It's not any different from you saying that Joe Louis can't be that great for KO'ing Billy Conn, a light heavyweight, in the 13th round.
Even though many other great heavyweights have had even bigger trouble with light heavyweights, sometimes losing to them.
I guess he should just KO everybody in 90 seconds then. You do know that not even Mike Tyson could do that? Certainly not Muhammad Ali who had many more close fights with even worse fighters than Conn.
I have a problem with your arguments, that's all. I don't have a problem with you thinking otherwise.
I actually don't think Louis was the greatest heavyweight ever but I do think he had the greatest title reign ever.
Perhaps not as great but great nonetheless.
A former middleweight was good enough to reign in the 60's (Jimmy Ellis).
A former LHW was good enough to beat the best HW in the 80's (Michael Spinks).
A former LHW was good enough to twice dominate the HW champion in the 20's (Gene Tunney).
A former amateur middleweight and light heavyweight contender was good enough to reign in the 50's (Floyd Patterson).
A former LHW was good enough to win a decision over the HW champion in the 90's (Michael Moorer).
A former amateur light middleweight was good enough to reign as title holder in this decade (Chris Byrd).
I could go on.
He wasn't shot in his next fight when he KO'd the European champion in one round.
He is criticized a lot, mostly by new fans of boxing.
Even though many other great heavyweights have had even bigger trouble with light heavyweights, sometimes losing to them.
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?
I actually don't think Louis was the greatest heavyweight ever but I do think he had the greatest title reign ever.
Nothing compared to Conn or Spinks.
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.
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 former LHW was good enough to beat the best HW in the 80's (Michael Spinks).
A former LHW was good enough to twice dominate the HW champion in the 20's (Gene Tunney).
A former amateur middleweight and light heavyweight contender was good enough to reign in the 50's (Floyd Patterson).
A former LHW was good enough to win a decision over the HW champion in the 90's (Michael Moorer).
A former amateur light middleweight was good enough to reign as title holder in this decade (Chris Byrd).
I could go on.
Either that's true or Schmeling became shot and old overnight.
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.
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.
Comment