Who would you expect to beat Joe Louis at his absolute peak ?

You can make any all time great look beatable by another by highlighting some of their more ropey performences.

The diference is that in Louis's case you generaly have to resort to fights where the lesser fighter gave him trouble rather than beat him like with many all time greats.

Basicaly if Tyson or Holmes or Frazier or whoever fights Louis they are not going to get the version of the Conn fight or the first Godoy fight. If he has a realistic apreciation of what he is up against then the Louis of the Baer fight or the second Schmeling fight is going to turn up to the party.

 

My picks would be Jack Johnson & Ali, as I feel Jack would out think Louis and Ali's movement and speed would outpoint Joe

 

Patterson a slight underdog against Louis? I'd say he's a slight underdog in a bet about whether he make can it out of the first round.

I think that is exaggarating a bit. It's like saying "anyone who jabs a bit is gonna give Ali trouble (see Norton)".

Then why didn't Buddy Baer, Max Baer, Abe Simon, Tony Galento and Primo Carnera give him trouble? They were all big men and on paper could muscle him around.

A great chin helps (see the Godoy fights), but it's gonna require a lot more than that.

Well, Foreman was knocked out by a light puncher (Ali), knocked down by a feather fisted puncher (Young), and nearly knocked out by the only puncher who landed on him (Lyle), if we're talking about the young, prime Foreman. So would it be so much of a stretch to suggest that perhaps the greatest combination punching heavyweight of all time could knock him out?

Fair enough, but as for the suspect chin part, you have to take two things into account:

1. He never lost a fight because of his chin. If he had an iron chin, then he would've lost a decision to Schmeling, but he would've still lost. The same probably holds true for the Marciano fight. So, despite his chin being suspect, it never put him out of a fight. I don't think that's how a suspect chin is defined.

2. He faced an incredible amount of ranked contenders! Last time i checked it was nearly 30 of them. Compare that to a prime Foreman who only faced 7 or 8, dito for Liston. Of course they're going to show a lot less knockdowns, weaknesses, etc. It is easier to notice these negative aspects while losing the bigger picture, because you weren't around when he was champ. I mean imagine where and who you were 11 years ago. Then know that from that time until right now, he would've been champion! That's a gigantic period.

But don't you think that if he is so weak head-to-head, that he would've suffered more losses? Why did he make it through such an incredible period of time undefeated, despite fighting all the best fighters out there?

 

In the H2H argument, I dont think Louis favours too well. He didnt have great foortwork, so wasnt quick on his feet and was flat footed and could be hurt by small (by todays standards) heavyweights, I think i would pick Liston, Foreman, ali, Holmes, Lewis, and a few others to beat him.

 

For the most part, Louis had a big time power and speed advantage in an era that lacked skilled power punchers. Louis was mostly matched vs slower, older, and smaller people. Pretty much every ATG great would blast out bum of the month title opponents. Occasionally Louis fought a bigger guy who could punch like Baer, but Baer was not a good boxer, and had an even worse defense.

Louis did not fight many black contenders at all...

Louis did not fight many skilled people or quick people, but when he did, he had some trouble. If people like Pastor, Conn, or Farr could win many rounds and out box Louis, who had the height and reach advantage...

If guys like Braddock or Galento could floor you....

If light hitters like Conn or Farr can stun you....

If swamers on Godoy level can out work you and make you look poor...

Any one of these performances to me shows some serious flaws.

You spoke of big fights. The best fighters Louis fought were Walcott, Charles, Schmeling, Marciano, and M Baer. Louis record here on a fair score card is 3 wins and 4 losses. If you mix in the shaky performances on film vs non- elite level heavyweights that I mentioned above my points are not only validated, they are certified as factually true.


Louis would be in trouble vs a skilled puncher, and there many of them who were bigger, more durable and hit harder than Schemling. But Schemling was the only fighter who had skills, speed and some power in his era, and let us be fair here; Schmeling was iced too many times to viewed as being a durable fighter.


Louis would also be in trouble vs a skilled boxer with a better chin than Conn or Walcott, and heavyweight-boxing history has plenty of them too.
Louis would be in trouble on styles vs a swamer that hit harder than Godoy. Once again, there are quite a few of them to look at.

In addition, the talent level in the 1930's when Louis took over was at an all time low in heavyweight boxing. The newspapers of the time say this, and so do some historians.

I do think Louis is an all time great, but not a top 1 or 2 guy. He simply had too many shaky moments in the ring vs tier two heavies, never beat a great heavy, and lacked the defense and chin needed to avoid being clipped by skilled punchers.

 

No it is not. Here are the ring magazine end of the year top rated heavyweights in 1937.

Heavyweight​

This content is protected

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. This content is protected
9. This content is protected
10. This content is protected

The only one, and I mean only one besides Louis that would be ranked today is Schmeling. This is what I mean by lack of talent.

1938 is even worse, as Schemling who was past his prime in 1937 is gone, and Lou Nova is the #1 rated contender!

This content is protected

​

This content is protected

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. This content is protected
9. This content is protected
10. This content is protected

1939? Sure, Fat Two ton Tony Galento, joruneyman record and all and pasty no power Bob Pastor were the #1 and #2 rated heavies. Geez.

Heavyweights​

[url]Joe Louis[/url], Champion

1. [url]Tony Galento[/url]
2. [url]Bob Pastor[/url]
3. [url]Lou Nova[/url]
4. [url]Tommy Farr[/url]
5. [url]Max Schmeling[/url]
6. [url]Johnny Paychek[/url]
7. [url]Red Burman[/url]
8. [url]Gunnar Barlund[/url]
9. [url]Roscoe Toles[/url]
10. [url]Lee Savold[/url]

And the beat goes on during Louis tenure as champ. Seriously, Sonny's Jab you cannot say this was not the worst era of contenders of all time since the inception of Ring Magazine ratings. It was. And this was the era where Louis reigned. I highly doubt other big punchers with skills after Louis such a Liston, Foreman, Tyson, or Lewis would have had the same troubles as Louis did in his era.

 

Those are some live ass underdogs, especially the first one.

 

Here we go...

That's a mistake on my part, what I meant is that Patterson would be a large, albeit live, underdog. With Patterson you have a small guy who moves very fast, has excellent handspeed, and punches extremely hard. If anybody's getting knocked out in the first three rounds, it's Louis IMO. In this case, Patterson does have a suspect chin, but in a battle of two guys who are offensive machines with suspect chins you have to give both guys a chance. Patterson liked to start fast, was hard to hit, and has enough power to hurt and/or KO Louis.

You have to give both guys a chance in this scenario.

I don't see what the problem is between comparing Conn (who gave Louis fits) to other fighters of his ilk. If there's any difference between Conn and guys like Tunney and Ali, it's that they were faster, bigger, and punched harder than him.

Conn isn't exactly an ATG in the heavyweight division.

[/quote]

Let's not consider the Baers to Foreman and Liston. It would obviously take a fighter of ATG material to stop the Bomber.

Let's not forget that Galento knocked him down. Two Ton got an asswhipping, yes, but if Galento can hit him...

I'm going to take for granted here that you understand the circumstances of the Ali fight. We don't say Johnson lost to Willard because of a "bad chin", do we?

I'd be willing to bet that Lyle punched harder than Schmeling, too.

In response to these two points -

1. Getting knocked out by a "weak" puncher means you have a suspect chin, yes, even if you're losing the fight anyways. Schmeling-Louis I wasn't a long, one-sided asswhipping, either. Schmeling was winning, but it wasn't Foreman-Frazier I in there.

2. Not all ranked contenders are created equal. Louis' era in particular was not exceptionally deep when it came to quality contenders.

Schemling 1 was Louis' what, 27th fight? At this point, he'd already beaten Carnera and Max Baer (considered by many to be among his best wins). What bothers me about ranking Louis high H2H against his fellow ATGs is that he got knocked out by one of the best guys that he fought, when he was neither green nor old.

I guess it all comes down to how good you think Schmeling was.

I hate to use this phrase here, but why do you think people called it the "bum of the month club"? His resume is impressive because of what you mentioned, longevity, but there are black spots (and missing spots). How many ATGs did he run into and beat?

Reigning for eleven years is indeed quite a feat. I'll end this (long) post by pointing out that I only said 5-8 guys would be at best even money or betting favorites against the Bomber, and all of them are ATGs.

 

Ali, Marciano.........Tyson, Dempsey, Foreman

 

i see what your trap/banking on here and saying everyone he got knocked down by was a puncher...thing is at what point does a puncher excuse his abilty to get knocked down easily.

his style was to shuffle forewards throwing that jab to get you to eithe rcover up or to move...where he would just walk you into a left hook or a right cross...when he was close enough he would throw sharp short combo punches.

so what we need is somone who is mobile ,fast but able to mix it up but not commiting.

Ali:
my first thoughts are that Ali is too nimble for joe. he doesnt get hurt easily, and has the mixture of chin heart and speed which is rare...and kinda makes him what he is.

ali would defintly win against him i have no quarms with that. i feel (from my most credible reputation) that louis is going to have to keep up with him in workrate and get underneath him to use his strength. i just feel joe hasnt fought anyone like this before. the closest being conn who as boxing history always recall as the man who out boxed louis sondly before fatefully trying to finsihs the rounds. if conn who is not a very naturaly gifted fighter. then ali with his float and sting tactics should bring hom ethe beacon.

holmes:
larry holmes the formerly forgoten champ. what does he have that louis cant deal with is that jab. that jab of holmes is all larry needed to use to win a fight. against louis i think it's more of his guile and savy which wins holmes fights.

joe shuffle foreward closing and locking off the ring to the size of a postage stamp. holmes would need to jab every time he got into range (which is easy as thats his plan since the mid 70's) when joe gets close throw a left right. if he closes the gap tie him up and basicly out last him.

Liston:
liston i feel has a good chance.had a good chin,a tough man and a very good skill set for a man of his reputation. BUT that is not my reaosns for picking him. Liston had maybe the best jab in heavywieght boxing. maybe not the fastest, maybe not the most dextrous. but power it certianly had. his jab could hurt you break noses break bones and even knock you down. this is what i think clinshes it for me.with his long arms he was able to set up right hands form a mile away. joe even though the slightly taller man (i think it's about an inch hieght difference which is nothing really when you come ot think about it) had a good jab but a snapping jab it was to time them keep the points close and to set up the right hand or throw a left hook off it. it was not to hurt people.

liston just too strong hits to hard and form a distance and can back much stornger,bigger men up.

if joe can be backed up i think the fight is all over.


Tyson:

interesting becuase im 50/50 with this.
tyson could probly back louis up. in that case its tyson at his best bargin the other guy outmuscleing him and throwing super hard leather in 6 hit comob's and finish joe in a tko

or that tyson comes foreward slips the jab but gets taged by louis's right hand. and when inside joe could throw just as hard a punch at the same RPM. in which joe bludgeons him to slow down and become very passive in which joe could then finiosh with a perfectly placed punch

lewis:

people shouldnt be fooled by the hieght and reach of lennox lewis as a great master boxer. what he had was great use of body wieght, raw athletic talent, long reach to keep them away and to keep it close on the cards and a booming right hand that just destroyed champiosnhip dreams.

louis throws the jab comes in lennox throws over it with his range-finder/tool/jab and ties up and leans on him wearing the smaller lighter man down when close. whe he sees an dopening he would tjrow a jab then throw a ritgh hand that louis i dont has any defence for.

mccall and rahman knocked lennox out. but does louis have either of there style no.
i think lewis has a great chance of koing louis flat

 

Ali, Holmes, Marciano (at least once out of 3), Lewis if he doesn't get caught, Dempsey (at least once out of 3), and Liston.