The chin and defensive skills of Joe Louis

We are talking about both chin and defense.

Foreman was dropped by Young after gassing out in a humid outdoor arena. A fresh Foreman was nailed on the chin by prime Frazier's hooks and it had zero effect.

Holmes was dropped by Snipes and Shavers right hands, which were weaknesses in his style that he later corrected.

You are severely exaggerating how hurt Holyfield was against Cooper.

If Galento were the only guy to drop Louis, you might have had a point. There's just way too many people who did for him to have a 9 in both chin and defense. He went down more times than all these boxers.

 

This is not true. Cuba, Russia, most of Africa, etc were notably missing from this era and those areas didn't really start opening up professionally until the 80's-90's.

There were lots of pro boxers in Louis era, but primarily from the US, Mexico, and UK. And many of them look terrible or mediocre on film, you haven't addressed that.

What are you talking about, why would I dock points from Louis if he put on a master class beating Baer without getting hit? Of course I'd give him extra points in defense. The issue is that you are the one who cited the Max Baer fight as evidence of Louis having a good chin, and that led to the issue of how good was Baer's condition and health in the first place.

Ali fans can acknowledge Cleveland Williams had health issues and don't bother citing that fight as proof of Ali's durability (especially because Ali put on a clinic barely getting hit). I've seen plenty of people rate the Louis/Max fight as his equivalent of Ali/Williams or Tyson/Spinx demolition jobs and rarely use those fights as proof of the winner's durability. You're one of the only people I've seen doing that and I've seen several people provide evidence Baer wasn't in good condition.

No, you don't. That is simply not true.

You do not need to mention club fighters to do a simple 1:1 comparison of Louis 10 best opponents and another heavyweight. That is utter nonsense.

Ali had: Foreman, Frazier (2x), Norton (2x), Liston, Terrel, Patterson, Quarry, Bugner. Notable elite losses: Frazier, Norton, Spinx.

Holmes had: Norton, Shavers (2x), Cooney, Witherspoon, Weaver, Williams, Berbick, Mercer, Smith. Notable elite losses: Spinx (2x), Tyson, Holyfield

Tyson had: Spinx, Holmes, Bruno (2x), Ruddock (2x), Tucker, Berbick, Thomas, Ribalta. Notable elite losses: Holyfield, Douglas, Lewis.

Holyfield: Douglas, Bowe, Tyson (2x), Foreman, Moorer, Mercer, Dokes, Stewart, Rahman. Notable elite losses: Lewis, Bowe (2x), Moorer.

That was easy. 10 quality opponents for 4 different ATG fighters. I didn't have to dig deep or hype up an opponent beyond their standing at the time. Each opponent was either a champion, a belt holder, or a ranked opponent with a good record/prime/etc.

Now compare them to Louis 10 best wins and elite losses. Go ahead and pick them, then compare who was knocked down and knocked out more compared to Louis to compare chin/defense.

 

Literally all you've been doing this entire discussion is an excuse for Louis:

"He fought more ranked opponents"

"If other fighters fought as long as Louis did, they'd have more knockdowns"

"He has an aggressive style and walked into something"

"Baer was fine, disregard reports of him having health issues"

"Braddock was a hell of a puncher at light heavy so no shame in that"

"Louis was old when he fought Rocky"

"Louis was young when he fought Schmeling"

"No shame in getting KOd by Schmeling, he knocked out two guys who were hard to stop"

Etc, etc

You haven't conceded a millimeter, let alone an inch, and have had more excuses than some Mike Tyson or Pacquiao fans. You sincerely believe a boxer can have a 9/10 chin/defense with 10 knockdowns and 2 KO losses yet you cannot give me a single boxer in HW history who has these stats.

You ignore the MULTIPLE ATG heavyweight boxers I've cited who don't have that many knockdowns by implying they somehow "had it easier" than Louis and that's the only reason their stats are better.



I have at least conceded maybe 6/10 is too low his chin and upgraded him to 7. I have admitted the 3 1st round knockdowns aren't as bad with proper context and film analysis. You have pro Louis fans disagreeing with you and conceded absolutely nothing and have a truckload of excuses for Louis across 11 pages.

 

None of the things you brought up have anything to do with historical ratings of Louis as a consensus top 3 HW. I myself have Louis top 3 historically and I think he's underrated h2h if anything. You do not need to have a granite 9/10 chin or have superb 9/10 defense to be one of the greatest in your weight class.

I am not an outlier in claiming Louis didn't have a great chin and defense, did you bother reading the other posts in this very thread? The vast majority of Louis threads on multiple sites (including this one) don't have Louis chin and defense anywhere NEAR 9/10. By all means, show some trainers, historians, or threads in this site indicating the majority of people rate him that high.

 

Well Charles is complicated because how his chin would hold up against modern sized guys is a complete mystery. Similar to Marciano, I rate guys like Charles according to the standards of light heavies and cruiserweights. For example, I think Rocky had a granite 10/10 chin for fighters that size, but at 220+, I'd give him maybe an 8/10 given the complete lack of data he has against men that size.

I would say for Charles, I wouldn't take many fights seriously towards the end of his career as he ballooned up to 20 lbs heavier than his prime fighting weight (when he won the title) and had been in more than 120 fights. This KO losses against Fleeman/Logan etc should be taken with a grain of salt. However, he was in his (heavyweight) prime when he was demolished by Walcott with one clean punch. Walcott could crack, I would rate at least his left hook power around a 7-8 or so. There is no shame in the Rocky KO loss as he was beginning to show wear and tear, and looked fairly durable in the previous fight. But then even in Charles prime, he wasn't an extremely durable guy as he has other stoppage losses to men smaller than even today's light heavies. It gets confusing because Charles' chin holds up against heavy hitters such as Elmer Ray, Moorer, and the other Walcott fights.

My takeaway from all this is that Charles was a hot/cold inconsistent fighter as he got older, especially at heavyweight. Really, he was more suited to light heavy but the bigger paydays were calling. I think he had underrated defense and the ability to make adjustments mid fight and this is how he was able to last as long as he didn't. Sorry that was long winded, but I never sat there and thought extensively on Charles so I'd say his chin was 7/10 against guys his own size 6/10 for modern fighters, but great defense 9/10. If he were natural heavyweight and wasn't so incredibly shopworn, he'd probably have a rock solid 8/10 chin. I will note that Charles was good at both crowding an opponent to smother their punches and was also good at rolling with them and slipping away to avoid the full damage.


Moore could be dropped by big hitters if they managed to land a clean bomb. He had decent recovery, but a very solid defense. The best example of this is his infamous fight with Durrell where he manages to survive multiple scary knockdowns but makes adjustments and manages to win. It also took a prime Rocky Marciano multiple knockdowns to get rid of an ancient Moore who was holding his own for a while. He went the distance with the much larger Valdez multiple times. I'd give Moore an 8/10 for chin, 8/10 defense, but poor recovery at about 5/10.


Duran was only truly ever battered clean once by the hard hitting Hearns, and this was way above his natural lightweight division. 9/10 chin, 8/10 defense. He was very, vert durable despite so many weight class jumps, even taking on middleweight titans Hagler, Barkley, etc.

Byrd's chin was remarkable considering how tiny he was debuting at 169 lbs. Even when way past his prime, Povetkin couldn't floor him and he was stopped on his feet. Wladmir and Ike are the only 2 to make a prime Byrd look really bad overwhelming him with raw power and flooring him, which is no shame since he was a feather fisted guy giving up 30+ lbs to them both. He faced other bruisers such as Tua, Vitali, Mccline, etc without taking too much damage. I think he was the Jimmy Young of the 90's with perhaps a little more offensive skill and a better workrate. Byrds chin should be about 8/10 with 9/10 defense.


I haven't seen enough of Pep to make an assessment.

 

Young took the time to arrive early and get used to the humidity, Foreman didn't. It was Foreman's fault, but it did affect his gas tank. He had a heat stroke after the fight.

Frazier was not past his prime, he was an undefeated 29 year old undisputed champion. He landed plenty of clean hooks in both fights. Frazier looked bad because Foreman made him look bad.

 

Because chin and stamina are obviously two different things. Foreman's chin was excellent. The only man to ever drop him with raw power was Lyle. When he was dropped by Young and Ali, it was due to exhaustion+not pacing himself well in a muggy outdoor arena against two very elusive defensive fighters. Foreman went 10 rounds with Peralta without gassing.

First you said Frazier didn't land clean, now you're saying Frazier "landed a few clean shots at best". You are contradicting yourself. Again, chin is what a fighter can take to the jaw without going down and Foreman took his hook fine. As an ancient 40 year old man, he took several bombs from Cooney, Morrison, Holyfield, etc without going down. This is pretty remarkable because your chin gets worse with age.

I didn't say he had no deterioration at all, but he was still in his prime and undefeated. These are the same excuses Tyson fans use when they act as if he suddenly became an old man conveniently right before his loss to Douglas. I don't accept these narratives. Frazier would always lose to Foreman 10/10, it's a bad clash of styles.