Joe Louis was a very skilled boxer

I think you're joking when you say "without Louis even showing phenomenal timing". It's the way you word it that give it away.

Anyway, ****-poor competition, Louis beat multiple ex and future champions including two guys who consistantly appear on all-time great heavyweight lists, one of whom suceeded him as champion.

He beat all the best contenders of his era, and dominated most of them pretty thoroughly. There are some weak fighters on his win resume, but when you're fighting that frequently, this is inevitable. If he'd fought twice a year I suppose you'd be praising the quality of his opposition.

Never mind.

He's outboxable, rather slow and has a **** open defence that fighters then couldn't exploit fully.

Plus, flat footed, come on, can't beat Lewis while being flat footed.[/quote]

 

You cheeky chappy!

Does it make you charming and edgy? Or does it mean you don't know the sport? Hard to be sure. But why can't it be both?!

 

Joe Walcott looks like he was poured rather than born. He moves better than any HW since Ali. He punches as well as most of them too, with only the really good composite punchers finishing ahead of him (And Mike finishing miles ahead of him).

You can say what you like about an era you have no respect for. No fighter at any weight beat more champions - future and past - than Joe did before era's with four champs at each weight. They can't all have been **** just because that suits your rather transparent agenda.

Lennox could win by early KO, certainly. Unlike yourself I can see that great fighters will almost always be in close fights and that there's a posisbility the thing could go either way. I pick Louis.

 

Louis threw more punches, more quickly, over a shorter distance very, very hard. Lewis is a very good puncher, but frankly he is not in Louis's class in composite terms, and i'm not sure what would prompt you to post otherwise.

:huh

Christ Pontius did an excellent breakdown for the classic forum and found that Lewis had fought more punchers and contenders than anyone since Louis. So you are nearly right, but still wrong.

Peak for peak? **** yes. Two years into his proffesional career? Absolutley not, Schmeling would have made mincemeat of him! Even when he finally came to the title, Lewis still looked suspect, it wasn't until he hooked up with Steward he became a fighter I would even let spar with Louis.

Nothing ordinary about Conn, but the answer here is "no". Conn is to small to fight Lewis. But that doesn't mean he is to small to fight Louis.

Pound for pound I consider Conn and Lewis pretty close.

 

Thanks for noticing my friend.

 

Here we have that rarest of things; a poster who claims to have watched footage of Joe Louis and still thinks that Lennox Lewis has better footwork, shoulder roll, feints, handspeed, accuracy, economy, stamina, durability, and techncial form than the former.

Treasure him.

 

Yeah, that's how I see it too.

I think Louis has vastly superior footwork. We can get into details if you want, but to be going on with - Louis is always well balanced and in punching position. Lewis is NOT well balanced all of the time, and is often out of position. Louis carries his power very late, Lewis has not shown this to the same degree. That is partly down to Joe's economy of movement, or footwork.

Fair enough.