Was Louis better than Marciano?

Not even close, and I would definitely take the word of Joe Louis himself, over any fan, writer, or historian writing 7 decades later. Robinson by miles.

 

I don't think that Louis was the p4p #1 of all time, but he does have the most dominant title reign of any fighter, from any weight class.

This might be partly attributable to fighters ageing more quickly in the lower weight classes.

 

As stated I am merely quoting Joe Louis's opinion of SRR.

 

NO FIGHTER who ever lived is "comfortable" with every style of fighter including Joe Louis...BUT how uncomfortable he might have looked at moments, his coil spring trip hammer blows when landed nullified all his
opponents traits and the Joe Louis, circa Max Baer would be a favorite over
any heavyweight in history REGARDLESS of the larger ,but less dexterous
mastodons of today...Because a man weighs 260 pounds doesn't mean his jaw
can withstand a powerful punch more than a 200 pound heavyweight such as a Chuvalo, Arturo Godoy, a Paolino Uzcudun, etc. Not at all. The Five most destructive heavyweights were not big "giants", namely Fitz, Dempsey, Louis.
Marciano, Tyson... Why they were unencumbered by massive weight that
took away handspeed combinations and dexterity...
Big is not always better, except in the bedroom I suppose...

 

Nice top 10 list. Only changes I'd make is to switch Ali and Louis for the #1 and #2 spots and probably bump someone off to squeeze Holyfield in there.

 

So, Trevor Berbick has a good chance at a prime Ali?

 

It does make me smile when some one says he didn't look comfortable against clever fast jabbers etc .Does anyone?


Depends where you are putting your" BIG "I suppose.

 

Joe Louis didn't have a right hand... at all. He beat Bivens entirely with his left, also. He was a mummy.

 

I think Joe Louis was better yes. This doesn't guarantee a head to head victory prime for prime of course, but he did look more multi dimensional in his abilities in his youth and certainly defeated a wider array of better fighters. Regardless of who wins I think a fight between Marciano and Louis at their pinnacles would have been a spectacular fight. We would now see Joe Louis with a two fisted attack and lot's of hand speed. I can't imagine it going to the score cards.. One of them is getting stopped but only after both men have taken their fair share of brutal punishment.

 

Wass first I soooo commonly see bias when folks try to advocate for a fighter & exaggerate aspects like size, up or down, or other statistics.
If we want to be both fair & credible we must be scripulously accurate.
you seem to know boxing well. Did you really not know how often Louis lost or what a handful meant?
Louis did not lose a "handful" of times. This would mean 5 times.

But to repeat & elaborate upon what I already said & others did:

Never losing when you have 20 less fights AND retire a good 5 years or so earlier is not necessarily more impressive or as impressive.
When you factor in the quality of opponents & array of styles Louis was more impressive.
Let alone by far the longest HW reighn.
You could say it was extended by not being able to fight for 3 1/2 years, but actually he LOST his peak years & it seems quite unlikely anyone would have beat him then. He would have extended his dominance & win streak.

The bane of swarmers are great sluggers. Rocky never faced one. Louis faced much better sluggers & very big men that would be a challenge for a much smaller fighter.
Though what Burt says has a lot of validity. Yet when the size disparity is SO great, Marciano vs. a skilled HW, FIiz fighting the Big Boys when he weigfhed 165...
They would suffer.

I see nothing wrong with that mild "bigger is better" joke.
Though for the record, bigger than average is ON AVERAGE prfeferred statistically.
Though it is far from the most important factor, & preferences are all over the map. And of course too big is very possible.

Thus Spake Zarathustra.

 

yep, likely, he had a better run, beat great opps and was rarely getting badly hurt.