Joe Louis is overrated [Archive]

Animal Squabbs

11-14-2006, 11:08 PM

Dempsey 1919

11-14-2006, 11:27 PM

Dirt E Gomez

11-15-2006, 12:06 AM

In the words of.... me: "Everybody's overrated."

Dempsey 1919

11-15-2006, 12:58 AM

In the words of.... me: "Everybody's overrated."

Yes, at times that may be true.

GEOFFHAYES

11-15-2006, 01:06 AM

Secondly, lots of you claim that he did everything perfect and had one of the best jabs. He couldnt have had that good of a jab if Max Schmeling exposed the fact that Louis brought the jab back low and KOed him

He fixed that problem, won the rematch, and dominated..

Animal Squabbs

11-15-2006, 01:07 AM

He fixed that problem, won the rematch, and dominated..

and then was getting dominated by a light heavy later on.

Dempsey 1919

11-15-2006, 01:08 AM

He fixed that problem, won the rematch, and dominated..

He didn't fix the problem. He always held that hand low out of laziness, and Max even caught him with a counter right in the rematch as well.

GEOFFHAYES

11-15-2006, 01:08 AM

Furthermore, the "perfect" heavyweight was getting outboxed by a light heavyweight Billy COnn and would have lost if Conn had not made a mistake and decided to trade with the bigger guy.

No shame in that. Billy Conn was the best LHW ever IMO and one of the best pure boxers ever, with a solid chin.

Louis still found a way to win.

Dempsey 1919

11-15-2006, 01:12 AM

No shame in that. Billy Conn was the best LHW ever IMO and one of the best pure boxers ever, with a solid chin.

Louis still found a way to win.

Conn was not the best light hw by any means. He was featherfisted, and would get outboxed by guys like Jones Jr., Moore, and Charles.

-Antonio-

11-15-2006, 01:55 AM

He completely dominated Joe untill he got either too dumb or too ****y.

Piggu

11-15-2006, 02:05 AM

I like Max Schmeling!

RockyMarcianofan00

11-15-2006, 05:28 AM

Buddy Baer, Walcott and Schmeling, then guys with LOTS more power like Foreman, Tyson, and Frazier would be able to put him down and keep him down.

all three of those guys were hard hitters...Schmeling was considered one of the hardder hitters in Louis' time, Walcott was always known to have alittle pep in his punch, and Baer was always known as a hard hitter
(all three were on Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers)

so you can't make it sound like those guys were weak...

Louis is great....

Animal Squabbs

11-15-2006, 05:34 AM

all three of those guys were hard hitters...Schmeling was considered one of the hardder hitters in Louis' time, Walcott was always known to have alittle pep in his punch, and Baer was always known as a hard hitter
(all three were on Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers)

so you can't make it sound like those guys were weak...

Louis is great....

so, they didnt make the 100 greatest boxers of all time. Louis had poor opposition compared to the likes of ALi and Holyfield.

The Raging Bull

11-15-2006, 06:23 AM

so, they didnt make the 100 greatest boxers of all time. Louis had poor opposition compared to the likes of ALi and Holyfield.

Louis fought everyone he possibly could in his era. He even went on bum of the month tours because there was no-one left to fight. It isn't his fault if he fought in a barren era of heavyweights.

Southpaw Stinger

11-15-2006, 06:26 AM

Louis fought everyone he possibly could in his era. He even went on bum of the month tours because there was no-one left to fight. It isn't his fault if he fought in a barren era of heavyweights.

He was a shiney coin in a patch of dirt!

The Raging Bull

11-15-2006, 06:30 AM

He was a shiney coin in a patch of dirt!

Great way to put it Southpaw!

Abe Attell

11-15-2006, 10:03 AM

You guys do realize that we are supposed to drop the negative when Joe Louis is mentioned, don't you?

That said:

It is blasphemy to talk about the great Joe Louis other than he is a God.

You deserve to be burned, skinned alive, have salt poured all over your body, raped in the anus, peed on, have oil put on you, lit on fire, and beaten to death.

Seriously, what did Jesus ever do? He never won the title from the Nazis

Dempsey 1919

11-15-2006, 12:41 PM

Versastyle

11-15-2006, 01:34 PM

that's what I'm saying.I think holyfield should be waaaaaay up there in the list,we fought a lot of well known ppl. and beat a lot of them.just look at all the hall of famers he fought.probably more then ne superstar in an weight class.

but I can't talk bad on lewis due to how long he was in the game for

The Noose

11-15-2006, 01:38 PM

Joe Louis Evander Holyfield

Max Schmeling vs Mike TYson
Primo Carnera vs BUster Douglas
Joe Walcott vs Riddick Bowe
Ezzard Charles vs Lennox Lewis
Rocky Marcaino vs James Toney

*Bonus
Jim Braddock vs John Ruiz
Buddy Bear vs George FOreman
Billy COnn vs Micheal Moorer

It would be just as easy to discredit Holyfield.
Louis, like Holyfield fought everyone he could, and beat nearly all of them.

An argument could be made that comparing Ruiz to Braddock isnt fair, as Braddock was THE heavyweight champion of the world wen there was only one title.
The 42 year old Foreman was expected to get KO'd by Holyfield. Buddy Baer had 45 KO's out of 49 wins, and Louis stopped him in 1 round.
Billy Conn one of the best LH ever. KO'd twice by Louis.
Micheal Moorer NOT even a great HW in his era.

Tyson fresh out of prison was a fighter on the decline BEFORE he was locked up, and on his release fought nobodies. He was merely exposed as a fighter who had a big punch and nothing more. He was easy to hit, he didnt throw combos. He had no game plan.
I would consider Holyfields fights with Bowe his finest hours.
Louis destroyed Schmelling in 1.
Holyfield lost to Lewis twice.
Louis beat Wallcott twice!
Marciano one of the best HW ever.
Toney a blown up Middle Weight.

It looks one sided victory to Louis from that.

Dempsey 1919

11-15-2006, 01:39 PM

The Surgeon

11-15-2006, 02:10 PM

Depends how u rate Greatness, i think big guys of modern times like Lewis Klitschko and Bowe beat the old timers but i dont rate them higher because i rate greatness on accomplishments and how they fared in their era. If u rate em this way Louis is right up there!

hemichromis

11-15-2006, 02:20 PM

dempseyfan

11-15-2006, 02:21 PM

I think alot of it is based on personal opinion. No matter what a fighter does or doesn't do in the ring there will always be group A (think he is overrated), group B (think he is underrated), and group C ( "I don't give **** what he did, I like him anyways"). I think the best thing to do is; do your own research on a fighter and decide and not worry about what old Bert Sugar, Nat Fleischer, and that whole bunch of boxing "scholars say.

dempseyfan

11-15-2006, 02:23 PM

However, old Bert and crew are much older and have seen both the "old school" and the "new school" fight, so they are able to look at it in a different perspective then many of us can.

hemichromis

11-15-2006, 02:24 PM

BTW i too believeholyfield is in the top ten heavys of all time

K-DOGG

11-15-2006, 02:39 PM

Lots of people think for some reason that he is the best or second best heavyweight ever. To me that is ridiculous.

First of all, Louis got dropped by damn near everybody. Yeah, he got up to win most of them, but he was still getting dropped by people who arent even considered worthy opponents. If Louis could get dropped by guys like Galento, Buddy Baer, Walcott and Schmeling, then guys with LOTS more power like Foreman, Tyson, and Frazier would be able to put him down and keep him down.

Secondly, lots of you claim that he did everything perfect and had one of the best jabs. He couldnt have had that good of a jab if Max Schmeling exposed the fact that Louis brought the jab back low and KOed him. How could he have had the second best jab if one of the tools used to beat him was countering over his lazy jab?? As far as the skills go, He "did everything perfect" but he got dropped continuosly, obvious he was doing something wrong because not only was he easy to hit but easy to drop. Furthermore, the "perfect" heavyweight was getting outboxed by a light heavyweight Billy COnn and would have lost if Conn had not made a mistake and decided to trade with the bigger guy.

Lastly, his competion was far from great. Now to put this into perspective, lets compare his oppositon in equivalent matchups against the opposition of the man I think deserves to be considered the #2 heavyweight... Evander Holyfield. Every great had an opponent linked to them, For Louis that is Schmeling. Holyfield will always be remembered for his bouts with Tyson. They both faced a big not too talented guy to jumpstart their heavyweight career (Carnera,Douglas), they had a skilled competive memorable opponent (Walcott, Bowe). They both face a good skilled fighter alittle past their primes (Charles,Leiws) and they both fought a smaller guy on the way up the heavyweight ranks while they were WAY past their prime (Marciano, Toney). SO...

Joe Louis Evander Holyfield

Max Schmeling vs Mike TYson
Primo Carnera vs BUster Douglas
Joe Walcott vs Riddick Bowe
Ezzard Charles vs Lennox Lewis
Rocky Marcaino vs James Toney

*Bonus
Jim Braddock vs John Ruiz
Buddy Bear vs George FOreman
Billy COnn vs Micheal Moorer

If they were to fight it out, the only guy from Louis era I can see maybe getting a win would be Marciano beating TOney and maybe Billy COnn beating Moorer. Other than that Louis era gets demolished.

The bottom line is that Louis was a good top ten heavyweight, and was the best of HIS era. HOWEVER his biggest wins were lacking compared the other great fighters he would have to be better than to be # 2 and he is no where near the best.

Very intelligent arguement. I disagree; but it's very well put together, none the less.

However, in regards to your putting Holy's competition up against Joe's, I actually think with the exception of Buddy Baer, all of Louis's opposisition could have beaten all of Holy's opposisition.

Schmeling could have beaten Tyson. Max was no push-over, had a good chin, and was a helluva counter-puncher. If he get's Mike into the mid-rounds, he's got him.

Douglas was inconsistant throughout his career and was stopped by a 7-footer named Mike White, who didn't have a big punch....so, it's not inconceivable that Carnera could beat him.

Bowe had a lousy defense, shaky chin, and over-rated power, while Walcott had a great defense, a slick style, and a good punch. Joe could very well knock out Riddick.

Charles was probably the greatest light-heavyweight who ever lived, was fast, accurate, slick, and had a good punch, even at heavyweigyht. His chin wasn't bad either. He could have outpointed Lewis, who never fougth a slickster like Ezzard.

I can see Marciano poinding on everything Toney offered, which would be his arms while he looked for countering oportunities against the ropes. Marciano broke blood vessels in Roland LaStarza's arms by doing just that; he didn't care where he hit you as long as he did. Toney, also, has no power at heavyweight and wouldn't be able to get Rocky off of him. Rock would stop him late.

Braddock was no bum and could outpoint Ruiz....who, I hate to say, was no "bum" either; but he was and is technically very limited.

Conn beats Moorer with relative ease.

So, going on your synopsis of competition, I see no real arguement for Evander. Add to that that Evander lost more big fights than he won: Bowe I, Moorer I, Bowe III, Lewis I & II, Ruiz I, II, & III.....John got robbed in the first one.....and you've got a man who didn't even "dominate" his own era.

Evander's rep is built on beating Riddick Bowe in the rematch and beating a post-prison Tyson when everybody thought Evander was shot. So, it's built on his heart and his ability to surprise the odd-makers. That makes for dramatic stuff, but an all-time great it does not make.

Evander, during his first reign as champ, defended his title agaisnt two 40 year old fighters and a journeyman who fought on one-week's notice and nearly knocked Evander out. In his first "real" defense, he is dominated by Riddick Bowe; but shows his heart in the process.

In his second reign, he loses his title on his first defense.

Louis reigned for 12 years and made 25 defenses. Not all were great fighter; but not all were the "bum of the month" either.

Maybe, mayyybe in another time Evander would have done as good as Louis; but he didn't have that choice. All he had was the time he fought in and he made his mark...it just wasnt' as big as Joe's. To me, Evander doestn' even rank in the Top 10 of All time; but I do think he was a great fighter.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Kid Achilles

11-15-2006, 03:11 PM

Holyfield was never a big heavyweight but unlike Dempsey and Louis who were his size, or close to it, he was never a knockout puncher. He hit about as hard as Walcott, and even saying that being kind to Holy. Holyfields lack of a big bomb in either hand was always his drawback.

Is anyone here actually trying to argue that Holyfield is a better heavyweight than Louis? I'm sorry but you have no leg to stand on. Louis fought many HOF'ers in his career and unlike Holyfield, he beat almost all of them.

I can see a place for Holyfield in the top 12 or even top ten but no higher than the top five. Conversely, putting Louis lower than #3 is a crime to me.

Louis is on a completely different level than Holyfield. Better punch arsenal, quicker with his hands, better stamina IMO (never had any kind of heart problem at any point in his career), WAY better power, better offensive skill, better counter puncher. The list goes on. The only advantages I give Holyfield are a chin and POSSIBLY better strength in the clinches. I do not think Holyfield hit hard enough to have much of a puncher's chance with Joe though. Schmeling hit harder than Evander IMO and it took him 12 rounds to finally keep Louis down for good. He might floor Louis like many did but Louis getting knocked down was rarely meaningful in a fight. It usually just pissed him off and caused him to knock the opponent out earlier than he normally would have.

blockhead

11-15-2006, 03:13 PM

The Noose

11-15-2006, 03:27 PM

Evander's rep is built on beating Riddick Bowe in the rematch and beating a post-prison Tyson when everybody thought Evander was shot. So, it's built on his heart and his ability to surprise the odd-makers. That makes for dramatic stuff, but an all-time great it does not make.

.

Supoyb. :boxing:

Mr. Ryan

11-15-2006, 03:33 PM

Dempsey 1919

11-15-2006, 05:15 PM

joe louis is the best heavyweight ever. this debate has been done over and over again and louis still comes out on top. the symbolic impact and cultural impact of his career puts him well above all others.

Oh really? Elaborate on that please. Hoe does he ALWAYS come out on top when many boxing experts pick Ali, Dempsey or Johnson, in addition to Louis as the best heavyweight.

Anyway, I suppose Louis is top two, possibly number one in terms of accomplishments, but IMO accomplishments are overrated and they don't determine how a fighter would do in head-to head matchups. For example, James Braddock "accomplished" more than Jerry Quarry, since Quarry never won a belt, yet Braddock won the extire world's heavyweight championship. But Quarry is still the better fighter and would hand Jimmy his butt on a silver platter if they ever stepped into the ring against each other.

I think a fighter's ranking depends on how they would do against other greats. If a fighter fights in a weak era and dominates and has 20 title defenses, and then another fighter fights in a very strong era and has only 2 successful defenses, then popular opinion would be that the guy with 20 defenses is better than the guy with only two, when in actuality it could be that if they fought in their primes, the guy with 2 defenses would prove himself to be the better fighter.

Louis is overrated in the sense that many heavyweights in history would have 25 title defenses if they fought the same people Joe Louis fought during his title reign, (and i'm not just talking about Ali if some of you have any ideas).
Also his win over Max Schmeling is highly overrated, because number one Schmeling himself was elevated for beating Louis, when in fact Schmeling was simply a pretty good fighter, nothing more. He would not be IMO classified as a great fighter. Schmeling was past his best, and Louis spotted a flaw in Schmeling and took advantage of it, just like Schmeling did two years before.

But Louis is not overrated in terms of his skill level, punching power, and intelligence. He was way ahead of his time, and would easily clean out the division today. However, I cannot because of the reasons stated place him in the top 2 of heavyweights, because in a head-to head sense IMO it would not be possible. I cannot place him any higher than 5. Head-to head is what should count, and not how long you hold a belt or how many wins you have.

Just my two cents.:boxing:

Animal Squabbs

11-15-2006, 05:28 PM

Oh really? Elaborate on that please. Hoe does he ALWAYS come out on top when many boxing experts pick Ali, Dempsey or Johnson, in addition to Louis as the best heavyweight.

Anyway, I suppose Louis is top two, possibly number one in terms of accomplishments, but IMO accomplishments are overrated and they don't determine how a fighter would do in head-to head matchups. For example, James Braddock "accomplished" more than Jerry Quarry, since Quarry never won a belt, yet Braddock won the extire world's heavyweight championship. But Quarry is still the better fighter and would hand Jimmy his butt on a silver platter if they ever stepped into the ring against each other.

I think a fighter's ranking depends on how they would do against other greats. If a fighter fights in a weak era and dominates and has 20 title defenses, and then another fighter fights in a very strong era and has only 2 successful defenses, then popular opinion would be that the guy with 20 defenses is better than the guy with only two, when in actuality it could be that if they fought in their primes, the guy with 2 defenses would prove himself to be the better fighter.

EXACTLY !!

Animal Squabbs

11-15-2006, 05:30 PM

joe louis is the best heavyweight ever. this debate has been done over and over again and louis still comes out on top. the symbolic impact and cultural impact of his career puts him well above all others.

Ali would have literally boxed circles around him and embarassed Louis.

Foreman, Frazier, Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson would have beat Louis

and Liston and Holmes would be about even money with him.

Kid Achilles

11-15-2006, 05:35 PM

K-DOGG

11-15-2006, 05:41 PM

No "head to head" list can be accurate; and therefore is flawed. Picking who would win between two club-fighters is difficult enough. How can anyone presume themselves to be so knowledgeable as to cross the sands of time and say who would win between two different fighters with any degree of accuracy. You can't. It's all guesswork, and therefore, unreliable.

Only two methods should be used to rank fighters:

1. Achievements...this includes all quality opposistion either defeated or defeated by during a fighter's peak years.

&

2. Apparent skill level....this includes a scrutinizing study of the fighter's style and ability and comparison to his contemporaries. This is similar to "mythical match-making"; but focuses on the individual skills displayed by each fighter, rather than saying "so and so" would beat "so and so".

Dempsey 1919

11-15-2006, 05:51 PM

Who gives a **** who beats who when styles make fights and inferior fighters can beat better ones. Also the results of a fight depend a good deal on luck. You might hypoethetically match two guys up 100 times and one guy wins 60 times and the other 40. Say in the actual fight the guy who should only win 40 times happens to win when it counts. Is he now better because he happened to be better prepeared, and luckier (other guy was sick, breaks his hand, etc) than the other guy?

That logic is ridiculous Butterfly. Do you rank Foreman higher than Frazier just because he beat him? Well then why did he lose to Ali when Frazier (who Foreman is clearly better than since he beat him twice) beat a better, closer to his prime version.

Should Oliver McCall get ranked over Lennox Lewis, or be ranked anywhere near him? They are 1-1 afer all. Does that make them equals? Also McCalls loss to Lewis in the rematch was entirely due to his psychological issues, and not Lewis's performance as a champion IMO. So tell me, where does the great Oliver McCall rank for his win over Lewis?

Accomplishments carry the most weight in these rankings to me, as it's the least subjective way to rank champions. I mean, face the fact that you are biased yourself, like anyone else, so your own idea of how certain fighters would fare in a head to head matchup doesn't even match the reality of the situation.

Your opinion that a number of guys could fight Joe's competition and beat them all is just speculation, and I think not even a very valid point. Louis actually fought a wider variety of challengers with different strengths and styles than almost anyone else in heavyweight history. His era was only seen as weak because he made it seem that way.

I admit that I also consider head to head matchups into the mix, which is why I have Dempsey so high, but to say that they ALONE shoulder be considered is just rubbish.

You discrediting head-to-head matchups doesn't sound any better than me discrediting accomplishments, you do realize that, don't you?

Anyway boxing is funny and anything can happen, I understand that. We all have our reasons for chossing certain things. You say that in a fight upsets are possible and styles make fights. I say that competition oftentimes determines the factor that makes up accomplishments, such as title defenses, wins, knockouts, etc. I will admit that both accomplishments and head-to head matchups can turn out different than you expect them, but I believe that competiton can make you look good or bad. I have observed over the years that the factor of achievements are in fact more unstable than style matchups in head-to head fantasy fights. for the most part, matchups give a very good idea of how good a fighter is. Wins, losses, ko's and title defenses, for the most part do not.

So I will stick to my guns and concude that head-to-head matchups is the ultimate way of determining a fighter's greatness, not the amount of wins, losses, and title defenses, for there are fighters with a misleadingly large amount of title defenses (Tommy Burns), as well as fighters with a misleadingly small amont of title defenses (Sonny Liston), but what matters is the goods they would display against each other in the long run.

K-DOGG

11-15-2006, 06:04 PM

You discrediting head-to-head matchups doesn't sound any better than me discrediting accomplishments, you do realize that, don't you?

Anyway boxing is funny and anything can happen, I understand that. We all have our reasons for chossing certain things. You say that in a fight upsets are possible and styles make fights. I say that competition oftentimes determines the factor that makes up accomplishments, such as title defenses, wins, knockouts, etc. I will admit that both accomplishments and head-to head matchups can turn out different than you expect them, but I believe that competiton can make you look good or bad. I have observed over the years that the factor of achievements are in fact more unstable than style matchups in head-to head fantasy fights. for the most part, matchups give a very good idea of how good a fighter is. Wins, losses, ko's and title defenses, for the most part do not.

So I will stick to my guns and concude that head-to-head matchups is the ultimate way of determining a fighter's greatness, not the amount of wins, losses, and title defenses, for there are fighters with a misleadingly large amount of title defenses (Tommy Burns), as well as fighters with a misleadingly small amont of title defenses (Sonny Liston), but what matters is the goods they would display against each other in the long run.

Which is why it is important to study in detail the quality of the opposistion beaten.

Dempsey 1919

11-15-2006, 06:08 PM

Which is why it is important to study in detail the quality of the opposistion beaten.

Good point, but sometmes there are gray areas in that sense. Even if you beat better opposition than another still doesn't make you a better fighter. It could very well be that that fighter didn't have the opportunity to fight better opposition.

RockyMarcianofan00

11-15-2006, 06:10 PM

He was a shiney coin in a patch of dirt!

A rose sticking out of a dump I think was what they said about Marciano....

Honestly guys, Joe Louis was a great American fighter/hero...

He fought every guy he possibly could and even though he was black he was loved by many, he broke the color barrier years before Jackie Robinson (though Jack Johnson technically was the first black HW champ, Louis is the first "recognized" black champ), he fought very technical and had one of the best styles ever. He did have flaws (EVERY FIGHTER DOES) but he came as close to perfect tactician as I've ever seen, and he dropped it all to go over seas to fight in World War II to give back to the people (this is not a hit at Ali).....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Poster-Joe-Louis.jpg

But Louis did something more for the American people, he gave them hope in Louis v Schmelling II

http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/images/joe_louis_max_schmeling_1936.jpg

but yes Joe Louis is looked at as a "God" of boxing, and rightfully so because he was great, however alot of this comes from not his boxing ability but for what he stood for...He was the American champion in a time when Germany was supposed to be superior..Germany dominated everything else, and when he beat Schmelling it boosted the Moral of the people in America..

I don't normally like to quote Rocky when I'm giving example but Rocky vs Drago in Rocky IV it reminds me of Louis v Schmelling II (not in the fighting more of what the fight stood for) ....

and Joe Louis winning was like saying to the American people what Rocky's Trainer (orginally Apollo's) said to Rocky- "You cut him, you see that he's not a machine, you can beat him, he's not a machine."

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c49/IrishInsomniac00/other%20boxing%20pictures/JoeLouis.jpg

RockyMarcianofan00

11-15-2006, 06:16 PM

Good point, but sometmes there are gray areas in that sense. Even if you beat better opposition than another still doesn't make you a better fighter. It could very well be that that fighter didn't have the opportunity to fight better opposition.

Very true....One could argue that Young Tyson didn't have good opposition in Comparison too Lennox Lewis, however I think young Tyson would beat Lennox Lewis....

Dempsey 1919

11-15-2006, 06:17 PM

Very true....One could argue that Young Tyson didn't have good opposition in Comparison too Lennox Lewis, however I think young Tyson would beat Lennox Lewis....

Exactly my point.

RockyMarcianofan00

11-15-2006, 06:32 PM

Exactly my point.

what it comes down too is a fighters abilities...the only thing a record does is access more or less how much a fighters been tested...

Using Tyson again, one could argue that Tyson never fought anybody of Lewis' height and weight with that amount of skill (because Tyson did fight people around Lewis' height and weight however IMO Lewis was better then them) and that he didn't have his chin tested against a hitter like Lewis, etc etc etc....But just by looking at Tyson's fighting and the few times somebody did dare go toe to toe and Tyson took hits you can tell that Tyson's chin was strong enough to take some punches by Lewis'....

so yes a record will tell you how tested somebody is however it doesn't necessarily tell how skilled somebody is...

BoxingFan2

11-15-2006, 10:25 PM

I have problem with Louis that he never fought black fighters of the time. The first black man he fought after he became champion he lost to, or should have lost to (Walcott). Fight was given to Louis but most of people thought Walcott won, including Louis himself. They were both the same age. You can't say Louis was old, Walcott was also. He won rematch and I give him credit for that. Another thing is he lost to Schmeling. Schmeling not just beat Louis but Louis never had a chance after fourth round and took tremendous beating, anoter words, totally dominated. Yes, he won rematch but two years later. Schmeling was not the same Schmeling that beat Louis, and Louis was in his prime. It was too much pressure on Scmeling fighting in U.S and that punch to kidney really finished him. That punch looked illegal to me. Louis would beat Schmeling in that fight no matter what but I just wanted to point another fact regarding their second bout. All this said I still rank Louis second next to Ali. Liston, Foreman and Holmes are other three heavyweigths in my top five.

Dempsey 1919

11-15-2006, 10:31 PM

BoxingFan2

11-15-2006, 10:38 PM

Sorry, I didn't know for that fact, but did Louis fight any other black man of that time after he became champion. I know he fought Charles when Charles was champion. I think Louis was old by then, but Charles would always be tough for Louis.

Yogi

11-15-2006, 11:09 PM

You discrediting head-to-head matchups doesn't sound any better than me discrediting accomplishments, you do realize that, don't you?

This statement of yours kinda sounds dumb, Butterfly, but lets see if it still does after thinking about it for a moment...

Hmm?

Person A is discreditting some mythical, generally biased, and 100% completely unprovable theories of what one only "thinks" (or "wants" in some cases) may happen, which the idea is itself faulty in logic even if going by fact based (percieved far inferior fighters constantly defeat the percieved superior fighter all the time, and have done so since the beginning of the sport).

Person B is discreditting some non-mythical, always objective, and 100% completely provable view based on FACTS.

Hmm?

Yep, it still sounds dumb.

But Butterfly...if you told me you had a 100% accuracy (or even close to that) on predicting fights beforehand that have actually happened, then I would say go for it with your heavyweight ranking based entirely on 100% mythical matchups. Then again, if you're like the rest of us who predict a few right here, one or two wrong there, and go on streaks of good luck & bad luck with this fight predicting stuff, then I'd say you're way of ranking fighters is very...

That might be where I put that "dumb" word again.

Cambria

11-16-2006, 12:46 AM

Abe Attell

11-16-2006, 02:22 AM

I think Joe needs to be considered top 5. He did defend his title what was it, 21 times? People consider B-hop one of the best Middles because of him defending his title for so long.

I don't know, I respect his era but I am not sure about one of the top 2 spots. I say...

1. Marciano - 49-0 - Nuff Said
2. Ali - Probably the best era because boxing was at its peak. I do think current heavys or slightly retired heavys would smash some of them
3. Lewis (People are going to laugh at this but hindsight is 20/20 and he will be thought of that high ranked 10-15 years from now, maybe sooner)
4. Louis - 21 times he defended the crown, you gotta respect that
5. John Ruiz - Just Kidding. I would go with Dempsey or Foreman. (I like both personally)

That "49-0, Nuff said" bull**** needs to stop. I could get Foreman to fight
40+ times, win the title, and then go on root to make some defenses and tell him to retire, it doesn't make him able to say "I am 49-0, nuff said."

You give the Marciano career fights to somebody like Foreman, Ali, Tyson, Lewis, Dempsey, etc., I will show you fighters that can say the same then.

Ali has the best resume, so take the 49-0, nuff said bull****, and think about what I said.

That said, to be fair, like I have said many times before, comparing Marciano with the bigger heavyweights is probably unfair, so who he fought, was most likely fair, even if some weren't exactly in their prime.
He was also a good fighter, and the fact that he started late in life to be a prize fighter, to rise as high as he did, is impressive...so it has nothing to do with him as it has to do with the constant hearing of how he could knock down Godzilla because "hey, he is 49-0, nuff said"...give a better argument, that is my point.

But everybody has their opinions, so fair enough.

Animal Squabbs

11-16-2006, 03:51 AM

The Raging Bull

11-16-2006, 06:47 AM

leff

11-16-2006, 09:50 AM

Dempsey 1919

11-16-2006, 10:00 AM

This statement of yours kinda sounds dumb, Butterfly, but lets see if it still does after thinking about it for a moment...

Hmm?

Person A is discreditting some mythical, generally biased, and 100% completely unprovable theories of what one only "thinks" (or "wants" in some cases) may happen, which the idea is itself faulty in logic even if going by fact based (percieved far inferior fighters constantly defeat the percieved superior fighter all the time, and have done so since the beginning of the sport).

Person B is discreditting some non-mythical, always objective, and 100% completely provable view based on FACTS.

Hmm?

Yep, it still sounds dumb.

But Butterfly...if you told me you had a 100% accuracy (or even close to that) on predicting fights beforehand that have actually happened, then I would say go for it with your heavyweight ranking based entirely on 100% mythical matchups. Then again, if you're like the rest of us who predict a few right here, one or two wrong there, and go on streaks of good luck & bad luck with this fight predicting stuff, then I'd say you're way of ranking fighters is very...

That might be where I put that "dumb" word again.

It's not completely unprovable, becasue when you study different styles, strengths and weaknesses, it is possible to make an educated guess of a mythical matchup based on the skills of the two fighters.

Southpaw Stinger

11-16-2006, 11:03 AM

Didn't he fight under the name Rocky Mack? But he still won all of his pro fights under that name as well. The 49-0 is a legit record.

hemichromis

11-16-2006, 12:57 PM

Brockton Lip

11-16-2006, 02:52 PM

Didn't he fight under the nameRocky Mack? But he still won all of his pro fights under that name as well. The 49-0 is a legit record.

Correct. He fought under an Irish name so his mother wouldn't find out he was fighting. This was as an amatuer, as a pro he is undefeated.

RockyMarcianofan00

11-16-2006, 04:38 PM

the 49-0 is a lie. Rocky Marciano turned pro under a different name and lost his first fight. He then moved and changed his name to Rocky Marciano to compete in the amateurs again then he turned pro and went 49-0. The 49 win streak is somewhat impressive but Rocky Marciano is 49-1.

that statement is completely false

Marciano did in fact start his career under a different name (Rocky Mack) However it is recorded on his professional record..

Check for yourself. It was a year before he went Professional again
http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=9032
Last Name, Lee Epperson

Under the name rocky mack he fought Lee Epperson who appears on his record so he was 49-0 Legitly

When he got out of the Army the following year, Rocky took a local fight to make a few bucks. This time it would count as a pro fight, and be reported in the Brockton papers. His mother had forbid him to fight, so to keep her from finding out, Marciano signed up as Rocky Mack. His opponent was Lee Eperson and in the third round Eperson became the first of 43 KO victims for the Brockton Blockbuster. The date was March 17th, 1947. (He wasn't yet Rocky Marciano. That name would come about when he signed with Al Weil in 1948, who found his family name of Marchegiano too hard to pronounce)

Here's the site
http://www.********boxing.com/boxing-news/Rocky-Marciano.php

copy the url and where the stars are put e a s t s i d e (no spaces)

Here's what it comes down too

Rocky did fight under the name Rocky Mack
It was a professional bout
Rocky did go back down to Amateurs after this fight
ROCKY DID WIN THIS FIGHT AGAINST LEE EPPERSON

RockyMarcianofan00

11-16-2006, 04:51 PM

You give the Marciano career fights to somebody like Foreman, Ali, Tyson, Lewis, Dempsey, etc., I will show you fighters that can say the same then.

Your correct, if you took all 49 of Marciano's opponents and put them up against Foreman, Ali, Tyson, Lewis, Dempsey, and many more they would all be 49-0 however if you took all of the latter and put them in Marciano's shoes I garuntee you almost all of them if not all of them would not be 49-0....

Ali had if memory serves over 100 amateur fights to develop his skills, also Ali was very young when he began boxing (around 10 I believe)

Foreman began boxing when he was 15 (i believe) and had 18 amateur further more both Ali and Foreman were in the Olympics which is a great thing for a up and coming fighter...

Tyson began his career well in his early teens, and I'm not sure of his amateur record but I'm sure its more then 12 fights....

Dempsey...I can't provide too much about this but to the best of my knowledge he began street fighting as early as 12 and had over 100 fights (street and boxing matches)....

The point I'm trying to make is before you say each of them would beat Marciano's competition, you might want to consider that if any of them were in Marciano's shoes they most likely would not have been 49-0.....

Marciano had about 2 years and 12 fights to get ready to be a pro fighter...along with this Marciano was a heavy smoker and started very late in his life (early 20's)....

Animal Squabbs

11-16-2006, 05:24 PM

Bert Sugar said it in his book, 100 greatest fighters. It was also in another book i think called the heavyweight champions.

he;s 49-1

RockyMarcianofan00

11-16-2006, 05:34 PM

Bert Sugar said it in his book, 100 greatest fighters. It was also in another book i think called the heavyweight champions.

he;s 49-1

thats odd because I remember watching a special on Rocky Marciano and Bert Sugar saying exactly what I said in my last post (about Rocky Mack)....

dempseyfan

11-16-2006, 05:44 PM

RockyMarcianofan00

11-16-2006, 06:40 PM

I would have to fish it out but, I printed a story off of a website a couple of years ago and it said that the Rock had lost a fight and that it was changed to an "exhibition" match so that he would remain undefeated. Don't know that validity of that author or anything but I found it interesting.

I've never heard of that...in fact I've never even heard of Marciano fighting an exhibition...

I had heard that he had fought Nino Valdez in an unsanctioned bout somewhere but I'd never found a outcome or any validity about it...

Brockton Lip

11-16-2006, 07:50 PM

Your correct, if you took all 49 of Marciano's opponents and put them up against Foreman, Ali, Tyson, Lewis, Dempsey, and many more they would all be 49-0 however if you took all of the latter and put them in Marciano's shoes I garuntee you almost all of them if not all of them would not be 49-0....

The world will never know. Walcott on the night of his first fight against Marciano was excellent, he was doing it everything right. LaStarza and Charles would've been good fights as well. Archie Moore and even Joe Louis and Vingo as well.

Kid Achilles

11-16-2006, 08:27 PM

Squabs you are simply wrong. Your facts are wrong in this case.

aljon

11-16-2006, 08:38 PM

Joe Louis will always be remembered as a great heavyweight but yes I agree, he is overrated... Boxing historians make past boxers look like they were Gods, people don't understand that times change, and they change for good, boxer nowdays are not the same as they were 50+years ago... Today's fighters are a lot bigger and more powerful as they were back then. Joe Louis will always be overrated...

Kid Achilles

11-16-2006, 08:48 PM

Boxers have changed, you're right, they are worse. They fight too infrequently, bulk up beyond what their frames should carry, get money too fast and are spoiled before they even have a title. Fighters today can't carry the jockstraps of prior fighters on average. There are guys like Toney and Mayweather who would be competitive with the old fighters but for the most part these guys get by on talent and strength and not skill and heart.

RockyMarcianofan00

11-16-2006, 09:11 PM

Abe Attell

11-16-2006, 09:16 PM

It depends on the "modern" fighters we are talking about:

Tyson would have always been over 200 pounds, the same with Lennox Lewis, Wlad Klitschko, Vitali...

It is guys like Briggs, who was 230 or so back in his prime, that adds about 50 pounds to his frame that makes him look terrible. So on that note, agree.

Kid Achilles

11-16-2006, 09:30 PM

Abe Attell

11-16-2006, 09:38 PM

Lewis would be over 200, but nowhere near the 250 he grew into with weight training. I'd say about 215-220 judging by his 227 weight in his peak athletic performance (my opinion) against Ruddock while using weights.. Tyson I'm not sure about because to this day I'm suspicious about steroid use. Part of me says Tyson weighs a powerful 210-215 in any era (a Sam McVey type physique), but part of me also wonders about steroid use which is a question that pops up with most modern fighters.

So Kevin Rooney and Cus D'amato might have had him on steroids?

If Tyson's "natural" weight was 210-215, like Sam McVey's, getting to 220 is very easy. I remember hearing in a fight that a young Tyson (early pro, around 18 or 19), was coming in around 215 or so, but Mike said he didn't like to come in that "light" because he felt more comfortable for his build at 220. It was Rooney and D'amato that wanted him around 215. He was ripped at 215, at 222 when he fought Berbick, not quite so ripped.

For Lewis, as you get into your mid to late 20's, early 30's, your body can still thicken. Lewis was always a late in maturing, unlike Tyson.

That and Emanuel Steward has made it known he thinks a lot of the weight-lifting stuff is ****.

Lewis was about a 230 pound fighter, but as he got older near 30 or so, his body matured past that.

But Steroids are known in sports and even in boxing. I look at some of these guys who have "Nutrition Experts", and I wonder.

Kid Achilles

11-16-2006, 09:45 PM

That may be so, Steward's opinion on lighting, but Lewis made weight training an important part of his regiment. He was definitely a heavy lifter, remember a clip of him doing reps with 300 lbs. He also played football as a youth and clearly lifted for that.

Tyson they say never lifted but I don't believe it. Unless he was on some kind of anabolic steroid. Very difficult to look like that while doing all that cardio without weight training.

Abe Attell

11-16-2006, 10:01 PM

What about Bo Jackson and Herschel Walker?

Walker and Jackson were both around 220 when they went to college, and it wasn't like they had the money to buy steroids.

Like I said, if Tyson was naturally around 210-215, like Sam, 220 pounds is nothing

For Tyson not lifting, I am not so sure about that: I read in interview a while back with a young Tyson saying he doesn't really lift, but they do have him do one overall weight-lifting exercise, like the power-clean.

There was also a boxer, can't remember his name that used to work with Tyson on occasion, that said Tyson didn't lift, but he thought he should have because it was a disadvantage not to. Not so sure how accurate the article was.

Abe Attell

11-16-2006, 10:12 PM

http://www.si.umich.edu/chico/Harlem/graphics/jackj_374.jpg
http://www.spiritofsport.co.uk/images_versions/617.jpg

Pork Chop

11-17-2006, 12:32 PM

RockyMarcianofan00

11-17-2006, 01:47 PM

SABBATH

11-17-2006, 03:48 PM

Abe Attell

11-18-2006, 04:43 AM

Your thinking the wrong way Abe,
Your thinking of old time HW's being similar to modern HW's.....Now a days a fighter will go to the gym work out 2-4 hours, get off and go to a club or go home and relax....In that case in order to get big they'd need to do lifting because besides cardio and whatever kind of boxing training doing they're not doing anything to get big.

Back in the time of Johnson and such you had HW's would train as a second profession, those guys were big because of there careers. They'd be construction workers, or work in circus', Farms, etc...Thats what got them big not weight lifting or steroids...

Its the kind of work they did that made them fit there frame...unlike today..

What do you think "Genes" are?

African-Americans have good genes, not all, but many that are naturally muscled from their ancestor’s years of heavy labor.

For Bo Jackson, we are talking about a dirt-poor kid, said by others to have always been naturally big and did not lift weights in high school.

Jim Brown was not lifting weights with his team, but might have on his own, not sure...he was about 6'2, 230, around or the same height and weight as his father.

I think Tyson's alleged father was even a construction work at one time.

You also have to consider that kids in poverty stricken neighborhoods, although sometimes can be malnourished, can have higher hormone levels in their system while growing up, into their adult years, from the environment; being that of a "only the strong survive"/war zone.
The food eaten as well, contributes to it.

Tyson was eating well, working-out hard in a sport that requires you to be the best to survive. There is also another psychological direction you can take, which I am not sure about, but just for discussion: I heard that sometimes if you put it into your mind through repetition, that you have to be this, sometimes it can come true. So for example, if somebody sees that you are naturally a big kid, and tells you, "you can become the Heavyweight Champion of the World", through constant reminders through speech, visual (which is watching fights of the heavyweights), and thought, you grow into what you feel you must become because if you don't, you will die.
Of course, you can tear this down, but a small part of it could be true, especially if you have the genetic potential to start as your foundation.

It does not mean it is 100% positive that Tyson and others were not on steroids, but you have to give him the benefit of the doubt considering that he was big as a young kid, and trained by "Old School" trainers. If Tyson was on steroids, then Cus had to of known about it. Tyson would have been put on them in his mid teen years since he was already big at that point. Judging by Tyson's head size by the time he was 13, he was lucky to have a 200+-pound body because it would of looked ridiculous if he did not.

Also look at Tyson's body when he was with Rooney, and then look at his body when he came out of prison and continued his career: It was alleged he never lifting during his prime, but is known he did it after he came out of prison. His muscles do look different in that in his prime, he was not as tight/compact as later. I always wondered if those that say lifting weights could hurt your stamina since either Tyson never trained his cardio the same again after he left Rooney, or the weight lifting affected his stamina.
Maybe it was from rust, but his punches were not as fluid as they were in his prime.

Maybe he did lift weights in his prime, but wouldn't it have been better known if he did?

I guess you could argue that they kept it "hush, hush"

You also have to remember this: If a 200+ pound person is doing Push-ups, pull-ups (both arms and back versions), and squats, then it is still some form of lifting to increase or keep muscle on.

Has there been anything said by Teddy Atlas or Kevin Rooney on the matter?
Teddy wrote a book, did he mention anything about it?

In addition, if he did, it does not mean he was on steroids. However, your point was he could not have kept that much muscle on his body with the cardio he was doing, so if he did lift weights it could explain why he was able to keep the weight on, so fair enough.

If I can remember correctly, I think it was in a magazine interview, where Tyson said he carried weights to run up and down the steps of his building in New York...this was an after prison interview, so I am not sure if he did it in his days with Rooney.

There is always the possibility though

Abe Attell

11-18-2006, 04:49 AM

Walker grew up on a farm tossing around huge bails of hay- which is pretty conducive to producing really huge, athletic people.

I also think you'd be suprised at how many high school and college athletes roid- especially in football. Money wasn't an issue, half the time assistant coaches would provide it for the price of takin a girl out to dinner.
My freshman year of college I was friends with a 2nd string offensive lineman who told me about the trips to mexico, the pills usually reserved for livestock, and how widespread it really was in the locker room.

I know some things.

But it seems in today's world that if you have muscles, especially if you are over 200lbs, you are on steroids; everybody is in question in today's world.

I have known people growing up that were "naturally" big/musceld, ripped, but weren't on steroids.

One guy I knew used to train in Martial Arts, but didn't lift weights and was around the 215 solid. A lot of his size came from the mixture of genetics, diet, and gymnastics with Martial Arts training.\

Sonny Liston was about 6'0, 210+, what was he doing on the side?

sleazyfellow

11-19-2006, 03:15 AM

joe louis is great...end of story

Yaman

11-20-2006, 03:12 AM

Not this Crap again. You happen to be Smasher's alt account?

realheavyhands

11-22-2006, 11:22 AM

hemichromis

11-22-2006, 01:13 PM

joe louis was a giant killer, anybody bigger then him he abused .. nobody can punch like that .. not tyson not shavers not foreman... foreman and shavers would have been sitting ducks againt louis ,too big a target...he was more explosive then tyson... he was fast slow motion and would lul you to sleep then explode on you.. and you couldnt pressure him becuase he hit too hard.. conn was so small and fast he just ran around the whole time... but big heavy weights wouldnt stand a chance

i'll agree joe louis is good but he certainly can;t punch harder than foreman let alone shavers!
i also wouldn't say he was more explosive than tyson but louis was a master of feinting and drawing he would get opponents to come in than hit them with very hard fast shots his shots were accurate and powerful!

Kid Achilles

11-22-2006, 01:18 PM

Louis was at least as explosive as Tyson, and a lot more accurate as well. His right hand was also much straighter. Overall he was just a better puncher than Tyson period IMO.

redxl7

11-23-2006, 12:34 PM

Louis was a legend, he wasn't overrated and could take down any one we have around today, you don't know what your talking about.

The Noose

11-23-2006, 03:48 PM

We got 9 pages of people saying he wasnt overrated! LOL

Next thread....FOREMAN COULDNT PUNCH.

Hydro

02-01-2007, 12:10 PM

What do you think "Genes" are?

African-Americans have good genes, not all, but many that are naturally muscled from their ancestor’s years of heavy labor.

For Bo Jackson, we are talking about a dirt-poor kid, said by others to have always been naturally big and did not lift weights in high school.

Jim Brown was not lifting weights with his team, but might have on his own, not sure...he was about 6'2, 230, around or the same height and weight as his father.

I think Tyson's alleged father was even a construction work at one time.

You also have to consider that kids in poverty stricken neighborhoods, although sometimes can be malnourished, can have higher hormone levels in their system while growing up, into their adult years, from the environment; being that of a "only the strong survive"/war zone.
The food eaten as well, contributes to it.

Tyson was eating well, working-out hard in a sport that requires you to be the best to survive. There is also another psychological direction you can take, which I am not sure about, but just for discussion: I heard that sometimes if you put it into your mind through repetition, that you have to be this, sometimes it can come true. So for example, if somebody sees that you are naturally a big kid, and tells you, "you can become the Heavyweight Champion of the World", through constant reminders through speech, visual (which is watching fights of the heavyweights), and thought, you grow into what you feel you must become because if you don't, you will die.
Of course, you can tear this down, but a small part of it could be true, especially if you have the genetic potential to start as your foundation.

It does not mean it is 100% positive that Tyson and others were not on steroids, but you have to give him the benefit of the doubt considering that he was big as a young kid, and trained by "Old School" trainers. If Tyson was on steroids, then Cus had to of known about it. Tyson would have been put on them in his mid teen years since he was already big at that point. Judging by Tyson's head size by the time he was 13, he was lucky to have a 200+-pound body because it would of looked ridiculous if he did not.

Also look at Tyson's body when he was with Rooney, and then look at his body when he came out of prison and continued his career: It was alleged he never lifting during his prime, but is known he did it after he came out of prison. His muscles do look different in that in his prime, he was not as tight/compact as later. I always wondered if those that say lifting weights could hurt your stamina since either Tyson never trained his cardio the same again after he left Rooney, or the weight lifting affected his stamina.
Maybe it was from rust, but his punches were not as fluid as they were in his prime.

Maybe he did lift weights in his prime, but wouldn't it have been better known if he did?

I guess you could argue that they kept it "hush, hush"

You also have to remember this: If a 200+ pound person is doing Push-ups, pull-ups (both arms and back versions), and squats, then it is still some form of lifting to increase or keep muscle on.

Has there been anything said by Teddy Atlas or Kevin Rooney on the matter?
Teddy wrote a book, did he mention anything about it?

In addition, if he did, it does not mean he was on steroids. However, your point was he could not have kept that much muscle on his body with the cardio he was doing, so if he did lift weights it could explain why he was able to keep the weight on, so fair enough.

If I can remember correctly, I think it was in a magazine interview, where Tyson said he carried weights to run up and down the steps of his building in New York...this was an after prison interview, so I am not sure if he did it in his days with Rooney.

There is always the possibility though

Good post.

I don't think Tyson was on the juice. He was just a monster. The man-child was already 200 lbs. and seemed very powerfully built at age 12 or 13.

One of the HWs in recent years I do question regarding the juice is Evander Holyfield.