Joe Louis would decimate the current HW heap!

Louis did very good vs stiff non-defensive fighters, but he went many rounds with guys who played defense and moved. I do not think Louis blows Thompson out.

Louis would be a top champion today, but with politics the way it is, he might find himself in Wlad's position of not holding all three belts, and being forced to make manditories vs mediocre opposition. Then again, most of Louis opposition was Thomspon's level, and some worse..


In the sense of talent, this era might have more than the late 30’s to 1940’s. While some say this era might lack depth in terms of skills, it certainly makes up for it in abundance of size and power. It is likely if Louis had 50+ fights, he'd lose 2-3.

 

I don't have any convictions about anything in this matter. I will repeat what I basically said before (though not exact ), which is I think Louis could have been a great force in today's heavyweight picture. He may, however have been a cruiserwieght, and who knows how his body would have responded to modern training, nutrition, or chemistry. I think he could have beaten some of the top fighters, but to say that he'd just walk in and claim the title is a bold leap of faith....

This is not an unreasonable response in my opinion. Do you think that he'd just walk into the 2000's, and automatically destroy Klitschyko, Peter, Chagaev, Povetkin, and Valuev with no problem? My answer would be, maybe. But, we simply can't award him that benefit of the doubt. Frankly, I think he was floored and troubled by comparable or even worse fighters, and lived during an era where a fighter's physical description was drastically different.........

 

Wouldn't make it valid.....

 

Bumped from an older post of mine:

Legends on film. Can we be honest in both parsing and critsing legands when Joe Louis is the topic?

I want to start off by saying Joe Louis was a great fighter, and should be a top ten all time great in terms of legacy, and in a head to head scenario. Louis had great hand speed, and great power in both mitts. Few heavyweights could throw better combinations, and few heavyweights were better finishers when they had their opponent hurt. Louis had true 15 round stamina, and good fighting heart.

Having said that, I think Louis has some flaws that would have cost him is he fought in a more talented era.

When I say Louis had a low guard, slow / predictable feet, a stick your face forward ( a real no-no in boxing ) stance, lacked power in clinches / could be bulled to the ropes, and had issues with skilled fighters despite having the size, speed, power and reach advantage, I mean exactly that.

We have some clear films that run at the right speed. With the power of the internet we can examine if what I’m saying is true or not with the assumption that we use our eyes, and minds, and not our hearts.

I believe films prove I am correct on Louis flaws. I do not see much head movement by Louis either.


Here is the link for the Farr fight

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A8vO2H2SLc[/url]

Here is the link for the Godoy fight, again the same flaws by Louis can clearly be seen. In addition, notice how easy Godoy controls Louis in a clinch.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIrN-...eature=related[/url]



Now for my questions:


1 ) Do you see these flaws I outlined on film as I do? If so which ones? We can use times of the youtube to show where and when.






2 ) Do you think these flaws would hurt Louis vs a skilled bigger heavyweight who hit harder that say Farr, Godoy, Conn, or Pastor, or had better chins than Say Walcott? I most certainly do. Remember Louis had the height, reach, and power advantage in most of his fights. He would not a height, reach, or weight advantage in most fights post Floyd Patterson.
In addition, notice how easy Godoy controls Louis in a clinch and how Louis often failed to adapt and switch tactics.



I can post other linked filmed fights that show the same flaws. If you add in these flaws, lack of top flight opposition, and Louis only having an average chin by heavyweight champion standards I often wonder why he is an automatic slam dunk for #1 or #2 ratings. As I said before, Louis was never seen as this type of fighter in the judgment of many historians who saw the champs before and after him. Louis shot up the rankings in the late 60’s to early 70’s, but I honestly believe him being a popular hero has something to do with that. The Historians dying out who were most familiar with the champions before him was also significant.

 

I stopped reading after these 11 words.

 

Yes that is literaly what I think.

I could always be wrong of course..............................

 

Well let's compare the balance of our views.

Here was the summary of my first statement:

Here is yours:

Which sounds more reasonable? Which sounds more speculative?

 

I'd say Louis recovered better, but I wouldn't say either had a far greater chin than the other.

They were both dentable.

 

With all due respect Mendoza, if its the old school buffs you're addressing, then you're waisting your breath...

It simply isn't enoough to acknowledge that "this one was great", or "that one was the greatest." No. They want to hear that they would absolutely obliterate any fighter that fought after 1970. They want to hear that advancements in training and nutrition is irrelovant. They want to hear that corrupt and selective promoting in the old days means nothing. They want to hear that things like records and fight result were a product of stiffer competition.. Stats mean nothing...Fights on film mean nothing.....analysis means nothing.......

Older is better..........Period...........Regardless of what common sense tells us.......

 

Muchmoore ... you are right ... and a site that really has the past 15 years as the sweet spot for 95% of the users ... different sites, different aptitudes ...

 

Older is better with who? I think the heavyweight boxers of the 90's were better than the 80's. A historian’s opinion that seen boxing is good for as long as he lives, until he loses his marbles or becomes ill. It is odd that most historians who saw boxing and lived from say 1900 to 1960 did not think Louis was #1 , #2, or #3.

And the men in this time line were far from old and senile. In fact they were born around the same time Louis was. Louis was there generation. Fasinating stuff? Its is also true.

I have read stuff on boxers pre Louis. Johnson and Wills didn’t think that much of Louis, and neither did Ali. Walcott said Louis was too easy to hit. The flaws they saw can be seen on film.

The best fighters Louis fought were Schmeling, M Bear, Walcott, Charles, and Marciano. If you correctly give Walcott the 1st match, Louis is 3 wins, and 4 losses.

Louis matches with Godoy, Conn, Pastor, and Farr make me wonder a bit, because he certainly struggled in these matches, and gasp, lost the 1st Godoy match on my card.,

I definitely think Louis was an all time great, but slam-dunk over other all times greats he is not.

 

joe louis stands no chance against super southpaw corrie sanders. sanders is way too much of a freak of nature for louis. Sanders ATG speed power skill and durability would crush louis in 2 rounds.

 

I would ask "Where is the current guy who weighs in about 205, plods around after his opponents with little head movement, who is so predictable Stevie Wonder can find his chin, who could be felled my middleweights, but who can take this crop of heavies?" If you people think these guys are so easy to beat, get in the gym. There are millions in it for you.