Does Joe Louis' dominance warrant being top 2 ATG HW despite lack of quality?

[ShoulderRoll]

Depends how you define ATG. As you say in terms of resume not so much but he was obviously a great fighter. People want to rank him the highest because of nostalgic feelings and especially because of the fact that he's considered an American hero.

I would argue that Wladimir Klitschko fought in a poorer heavyweight era yet he couldn't break Louis' record of consecutive title defenses.

That puts things into perspective I think.

[Ray Corso]

"Loads of guys have talent but how can you not take resume into account especially when someone is considered a top 2 heavyweight of all time"?

I do look at the competition fought but when the era is weak you need to understand techniques.
In Louis's era you also had opponents with far less talent but they were game and came to win. They proved to be difficult opponents for anyone because of their heart. Today you don't see challengers with average skills giving efforts the way the same skilled fighters did back in the day.
Also remember that Louis fought once between 1942 and 1946 (1944) that's a 4 year absence that diminishes skills and passion.
Some talk here about Walcott & Charles as if they we're void of talent!
Those two men were outstanding competitors with great experiences and heart!

Louis's career begins in 1934 so to miss 4 years of prime with an exhibition thrown in between the 4 years is very admirable and the bums of the month came after Louis wiped out the contenders. He fought everyone in the top fifteen and hometown favorites too.
His defense record was established because fighters fought back then unlike today wehen one fight a year is acceptable.
I would love to see any heavyweight from the past 20 years be transported back when ppv and closed circuits and TV was unavailable! Back then you fought on a regular basis and you fought with injuries too or your spot might be replaced by a young up coming fighter. Also if you couldn't supply action you would NOT be used. Wlad Klitz wouyld be booed out of the house if he started the amateurish holding he developed to avoid inside fighting.
No action no money!

Ray

[soul_survivor]

Louis is only number 2 in the minds of pseudo intellectuals. He had a terrible run of opponents and was open to sharp, hard counters.

A great fighter but not top 2. He shouldn't be ranked above Ali, holyfield or holmes, people would probably factor in foreman too.

[joeandthebums]

Louis is only number 2 in the minds of pseudo intellectuals. He had a terrible run of opponents and was open to sharp, hard counters.

A great fighter but not top 2. He shouldn't be ranked above Ali, holyfield or holmes, people would probably factor in foreman too.

I have Louis at #1.

?

[Fury4daWIN]

I would argue that Wladimir Klitschko fought in a poorer heavyweight era yet he couldn't break Louis' record of consecutive title defenses.

That puts things into perspective I think.

Wlad never got to defend his titles against light heavyweights and former middleweights every couple of months. Had that been the case, he would have surpassed the record a long time ago.

I don't like to dog on Louis as I respect his achievements a great deal, but his length of reign really has to be qualified against current standards. A lot of his defences would not have been allowed today.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

I don't care who your are, an argument can be made for every champion that they have a weak resume. This argument however holds weight in the minds of people that only look at boxrec stats. Also size is everything to those folks. Boxing history has proven over and over again that size doesn't matter. Look at Tyson, Marciano, Dempsey, Louis, etc. all fought bigger men at points in there career. Some for the majority.

[soul_survivor]

I have Louis at #1.

?

Looking at your track record in this section I wouldn't be surprised. Weren't you the guy who didn't know when Robinson moved to middleweight and felt that he ducked Burley? Oh and you think Mayweather would somehow win 6 rounds against Robinson.

Don't be offended if I don't take you seriously

[Weltschmerz]

I would argue that Wladimir Klitschko fought in a poorer heavyweight era yet he couldn't break Louis' record of consecutive title defenses.

That puts things into perspective I think.

That's fair enough, I have no problem with this. Both were great champs in their respective eras and it doesn't have to be compared like this, anyway. They fought 60 years apart or more. The whole game was different.

But it does seem like a lot of people are hung up about needing to put him at no. 2 but that's fine, it comes down to personal taste. I like Louis too but I could rate other above him still, like Larry Holmes or maybe Jack Johnson.

[Fury4daWIN]

I don't care who your are, an argument can be made for every champion that they have a weak resume. This argument however holds weight in the minds of people that only look at boxrec stats. Also size is everything to those folks. Boxing history has proven over and over again that size doesn't matter. Look at Tyson, Marciano, Dempsey, Louis, etc. all fought bigger men at points in there career. Some for the majority.

I think a resume can only really be judged relative to the era the fighter competes in. Not every era is going to be strong, but so long as a champion does their best to fight all the top-rated opposition then there's not much more anyone can ask of them. Certainly, it'd be churlish to criticise a fighter for something he has no control over.

Ultimately, though, strength of eras is going to enter the debate when establishing overall greatness, though a fighter can be great in many ways not related to H2H ability. Dominance, length of reign, and sociological impact all have their place. Louis ticks those boxes just fine.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

I think a resume can only really be judged relative to the era the fighter competes in. Not every era is going to be strong, but so long as a champion does their best to fight all the top-rated opposition then there's not much more anyone can ask of them. Certainly, it'd be churlish to criticise a fighter for something he has no control over.

Ultimately, though, strength of eras is going to enter the debate when establishing overall greatness, though a fighter can be great in many ways not related to H2H ability. Dominance, length of reign, and sociological impact all have their place. Louis ticks those boxes just fine.

Most of the fighters we mention when talking about ATG status are fighters like Louis, Marciano, Ali, etc. every guy we mention was dominant in there era's (champ for a few years). What I find stupid is when people try taking a guy who DOMINATED his era regardless of strength and somehow count that against him. What else could he possibly have done more in terms of legacy other than win??? Any guy that is top ranked is going to be good. There has never been a tomato can rated as a top contender. So regardless if it is Tony Galento or Hasim Rahman they are quality guys.