Louis's 'bum of the month' club...

Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • NChristo
    The Keed
    Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
    • Feb 2010
    • 5606
    • 369
    • 149
    • 18,296

    #11
    Originally posted by r.burgundy
    foremans wins over moorer,shavers,norton,frazier>>>>>>>>>anybody on louis resume
    Foreman's win over Shavers ?

    Comment

    • JAB5239
      Dallas Cowboys
      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
      • Dec 2007
      • 27708
      • 5,034
      • 4,436
      • 73,018

      #12
      Originally posted by NChristo
      Foreman's win over Shavers ?
      Lol, I didn't even catch that!

      Comment

      • Steak
        Undisputed Champion
        Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
        • Aug 2006
        • 10713
        • 509
        • 268
        • 17,902

        #13
        Originally posted by r.burgundy
        cause your in the top 10 means you cant be a bum??
        well, its very rare to find an actual 'bum' level boxer in the top ten, but I understand your point.

        like I said, I dont think Louis' reign had the toughest opposition ever. wasnt the strongest era, no. but even if only half of those wins were actually quality ones, its still a damn impressive amount of good wins.

        seriously, youll be VERY hard pressed to find another fighter that consistantly beat the best the division had to offer like Joe Louis did.

        I dont mean to belittle other fighters in this thread, but look at someone like Joe Calzaghe who similiarly had around 20 title defences...
        Robin Reid #6, (controversial)
        Richie Woodhall #8,
        Charles Brewer #5,
        Byron Mitchell #5,
        Lacy #3,
        Peter Manfredo #10, and of course
        Kessler #2.
        then Hopkins at LHW, Champion status(controversial)
        nearly 4 times as many for Louis.

        now, Im the first person to say that numbers mean nothing, and its who you beat(and how) that matters more than anything.
        but even then...Louis beat multiple future or former World Champions(at a time where there was only one lineal crown, as opposed to having 4+ times the opportunity to be a world champ like nowadays), and a surprising number of the guys he beat are in the Hall of Fame(although some of them you could argue dont deserve to be there...still quality fighters).

        Joe Louis, without a doubt, fought and beat the best guys available to him. I dont think many fighters can truly claim as much. I mean, he literally cleaned out the division, its not like he missed anyone along the way.

        Comment

        • prinzemanspopa
          queenmanspopa
          Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
          • Nov 2009
          • 2714
          • 356
          • 207
          • 9,287

          #14
          Originally posted by JAB5239

          Try again. Neither Foreman, Holy or Liston have better resumes and Langford was never champion. Strike one!


          Except Holyfield does have the better resume between the two.Holyfield fought in a far deeper,more competitive era of heavyweight boxing and he fought them all.

          Comment

          • r.burgundy
            Undisputed Champion
            Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
            • Feb 2008
            • 1631
            • 177
            • 61
            • 8,290

            #15
            Originally posted by blackirish137
            well, its very rare to find an actual 'bum' level boxer in the top ten, but I understand your point.

            like I said, I dont think Louis' reign had the toughest opposition ever. wasnt the strongest era, no. but even if only half of those wins were actually quality ones, its still a damn impressive amount of good wins.

            seriously, youll be VERY hard pressed to find another fighter that consistantly beat the best the division had to offer like Joe Louis did.

            I dont mean to belittle other fighters in this thread, but look at someone like Joe Calzaghe who similiarly had around 20 title defences...
            nearly 4 times as many for Louis.

            now, Im the first person to say that numbers mean nothing, and its who you beat(and how) that matters more than anything.
            but even then...Louis beat multiple future or former World Champions(at a time where there was only one lineal crown, as opposed to having 4+ times the opportunity to be a world champ like nowadays), and a surprising number of the guys he beat are in the Hall of Fame(although some of them you could argue dont deserve to be there...still quality fighters).

            Joe Louis, without a doubt, fought and beat the best guys available to him. I dont think many fighters can truly claim as much. I mean, he literally cleaned out the division, its not like he missed anyone along the way.
            wladimir klitscho is doing it right now.he's been stopping top 5 guys left and right for years now and all he gets is hate.its a sick double standard.people need to come to terms with the fact that in the history of heavyweights you would barely have 15 truly great fighters.the criteria for great would be to be able to dominate in any era.

            people also need to accept that the heavy division has undergone the most changes because it doesnt have a size limit.so we could take ray robinson per se,and he would still be evenly matched against an ww or mw because the sizes are still 147 and 160 just like when he was fighting.

            in comparison,you take louis,put him in with the guys of today and he's at a huge disadvantange.its not just 1 circus freak like canerra or fat guy like gallento to deal with.its damn near the whole division.sure he can outskill some of these guys but im pretty sure if schmelling can put him to sleep then so could alot of other guys.he's been put dowb alot of lighter hitters than fighters of today

            Comment

            • JAB5239
              Dallas Cowboys
              Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
              • Dec 2007
              • 27708
              • 5,034
              • 4,436
              • 73,018

              #16
              Originally posted by prinzemanspopa
              Except Holyfield does have the better resume between the two.Holyfield fought in a far deeper,more competitive era of heavyweight boxing and he fought them all.

              It is arguable who has a better resume between Holy and Louis. But let me humor you and say he does.....who are the other 4 besides Ali? If Louis was really fighting all these so called bums, this should be a very simple question to answer. But as r.burgundy found out it really isn't because of the factors BlackIrish talked about.

              Comment

              • Obama
                Undisputed Champion
                Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                • Apr 2009
                • 4563
                • 978
                • 62
                • 11,854

                #17
                People need to put Louis' longevity into context. If Wlad's only loss was to an elite fighter like Schmeling (which many rate among the 20 greatest Heavyweights of all time), and he simply went on to retire undefeated afterwards as undisputed Champion with 58 wins, do you have any idea how many Wlad fans would be on this message board calling him the greatest of all time? And that's with the current crappy Heavyweight landscape. Louis wasn't in the best era, but he damn sure wasn't in the worst or even close to the worst.

                Comment

                • Obama
                  Undisputed Champion
                  Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                  • Apr 2009
                  • 4563
                  • 978
                  • 62
                  • 11,854

                  #18
                  As for Holyfield, I rate his level of opposition even over Ali. Problem was he lost too much. Ali and Louis didn't. L's take away from a resume, they can't be ignored.

                  Comment

                  • JAB5239
                    Dallas Cowboys
                    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                    • Dec 2007
                    • 27708
                    • 5,034
                    • 4,436
                    • 73,018

                    #19
                    Originally posted by Obama
                    People need to put Louis' longevity into context. If Wlad's only loss was to an elite fighter like Schmeling (which many rate among the 20 greatest Heavyweights of all time), and he simply went on to retire undefeated afterwards as undisputed Champion with 58 wins, do you have any idea how many Wlad fans would be on this message board calling him the greatest of all time? And that's with the current crappy Heavyweight landscape. Louis wasn't in the best era, but he damn sure wasn't in the worst or even close to the worst.
                    Originally posted by Obama
                    As for Holyfield, I rate his level of opposition even over Ali. Problem was he lost too much. Ali and Louis didn't. L's take away from a resume, they can't be ignored.
                    Thank you for an excellent post and perspective.

                    Comment

                    • Steak
                      Undisputed Champion
                      Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
                      • Aug 2006
                      • 10713
                      • 509
                      • 268
                      • 17,902

                      #20
                      Originally posted by r.burgundy
                      wladimir klitscho is doing it right now.he's been stopping top 5 guys left and right for years now and all he gets is hate.its a sick double standard.people need to come to terms with the fact that in the history of heavyweights you would barely have 15 truly great fighters.the criteria for great would be to be able to dominate in any era.

                      people also need to accept that the heavy division has undergone the most changes because it doesnt have a size limit.so we could take ray robinson per se,and he would still be evenly matched against an ww or mw because the sizes are still 147 and 160 just like when he was fighting.

                      in comparison,you take louis,put him in with the guys of today and he's at a huge disadvantange.its not just 1 circus freak like canerra or fat guy like gallento to deal with.its damn near the whole division.sure he can outskill some of these guys but im pretty sure if schmelling can put him to sleep then so could alot of other guys.he's been put dowb alot of lighter hitters than fighters of today
                      Wladimir has actually only beaten 10 top 10 fighters, and the only top 5 guys he beat so far are Chagaev and Byrd. not that its bad, but Louis is a little ahead.

                      also, a big problem with Wladimir is that he never will fight the other best fighter in his division(his brother). Louis fought the #1 contender multiple times.

                      there is a huge myth around this whole 'there are huge guys in todays division' thing. Other than the Klitschko brothers and Valuev(who should have lost to 45+ year old Holyfield), who exactly are these huge guys? In fact, in the top 5 there is a Cruiserweight and a Light Heavyweight.
                      who are the other guys? Chambers, Povetkin, and Boytsov could all be Cruiserweights if they lost weight. Especially Chambers.

                      whats funny is that in reality Louis beat the bigger men compared to Wladimir. when I say that I mean top guys, btw

                      Wlad's best wins compared to Louis'(only in size):
                      Byrd is smaller than Max Baer
                      Chagaev is smaller than Buddy Baer
                      Ibragimov is smaller or same size as Walcott
                      Chambers is smaller or same size as Schmeling
                      Peter is as big as Abe Simon
                      Carnera is bigger than anyone Wladimir beat

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      TOP