10 greatest title reigns

[TheGreatA]

Louis was utterly dominated by a true Light Heavyweight before getting lucky. Marciano destroyed a past prime Light Heavyweight before KOing him. Even though he was ko'd in a rematch, he outclassed and made Louis look like a fool and got robbed. Rocky again, KO'd him to make sure.

Dominated? I guess you buy into the myth that Conn had the fight won until the knockout.

You would be wrong since Louis could have very well won the fight on scorecards had he won the last two rounds. In the end he didn't have to because he knocked Conn out.

It was a great fight because it was a competitive fight.

Marciano was dominated by Jersey Joe Walcott (since he actually couldn't have won the fight on the scorecards) until getting "lucky".

Lets not get started on how many glass chins Louis faced in his bum of the month club title reign. Patterson was an actual ATG.
And Liston lost against the GREATEST. Not schmeling, Conn, Walcott or Charles.

Liston also lost to Marty Marshall and Leotis Martin. How can anyone say that Liston had a great reign when it only lasted a year including only one title defense?

[Kid McCoy]

Louis was utterly dominated by a true Light Heavyweight before getting lucky. Marciano destroyed a past prime Light Heavyweight before KOing him. Even though he was ko'd in a rematch, he outclassed and made Louis look like a fool and got robbed. Rocky again, KO'd him to make sure.

Louis was never "utterly dominated" by Billy Conn. Watch the fight, he swept most of the early rounds with a body attack, which paid dividends later, and then settled things as he usually did by putting Conn down for a ten count. Nothing lucky about that. He also KO'd John Henry Lewis, another quality light-heavy, in one round.

[Slimey Limey]

Dominated? I guess you buy into the myth that Conn had the fight won until the knockout.

Now it's a "myth" when to everybody else it's common knowledge. How convenient.

You would be wrong since Louis could have very well won the fight on scorecards had he won the last two rounds. In the end he didn't have to because he knocked Conn out.

If he was so great he would have never let a Light Heavyweight do this to him. Look at Tyson. 90 seconds for the greatest LHW ever.

Marciano was dominated by Jersey Joe Walcott (since he actually couldn't have won the fight on the scorecards) until getting "lucky".

Walcott is an ATG Heavyweight. COnn was a small LHW at best and nowhere near as skilled as Walcott. Nice try.

Liston also lost to Marty Marshall and Leotis Martin. How can anyone say that Liston had a great reigh when it only lasted a year including only one title defense?

Notice how I barely mentioned Louis' loss to Marciano? Now you're grasping at straws mate.

[TheGreatA]

Now it's a "myth" when to everybody else it's common knowledge. How convenient.

It's "common knowledge" because Bert Sugar says so. I'd advise you to actually WATCH the fight and check the facts.

At the time, Conn led on the scorecards 7-5 and 7-4-1 in rounds. A third judge had it six rounds each.

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/inductees/modern/conn.html

If he was so great he would have never let a Light Heavyweight do this to him. Look at Tyson. 90 seconds for the greatest LHW ever.

Spinks wasn't the greatest LHW ever. Was Holmes a bum because he actually lost to the light heavyweight twice?

Walcott is an ATG Heavyweight. COnn was a small LHW at best and nowhere near as skilled as Walcott. Nice try.

Nowhere near as skilled as Walcott? I don't think most would agree with that.

Notice how I barely mentioned Louis' loss to Marciano? Now you're grasping at straws mate.

You're mentioning his losses to Charles and Schmeling though. Louis had just turned 22 when he fought Schmeling, 36 when he fought Charles (having not fought in over two years).

[Slimey Limey]

It's "common knowledge" because Bert Sugar says so. I'd advise you to actually WATCH the fight and check the facts.

Obviously I did watch the fight and it was confirmed for me. Louis looked lost, didn't quite know how to handle Conn, and Conn controlled and dominated most of the fight.

Pretty amazing that this could happen to a guy that is reffered to as the greatest Heavyweight of all time according to some idiots.

Spinks wasn't the greatest LHW ever. Was Holmes a bum because he actually lost to the light heavyweight twice?

Quite clearly he was, and at the very least top 3 without a doubt, and DEFINITELY better than Conman. And the bigger point is that Tyson needed 90 seconds for Spinks. Louis was outclassed for most of the fight untill finally getting him.
Nice try again.

Nowhere near as skilled as Walcott? I don't think most would agree with that.

Not as skilled as a Heavyweight.

You're mentioning his losses to Charles and Schmeling though. Louis had just turned 22 when he fought Schmeling, 36 when he fought Charles (having not fought in over two years)

Louis didn't look that diffirent when he first fought Schmeling. I'll remind you that he was walking through everybody before meeting a better fighter.


Louis has more excuses made for him than Tyson and Marciano. It's amazing he gets away with this.

[Poet682006]

I love it! I don't have to make a post since everyone else here is owning this pathetic troll Don't get angry mate! Just go mate your girlfriend Dolly The Sheep Nimrods will be nimrods and alts will be trolling alts. I wonder what his old ID was? Probably someone I slapped down for terminal ignorance before no doubt.

I love the "Holmes almost beat Holyfield" crap. Sorry "mate...NOT", that fight was close only in your very teeny mind. Oh, Tyson's 90 second destruction of Spinks had far less to do with Tyson's fistic skills than with Spinks being wetting his pants scared and looking for a soft spot on the canvas from the moment he stepped in the ring. Your posts SCREAM "demented fan-boi". You should really prevail upon yourself of the classic education that Manchine and Jab are offering you. Who knows? Maybe even YOU may actually learn something for the first time in your life.

Poet

[TheGreatA]

Obviously I did watch the fight and it was confirmed for me. Louis looked lost, didn't quite know how to handle Conn, and Conn controlled and dominated most of the fight.

Pretty amazing that this could happen to a guy that is reffered to as the greatest Heavyweight of all time according to some idiots.

Who is the greatest heavyweight then? Muhammad Ali? The man who was knocked down and almost out by a 180 lber, won a split decision against former LHW contender Doug Jones, lost in the biggest fight of his career to Joe Frazier, struggled 3 times with Ken Norton, got a gift against Jimmy Young, lost and regained the title from the "great" Leon Spinks.

There are blemishes in every record. The fact is that Louis got the job done that night after a great battle.

Quite clearly he was, and at the very least top 3 without a doubt, and DEFINITELY better than Conman. And the bigger point is that Tyson needed 90 seconds for Spinks. Louis was outclassed for most of the fight untill finally getting him.
Nice try again.

Louis didn't need many more to destroy John Henry Lewis, a great light heavyweight.

Again, is Larry Holmes a bum for losing twice to a light heavyweight?

Not as skilled as a Heavyweight.

Heavyweight or not, Conn was trendemously skilled and had several wins over top heavyweights at the time.

Louis didn't look that diffirent when he first fought Schmeling. I'll remind you that he was walking through everybody before meeting a better fighter.

A fighter he destroyed in 2 minutes in the rematch. I'd say he improved, since Schmeling did not decline considering that Max had beaten 3 good fighters in between and had not struggled with any of them.

Louis has more excuses made for him than Tyson and Marciano. It's amazing he gets away with this.

Excuses?

Making excuses for Louis would be saying that he lost 4 years of his prime for being in the army and that he did not train a day for the first Schmeling fight.

Tyson gets more excuses for the Buster Douglas fight (none from himself) than any other fighter in history.

[Slimey Limey]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I love it! I don't have to make a post since everyone else here is owning this pathetic troll Don't get angry mate! Just go mate your girlfriend Dolly The Sheep Nimrods will be nimrods and alts will be trolling alts. I wonder what his old ID was? Probably someone I slapped down for terminal ignorance before no doubt.

Don't get mad mate.
Yes how convenient Poet. You have cornhole lickers that enable you to stay cowardly and never respond. Instead you can just spew the same old stuff you always do when someone completely makes you look like the fool you are, and just say "1-You're too ****** I won't respond2-I have so much boxing knowledge I don't have to respond-You don't lick old fighters cornholes therefor I don't have to respond" or any other excuses.

I love the "Holmes almost beat Holyfield" crap. Sorry "mate...NOT", that fight was close only in your very teeny mind. Oh, Tyson's 90 second destruction of Spinks had far less to do with Tyson's fistic skills than with Spinks being wetting his pants scared and looking for a soft spot on the canvas from the moment he stepped in the ring. Your posts SCREAM "demented fan-boi". You should really prevail upon yourself of the classic education that Manchine and Jab are offering you. Who knows? Maybe even YOU may actually learn something for the first time in your life.

Btw, check my join date. I've been here longer than you. Now you're ducking my posts, almost hurting yourself by being so angry, and becoming paranoid. Fix yourself mate, so you can grow some balls and actually debate.

[Slimey Limey]

Who is the greatest heavyweight then? Muhammad Ali? The man who was knocked down and almost out by a 180 lber, won a split decision against former LHW contender Doug Jones, lost in the biggest fight of his career to Joe Frazier, struggled 3 times with Ken Norton, got a gift against Jimmy Young, lost and regained the title from the "great" Leon Spinks.

Trolling again.

There are blemishes in every record.

No there are not. That's just another convenient excuse to make Louis' undeniable negative aspects seem like nothing.

The fact is that Louis got the job done that night after a great battle.

He didn't get the job done like the greatest Heavyweight ever would, or one with the greatest title reign ever would do.

There are many fools who believe Louis deserves to be called both. Now, do you really have a problem with me having a major problem with this, mate?

Louis didn't need many more to destroy John Henry Lewis, a great light heavyweight.

Nothing compared to Conn or Spinks.

Again, is Larry Holmes a bum for losing twice to a light heavyweight?

No, it's a major screw like Louis'. And I never said Louis is a bum in any way. You are implying this while you don't realise that I don't believe nonsense like Louis having the greatest title reign ever or bein the best Heavyweight ever.

Heavyweight or not, Conn was trendemously skilled and had several wins over top heavyweights at the time.

That just shows what a piece of crap era it was, that a Light Heavyweight could beat the top heavyweights. And yes the 80s were a crappy era too. Just not nearly as bad as Louis'.

A fighter he destroyed in 2 minutes in the rematch. I'd say he improved, since Schmeling did not decline considering that Max had beaten 3 good fighters in between and had not struggled in any of them.

Either that's true or Schmeling became shot and old overnight.

Making excuses for Louis would be saying that he lost 4 years of his prime for being in the army and that he did not train a day for the first Schmeling fight.

Those ecuses have been made for Louis.

Tyson gets more excuses for the Buster Douglas fight (none from himself) than any other fighter in history.

Which is one of the reasons why Tyson is hated more than any other fighter.

Now why is Louis never called out on his flaws? Why is it almost a sin to do that? Clowns like Poet would rather insult their mothers instead of critisizing Joe Louis.

[Poet682006]

Don't get mad mate.
Yes how convenient Poet. You have cornhole lickers that enable you to stay cowardly and never respond. Instead you can just spew the same old stuff you always do when someone completely makes you look like the fool you are, and just say "1-You're too ****** I won't respond2-I have so much boxing knowledge I don't have to respond-You don't lick old fighters cornholes therefor I don't have to respond" or any other excuses.

First off, I'm not your "mate" so you can stow that ****e right now. Second, I'm far from angry rather I'm laughing at you. Third, I have no tolerance for ignorance especially of the willful variety. Fourth, you do NOT "debate" you mearly spout BS then dismiss any evidence exposing your foolishness. Fifth, you do not belong in the same debating ring as me as you are so far beneath me intellectually that you might as well be a worm.
Sixth, read my avatar: I believe the caption reads "Fools Are Not Suffered Gladly" hence my dismissial of you as a candidate for any type of rational discussion.

Btw, check my join date. I've been here longer than you.

That, in and of itself is meaningless. All it indicates is you've had this alt ID for a long time and like the coward you are you're hiding your true ID.

Now you're ducking my posts, almost hurting yourself by being so angry, and becoming paranoid. Fix yourself mate, so you can grow some balls and actually debate.

Ducking your posts? Far from it! I'm mearly responding to your inanities when it amuses me to do so.

PS. I think it's pretty revealing when as intelligent and mild a mannered poster as Jab can be pushed to irritation by troll such as Slime Ball.

Poet