Tweet
I gave you the statistics of his reign. They're unlike any other reign in history. You can could call it a weak era but it spanned from the end of one era with Schmeling, Sharkey and Carnera. Champions of the late '20s and early thirties, into an era where Louis was all on his own at the top of the heap, and then even clipped one of the champions that would follow him in Walcott. Most of his challengers were defeated by a flashy and well-set up knockout
He retired, then he lost to Charles (one of the greatest fighters, ever) although most of his resume was set at middle and light-heavyweight. He also lost to Marciano the next great champion, Louis' very last fight.
Prior to those fights, he only had one loss to Schmeling, brutally avenged in one round. At first glance it might look like he didn't fight anyone but really you need to do a bit of study on the time period to get what he has done, it might sound like a cop-out but what does the name Schmeling or Conn mean to you without a backstory? I'd have to give you an unending synopses on these men and the men they beat to give you a good feel for the era.
I think he is on the tier of Ali, Duran and Leonard. A step below Charles, Armstrong, Robinson e.t.c.
Something to keep in mind when ranking George Foreman is that while he has two great wins in Frazier and Norton, there is a steep fall in quality after that.
Moorer was lineal, but could you really say he was the best in the division? Is Peralta next?
Louis' list of notable names clips the tops off of three eras. He may have had some average wins but he was around long enough to pick up good and great ones too.
As for attributes, he was offensively as well-rounded as they come. That article probably does a good job of explaining why he struggled against the best mobile opponents (haven't got around to reading it myself yet).
He had very good power, was very accurate, fast hands, had every punch mastered, feinted very well, might be the best combination puncher ever, could lure opponents into giving up height advantages or stepping into traps, and had great counter-punching skills. He could hurt a fighter, notice it and take advantage of it all in the same breath.
He was also a great ring general with decent defense. You could fill a book with the good **** about Joe Louis. He was on top for a very long time for a reason.
No problem with that. I don't really think of H2H for a fighters standing. I only dabble in list-keeping. It's borderline pointless sometimes.
Joe Louis and Wladimir Klitschko haven't fought good opponents to compare how a match-up between them would go. That's the truth of the matter.
He retired, then he lost to Charles (one of the greatest fighters, ever) although most of his resume was set at middle and light-heavyweight. He also lost to Marciano the next great champion, Louis' very last fight.
Prior to those fights, he only had one loss to Schmeling, brutally avenged in one round. At first glance it might look like he didn't fight anyone but really you need to do a bit of study on the time period to get what he has done, it might sound like a cop-out but what does the name Schmeling or Conn mean to you without a backstory? I'd have to give you an unending synopses on these men and the men they beat to give you a good feel for the era.
I think he is on the tier of Ali, Duran and Leonard. A step below Charles, Armstrong, Robinson e.t.c.
Something to keep in mind when ranking George Foreman is that while he has two great wins in Frazier and Norton, there is a steep fall in quality after that.
Moorer was lineal, but could you really say he was the best in the division? Is Peralta next?
Louis' list of notable names clips the tops off of three eras. He may have had some average wins but he was around long enough to pick up good and great ones too.
As for attributes, he was offensively as well-rounded as they come. That article probably does a good job of explaining why he struggled against the best mobile opponents (haven't got around to reading it myself yet).
He had very good power, was very accurate, fast hands, had every punch mastered, feinted very well, might be the best combination puncher ever, could lure opponents into giving up height advantages or stepping into traps, and had great counter-punching skills. He could hurt a fighter, notice it and take advantage of it all in the same breath.
He was also a great ring general with decent defense. You could fill a book with the good **** about Joe Louis. He was on top for a very long time for a reason.
Let's keep it focused on that. I'm a Wlad fan, have been for years but no way could he rank higher than Louis...would he beat him h2h? Possibly, his punch definitely eclipses Louis' chin but then again, that works both way lol. Wlad's size advantage would be huge and it would undoubtedly play a part, for anyone who thinks it wouldn't, well they don't fully understand this brutal sport.
Joe Louis and Wladimir Klitschko haven't fought good opponents to compare how a match-up between them would go. That's the truth of the matter.
God, when your cornered and there's no sensible way to continue, bring in a bunch of mates to swamp with even more BS.
Comment