Joe Louis Not Great

[ricecrispi]

You have to see the fights to make your opinion. You've done' good research sabbath but boxing isn't just about reading articles. Have the writers exagrerate and know diddly about boxing. You have to go to boxing experts like fighters and trainers to look for information. I still have to give you props for all the work you did.

You say Joe Louis doesn't have a good chin but in the fight with schmmeling he took right hand after right hand and hundreds of clean punches to the jaw before bowing out in the 12th. HE got rocked for round 1 and lasted 12 rounds. Louis didn't have a great chin but his heart and desire more than made up for it.

Every fighter has tough fights but in the end the W is what counts. How many fights did Ali or any other HW struggle to win or lose in. You can't dominant against everyone and its how you respond to that and get the win is important. Marciano literally took beatings in his fight but who stands on his feet and how is on their ass at the end of the fight is what matters

Joe had pretty good skills in every catergory. He did have flaws but overall he would beat most top HW. He had enough defense, offense, combination, KO power, handspeed, illusiveness, movement and other intangibles to beat these guys. He was a great overall package

I still think Ali is better at HW though. Enjoy that Butterfly.

[Frazier's 15th round]

Revolver's article ******. Monte's is funnier. I'll bump it.

[Frazier's 15th round]

This is ridiculous. I could tear into George Foreman even worse if I felt like wasting the energy. Who did Foreman ever beat besides Frazier? An undersized Frazier, and Norton, an overrated fighter who's only claim to fame was having the style to beat a past it Ali and give Holmes a tough fight. Speaking of Holmes, he was another overrated champion with a long reign in a weak era who never really beat anyone worth mentioning anyway.

Foreman's destruction of Frazier and Norton is impressive, as is winning the title at 45. But his record aside from that is pretty ****ing padded. Just in his first 37 fights alone (before meeting Frazier) he fought 17 guys with losing records.

[SABBATH]

Revolver's article ******. Monte's is funnier. I'll bump it.

Revolver's article at the very least included much more supporting data and took a lot more research to compile than Monte's.

Monte's article was essentially him clicking on boxrec then and calling everyone a bum. Pretty funny at first, pretty stale quickly....

[ricecrispi]

articles and records offer only one part of the story.

How would you prepare for a fighter, reading articles, clippings, and looking at their records of who they beat?
or
Watch film on these guys and make your judgements.

[Zamora]

the way i see it is that you can only fight whats in front of you. also the training regimes and facilities were different, they also fought more often - so thats what you have to look at in analysing whether a fighter from one era would beat another from a different era. the gloves were probably smaller in weight(im not sure) but they were definatley of poorer quality so you have to take that into account as well. i think louis was a great and so do alot of boxing experts

[Azteca]

joe louis is my top heavyweight and great with a capital G.

i will read you a quote from damon runyon:
"Louis was not the greatest puncher ever, but probably the greatest ever with both hands. He had perfect corordination of mind and muscle, an uncanny sense for what opponents were to do, plus a knack for hiding what he was about to do himself. he was incredibly accurate. his physique was perfect for punching: long arms like whiplashes and muscles so silky that he looked lackadaisical until he started to fight, when his arms became 'snaky' and his legs like steel springs. he had disproportionately big hands, and his wrists and forearms were enormously powerful. he had perfect balance, hitting from his heels, he quadrupled his punching power. and he had a textboob temperament: cold, methodical, unflappable, unhurried."

[Azteca]

i also think it's unfair to judge fighters where there isn't much film of. fighters like dempsey, langford, fitzsimmons etc. i truly believe to properly assess a fighters 'greatness' it can only come from fighters/trainers/spectators of the PAST. i am a student of the sport, and have researched boxing and it's history for over 13 years, but that is really not enough.

[sleazyfellow]

joe louis rules ok, hes #1 on my list for top ten hws, and i still drink joe louis punch! to this day ok, so there u have it, im totally tuff since i drink it...

[Styx Bootleg]

Fascinating article. Not sure I agree with most of it, but some valid points. What site/magazine is it from?