least. I could swap him out with Valuev if needed. Your bottom fishing trying to prove a point.

But since you asked Galento lost 26 times!!!! Take a look at his record, and please tell me which of the no-names I list that beat Galento were better than Maskeav? That would be zero.

[url]http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/12125[/url]

Maskaev by contrast only lost to good fighters. I'll exclude his last fight due to old age.

McCall in his in 7th pro fight
Tua, whom he was ahead of on the cards until getting caught late in round 11
Kirk Johnson
Lance Whitaker ( who I think was in the top ten in his career )
Sanders
Peter ( Ranked as high as #1 )

Oleg did not match up well vs punchers, but he could box, and hit.

By contrast the fat 5'9" Galento with a 72" reach lost to the likes of:

[url]Al Gainer[/url] 56 -15 - 5 ( TKO'd Galento )
[url]Al Delaney[/url] 33 5 3
[url]Eddie Mader[/url] 33 19 4
[url]Marty Gallagher[/url] 36 21 5 ( TKO's Galento )
[url]Bob Tow[/url] 22 16 2
[url]Unknown Winston[/url] 39 23 4

Now be honest, don't you see a difference in the class of fighters?

I'd pick Maskev to out box Abe Simon, who Louis fought, and would give him the edge over Buddy Bear who wasn't a good boxer at all.

Buddy Bear stood out because he was a big man fighting much smaller men. He did not beat anyone as good as say Hasim Rahman ,whom Maskeav KO'd twice.

When was Maskaev was ranked #1 by Ring Magazine? Are you sure? Details please...I think you are confusing him with Peter.

Dreadful is getting stopped by Gallagher, and losing to Bob Tow who was a 22-16-2 fighter. Suddenly a loss to Sanders does not look that bad.

You did not explain why Galento lost so often to a lesser class of opponents. I'll offer a a second chance to explain why. A guy like Galento would never be ranked #1 today. Not a chance. He just did not have the skills, was too short, had a very short reach, and like I lost way too often. If you disagree, let's look at the films. I can break it down for you.

I think what we are seeing here is some Joe Louis fans trying to build up Galento into something he was not. Ring Magazine, who fondly views Joe Louis said the 1930's was the absolute worst decade of heavyweight boxing just a few years ago. This explains why Galento could achieve a #1 status.

 

After he beat Rahman he was ranked as the next best HW behind Wlad, the same way Galento was ranked as the next best HW behind Louis.

Of course a loss to Sanders is bad. Any loss to a journeyman type fighter looks bad for a top contender.

Galento lost a lot of fight because he had a lot of fights. He wasn't an ATG fighter, he was just a world class contender. I'm not saying he's the best thing since sliced bread. I'm saying if Maskaev can get to the top rank, then you are foolish writing anyone off. In a world rules by Lewis, Vitali and Wlad when the next tier is guys like Byrd and Tua, who would have fought Maskaev would become the top contender. No one.

Galento doesn't need building up, the same way Maskaev doesn't need building up or Weaver, or Old Foreman or Leon Spinks. There are many times throughout history where the next best HW is not perceived to be that good. It isn't something unique to the 30's, it happens often. Hell Dillian Whyte is considered the 4th best HW today, which tells you everything you need to know.

The point is a fighter doesn't need to display a world class skill set to break the rankings, they become world class simply by being able to beat the right man at the right man at the right time. It is proven throughout history.

I'm not one of Louis's fans tbh. I don't have any affinity with him and wasn't alive whilst he was boxing. I've never once cheered him on. I was a fan of Bruno though, a big fan.

 

Terriffic post. Tend to agree with almost everything of this statements.

Louis opposition can hardly be compared to modern fighters. There is barely footage of Buddy. Beside landing a punch on Louis, he simply looked horrible on film. A top 10 ranked fighter today? WTF is this? Like claiming Eddie Richardson would be a top 10 tall HW today, for not looking good on film, but arguably looking better than Baer?

 

Look at the state of the top ten. Brezeale, Molina, Martin, Chisora guys like this have all been top ten.

Now don't get me wrong, these are, by definition, world class boxers. But they aren't the kind of boxer you would pick to stand out in any era ever.

 

Pretty sure Martin, Molina, and Chisora never finished in the Ring's annual top 10, and Brezeale only made it once (#9 in 2017).

 

All have been ranked in the top ten at some point.

The ring annual rankings in boxrec aren't always annual rankings. They're sometimes a random month the current editor had for a given year. Sometimes they're the rankings from December. Sometimes they're the rankings from the March issue.

The point is, perceived weak fighters get ranked in any era. Golden, classic or modern.