Louis beat Baer, Walcott, Schemling, Conn...that is pretty good in and of itself. You are about the only person in the world denying the quality of Ali's win over Foreman. As for Marciano--six wins over four great fighters. They may have been past the best, but they were still great.
yes but was Conn really a top heavyweight? Who great did Baer defeat? Which heavyweight did JJ Walcott beat? Ali - Foreman, it's no coincidence that Foreman was such a big favorite. Of course, he was overrated at the time and Ali had more in the tank than people thought, but it's not like everything is suddenly the other way around. Foreman fought several one-sided rounds before Ali which did not prepare him, he had a terribly energy-consuming style which was deadly in the African heat, the crowd pressure must have been terrible, Foreman burned out in this fight in my opinion. There should be a rematch, it would be more meaningful. After all, Rahman crushed Lewis in one fight, Spinks won one fight with Ali, and no one questions the fact that Ingo outclassed Patterson. But if we have this type of sensations, a rematch is simply a necessity. I'm not taking anything away from Ali, he has the best resume of any HW ever, I just think Foreman wasn't as ready as Frazier was in 1971 for Ali. Generally, I think that Frazier 1971 was the best fighter that came before Ali, maybe apart from Holmes 1980. This is not too difficult of an opinion in my opinion. Try to understand
Right and Charles was still past his best. Satterfield lost all the time and Wallace was noting special. Charles would lose most of his fights after he faced Marciano. So my point stands. Marciano's oppositon was comprised of old men, mafia controlled fighters and tomato cans. Lol yet his biased fanbase still claim he is a all time great and or claim he is the best heavyweight of all time even though 180 pounds isn't a heavyweight anymore. No matter what you say about Mike Tyson's opponents at least they were guys who were his weight class and at least he fought guys who were still in their primes.
Moore was 41,Walcott 38 ,Louis 37. Wallace never beat anyone worth talking about.Satterfield was a big puncher but very vulnerable himself. Charles had beaten them, but lost the two fights before that.
Louis was no longer a great fighter,I think there are a few contenders of that era that could have beaten him. Moore and Charles were not great heavyweights,neither was Walcott.imo
Yes, he was ranked number 1 in 1941, the year Louis defeated him and he knocked out top heavyweight Bob Pastor who was very hard to beat during that period. Max Schmeling, the heavyweight ranked at number 1 the most in the 1930s. Check his record in 1945-1946. A trail of victories over the top fighters including Joe Baksi, Elmer Ray, Joey Maxim, Lee Oma and Lee Q Murray. He cleaned house.
Maybe this is grist for a separate thread, but should people because of the "competition" that existed in the era in which they fought ... eras that were not of their choosing, mind you, it was an accident of birth ... retroactively be penalized as far as historical assessment because they people they were put in front of them weren't suitably strong enough for some folks, particularly some folks with modern perspectives? (I've said here before, I don't have patience with those who knee-jerk say "new is inherently and automatically better, and anyone who doesn't agree is a doofus," whether it's boxing or baseball fans with the canard that Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth faced batting practice pitchers.) Again, I rank Marciano very high all time because he beat every human being who was ever placed in front of him in the ring. I don't care if they were in iron lungs, no heavyweight has ever done that for such an extended period of time and retired as champion, and what Marciano actually did in the ring IMO must be acknowledged. But I also make very clear that Marciano isn't close to being the GOAT and that there are many people ... probably double figures ... who would beat him H2H, some of them with ease, although he was tough as teak and would die trying against them. I think that's a fair compromise. But I've also noted that my ATG rankings don't reflect who would win H2H so maybe I'm a complete outlier ...
Marciano fought the best of his era 5/6 -#1 Contenders fought the men that deserved the shot at the title. Valdes lost 2 fights, one for the title elimination vs Archie Moore who already beat Baker and Johnson and then Valdes lost to Bob Satterfield who was 5'10 and slightly north of 180, Valdez getting dropped in the 10th round for a nine-count ruining a chance for Marciano to bring his record to 50-0 44 KO's - Satterfield was already KO'D in 2 rounds by Ezzard Charles in electric fashion and Ko'd by Archie Moore previously, and he was not a marketable contender because he was badly beaten by Bob S. Some people don't like Rocky because of his size but love the 5'8 Sam Langford, some people don't like him because of his style or his race but I think we would all have to agree that Marciano was unique, a freak of nature and a beast of a man. No one can question his heart determination and his ATG status, try as they may. Marciano's opponents were the best of his era and he ducked no one - to his credit never drew the color line.
ok, but imagine someone like Bolly Conn with prime Tyson, someone like Tony Galento with Larry Holmes, see what the level of the Baer-Carnera fight was and compare it with the Patterson fights. Don't get me wrong, Joe Louis is a legend but I think we look at a lot of things through sentiment. The standard of that boxing, at least in HW, was not great. Not as many people think
I agree, Ezzard Charles was clearly past his best days. His effort in losing a 15 round decision vs Marciano was his last hurrah.
Imagine someone like Ken Norton or Zora Folley or Leon Spinks against Tyson. Someone not being able to beat Tyson is not a metric for how good they are, not solely at the very least. Why compare Baer and Carnera to Patterson who was a much more technical fighter than both and not compare him to Max Schmeling or Jack Sharkey, both of whom were very much on par with Patterson and Machen and the very best boxers. It's also strange to criticize Baer and use him as an example of how boxing has evolved when Deontay Wilder was one of the most well respected heavyweights a year ago, and when in the 1970s you had Ernie Shavers. The linear progression isn't clear once you actually study the records. Of course the standard of boxing will seem to have risen if Galento, Carnera and Baer are the fighters you use for comparison, but it becomes a lot more complicated when men like Max Schmeling, Tommy Farr, Tommy Loughran, Lou Nova, Bob Pastor, Jimmy Bivins, Billy Conn, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles and Joey Maxim enter the equation.
I still don't see much good for those you mentioned. I remember how in an old film of the Louis-Schmeling II fight, the German is standing huddled in the ropes, one hand is holding on to them and Louis is bombarding him again and again. I don't see anything special about Schmeling, Braddock, Sharkey and the rest. I just don't see the big deal. Someone like Carnera became champion. Wilder would destroy him in my opinion. I feel like HW has become really technically advanced since Patterson
Using the Louis rematch to judge Schmeling's ability is like using the Foreman fights to judge Frazier and Norton and the Liston fights to judge Patterson. You can't see what a fighter is capable of when they are destroyed in a single round. You talk about Tyson's opponents, Michael Spinks, one of the greatest light heavyweights of all time, looks average in the Tyson fight. Louis broke Schmeling's back in the rematch, of course he would try to hold on to the ropes, he couldn't even walk properly after they waved off the fight. You talk about progression of boxing skill from Louis' time to Patterson's. Why did Eddie Machen and Doug Jones lose to Harold Johnson then? Johnson was knocked out in a single round by Jersey Joe Walcott, a man who was losing to 1930s fighters. Jones almost held a 1960s Muhammad Ali to a draw, the only man to bring the closest version of a prime Ali near defeat, yet he couldn't beat 34 year old Johnson. The problem is that there is a severe lack of footage of pre 1960s fighters. The main source of footage we have of top 1930s guys are their championship fights against Louis, where they are getting obliterated. That issue is not exclusive to the Louis era, most heavyweight fights in the 1920s and 1930s were not filmed aside from the important championship bouts, or they were filmed but the footage was lost. The improvement came in the quality and abundance of fight footage and the promotion of fights with advertisement which was not as feasible in the pre television era. As for Deontay destroying Carnera, that is your opinion but advocating for a progression in skill by using Deontay Wilder as an example is a terrible basis for your argument.
