Joe Louis's record vs ranked opposition

He had a long unbeaten run but he wasn’t in his prime at 35, nobody is. And he was over 35 for half of those victories.
He just didn’t face much great opp.
If he’d met Fury at 36 instead of 39 Fury probably beats him as well

 

The Aj fight showed Wlad wasn’t totally washed by the Fury fight (only about 3 years past his prime according to this thread)
If we say Rocky couldn’t fight big guys, Wlad v Fury was like a rabbit in the headlights when he finally fought a guy who could match his size and athleticism.
The fact is Marciano still beat a bunch of solid, if not great contenders, like Wlad did, yet doesn’t have the big question marks on his record like Wlad, and still is not a cert for the top ten.
Why should Wlad be?

 

Everybody's prime is different. Wlad had his prime when he was on top. Wlad's opposition wasn't worse than Holmes' or Louis'. Wlad with Emanuel in his corner circa 2010 probably beats Fury.

 

What exactly are you arguing against here?

I think this is the second time you're arguing against something I've never said. Stop wasting my time like that.

 

Just highlighting why it should be somewhat secondary to look at length of a fighters reign, or number of title defences. Quality of opp, eye test, circumstances of wins and losses is more important

 

I think he beat solid contenders when they were at their most relevant. Povetkin would ice Whyte at 40, so he wasn't a bad fighter by any means.

All you can do is beat the best that's out there. And besides Vitaly, Wlad did a great job of that for a decade, which few has.

But I must have made this point at least 3-4 times now, so I'll leave it at that.

 

If you're inte convo for nr 3, like Holme is, it's not a small thing.

It's not a small thing for a champion not to face his top contender. That is in the job description.

That doesn't mean Holmes is below everyone who has. Which you of course understood when I said Holmes was my nr 3. But you choose to play dumb.

And btw Thurman and Ruiz were only beltholders, not champions, and for damn sure never beat the best out there besides themselves (and don't give me WBA mandatory ffs).

 

Wlad was more experienced, but not better physically at 35 than 29 or 30.
Again I look mostly at head to head, who wins prime for prime. I dont favour any 35 year old guy against prime Ali, Tyson, Lewis, Holmes, etc.

 

"Prime" doesn't mean only physical. It's about mentality and skills as well. Emanuel Steward formed Wlad into the best version of himself, therefore, his prime started. Lennox Lewis was in his prime when he was around 35 as well.

 

We’re going round in circles now.

He has a good number of mediocre -at-best defences, good longevity, no signature win, several devastating ko losses.
It’s absolutely debatable whether he should be top ten.

 

The above is a story Wlad fans tell themselves, in order to cope with the fact that he was starched by three unrated individuals, each of whom is only discussed today because Wlad made them famous.

 

I’d say Lewis was prime earlier than around 31-32.
If Steward had got hold of Wlad 10 years earlier then we might be looking at the goat, but that didn’t happen.

 

So you think it was when he lost to McCall and had a razor close win over Mercer?

I disagree.

 

Lewis didn't hit his prime until the McCall rematch. His last prime performance was the Rahman rematch. So he was in his prime between 31 and 36 years old. Wlad hit his prime during his rematch with Byrd and left it when Steward passed away when he was 36. It was virtually the same situation. Wlad was truly Lewis successor in many aspects.

 

Nope. People just see that Wlad wasn't a finished product until Emanuel molded him into the best version of himself. Nobody is disputing the fact Wlad was starched 3 times.