Lennox Lewis vs Joe Louis

If Joe fought in Lennox's era, how would he be able to show him something new, if he no longer was the real Joe? I mean, if Lennox would be a more skilled fighter in Joe's time - does it not follow, that Joe would be less skilled in Lennox's time?

Imo, the only thing that makes any sense in these old vs new match-ups, is to imagine them meeting as is/was… and not as two fantasy fighters that never existed.

In this particular fight, I have Lennox by KO.

 

Lewis certainly arose from the McCall knock down and was extremely keen to fight on. The stoppage was ok but it also would have been fine to let it go on given it was for the big prize.

 

Anyway it is an open fight - good arguments can be had from both sides.

 

I have supposed that he may not be as technically efficient, so doesn't jab and parry as well or retain the same economical, proficient footwork, if transported into Lewis' era and that he still retains handspeed and combination punching ability but likely hits harder with more weight behind the punches.

I have also made the big assumption that if Joe becomes the man of the division, Lennox could very easily take a similar run to Walcott in that he's a talented fighter but his circumstances might dictate his formative years and he ends up being avoided by the type of fighters that would allow him to sharpen his skillset and home his craft. Yes, he would likely be more skillful, but I envisage him being denied the opportunities to gain the necessary experiences and exposures to different styles to implement the fullest range of his potential.

In showing him something new, I mean that Lennox would have never experienced Joe's combination of natural punching ability, poise and explosiveness. I also presume that Lennox absolutely shows Joe something new, although I guess if born in Joe's era, he isn't as tall nor does he weigh as much on fight night.

 

Could really go either way! Both tremendous punchers, neither had ATG chins, but both are at the top of most greatest heavyweight s top 10.
My initial feeling is Lewis rips in to him and takes him down early. But not entirely sure that that's the out come. Louis didn't get to where he was by getting easily kod, just that he could be dropped by guys not seen as great hitters.
I's it out of the question that Lennox drops him early but survive s to come back and stop Lewis in the latter round s?
It's a bloody tough one to decide imo.

 

Yes, I understand what you mean - you want to make it more "fair". But why?

Look at someone like Mark Spitz - the swimmer who won 7 golds in the 1972 Olympics. All 7 in world record time. An iconic figure, and one of the sport's absolute greatest ever.

Yet his winning time in the 100 m freestyle would only land him in 51st place (out of 59 participants) in the Rio 100 m 4 years ago. If he had been born 45 years later, could he have won in Rio? Who knows - and does it really matter?

So maybe Louis could beat Lennox - and maybe he couldn't. We will never know. But if he couldn't, does that make him any less "great"? I don't think so.

 

The fairness that I seek comes from my own moral compass. I hear your Mark Spitz rationale and only assert that if he had the hindsight of advancements made since he swam in technique, size, specific training regiments, superior nutrition, funding and let's face it, access to steroids then arguably he would be right up there. The key thing is that once Spitz did it, everyone had a new benchmark to aspire to beat. The belief in doing and improvements in conditions to make the swimmer faster in the water, whether swimming suit or continuous refinement of technique before we talk about generational changes in athletic potential all contribute to better results.

I'm a firm believer that elite talent would always be elite if placed in another era, naturally gaining whatever advantages or disadvantages of the sports science, available nutrition and ruleset and fight-making conditions of the specific era that they are inserted into exist.

 

I don't understand, why it's necessary to create some imaginary "fairness" scenario - in order to be able to admire the old-timers. Why not honor them for being the best in their own time, and leave it at that? I mean, if a boxer was the best in his own era, what more can we expect of him? Why isn't that enough?

 

I agree, John, his heart was great, and his eyes and gloves said he was ready....but he was still staggering.

As I think I mentioned before, I don't like McCall and really like Lewis as fighters. I would rather join in on the early stoppage train, but to me Lewis was pretty much done. I don't think he would have made it, staggering against McCall after that. The ref could have let it go on, and as Seamus mentioned would have if it were an earlier era. But to what good? Let's watch a LL with bad legs get knocked all over the ring.

I think letting LL go on would have been like Holy going on against Bowe after THAT knockdown in III, Holy was through, all that happened was he was basically pushed/knocked back down again. I think the same would have happened with LL, no point in it.

 

Oh no, I don't think anyone was impugning Lennox's greatness. Lewis was a very, very great fighter. I have him #5 as ATG.

 

Simply put - because I want to.

I appreciate old timers in their own era and I don't compare fighters with more than 30 years between them in H2H hypothetical fights usually. When I do, I find it necessary to go through the process in order to even the playing field.

I wasn't aware that I had a remit for agreement with my process, but if I am making a greatest of all time assessment, how do I compare fighters from eras that were so different from modern fighting without discriminating against them?

 

Sure, you can do whatever you want - I was just stating my opinion.

 

This is a perfectly valid, succinct answer imo.

 

The statement was that Schmeling was more skilled than Lewis, not that he would beat him.

Would Lewis beat Schmeling if they were of equal size, and he only had his technical skill to see him through?

I don't personally think that he would!

 

Joe Louis was not a one -punch guy like Rahman and McCall - Joe Louis at his prime was the finest combination punching power punching machine ever. Lewis had a fine offense and size but IMO he would not survive a blitz of power combos from Louis. Prime vs Prime with knowledge of each other's strength and weaknesses - Louis by KO before the 8th