A Deep look into Mayweather, Pacquiao, Canelo and GGG's Risk History

[Anthony342]

And I just noticed, you said "deep look" hehe. Balls deep lol? No thanks.

[Boxfan7819]

Excellent researching. Undefeated records never meant anything it's about the opponents they faced whether or not they were underdogs or favored and in their prime to be considered a ATG.

[DeeMoney]

Odds in Joe Louis 27 world title bouts (from the 1961 Ring Record Book, page 80):

Braddock: 5 to 2
Farr: 5 to 1
Mann: 12 to 1
Thomas: 20 to 1
Schmeling: 9 to 5
Lewis 15 to 1
Roper: 10 to 1
Galento: 8 to 1
Pastor: 6 to 1
Godoy: 10 to 1
Paychek: 12 to 1
Godoy: 8 to 1
McCoy: 20 to 1
Burman: 10 to 1
Dorazio: 20 to 1
Simon: 18 to 1
Musto: 20 to 1
Baer: 6 to 1
Conn: 18 to 5
Nova: 13 to 5
Baer: 10 to 1
Simon: 8 to 1
Conn: 14 to 5
Mauriello: 9 to 1
Walcott: 10 to 1
Walcott: 13 to 5
Charles: 2 to 1

So what does this mean? Despite the overwhelming (in most cases) odds, do we not recognize Louis as a great champion? I don't see anyone going through his record, poking holes in every fight in an attempt to belittle him. Why is that?

We do somewhat belittle his resume, it earned the moniker 'the bum of the month club'. Now, as has been pointed out, Louis didn't really duck anyone while in his division in his prime.

Although I get your point, we allow for an eye test with Louis- and accept that we can evaluate his abilities relative to the level of opposition he faced. Which I agree with, as rational observers we can honestly evaluate abilities in such a way- the problem is most let their biases influence that evaluation and usually rely on insults or cherry picked info to get in the way.

Moreover with Louis, we ignore his fights when he was older; how often have you heard the 'prime Louis would beat Marciano'? Keeping in mind Louis was 37 for that fight. I imagine if Joe Louis were around now, in the internet age, he would be denounced as a 'bum killer' who was protected during his career and was finally 'exposed' by Marciano.