which fight was joe louis best win?

[House of Stone]

Originally Posted by jabsRstiff

More to it than political stuff. Schmeling had completely destroyed a Louis who was thought to be invincible....

yes everybody is aware of that ...

[Sugarj]

Originally Posted by jabsRstiff

The thread is not "what fighter was at their best when Louis beat them", either.

Louis demolished Schmeling in what was the biggest and most important fight of his, and just about every other fighter's, career. He did not have to get up off his ass and come from behind to do so. The importance of the match and the performance itself trump Walcott being a more difficult foe.....IMO.

I don't know if Walcott was that much better than the Schmeling who lost to Louis because Louis was an infintely better and primed fighter the night he smoked Schmeling. If I had to pick who'd have won between the two I'd give it to Walcott.

The second Schmelling fight was the most significant historically, certainly better known and most one sided. But thats it.....

Your quote in bold has no relevance here. A best win is surely a win over the best opponent a fighter faces when the opponent is also at their best.

Thats why for example Sugar Ray Leonard's win over Thomas Hearns would be considered a better win than Leonard's win over Hagler.

Not only was 1948 Walcott most likely a better heavyweight than any version of Schmelling. He was also probably better at that point than any fighter Joe Louis had ever met previously. It stands to reason that Walcott is therefore the better win. It was a huge event at the time too.

For a different example ask yourself, what was the better win for Duran? The rematch with DeJesus or the first match with Leonard? Duran was more prime for DeJesus, arguably more dominant. But Leonard would have been counted as the better win

[House of Stone]

Originally Posted by Sugarj

The second Schmelling fight was the most significant historically, certainly better known and most one sided. But thats it.....

Your quote in bold has no relevance here. A best win is surely a win over the best opponent a fighter faces when the opponent is also at their best.

Thats why for example Sugar Ray Leonard's win over Thomas Hearns would be considered a better win than Leonard's win over Hagler.

Not only was 1948 Walcott most likely a better heavyweight than any version of Schmelling. He was also probably better at that point than any fighter Joe Louis had ever met previously. It stands to reason that Walcott is therefore the better win. It was a huge event at the time too.

For a different example ask yourself, what was the better win for Duran? The rematch with DeJesus or the first match with Leonard? Duran was more prime for DeJesus, arguably more dominant. But Leonard would have been counted as the better win

agree with bold and kinda agreed on the following line too

[jabsRstiff]

Originally Posted by Sugarj

The second Schmelling fight was the most significant historically, certainly better known and most one sided. But thats it.....

Your quote in bold has no relevance here. A best win is surely a win over the best opponent a fighter faces when the opponent is also at their best.

Thats why for example Sugar Ray Leonard's win over Thomas Hearns would be considered a better win than Leonard's win over Hagler.

Not only was 1948 Walcott most likely a better heavyweight than any version of Schmelling. He was also probably better at that point than any fighter Joe Louis had ever met previously. It stands to reason that Walcott is therefore the better win. It was a huge event at the time too.

For a different example ask yourself, what was the better win for Duran? The rematch with DeJesus or the first match with Leonard? Duran was more prime for DeJesus, arguably more dominant. But Leonard would have been counted as the better win

For me it's a toss-up between DeJesus III and Leonard I for Duran. I DO think beating your best opponent who happens to be at their best means quite a bit, but it doesn't necessarily rule over or out other factors- like how dominant you were/how phenomenal you looked. It does if there's a HUGE gap between the levels of the guy you crushed and the guy you struggled to beat, of course. There's a bunch of factors that go in to determining what a fighter's best or most impressive win was.

[jabsRstiff]

Originally Posted by Sugarj

Not only was 1948 Walcott most likely a better heavyweight than any version of Schmelling. He was also probably better at that point than any fighter Joe Louis had ever met previously. It stands to reason that Walcott is therefore the better win. It was a huge event at the time too.

[/B]

Better fighter? Yes. Better foe for Louis? Tough to say....considering Schmeling demolished a fresher Louis while the best Walcott ever did was lose a bad decision to a much older one.

[Sugarj]

Originally Posted by jabsRstiff

Better fighter? Yes. Better foe for Louis? Tough to say....considering Schmeling demolished a fresher Louis while the best Walcott ever did was lose a bad decision to a much older one.

To be honest though, I think 1948 Walcott does a much more decisive job on 1936 Louis than Schmelling did.

The Louis that met Schmelling first time would have been demolished by quite a few heavyweights. Louis was on poor form that night......even allowing for his defensive lapses and lazy left, he wasn't nearly as on form or on fire as he was for say the Baer fight.

I will grant you that the Louis fight was Schmelling's best fight.

And for the sake of goodwill I do rate the second Schmelling fight as being one of Louis's best wins. Certainly top five, possibly top three.

[jabsRstiff]

Originally Posted by Sugarj

To be honest though, I think 1948 Walcott does a much more decisive job on 1936 Louis than Schmelling did.

The Louis that met Schmelling first time would have been demolished by quite a few heavyweights. Louis was on poor form that night......even allowing for his defensive lapses and lazy left, he wasn't nearly as on form or on fire as he was for say the Baer fight.

I will grant you that the Louis fight was Schmelling's best fight.

And for the sake of goodwill I do rate the second Schmelling fight as being one of Louis's best wins. Certainly top five, possibly top three.

All in all...a damn fine debate!

[rightsideup]

Originally Posted by jabsRstiff

All in all...a damn fine debate!

thanks with a career like joe had it's hard to nail down one fight as his best

[Sugarj]

Originally Posted by jabsRstiff

All in all...a damn fine debate!

You're a gentleman and a scholer.......

[Panamaniac]

Originally Posted by Panamaniac

That was arguably his best win, it was certainly his most important win, due to the international political bragging rights at stake. Louis' 13th. round KO of Billy Conn is also a high profile win after trailing the previous 12 rounds.

Originally Posted by Stokely

That's the fight that first came to my mind. He was in trouble that night and did what he needed to do regain the title.

Retain.