Julio Cesar Chavez greater than Joe Louis, yes?

He had 9 losses after 1945 when he got his stuff together. 6 of which came against Louis, Marciano and Charles, the latter of whom he ended up 2-2 with. That's not inconsistency, that's the result of fighting some of the biggest sub 200 lbs threats of all time. Literally the best LHW ever, the best puncher ever, and the toughest, most well conditioned, and arguably most relentless pressure fighter ever seen beneath 200 lbs.

Put Taylor, Camacho and Rosario in a series where they have to fight Chavez, Whitaker and Duran twice and they also start to look "inconsistent". Walcott's ability on film itself is not inconsistent, we have a good idea of what he was capable during the late 40s/early 50s. And while there was flash, there was certainly also substance. You don't KO Ezzard Charles if you're flash over substance.

And Conn was smaller, but so what ? He's one of the best fighters who ever lived P4P. And unlike someone like Foster who got destroyed all the time at HW, Conn was actually capable of stopping the #1 contender to get his spot, while also making a statement about his KO power. A statement he later cemented by being on a 4 fight KO streak before Louis, especially the 5th round KO over Barlund, who was 195 lbs (close to Louis' size) and was ranked as the #8 Heavyweight not more than a year prior. It's clear that while he was more accomplished in lower weights, Conn actually peaked as a fighter at Heavyweight.

But that's just stuff that adds to what we see on film. His performance vs Louis shows it all. He wasn't as flashy and fast of hand as Taylor, but that's kinda hard to be when you're 40 lbs heavier than him. He showed incredible distance management, being just far away from Louis to land and not get hit too often, while also taking away his foundation up close and beating him to the punch several times. He showed he had the power to make Louis respect him, the iron chin to take good shots, and some tricks with his feet and feinting game that caught Louis off guard.

One hit wonders like Taylor and Rosario aren't better than Conn.

 

Yes, Julio should be ranked higher.

 

With Walcott, it’s not about who he lost to, it’s about the fact he needed five title shots to finally win a belt, lost multiple times to Louis and Charles, and even the Charles IV decision is arguable. Keep in mind it took him 37 rounds just to finally stop Charles once. At some point, repeated losses stop looking like proof of greatness and start looking like a fighter who couldn’t consistently close the deal. Talented and tricky, yes, but he never clearly proved he was on the same level as the elite heavyweights he faced. So to me, that’s a good win for Louis, not some historically great one.

And with Conn, being an ATG at light heavyweight doesn’t automatically translate to heavyweight greatness. At heavyweight his résumé is a few solid contenders and one great performance in a loss. That shows skill, but it’s not a proven elite heavyweight body of work to prove he was also an ATG at HW. Someone being a great P4P fighter doesn't automatically mean size stops being a factor. For example if Usyk beat Bivol or Beterbiev at heavyweight, nobody would treat that as a better win than Joshua or Fury, same logic applies here.

In contrast, Chavez beat Taylor, Camacho, Rosario, and Ramirez all proven elite fighters at their own weight class and size who were also champs. Those wins came against opponents who were already established at the division, not smaller men moving up or contenders who kept falling short which is why I rate the level of fighters Chavez beat higher.

 

Oh no it took him 37 rounds to stop the fifth greatest pound for pound boxer of all time? How embarrassing for him.

 

No one is arguing Walcott was a great. He was not. But he was very good.

"Oh man, what an inconsistent mediocrity Walcott was. Gave Louis 2 of the hardest fights of his life, arguably even winning the first bout, but the records showed he lost to him 0-2, so what do I care ? It took him 3 fights to beat the best LHW ever, who also happens to be a top 5 P4P ATG near his prime. **** him for being a sub 200 lber having to face 3 out of the top 5 H2H sub-200 lbs fighters ever"

That's just dishonesty. I genuinely don't think you even believe that, you're probably just saying it to save face. Well, at least he beat his biggest rival at some point, by KO too. Can't say that about GGG and his biggest rival, can we

How come you're talking greatness now ? Didn't you say Rosario and co look better on film, which is why Chavez > Louis ? Why are we talking about resumes now ? We can do that if you want but I'm sure you already know Chavez is gonna get washed.

In contrast ? You really didn't look at those guys before you posted, did you ?

Taylor's sole win vs a top 10 rated fighter was Buddy McGirt. That's it.

Camacho infamously underachieved above 135, and he fought him at 140. Did he prove he was elite by scraping by a 4 year inactive Mancini and by going 1-1 with Greg Haugen ? He wasn't even ranked in the top 5 of 140 when he fought Chavez.

Ramirez has 3 wins that matter. Rosario, which was 4 years prior, Boza Edwards when Boza was a corpse, and a robbery against Whitaker who had broken his hand. So to sum up: a 4 year old win, a win over a corpse, and a robbery vs an injured fighter.

Even Rosario is mid. He's 1-1 vs his best win (Ramirez), 1-1 vs Nazario and scraped by Davis who was a failure as a pro and whose sole claim to fame is his Olympic gold. Bramble lost to everyone after the Mancini fights, and Randall is known solely for the Chavez fights (which already reflect poorly on him anyway). Rosario is just, whatever man. Conn could have fought Louis fresh out of LHW and I'd still have the Conn win higher simply due to how much better Conn is than him, but he's also got those HW wins anyway.

Conn came in, beat the #1 guy by KO in the 13th, shut out the #8 guy, then KO'd the former #8 guy who was the same size as Louis in 5 rounds. That's clearly an established fighter at a division, even if he is small due to having moved up. It shows he could school the big boys. Then consider his P4P credentials and what they imply when juxtaposed with his brief HW run, and he washes Chavez's comp.

 

You’re missing my point. Having close fights with a diminished Louis and then getting knocked out by that same Louis doesn’t mean Walcott was operating at a higher level than Chavez’s opponents. And beating Charles once after needing two tries doesn’t show elite quality it shows one strong performance across four fights against his best opponents.

If you give any very good fighter enough tries against another top guy, eventually something breaks their way. That doesn’t mean they were consistently elite. It just means they were competitive and finally got a lucky break as Walcott did by any objective measure. That’s how I see Walcott s talented, tricky, tough fighter but not consistently operating at the very top which is why beating him isn’t as impressive to me as beating fighters who were clearly the best in their division and didn’t need multiple failed attempts just to secure a title.

And when I say I’m talking about skill, I don’t mean skill in a vacuum. Skill has to show up against quality opposition at the weight. You can’t separate how a fighter looks from how often those abilities actually work against elite peers. I care more about what happens in the ring than how many ranked names show up on a record.

Taylor wasn’t just some contender. He was an Olympic gold medalist, clearly washed a very good fighter in McGirt, and then outfought Chavez for most of their fight. Watching it, you can see the level immediately mainly the speed, combinations, and inside work. That’s elite ability, regardless of how many “top 10 wins” a website lists.

Camacho is similar. Multiple weight champion, elite speed and defense, still near his prime when he fought Chavez. On film he’s obviously world class and that matters more to me than where he happened to be ranked at the time unless you seriously think Pineda or Alli were better then him just because they were ranked higher?

Ramirez and Rosario were established champions and dangerous, proven fighters at the weight who gave everyone they fought at that point tough fights. Chavez was the first fighter who completely schooled both. Notably, they weren’t smaller men moving up or contenders who kept falling short they were legitimate top fighters in their own divisions.

That’s the main difference I’m pointing out. Conn was an all-time great light heavyweight, but he was essentially a 170-pounder fighting guys who were only slightly larger than him until he faced Louis. He gave up 6 pounds to Pastor, 12 to Savold, and 16 to Baerlund, gaps that elite skill can easily bridge. The only time he was truly outsized was against Louis, where he gave up nearly 30 pounds. To claim that weight difference had no impact is a total lie, it was Louis size and power that allowed him to weather the storm and eventually end the fight with a single exchange. That wasn't a same-size, skill-for-skill matchup that Louis won, it was a smaller man outboxing a giant until the physical reality of a 30-pound weight gap finally caught up to him. When we're talking pound-for-pound mastery, that context is everything.

Chavez, on the other hand, beat proven elite fighters his own size and dominated them. To me, beating skilled peers at their natural weight says more about how your skill translates than beating a smaller fighter, even if that smaller fighter is an ATG at another division.

So I’m judging based on what actually shows up in the ring and how it works against equals not just resume lines or rankings.