Louis 6/38 v.s. Louis 10/51

None. Ive said all along 1951 Joe Louis was far past his prime and had lost a lot of his reflexes/speed, but despite this, was still a good capable fighter. When your once the greatest heavyweight of all time, even far past your prime your still ****in pretty good. What does this mean? It means I don't see a 1950s Joe Louis losing to anyone who wasn't a great/very good heavyweight throughout history. I do not see Louis defeating any top 20 ATG prime heavyweights. However, I do think a 1950s Joe Louis would defeat many young top 10 heavyweight contenders in many different eras. Old Joe Louis was a very intelligent, skilled big man with a tremendous jab and powerful left hook. This alone eliminates many sub 200lb boxers from being able to outpoint Joe. I think a old Joe Louis would be difficult for many of the heavyweights in the early eras before skill really modernized. For example, I do not see Fred Fulton, Jess Willard, Luis Firpo, or Carl Morris defeating a 1951 Joe Louis. I do, however, see Gene Tunney and Jack Sharkey defeating a 1951 Joe Louis.

Bottom Line: You better be either A. really big and good or B. small and great if you want to beat old man Joe Louis.

 

SuzieQ, how do you see the Quarry of the Patterson bouts against the old Joe?

 

I like Quarry by majority decision. I see him outworking and outhustling Joe down the stretch. I see Louis doing well early really working the jab and ripping quarry's eye open. Unlike the other big sluggers Quarry beat(Shavers, Lyle, Mac Foster)..Louis was more intelligent, Poise, and technically sound than those men. Quarry will find himself transforming mid fight from a boxer to a swarmer, piling the pressure on joe forcing him into the ropes and outlanding him. Louis will get in the occasional hard right hand and powerful left hook that will buckle quarrys knees but quarry will take 1 to land 3-4 good combinations. Quarry comes back and takes the fight late.

Quarry was a very good fighter..underrated by many. Quarry was a shell when he fought Norton. I think Quarry in his prime takes norton everytime.

 

Unfortunately there's no real debate in this thread,as by 1951,Louis had deteriorated in ALL ways,in the 14 years since '38. In my Cassius Clay '64 v Muhammad Ali '74,the older version had retained more of his prime than the '51 Louis had. What Ali had lost in speed (though still extremely fast for a heavyweight) he'd compensated for in smarts and ring generalship. This makes more of a contest.

 

The troll who started this thread deserves a kick in the ass and slap in the face for failure. I cannot believe he calls himself a "boxing historian".

 

And a filmmaker.