Prime Roy Jones jr vs Joe Louis

Buddy Baer??? Carnera??? Fat short Galento???? You haaave to be kidding. These guys are BUMS compared to the newer fighters. Stiffs.
If you’re putting your other guys in the same company with them they can’t be too much better.

 

Well don't ***** around, put your name to a few picks. Let see what level of delusion we are dealing with.

Simply highlight in bold your picks in the below matchups. Man up. To be clear if you think Primo loses to both Tarver and Hill (LOLZ!) just highlight both Tarver and Hill. If he beats both just highlight Primo. If he beats Tarver but loses to Hill highlight Primo and Hill.

Lets see what makes you tick.

Primo vs Tarver and Hill (the one Jones beat, who was coming off a loss late career)
Schmeling vs Tarver and Hill
Baer vs Tarver and Hill
Godoy vs Tarver and Hill
Bivins vs Hill
Charles vs Hill
Jersey Joe Walcott vs Tarver and Hill
Conn vs Hill
Abe Simon vs Tarver and Hill
John Henry Lewis vs Tarver and Hill

Primo vs Tarver
Charles vs Hill
Buddy Baer vs Clinton Woods
Max Baer vs Glen Kelly
Tony Galento vs Dereck Harmon
Abe Simon vs Eric Harding
John Henry Lewis vs David Tolesco
Billy Conn vs Reggie Johnson
Jim Braddock vs Richard Frazier
Tommy Farr vs Otis Grant

 

Buddy you badly need to study video. Put them alside each other. Open up Buddy Baer vs Louis and Jones vs Toney and watch each for a minute switch back and forth. If you can’t see that the modern guys are on a different level in skill and athletically then what can I say enjoy the fantasy. Actually 3 levels up from Baer.

 

You still haven't made your picks. What are you afraid of?

Should i expect your picks are all the modern fighters across the board?

 

Picking this would bore me into a coma. You’re all over the board pal. We re talking about Louis vs Jones and I got Jones by UD.
You think B Baer Carnera and Galento are greats. OK give me those guys vs M Spinks in first Holmes fight vs when they fought Louis ? Doesn’t matter to me any fight version Spinks knocks them all out within 5 rounds.

 

Some of these comparisons are ridiculous though.

Braddock and Farr were both top contenders whereas I don't believe Grant or Frazier were ever even top 10. So why on earth compare them? Same with Glenn Kelly who accomplished virtually nothing and was criticized as a poor defense. Moreover fighters are far less active these days nobody is going to end up with resumes comparable to Charles these days due to being far less active.

Id have to question your objectivity regarding Charles and Tarver. A prime Charles lost to Walcott who lost one third of his total fights. You somehow think it inconceivable he could lose to Tarver when he managed to lose to Walcott in real life. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

The answer to your question seems obvious to me:

• This is a thread asking who would win, Joe Louis vs RJJ.
• Posters have questioned RJJ's ability to survive the power of an ATG HW puncher.
• Given these comments, Steve Fero has stated that the LHWs of RJJ's era are better than the HW' s of Louis's era.
• In response, JT has asked Steve who he'd think would win a series of fights comprising HWs Louis beat vs LHWs RJJ beat.

JT will correct me if I've misunderstood the rationale behind his choice of match ups, but I doubt that correction is necessary. Again, the rationale seems obvious to me.

 

You are bang on, as always Greg. As you allude, it's pretty simple.

 

You are like the barbers cat.

The big thing however is that i need you to show me where i claimed B Baer, Carnera and Galento are "greats". It's an incredibly simple task, that one.

Let's see what level of credibility is on offer here

 

66-6 in favor of Louis. The horse has long passed, shut her down!

 

Hey it’s fun debating and comparing theories thats why the forum is great. My position is you can still love the old timers for doing what they did in their day but if your sober about it do a little study it will show just like all other major sports the athletes have progressed. Boxing isn’t much different in that regard then all major sports like football swimming or track and field. Johnny Weissmuller was a gold medal winner so great and popular in the 30s he became that eras biggest super hero on the silver screen: Tarzan. He couldn’t make the women’s Olympic team today with the times he swam and it’s not even that close. Now we can make excuses why that is or be mad about it but shouldn’t we just understand that thats reality note it and move on?

 

Ok so who right now would you favor over peak Sugar Ray Robinson? Three quarters of a century have passed so if boxing has improved so much a whole heap of the current guys should be favored. Who do you like to beat him around the same in the ring weight as Robinson?

Virtually half a century has past since the peak 135 days of Roberto Duran, who today is a better fighter than Duran around the same in the ring weight?

 

Whoooaaa! What happened to Primo and 2 Ton Tony? You go to your best guy! You re smart. Also best bet for matching past generations favorably is with middle weight classes where the increasing size and muscle mass is mostly negated due to the division weight limits. The Middleweight Sugar in the 1950s was great but took some loses to non greats so let’s talk about the welterweight version. I think he was really great but did he ever fight anyone as good as prime Floyd Mayweather or Ray Leonard or Thomas Hitman Hearns? Don’t think so but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t beat them. I don’t know enough about more recent guys but the 3 I mentioned have excellent chance to beat him at welterweight. Thomas is slight underdog but Floyd and Ray are even money.

 

You made the statement boxing has progressed just like other sports. I specifically stated "peak" SRR which was indeed the welterweight version, obviously.

SRR beat Kid Gavilan twice, do you think the Kid isn't an absolute ATG? He beat the great Jake LaMotta multiple times while being outweighed by 10-15 pounds whilst being inside or just over the welterweight limit himself.

Floyd and SRL would not be even money, especially Floyd. It should tell you something that two of the three you revert to peaked at 147 some 45 years ago. If boxing keeps progressing you'd think there would be heaps of guys one could pick in the last 20 years that would be heavily favored over a guy that peaked at the weight more than 75 years ago.

The truth is boxing has not improved. There is far less proper sparring now and they fight far less frequently. To state the obvious this stunts the development of skills. We also know boxers of say, the 40's, were in supreme fighting condition and could go hard for 10-15 rounds. We've seen it. Fighting all the time had them super fit...........for fighting.

I could pick a 4 year period from 45-50 years ago and put forth a guy in each division while giving you the last 26 years to choose from and you'd definitely be up against it.

Larry Holmes 1980
Michael Spinks 1982
Marvin Hagler 1982
Thomas Hearns 1982
Sugar Ray Leonard 1981
Aaron Pryor 1982
Roberto Duran 1978
Alexis Arguello 1980
Salvador Sanchez 1982
Wilfredo Gomez 1980
Jeff Chandler 1982
Miguel Canto 1978

Almost every one of those guys were peak in the years i nominated. I can't think of such an array of peak greats in such a short span. One could go back a couple of years with Canto but he was plenty decent in 78. 80-82 is simply obscene.

Give me that lot against a collective group from much more recent history anytime. I gave 26 years, imagine if i gave a 5 year period since 2000. It would be a joke.

Boxing has most certainly not progressed from that period, it's gone backward and it's not exactly hard to see.

 

Regarding the heavyweights of Louis era though some of their deficiencies seem apparent on film.

Like it seems clear to me Baer is worse defensively than many 90s fighters based on film footage. Does anyone take issue with that stance?

Galento also does not look impressive on film