Joe Louis Not Great

[SABBATH]

Who the hell but YOU takes this article serious? That explains your ignorance. The fact that you can't see that he's biased piece of **** full of hate is beyond me.

This thread is a joke, like your boy Ozzy.

Ozzy only bites birds not the ears off of humans so you tell me who the joke is.

I feel the writer is too soft on Louis. He could have mentioned how John Henry Lewis was legally blind when Joe fought him, the very reason John Henry's licence was revoked after the Louis fight.

Or, he could have included the Marciano shellacking which several posters on these threads have been quick to point out was a still very viable version of Louis. Top 10 contender, undefeated in his comeback, looked impressive in his fights leading up to the Marciano fight etc....

[BKM-]

Joe Louis hater posts a Joe Louis hating article. And only the Joe Louis haters agree.

[SABBATH]

Heyyyy!! Lay off Ozzy!

Ahhh...he's too young to remember Osbourne, Iommi, Butler, Ward. Birmingham's fantastic four...

[Brassangel]

While Joe Louis would certainly be in my top 2 all-time, I think that this compilation of evidence points to one thing: no great champion was invincible, and anything could happen in the ring. For us, as critics, to make predictions and speculate what would happen in great fantasy bouts (Ali vs. Tyson, Foreman vs. Liston, Frazier vs. Holyfield, etc.), we should really take their flaws into consideration as much as their strengths. Often times we assume that a certain style will automatically carry the fight, or that a mind-set will cause someone to slip, or the competition that one has faced is less-worthy than another.

Really the information presented was accurate, short of assuming that Louis is dumb or something to that effect. Every champion is guilty of facing mediocre competition from time to time and struggling to win (or lose). But perhaps it is the heavyweight division that is guilty of not always being stuffed full of legendery fighters. Maybe Ali's era wasn't full of the best fighters, for example; perhaps those fighters were just capable of putting on a good show and were evenly matched. While say, Joe Louis, or Mike Tyson, or Jack Johnson were so superior to the rest of the division that they made them all look like "bums."

I guess it's difficult for me to take most of the replies seriously as very few people approached this with the same analytical and objective view that the thread's creator so carefully gifted us with.

[RockyMarcianofan00]

lets just establish this now
Joe Louis is the greatest Heavyweight
Joe Louis was also the best all around fighter with a hard punch stamina, good defense, and good counter punching

[K-DOGG]

While Joe Louis would certainly be in my top 2 all-time, I think that this compilation of evidence points to one thing: no great champion was invincible, and anything could happen in the ring. For us, as critics, to make predictions and speculate what would happen in great fantasy bouts (Ali vs. Tyson, Foreman vs. Liston, Frazier vs. Holyfield, etc.), we should really take their flaws into consideration as much as their strengths. Often times we assume that a certain style will automatically carry the fight, or that a mind-set will cause someone to slip, or the competition that one has faced is less-worthy than another.

Really the information presented was accurate, short of assuming that Louis is dumb or something to that effect. Every champion is guilty of facing mediocre competition from time to time and struggling to win (or lose). But perhaps it is the heavyweight division that is guilty of not always being stuffed full of legendery fighters. Maybe Ali's era wasn't full of the best fighters, for example; perhaps those fighters were just capable of putting on a good show and were evenly matched. While say, Joe Louis, or Mike Tyson, or Jack Johnson were so superior to the rest of the division that they made them all look like "bums."

I guess it's difficult for me to take most of the replies seriously as very few people approached this with the same analytical and objective view that the thread's creator so carefully gifted us with.

Now THAT is a damn good observation.

[butterfly1964]

Now THAT is a damn good observation.

not really. ali had beaten fighters who had already proven themselves to be great fighters, and louis beat people who hadn't really proved anything at all.

[K-DOGG]

not really. ali had beaten fighters who had already proven themselves to be great fighters, and louis beat people who hadn't really proved anything at all.

Baer, Schmeling, Carnera, Braddock, Conn, and others...didn't prove anything?

Right.

[butterfly1964]

Baer, Schmeling, Carnera, Braddock, Conn, and others...didn't prove anything?

Right.

carnera was nothing but a side show, baer was unskiled and wild and could be picked apart pretty easily, braddock was a lucky journeyman, conn was a lhw.

[butterfly1964]

louis was a great fighter, a lock for top ten. but this thread like the ali, dempsey, and frazier threads, show that any fighter could be criticized.