Joe louis worst loss

[Sugarj]

Ali was way beyond his best years when the Holmes bout came, not even close to being competitive. His worse loss was against Joe Frazier, they were both undefeated at the time and fighting for a shot at the title!!
Some say the loss to Leon Spinks was his worst defeat!!!! Its the only time Ali was defeated in a title match! Ray

You mean 'Title defence'. Frazier and Holmes were both title matches.

Again, it comes down to how we all rate losses. I guess I wince at punishment absorbed by post prime once great fighters and rate it as much worse than a fairly competitive loss when closer to prime (As Ali was when he met Frazier first time).

[rightsideup]

You mean 'Title defence'. Frazier and Holmes were both title matches.

Again, it comes down to how we all rate losses. I guess I wince at punishment absorbed by post prime once great fighters and rate it as much worse than a fairly competitive loss when closer to prime (As Ali was when he met Frazier first time).s

In louis case I picked the schemling fight because joe was a big favorite coming in absorbed a fair amount of blows and had to recovery mentally(which He did) to become the great champ he was.

[Panamaniac]

I don't rate the degree of a loss by the severity of punishment absorbed, but by the ability to win a given bout. A relatively young Louis was expected to prevail against Schmeling, while an over-the-hill shadow of his former self against prime Marciano, not so much.

I suppose we all have different criteria. For example, I'd personally rank Ali's loss to Holmes as a worse defeat than his first loss to Norton......simply because he absorbed so much punishment and looked so tragic in defeat. Like Louis did when he fell through the ropes against Marciano; so sad to watch.

And that's a good thing. One man's criterion is just as valid as the next's. If we all shared the same opinion, not only would the forum be boring, it would cease to exist!

[Debopam Roy]

Schmeling, yes. He telegraphed his punches and revealed his weaknesses. He was at his worst in that one. However, Joe Louis being Joe Louis fought valiantly in that, and didn't let himself get overpowered. So not exactly, a bad loss like, say, against Marciano. But, a loss of immense significance.

[DreamFighter]

It wasn't so much age. Lets face it Louis was only 36 or so, which today isn't old for a heavyweight........it was more that he was a good deal post prime and was only really fighting to clear his debts with the IRS.

yes entirely true.

Though 36 was felt to be fairly old at that time, I understand that the final bell for athletes was believed to be around the magic number 33 back then.

[Sugarj]

yes entirely true.

Though 36 was felt to be fairly old at that time, I understand that the final bell for athletes was believed to be around the magic number 33 back then.

Yes, although there were exceptions around that time such as Jersey Joe Walcott and Archie Moore who showed terrific form post 36 years old. Joe Louis was a very 'old' 36.

[JAB5239]

yes entirely true.

Though 36 was felt to be fairly old at that time, I understand that the final bell for athletes was believed to be around the magic number 33 back then.

Back then? Thats the average age a professional athlete retires today!