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

Ali: fast, savvy, endurance-endowed and durable enough. DECISION WIN.

Jack Johnson: savvy, offense-endowed enough. DECISION WIN.

Tyson: too much explosive power, speed, versatility, sturdiness and elusiveness. EARLY KO WIN.

Dempsey: similar tremendous level of offense; more durable, better chin; LATE TKO WIN.

 

Moore was better than Nova. Nova was a weak #1 contender. Either agree or disagree. I say he was weak and was only #1 because the rest of the field was so poor.

Oh he was lucky to get a title shot. Galento has a journeyman record. People like this are always lucky to get a title shot. Galento was near the end of his career, was colorful and known. He was also seen as an easy victim for Louis. These things are why he got a title shot. Was Galento the worst man to get a title shot? No. Were there at least 50 others better than him who never got a lineal title shot? Heck yes. I rest my case.

And Sharkey's was washed up for this fight.

Did I say he ducked him Godfrey in and say why? I thought I said he could have fought him the same way he gave Sharkey a chance. What about Tiger Fox, and Obie Walker? Heck, what about Larry Gaines?? Please tell me why Louis had 25 title defenses and picked only two black men??? Do you think all those bum of the month guys ( not Shcmeling, or Baer ) were better? Yes or no. I you say YES, I think all of those bum of the month white guys were better than the black contenders, then we can have a new thread! If you say NO, they were not, then you agree with me and Louis overlooked more qualified black fighters in some cases then you agree with me.

If you want to blame the promoters, go ahead. They might say no one wanted to see two black men fighting for the title. Either way it is a hole in Louis legacy.

I suppose so, but the other side of the coin is also true, Louis defetaed washed up versions of Sharkey, Carnera, Uzcudun and Schmeling.

I saw his name, and replied. I dunno.

Did you see the Mauriello fight? Mauriello badly Rocked Louis in round one to the point where Louis grabbed the ring ropes to steady himself. Then Louis himself landed a bomb. It was a sea-saw first round, and let's be real here, if Mauriello could do this, better fighters who had more skill and hit harder ( ATG's ) could also do this and more. while decent is not close to

IMO, Shavers, Bonavena, and Lyle are better than any of the names you listed. If you want that debate, start it. It’s a no brainer. As for Banks, Cooper and Jones, those were early Clay fights. We are talking about Louis as champion here. Wepner did not do so well vs Ali. He only scored a knock down, and fouled Ali behind the head.

Foreman never struggled at all vs lesser talent. He fought some boxers. He intimidated them, cut off the ring, and took them out. He did not get jabbed silly, rocked, or kncoked down as often as Louis did. Braddock, Pastor, Farr, Godoy, Conn, Galento and Mauriello would be meat vs Foreman. If Foreman had the same trouble Louis had vs the same group ( Braddock, Pastor, Farr, Godoy, Conn, Galento and Mauriello ) , his leacy is going to take a hit.

 

Galento was the No1 contender at one point so he rightfully deserved a title shot.

 

A 79-26-5 fighter who fouled often and was beaten by many journeyman ascended to the rank of #1 contender? Only in an period where the talent is lacking can this happen. How many fighters can say they beat a #1 contender? Galento must have been beaten by at least 20 different fighters.

If you want the truth, many of Galento's win when he was on a roll were fishy. What was the deal with the Leroy Haynes, Harry Thomas, and Otis Thomas fights? Might the fix on some level been in here? I have seen Galento photoed with some mobsters before.

 

Well it's like this - Louis lost a mere 3 times in his entire career spanning 17 years and 72 fights.

His first loss came while he was still very much improving and he murder Schmeling 2 years later to show just how much better he had become. Max had not lost between the two fights.

His next loss was against Charles at age 36. Most agree this was the worst version of Louis we ever saw. He was at about the Holmes level in Spinks 1 or even worse.

His last loss is to a great Marciano close to his peak with Louis 37 or so. A good comparison would be Holmes vs Tyson.

Basically Louis never lost in his prime.

 

Which of Galento's losses do you think were fixes or fishy? Saying it is one thing, giving names and reasons in another. Could Glaento have taken a dive? Yep, I think his character was suspect enough to throw a fight. But which fight did he dog it, foul out on purpose or fail to beat a count that the press felt he should have?

Boxing was a mess in the 1930's. There were record amount of DQ's after the Sharkey vs Schemling fight, and rules were put into play that said titles can not change hands on fouls. Other times the result of the fight was changed the day after the event. See the Loughran vs Gross fight.

I spoke to the foremost historian on boxing blunders in the 1930’s. His name was Perry Desmond. Desmond knows a ton of information about the mobsters, the promoters, deals, double crosses, fixes, and fighters of the time. To say there was some dirty pool going on here is an understatement.

 

If you excuse losses, embrace bad decsions, and define primes, sure.

The fact is Louis lost to Schemling before his career best perfoamce vs Max Baer. Schemling was thought to be washed up before the first Louis fight.

I am sure Louis lost the first Walcott fight, and I do think Godoy did enough to win a decison in thier first fight too. Flims tell me this. Louis like Ali had some gift decsions. IMO Louis record should be 67-5, and that is still excellent.

I have not seen Louis fights vs Waiter, or Pastor 1, but based on the news reads they were very close.

 

I'd hardly call my comments on Louis' three losses as excuses. The plain fact is he wasn't at his peak and this thread is about "absolute peak" Louis.

Well Baer was hardly the technician that would be able to exploit Louis' fault like a Schmeling could, Louis still had great speed and power regardless, and against a fighter like Baer was as comfortable as a pig in ****. We certainly found out Max S. was anything but washed up.

It's interesting that you find Louis losing both close decisions you have happened to witness but found Holmes the winner in all of his, Williams, Witherspoon, Norton and even Spinks 1!! if memory serves me correct.

I will predict that when/if you do see both fights you will find Louis the loser in at least one.

 

Leroy Haynes " dropped to the floor without being hit " to end the fight.

Harry Thomas was " Banned for life from Pennsylvania rings by the state commission. " Did he not try to win?

Ottis Thomas " The knockout came one round after Refereee Walter Heisner had stopped the bout momentarily and threatened to give it to Thomas because of Galento's low blows " Thomas was in the lead. How much did the low blow take out of him?

If you add these fight up, its a bit fishy. Not a ture low tide stench, but enough to make one pause and thing for sure.

How can a #1 conteder ( Galento ) have the following results:

Loss on points to a 1-3 fighter in Alberts
Loss on points to a 23-9-1 fighter in Mays
TKO'd by a 37-18-11 fighter in Clisby
Loss on points to a 29-29-5 fighter in Freidman
Loss on points to a 43-16-11 fighter in Gorman
Loss on points to a 36-4 fighter in Cavalier. ( ok excusable a bit )
Loss on poitns to an 18-5-4 fighter in Dorval
Loss on points to a 32-12-1 fighter in Mays
Loss on poitns to a 58-38-7 fighter in Risko ( Risko was decent )
Loss to an 11-10-2 fighter on points to Brown
Loss on points to a 53-10-2 fighter in Schaff ( Shcaff was decent )
Loss on points a 16-1-1 fighter in Wlaker ( Walker was decent )
Loss to a 22-12 fighter in Unkown Winston
Loss on points to a 8-5-1 fighter in Tow
Loss on points to a 41-8-3 fighter in Perroni
Loss on points to a 31-16-3 fighter in Mader
Loss on points to a 27-5-3 Delaney ( Delandy was decent )
TKO'd by a 55-17-5 fighter in Gainer
Two losses on points to a 44-3-6 Godoy. ( Godoy was decent )

Now these are the losses up to the Joe Louis fight. I omitted the DQ losses and draws. I do not think you can blame these losses on Glaento being malnourished. The truth is Glaento himself was a journeyman. Galento lost too many other journeyman, and was often out pointed when he meet good fighters. It’s not too hard to figure out. He had good power, and that won him a few upsets.

After the Louis fight, Glaento should have been DQ for his win over Nova, then was Ko'd back to back by the Baer brothers and retired by taking two years off from the ring.

In my book a #1 contender should have no more than say 2-3 losses to journeyman on his record. Galento has many.