Floyd is 23-0 in title fights..2 away from Joe Louis's record

[The Gambler1981]

Floyd
1031 wins -90 loses - 27 draws

Louis
1,323 wins -275 loses -87 draws

Different eras, I wouldn't make that much of that difference.

[Reloaded]

I have boxed. And what makes more sense, more bums getting rated because of 4 or 5 orgs or more being rated because of 1? Use some common sense.

So where did you get that information that they were " they were low grade HWs that how it was done . ."?

But Im not arguing ratings you are .

By fighting 14 world title fights in 2 years , that tells you the class , if your fighting real world class fighters 2 to 3 in a year will takes its toll , but 14 in 2 , who are you trying to kid .

[Reloaded]

Different eras, I wouldn't make that much of that difference.

Different weights are more important in this if you really get to it , the overall class of HWs is nowhere near the lighter weights , its much tougher to dominate from FW to MW than any other section of the sport , mainly because that's where your speed power ratio is at its highest and more fighters fall into these classes than any other .

[JAB5239]

But Im not arguing ratings you are .

By fighting 14 world title fights in 2 years , that tells you the class , if your fighting real world class fighters 2 to 3 in a year will takes its toll , but 14 in 2 , who are you trying to kid .

You don't know anything about the class of fighter and what toll it would take because you don't understand history. Obviously it did take its toll because Louis skills had so noticeably eroded by age 35. That doesn't mean it wasn't not only possibly, but done by himself and plenty of other fighters.

[SBleeder]

"Title" doesn't mean what it used to be. There were 8 world titles in Joe Louis's day; there are 68 now without counting all the "interim" and "diamond" titles.

Louis was the undisputed lineal champion for all of his defenses. As great as Mayweather is, you can't say this about most of his defenses.

[Reloaded]

You don't know anything about the class of fighter and what toll it would take because you don't understand history. Obviously it did take its toll because Louis skills had so noticeably eroded by age 35. That doesn't mean it wasn't not only possibly, but done by himself and plenty of other fighters.

You cannot fight 14 world title fights against " TOP SHELF " fighters in 2 years , what part don't you get , You can ONLY do that against slow track opponents .

Who else fought 14 world title defences in 2 years ?

I know history as much as you do , LOL , and I bet I was alive in it longer than you have been , fck man what a lame argument ,

[JAB5239]

You cannot fight 14 world title fights against " TOP SHELF " fighters in 2 years , what part don't you get , You can ONLY do that against slow track opponents .

Who else fought 14 world title defences in 2 years ?

I know history as much as you do , LOL , and I bet I was alive in it longer than you have been , fck man what a lame argument ,

Go look up the records of Leonard, Robinson, Greb, Langford, Charles, Armstrong etc., etc. You don't know **** about boxing history or you wouldn't be denying the obvious. You're a nuthugger which is what you've always been and there is no worse or more biased fan than a nuthugger!

[edgarg]

Joe Louis fought the biggest roll call of HW bums in history , 14 defences in 2 years , how good do you think they were , your a fool hater that don't know sht .

Go have a go at this sport you will find it a lot tougher than punching Google on your keyboard .

Listen Unloaded, face a few facts. It's well known to boxing afficionados that Louis fought the best fighters available and most if not all were top ten contenders and/or former champions. The only one I can think of who wasn't, was John Henry Lewis the then current light-heavy champ. This was a favour to Lewis as he was having to retire because of threatening blindness and it was his last fight. Louis said later that this was the reason he KO'd him in the first round. (The same sort of thing that Jack Dempsey did for Billy Miske who was seriously ill with incurable Bright's Disease and died 2 years later-to help his family. I think that Miske won his last fight, only 6 weeks before he died.)

The term "Bum of The Month" is (again) well known to have been just a gimmick headline invented by an eager newspaper reporter. But it fools guys like you who really never knew any real boxing history.

As well, there was only ONE champion at a time...... Not this paper-trail gimmickry.

Of course, even with the paper titles, 23 defences (carefully selected) is a great achievement. But it also shows how great Louis' achievement was.

[Reloaded]

Go look up the records of Leonard, Robinson, Greb, Langford, Charles, Armstrong etc., etc. You don't know **** about boxing history or you wouldn't be denying the obvious. You're a nuthugger which is what you've always been and there is no worse or more biased fan than a nuthugger!

Be specific instead of coming with nothing but generalizations , show me any fighter that has 14 title defenses in 2 years , and then show me who they were and I, ll show you at least 12 low rent opponents that loses near as many as they win , they not contenders they glorified journeymen .

You have no argument I,ll give you a modern day example .

Pick any significant current fighter you like Manny Floyd Hopkins Cotto Ward , it don't matter pick anybody you like even Hagler Hearns Leonard Duran etc .

NONE . I repeat NONE of them could beat their last 14 opponents inside 2 years !!!

All of them can beat the crap out 14 bums in 2 years .

Your ratings don't mean sht in the context your trying to use them , the fighters class and form at the time mean everything so ratings need to be researched to see what the real class of the guy was , the ratings is just a sorting of what ever was there , its no proof of class .

[-PBP-]

Be specific instead of coming with nothing but generalizations , show me any fighter that has 14 title defenses in 2 years , and then show me who they were and I, ll show you at least 12 low rent opponents that loses near as many as they win , they not contenders they glorified journeymen .

You have no argument I,ll give you a modern day example .

Pick any significant current fighter you like Manny Floyd Hopkins Cotto Ward , it don't matter pick anybody you like even Hagler Hearns Leonard Duran etc .

NONE . I repeat NONE of them could beat their last 14 opponents inside 2 years !!!

All of them can beat the crap out 14 bums in 2 years .

Your ratings don't mean sht in the context your trying to use them , the fighters class and form at the time mean everything so ratings need to be researched to see what the real class of the guy was , the ratings is just a sorting of what ever was there , its no proof of class .

OK. Henry Armstrong's welterweight reign from 1938-1940. Point to me 12 bums that have won as many fights as they lost.