Joe Louis is overrated

[butterfly1964]

that's what I'm saying.I think holyfield should be waaaaaay up there in the list,we fought a lot of well known ppl. and beat a lot of them.just look at all the hall of famers he fought.probably more then ne superstar in an weight class.

but I can't talk bad on lewis due to how long he was in the game for

Yes, Holyfield is an underrated fighter.

[The Surgeon]

Depends how u rate Greatness, i think big guys of modern times like Lewis Klitschko and Bowe beat the old timers but i dont rate them higher because i rate greatness on accomplishments and how they fared in their era. If u rate em this way Louis is right up there!

[hemichromis]

Lots of people think for some reason that he is the best or second best heavyweight ever. To me that is ridiculous.

First of all, Louis got dropped by damn near everybody. Yeah, he got up to win most of them, but he was still getting dropped by people who arent even considered worthy opponents. If Louis could get dropped by guys like Galento, Buddy Baer, Walcott and Schmeling, then guys with LOTS more power like Foreman, Tyson, and Frazier would be able to put him down and keep him down.

Secondly, lots of you claim that he did everything perfect and had one of the best jabs. He couldnt have had that good of a jab if Max Schmeling exposed the fact that Louis brought the jab back low and KOed him. How could he have had the second best jab if one of the tools used to beat him was countering over his lazy jab?? As far as the skills go, He "did everything perfect" but he got dropped continuosly, obvious he was doing something wrong because not only was he easy to hit but easy to drop. Furthermore, the "perfect" heavyweight was getting outboxed by a light heavyweight Billy COnn and would have lost if Conn had not made a mistake and decided to trade with the bigger guy.

Lastly, his competion was far from great. Now to put this into perspective, lets compare his oppositon in equivalent matchups against the opposition of the man I think deserves to be considered the #2 heavyweight... Evander Holyfield. Every great had an opponent linked to them, For Louis that is Schmeling. Holyfield will always be remembered for his bouts with Tyson. They both faced a big not too talented guy to jumpstart their heavyweight career (Carnera,Douglas), they had a skilled competive memorable opponent (Walcott, Bowe). They both face a good skilled fighter alittle past their primes (Charles,Leiws) and they both fought a smaller guy on the way up the heavyweight ranks while they were WAY past their prime (Marciano, Toney). SO...

Joe Louis Evander Holyfield

Max Schmeling vs Mike TYson
Primo Carnera vs BUster Douglas
Joe Walcott vs Rid**** Bowe
Ezzard Charles vs Lennox Lewis
Rocky Marcaino vs James Toney

*Bonus
Jim Braddock vs John Ruiz
Buddy Bear vs George FOreman
Billy COnn vs Micheal Moorer


If they were to fight it out, the only guy from Louis era I can see maybe getting a win would be Marciano beating TOney and maybe Billy COnn beating Moorer. Other than that Louis era gets demolished.

The bottom line is that Louis was a good top ten heavyweight, and was the best of HIS era. HOWEVER his biggest wins were lacking compared the other great fighters he would have to be better than to be # 2 and he is no where near the best.

with regards to his chin the gloves certianly didn't help. min that era boxers would use light gloves with extremely soft padding. the soft padding doesn't realy lessen impact because it compresses too easily in almost all fights in this era somebody got knocked down. most of the fighters you mention could hit hard as well. but i have to say louis jaw was anything but granite, more comparable to joe frazier than ali.

he did often bring the jab back low but alot of fighters do this including ali and evander they do this so they can see more clearly. schemling did manage to defeat louis perfectly but louis completely anhilated him in the rematch.

i'm not saying he is number 1 there are atleast 3 boxes vying for this position and its truely difficult to pick one as every boxer has had flaws

[dempseyfan]

I think alot of it is based on personal opinion. No matter what a fighter does or doesn't do in the ring there will always be group A (think he is overrated), group B (think he is underrated), and group C ( "I don't give **** what he did, I like him anyways"). I think the best thing to do is; do your own research on a fighter and decide and not worry about what old Bert Sugar, Nat Fleischer, and that whole bunch of boxing "scholars say.

[dempseyfan]

However, old Bert and crew are much older and have seen both the "old school" and the "new school" fight, so they are able to look at it in a different perspective then many of us can.

[hemichromis]

BTW i too believeholyfield is in the top ten heavys of all time

[K-DOGG]

Lots of people think for some reason that he is the best or second best heavyweight ever. To me that is ridiculous.

First of all, Louis got dropped by damn near everybody. Yeah, he got up to win most of them, but he was still getting dropped by people who arent even considered worthy opponents. If Louis could get dropped by guys like Galento, Buddy Baer, Walcott and Schmeling, then guys with LOTS more power like Foreman, Tyson, and Frazier would be able to put him down and keep him down.

Secondly, lots of you claim that he did everything perfect and had one of the best jabs. He couldnt have had that good of a jab if Max Schmeling exposed the fact that Louis brought the jab back low and KOed him. How could he have had the second best jab if one of the tools used to beat him was countering over his lazy jab?? As far as the skills go, He "did everything perfect" but he got dropped continuosly, obvious he was doing something wrong because not only was he easy to hit but easy to drop. Furthermore, the "perfect" heavyweight was getting outboxed by a light heavyweight Billy COnn and would have lost if Conn had not made a mistake and decided to trade with the bigger guy.

Lastly, his competion was far from great. Now to put this into perspective, lets compare his oppositon in equivalent matchups against the opposition of the man I think deserves to be considered the #2 heavyweight... Evander Holyfield. Every great had an opponent linked to them, For Louis that is Schmeling. Holyfield will always be remembered for his bouts with Tyson. They both faced a big not too talented guy to jumpstart their heavyweight career (Carnera,Douglas), they had a skilled competive memorable opponent (Walcott, Bowe). They both face a good skilled fighter alittle past their primes (Charles,Leiws) and they both fought a smaller guy on the way up the heavyweight ranks while they were WAY past their prime (Marciano, Toney). SO...

Joe Louis Evander Holyfield

Max Schmeling vs Mike TYson
Primo Carnera vs BUster Douglas
Joe Walcott vs Rid**** Bowe
Ezzard Charles vs Lennox Lewis
Rocky Marcaino vs James Toney

*Bonus
Jim Braddock vs John Ruiz
Buddy Bear vs George FOreman
Billy COnn vs Micheal Moorer


If they were to fight it out, the only guy from Louis era I can see maybe getting a win would be Marciano beating TOney and maybe Billy COnn beating Moorer. Other than that Louis era gets demolished.

The bottom line is that Louis was a good top ten heavyweight, and was the best of HIS era. HOWEVER his biggest wins were lacking compared the other great fighters he would have to be better than to be # 2 and he is no where near the best.

Very intelligent arguement. I disagree; but it's very well put together, none the less.

However, in regards to your putting Holy's competition up against Joe's, I actually think with the exception of Buddy Baer, all of Louis's opposisition could have beaten all of Holy's opposisition.

Schmeling could have beaten Tyson. Max was no push-over, had a good chin, and was a helluva counter-puncher. If he get's Mike into the mid-rounds, he's got him.

Douglas was inconsistant throughout his career and was stopped by a 7-footer named Mike White, who didn't have a big punch....so, it's not inconceivable that Carnera could beat him.

Bowe had a lousy defense, shaky chin, and over-rated power, while Walcott had a great defense, a slick style, and a good punch. Joe could very well knock out Rid****.

Charles was probably the greatest light-heavyweight who ever lived, was fast, accurate, slick, and had a good punch, even at heavyweigyht. His chin wasn't bad either. He could have outpointed Lewis, who never fougth a slickster like Ezzard.

I can see Marciano poinding on everything Toney offered, which would be his arms while he looked for countering oportunities against the ropes. Marciano broke blood vessels in Roland LaStarza's arms by doing just that; he didn't care where he hit you as long as he did. Toney, also, has no power at heavyweight and wouldn't be able to get Rocky off of him. Rock would stop him late.

Braddock was no bum and could outpoint Ruiz....who, I hate to say, was no "bum" either; but he was and is technically very limited.

Conn beats Moorer with relative ease.


So, going on your synopsis of competition, I see no real arguement for Evander. Add to that that Evander lost more big fights than he won: Bowe I, Moorer I, Bowe III, Lewis I & II, Ruiz I, II, & III.....John got robbed in the first one.....and you've got a man who didn't even "dominate" his own era.


Evander's rep is built on beating Rid**** Bowe in the rematch and beating a post-prison Tyson when everybody thought Evander was shot. So, it's built on his heart and his ability to surprise the odd-makers. That makes for dramatic stuff, but an all-time great it does not make.

Evander, during his first reign as champ, defended his title agaisnt two 40 year old fighters and a journeyman who fought on one-week's notice and nearly knocked Evander out. In his first "real" defense, he is dominated by Rid**** Bowe; but shows his heart in the process.

In his second reign, he loses his title on his first defense.

Louis reigned for 12 years and made 25 defenses. Not all were great fighter; but not all were the "bum of the month" either.


Maybe, mayyybe in another time Evander would have done as good as Louis; but he didn't have that choice. All he had was the time he fought in and he made his mark...it just wasnt' as big as Joe's. To me, Evander doestn' even rank in the Top 10 of All time; but I do think he was a great fighter.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

[Kid Achilles]

Holyfield was never a big heavyweight but unlike Dempsey and Louis who were his size, or close to it, he was never a knockout puncher. He hit about as hard as Walcott, and even saying that being kind to Holy. Holyfields lack of a big bomb in either hand was always his drawback.

Is anyone here actually trying to argue that Holyfield is a better heavyweight than Louis? I'm sorry but you have no leg to stand on. Louis fought many HOF'ers in his career and unlike Holyfield, he beat almost all of them.

I can see a place for Holyfield in the top 12 or even top ten but no higher than the top five. Conversely, putting Louis lower than #3 is a crime to me.

Louis is on a completely different level than Holyfield. Better punch arsenal, quicker with his hands, better stamina IMO (never had any kind of heart problem at any point in his career), WAY better power, better offensive skill, better counter puncher. The list goes on. The only advantages I give Holyfield are a chin and POSSIBLY better strength in the clinches. I do not think Holyfield hit hard enough to have much of a puncher's chance with Joe though. Schmeling hit harder than Evander IMO and it took him 12 rounds to finally keep Louis down for good. He might floor Louis like many did but Louis getting knocked down was rarely meaningful in a fight. It usually just pissed him off and caused him to knock the opponent out earlier than he normally would have.

[blockhead]

Lots of people think for some reason that he is the best or second best heavyweight ever. To me that is ridiculous.

First of all, Louis got dropped by damn near everybody. Yeah, he got up to win most of them, but he was still getting dropped by people who arent even considered worthy opponents. If Louis could get dropped by guys like Galento, Buddy Baer, Walcott and Schmeling, then guys with LOTS more power like Foreman, Tyson, and Frazier would be able to put him down and keep him down.

Secondly, lots of you claim that he did everything perfect and had one of the best jabs. He couldnt have had that good of a jab if Max Schmeling exposed the fact that Louis brought the jab back low and KOed him. How could he have had the second best jab if one of the tools used to beat him was countering over his lazy jab?? As far as the skills go, He "did everything perfect" but he got dropped continuosly, obvious he was doing something wrong because not only was he easy to hit but easy to drop. Furthermore, the "perfect" heavyweight was getting outboxed by a light heavyweight Billy COnn and would have lost if Conn had not made a mistake and decided to trade with the bigger guy.

Lastly, his competion was far from great. Now to put this into perspective, lets compare his oppositon in equivalent matchups against the opposition of the man I think deserves to be considered the #2 heavyweight... Evander Holyfield. Every great had an opponent linked to them, For Louis that is Schmeling. Holyfield will always be remembered for his bouts with Tyson. They both faced a big not too talented guy to jumpstart their heavyweight career (Carnera,Douglas), they had a skilled competive memorable opponent (Walcott, Bowe). They both face a good skilled fighter alittle past their primes (Charles,Leiws) and they both fought a smaller guy on the way up the heavyweight ranks while they were WAY past their prime (Marciano, Toney). SO...

Joe Louis Evander Holyfield

Max Schmeling vs Mike TYson
Primo Carnera vs BUster Douglas
Joe Walcott vs Rid**** Bowe
Ezzard Charles vs Lennox Lewis
Rocky Marcaino vs James Toney

*Bonus
Jim Braddock vs John Ruiz
Buddy Bear vs George FOreman
Billy COnn vs Micheal Moorer


If they were to fight it out, the only guy from Louis era I can see maybe getting a win would be Marciano beating TOney and maybe Billy COnn beating Moorer. Other than that Louis era gets demolished.

The bottom line is that Louis was a good top ten heavyweight, and was the best of HIS era. HOWEVER his biggest wins were lacking compared the other great fighters he would have to be better than to be # 2 and he is no where near the best.

joe louis is the best heavyweight ever. this debate has been done over and over again and louis still comes out on top. the symbolic impact and cultural impact of his career puts him well above all others.

[The Noose]

Evander's rep is built on beating Rid**** Bowe in the rematch and beating a post-prison Tyson when everybody thought Evander was shot. So, it's built on his heart and his ability to surprise the odd-makers. That makes for dramatic stuff, but an all-time great it does not make.

.

Supoyb.