Joe Louis's record vs ranked opposition

I didn't need to see Holmes rematch them to observe the quality of Weaver and Witherspoon. I just needed to watch the matches they actually did fight.

That's not answering the question, is it?

You stated: "Norton had clearly slipped..."

Which means, Norton's age notwithstanding, you saw something that indicated his having slipped. What was it that you observed?

I've already acknowledged this. But I still think Cooney's ledger is better than Haye's.

What do you think?


In any event, the Cooney that faced Holmes probably breaks Byrd in half and disposes of the rest of Wlad's so-called top-tier opposition - save for MAYBE Povetkin in a fair fight, i.e., one in which Cooney isn't hanging off Povetkin's neck and trying to piggy-hump him for the majority of the bout.

That said, I still favor Cooney to take Pov.

You don't think Byrd being a LHW on a high-carb diet is a salient factor?

OK.

But he didn't really, at any point, grow into a proper heavyweight, did he?
He just carried that layer of fat that shrouded any muscle definition.

A sure sign that the division had gone to hell, post-Lewis.

If the drubbing Byrd received from Wlad in 2000 wasn't enough, we had to watch an abridged version of the one-way flogging again - This time, with 'well-past-it' Byrd, six years later.

And that is Wlad's best win.

As an aside, when Byrd faced Wlad for the second time, he was older than the Norton who faced Holmes.

You're invoking name-only value again. Do you think the 'W' Byrd picked up from Vitali represented a quality win, really?

Byrd avoiding being knocked out by Tua was a good idea, making it a fair win, but it only really confirmed a lot of what was already known and said more about Tua. That is, Tua was regularly out-boxed by even modest competition, but had had the power to dig himself out of trouble in the past - even after the bell had rung (Just ask Rahman - Tua's best win - achieved on a foul).

Tua is massively overrated, but fair play to Byrd for a smart game-plan against a low ring IQ.

It wasn't just ugly. It was a foul-ridden shitshow and should have been a DQ win for Povetkin.

Just the attempt you make here at one-upmanship, comparing Wlad/Povetkin with Norton/Holmes and Holmes/Witherspoon is bizarre and lacks perspective.

Given that we know he didn't fight the universally recognized #1 for long periods of his tenure, we can safely say that the above is overstatement.

Additionally, were Byrd (II), Sam Peter (II), Chagaev, and 'Pinky-Toe' Haye, really at their best?

All-told, I'd wager that Holmes beat more top-3 contenders than did Wlad. And, what possible case could there be against Norton not being considered the "nr 1" when Holmes fought him?

 

Lol. But seriously Wlad is a either "like him" or "hate him fighter "with these all time rankings which is probably why this thread has stoked some of the conversation it has.

 

I actually like Wlad the man.

 

Me too, just don’t think he belongs in the top ten

 

I meant as a fighter and his all time standing.

 

Was a lot, but I hope this answers at least most of it.

The question is whether Weaver and Witherspoon improved substantially after Holmes or if they already was that good but just not recognized for it. Rematches not too long after would have been a help there.

I think Norton had slowed considerably and had lower output than at in the early/mid 70's, which is what you would expect at that age.

Haye's KO of Chisora has aged well and I think that one is probably better than anything from Cooney, but neither has a deep resume.

I don't know why you go on about Byrd's size when he clearly was a proven commodity at HW. Spinks was also a blown up LHW when he beat Holmes, Young was about that size as well. Doesn't stop you from being a good HW.

The nr. one ranked contender when Holmes faced Norton was probably Ali in the eyes of most, but I think a case can be made for Norton, hence "arguably".

I don't know who has the most wins against top 3 comp, not something I've touched upon. But off the top of my head Byrd x 2, Peter, Chagaev, Haye, Povetkin and Pulev for Wlad. And Norton, Shavers, Occassio and Cooney for Holmes. Perhaps L. Spinks and Snipes. Not sure about them. I think Bey was in the top 5, but not top 3. Could be wrong.

 

I don't think having him in my Top-20 constitutes a dislike of his standing.

 

I wasn't talking about you individually I was talking about people's view on Wlad's standing in general. In other words some people rate very him highly some people don't.

 

Norton’s slowed considerably by 34 because at that age it’s expected, Wlad is prime at 35 because that’s when his prime was…

 

I'm actually in the dislike camp. Think he's fairly dreadful to watch and think his technical skills often gets way overrated. I also started out with that three bad losses in his physical prime hurt him badly, but over the years I've come to the conclusion that if a fighter is good enough for a long enough time what he did before or after that time isn't that importent. And physical prime and actual prime doesn't always match perfectly, which also was the case for Lewis. That's why I have re-evaluated him.

But together with Johnson he's my least favourite to watch of my top 10 fighters at HW.

 

I would liked to see him develop a little bit more of a inside game and a bit less clinching at times. I think how boring he was could be a little overstated because there still a new quite a few brutal stoppages and his opponents would often feel his power over the rounds and try to survive (even in the clinch) so part the reason the fights weren't the most entertaining was also partly on them as well as on Wlad.

I agree it's fair to hold those 3 losses against him but you also have to consider what he did in-between and especially after those losses as well IMO.

 

His defence was clinching, leaning back and range. No slipping and.countering or block or counter. No staying in the pocket and using boxing skills.

He made a.science of his power and size advantage while limiting his tools to the bare necessity. Horrible to watch.

But some nice KO:s, though. I'll give him that.

 

Re Weaver and Spoon - I'm not sure how much they could have improved in the nine months, following their respective tilts at Holmes.

Re Norton slowing down - We can speculate about the impact of Norton's age, but it is not unusual to see fighters put on late-stage performances that they just get up for. I don't think there is enough evidence, neither visually nor statistically, that provides an obvious case of slippage in this performance.

Re Haye - I can't get onboard with Chisora being the differentiator here. I don't rate him at all. His stock is based on his relative durability and entertainment value, and his career has largely stayed on that track - unchanging.

Re Byrd - I discuss Byrd's size because I think he was an undersized and overrated chancer. Since Byrd also happens to be the GOTO Number-1 Win for Wlad fans, I find this to be a relevant factor.

And, Byrd wasn't exactly a proven commodity when he met Wlad the first time. His Vitali win turned on a technicality, in a fight he was losing. Byrd's immediate loss to Wlad, after Vitali, which was a severe drubbing, verging on obscene and needn't have gone 12 rounds - proved that he was little-league and out of his depth.

His half-decent win against Tua doesn't really change that - and, beyond this, Byrd became best known for unwatchable fights and bad decisions.

When Byrd met Wlad for a second time, he was an undersized, overrated and past-it chancer.

Re the #1 Contender - Not sure. Norton was the Ring-rated # 1 contender to Ali and, to the best of my knowledge, remained so after Ali lost to Spinks. Then, when Spinks refused to defend against Norton, the WBC detached from the lineage. Ali might have been WBA's #1 contender. (?)

Re Top-3 Comp - Thinking about it, Holmes probably faced more but probably didn't beat more. I used to have a record of Holmes' historical ratings, but it seems to have disappeared into the cyber-ether.

 

Yes - I get that.

The disparity is apparently based on the relative weighting placed on longevity and on catastrophic losses.

Combined with the above are different perspectives on what figures in to quality opposition, quality fights, quality in general, perhaps.

Big swings, either way.

 

All the things I previously said still applies, so I'll not repeat them.

I can only add about Haye that Valuev still was ranked so Haye has that over Cooney as well. And that a young Chisora who still has some decent wins isn't a better win than corpses of Young et al eludes me as much as how Norton somehow wasn't past his best for Holmes.

I'll leave it at that.

Edit: Oh, yeah, as for how Weaver and Witherspoon might have improved, it could be for example experience and confidence from takibg that step up.and doing better than expected. 'Spoon was on some 17 pro fights I believe so you'd expect a learning curve.

Not saying they necessarly did, but rematches would have sorted that. Especially in a close fight as the one against Witherspoon it would have been nice.