Joe Louis is overrated

[Mr. Ryan]

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.

When Schmelling beat him, Louis was young and didn't know much about being a professional. You can't judge a fighter's career on that. Secondly, I don't really take too much into Louis' spills against lesser opponents because most great fighters go down against nondescript opposition because they take them lightly. Then in that case, we should write off Larry Holmes and Muhammad Ali, whose careers were defined early on by early spills.

And let me make this clear. Joe Louis' right hand was maybe second or third hardest punch in heavyweight history, maybe behind Liston's hook and Shavers' right.

The only guys I see beating Louis are Ali, Holmes, and Lennox Lewis, mobile guys who had the reach to get to him with longer, quicker hands. Other than that, in his prime Louis beats everyone.

[butterfly1964]

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.

Oh really? Elaborate on that please. Hoe does he ALWAYS come out on top when many boxing experts pick Ali, Dempsey or Johnson, in addition to Louis as the best heavyweight.

Anyway, I suppose Louis is top two, possibly number one in terms of accomplishments, but IMO accomplishments are overrated and they don't determine how a fighter would do in head-to head matchups. For example, James Braddock "accomplished" more than Jerry Quarry, since Quarry never won a belt, yet Braddock won the extire world's heavyweight championship. But Quarry is still the better fighter and would hand Jimmy his butt on a silver platter if they ever stepped into the ring against each other.

I think a fighter's ranking depends on how they would do against other greats. If a fighter fights in a weak era and dominates and has 20 title defenses, and then another fighter fights in a very strong era and has only 2 successful defenses, then popular opinion would be that the guy with 20 defenses is better than the guy with only two, when in actuality it could be that if they fought in their primes, the guy with 2 defenses would prove himself to be the better fighter.

Louis is overrated in the sense that many heavyweights in history would have 25 title defenses if they fought the same people Joe Louis fought during his title reign, (and i'm not just talking about Ali if some of you have any ideas).
Also his win over Max Schmeling is highly overrated, because number one Schmeling himself was elevated for beating Louis, when in fact Schmeling was simply a pretty good fighter, nothing more. He would not be IMO classified as a great fighter. Schmeling was past his best, and Louis spotted a flaw in Schmeling and took advantage of it, just like Schmeling did two years before.

But Louis is not overrated in terms of his skill level, punching power, and intelligence. He was way ahead of his time, and would easily clean out the division today. However, I cannot because of the reasons stated place him in the top 2 of heavyweights, because in a head-to head sense IMO it would not be possible. I cannot place him any higher than 5. Head-to head is what should count, and not how long you hold a belt or how many wins you have.

Just my two cents.

[Animal Squabbs]

Oh really? Elaborate on that please. Hoe does he ALWAYS come out on top when many boxing experts pick Ali, Dempsey or Johnson, in addition to Louis as the best heavyweight.

Anyway, I suppose Louis is top two, possibly number one in terms of accomplishments, but IMO accomplishments are overrated and they don't determine how a fighter would do in head-to head matchups. For example, James Braddock "accomplished" more than Jerry Quarry, since Quarry never won a belt, yet Braddock won the extire world's heavyweight championship. But Quarry is still the better fighter and would hand Jimmy his butt on a silver platter if they ever stepped into the ring against each other.

I think a fighter's ranking depends on how they would do against other greats. If a fighter fights in a weak era and dominates and has 20 title defenses, and then another fighter fights in a very strong era and has only 2 successful defenses, then popular opinion would be that the guy with 20 defenses is better than the guy with only two, when in actuality it could be that if they fought in their primes, the guy with 2 defenses would prove himself to be the better fighter.

EXACTLY !!

[Animal Squabbs]

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.

Ali would have literally boxed circles around him and embarassed Louis.

Foreman, Frazier, Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson would have beat Louis


and Liston and Holmes would be about even money with him.

[Kid Achilles]

Who gives a **** who beats who when styles make fights and inferior fighters can beat better ones. Also the results of a fight depend a good deal on luck. You might hypoethetically match two guys up 100 times and one guy wins 60 times and the other 40. Say in the actual fight the guy who should only win 40 times happens to win when it counts. Is he now better because he happened to be better prepeared, and luckier (other guy was sick, breaks his hand, etc) than the other guy?

That logic is ridiculous Butterfly. Do you rank Foreman higher than Frazier just because he beat him? Well then why did he lose to Ali when Frazier (who Foreman is clearly better than since he beat him twice) beat a better, closer to his prime version.

Should Oliver McCall get ranked over Lennox Lewis, or be ranked anywhere near him? They are 1-1 afer all. Does that make them equals? Also McCalls loss to Lewis in the rematch was entirely due to his psychological issues, and not Lewis's performance as a champion IMO. So tell me, where does the great Oliver McCall rank for his win over Lewis?

Accomplishments carry the most weight in these rankings to me, as it's the least subjective way to rank champions. I mean, face the fact that you are biased yourself, like anyone else, so your own idea of how certain fighters would fare in a head to head matchup doesn't even match the reality of the situation.

Your opinion that a number of guys could fight Joe's competition and beat them all is just speculation, and I think not even a very valid point. Louis actually fought a wider variety of challengers with different strengths and styles than almost anyone else in heavyweight history. His era was only seen as weak because he made it seem that way.

I admit that I also consider head to head matchups into the mix, which is why I have Dempsey so high, but to say that they ALONE shoulder be considered is just rubbish.

[K-DOGG]

No "head to head" list can be accurate; and therefore is flawed. Picking who would win between two club-fighters is difficult enough. How can anyone presume themselves to be so knowledgeable as to cross the sands of time and say who would win between two different fighters with any degree of accuracy. You can't. It's all guesswork, and therefore, unreliable.

Only two methods should be used to rank fighters:

1. Achievements...this includes all quality opposistion either defeated or defeated by during a fighter's peak years.

&

2. Apparent skill level....this includes a scrutinizing study of the fighter's style and ability and comparison to his contemporaries. This is similar to "mythical match-making"; but focuses on the individual skills displayed by each fighter, rather than saying "so and so" would beat "so and so".

[butterfly1964]

Who gives a **** who beats who when styles make fights and inferior fighters can beat better ones. Also the results of a fight depend a good deal on luck. You might hypoethetically match two guys up 100 times and one guy wins 60 times and the other 40. Say in the actual fight the guy who should only win 40 times happens to win when it counts. Is he now better because he happened to be better prepeared, and luckier (other guy was sick, breaks his hand, etc) than the other guy?

That logic is ridiculous Butterfly. Do you rank Foreman higher than Frazier just because he beat him? Well then why did he lose to Ali when Frazier (who Foreman is clearly better than since he beat him twice) beat a better, closer to his prime version.

Should Oliver McCall get ranked over Lennox Lewis, or be ranked anywhere near him? They are 1-1 afer all. Does that make them equals? Also McCalls loss to Lewis in the rematch was entirely due to his psychological issues, and not Lewis's performance as a champion IMO. So tell me, where does the great Oliver McCall rank for his win over Lewis?

Accomplishments carry the most weight in these rankings to me, as it's the least subjective way to rank champions. I mean, face the fact that you are biased yourself, like anyone else, so your own idea of how certain fighters would fare in a head to head matchup doesn't even match the reality of the situation.

Your opinion that a number of guys could fight Joe's competition and beat them all is just speculation, and I think not even a very valid point. Louis actually fought a wider variety of challengers with different strengths and styles than almost anyone else in heavyweight history. His era was only seen as weak because he made it seem that way.

I admit that I also consider head to head matchups into the mix, which is why I have Dempsey so high, but to say that they ALONE shoulder be considered is just rubbish.

You discrediting head-to-head matchups doesn't sound any better than me discrediting accomplishments, you do realize that, don't you?

Anyway boxing is funny and anything can happen, I understand that. We all have our reasons for chossing certain things. You say that in a fight upsets are possible and styles make fights. I say that competition oftentimes determines the factor that makes up accomplishments, such as title defenses, wins, knockouts, etc. I will admit that both accomplishments and head-to head matchups can turn out different than you expect them, but I believe that competiton can make you look good or bad. I have observed over the years that the factor of achievements are in fact more unstable than style matchups in head-to head fantasy fights. for the most part, matchups give a very good idea of how good a fighter is. Wins, losses, ko's and title defenses, for the most part do not.

So I will stick to my guns and concude that head-to-head matchups is the ultimate way of determining a fighter's greatness, not the amount of wins, losses, and title defenses, for there are fighters with a misleadingly large amount of title defenses (Tommy Burns), as well as fighters with a misleadingly small amont of title defenses (Sonny Liston), but what matters is the goods they would display against each other in the long run.

[K-DOGG]

You discrediting head-to-head matchups doesn't sound any better than me discrediting accomplishments, you do realize that, don't you?

Anyway boxing is funny and anything can happen, I understand that. We all have our reasons for chossing certain things. You say that in a fight upsets are possible and styles make fights. I say that competition oftentimes determines the factor that makes up accomplishments, such as title defenses, wins, knockouts, etc. I will admit that both accomplishments and head-to head matchups can turn out different than you expect them, but I believe that competiton can make you look good or bad. I have observed over the years that the factor of achievements are in fact more unstable than style matchups in head-to head fantasy fights. for the most part, matchups give a very good idea of how good a fighter is. Wins, losses, ko's and title defenses, for the most part do not.

So I will stick to my guns and concude that head-to-head matchups is the ultimate way of determining a fighter's greatness, not the amount of wins, losses, and title defenses, for there are fighters with a misleadingly large amount of title defenses (Tommy Burns), as well as fighters with a misleadingly small amont of title defenses (Sonny Liston), but what matters is the goods they would display against each other in the long run.

Which is why it is important to study in detail the quality of the opposistion beaten.

[butterfly1964]

Which is why it is important to study in detail the quality of the opposistion beaten.

Good point, but sometmes there are gray areas in that sense. Even if you beat better opposition than another still doesn't make you a better fighter. It could very well be that that fighter didn't have the opportunity to fight better opposition.

[RockyMarcianofan00]

He was a shiney coin in a patch of dirt!

A rose sticking out of a dump I think was what they said about Marciano....

Honestly guys, Joe Louis was a great American fighter/hero...

He fought every guy he possibly could and even though he was black he was loved by many, he broke the color barrier years before Jackie Robinson (though Jack Johnson technically was the first black HW champ, Louis is the first "recognized" black champ), he fought very technical and had one of the best styles ever. He did have flaws (EVERY FIGHTER DOES) but he came as close to perfect tactician as I've ever seen, and he dropped it all to go over seas to fight in World War II to give back to the people (this is not a hit at Ali).....



But Louis did something more for the American people, he gave them hope in Louis v Schmelling II



but yes Joe Louis is looked at as a "God" of boxing, and rightfully so because he was great, however alot of this comes from not his boxing ability but for what he stood for...He was the American champion in a time when Germany was supposed to be superior..Germany dominated everything else, and when he beat Schmelling it boosted the Moral of the people in America..

I don't normally like to quote Rocky when I'm giving example but Rocky vs Drago in Rocky IV it reminds me of Louis v Schmelling II (not in the fighting more of what the fight stood for) ....

and Joe Louis winning was like saying to the American people what Rocky's Trainer (orginally Apollo's) said to Rocky- "You cut him, you see that he's not a machine, you can beat him, he's not a machine."

[IMG]http://i24.***********.com/albums/c49/IrishInsomniac00/other%20boxing%20pictures/JoeLouis.jpg[/IMG]