The Louis that fought Rocky was not shot.

And close to 180 guys lost to Bivins and Savold before Louis fought them.

 

what a lot of nonsense. In all the years of his comeback Foreman never beat a single guy rated above or below him in the ring Magazine annual ratings. The opponents he selected were hand picked or dug up. Seriousy. Cooney one win in over five years.. lots of cruisers. Former super middleweight big foot Martin..he went the distance.

Foreman landed a fight against former LH Moorer on the back of a loss, with just one win to his name in two and a half years. Literally so outrageous it’s not surprising nobody thought he could win.

From the annual ratings Joe Louis had already beat Walcott. He beat Savold. He beat Brion. He had already fought Layne and Henry in exhibitions and he had fought Charles already. He fought Charles’ challenger and stopped him quicker. Agramante was rated the year before. Bivins was still rated the year after Louis retired.

No comparison to Foremans circus of a comeback.

 

Very good post.

 

Not Foreman again!

 

I think that Louis had slipped below Walcott and Charles at this point.

If you ask who was the best outside of that pair, and obviously the up and coming Marciano, then I think that he is in the argument.

 

If not shot, he was way past it.

My father told me about the fight when I was a kid. He said he thought prime Louis would have won.

 

Glad to see you're finally taking those old white guys seriously.

 

Id say no where near the fighting machine he was in his prime but still formidable enough you wouldn't want to take him lightly.

On a second note this fight is the reason Id lean toward prime Louis to beat the Rock. If he could still get through at that age. Prime would be even worse.

 

Doublechin brought up bald George, what am I supposed to do? ignore it?

 

Stop papering over things. An elite fighter is an ELITE fighter, not one who statistically beat this mug and that oldie. If someone Foreman or Liston beat had done similar things statistically you'd be running down their opponents to the lowest.

Two sets or rules.

 

He admitted that he was shot.

 

Yeah? Holyfield, Moorer, Morrison etc. Lies abound!!!

 

When they are commenting on a fighter from their own era and how his performance progressed I am all ears.

When they make sweeping, grandiose statements comparing fighters generations apart, I tend to be suspicious.

 

Then no ones opinion matters unless its on fighters in their own time?

 

I wouldn't say that it doesn't matter but that commentators gravitate to their own eras. Note Fleischer's ranking of Lightweights, where the only fighters in the top ten after the 1930's are Joe Brown and Ortiz. And this was done in 1975!

But if Fleischer wants to comment on the arc of Dempsey's career, or another fighter whose career he saw firsthand, I listen more intently.