Joe Louis lost 3 fights out of 72....Jack Johnson drew 12 and lost 14 (7 by KO) out of 123 fights ....and hell even some of the ones he won were fixed
Printable View
Joe Louis lost 3 fights out of 72....Jack Johnson drew 12 and lost 14 (7 by KO) out of 123 fights ....and hell even some of the ones he won were fixed
You didn't ask who was greater. You asked who was better. Huge difference there:)
....well what makes Johnson better the fact that he fought and beat a middleweight??? WOW he's awesome :rolleyes:
Joe Louis fought and destroyed more men as champion than anyone in the history of heavyweight boxing
5 words for you:
bum of the month club!
conversation over:)
Yeah no doubt but he beat all those guys by KO as he was supposed to.....who is Joe Jenette?? Who is Joe Choyinski???Quote:
Originally Posted by match
Joe Louis only got beat by other GREAT heavyweight fighters and later in his career (bar the Schmelling fight). And he avenged his loss to Schmelling in impressive fashion.
None of us were even thinking about being born when either Jack Johnson OR Joe Louis were fighting. But I find it hard to get excited about someone fighting in grainy black and white films, with fists curled upwards in the old style of fighting, and the grace and quickness of two rhinos fighting over dinner. Styles change... fighters get better. Face it.
Advantage: Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
I have to issues with your statement... firstly watch the grainy, black and white films more closely and you will notice Johnson was nothing like a Rhino... in fact he was so adept at reading, reacting and defending an opponent he would often block punches by catching them in the air almost like he knew what they were gonna throw before they threw it. . Don't assume that because the medium used to record fighters and fights of the past was poor compared to today that this also means the fighters were of a lesser calibre too.
You made a sweeping statement that fighters get better... in general terms I agree... better training, better knowledge of diet and how the body works. Boxing is perhaps more of a science now then it has ever been. However fighters from the past would fight to the finish 20 - 30 - 40+ rounds... maybe throwing less punches per round than todays fighters but still imagine for a moment fighting for 40 rounds and the amount of punishment the body and mind would have to absorb. It's truly amazing.
There are probably a greater depth of good quality fighters around now but there are certain fighters who would have been great no matter what era they fought in. Louis, Marciano, Ali, Johnson, Tyson, Robinson, Hagler, Duran, Leonard, Barrera, Cotto these guys were born to do what they do and would have done it to an exceptional level whatever period of history they were born in.
I'm trying to respect your view point but in a way what you said dismisses some of the golden years and timless heroes of the sport I love and I find that hard to accept.
Very well put, Shamrock. For someone with just over 100 posts, you argue very wisely. I guess it's just that I'm not crazy about the style of boxing way back when. Johnson may have been dominant in his age, but I have problems seeing him with the same dominance if matched up against some of the all-time greats from the later eras. Joe Louis is about as far back as I can watch fights that truly entertain me. Beyond that, the style bores me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShamrockQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
I have to issues with your statement... firstly watch the grainy, black and white films more closely and you will notice Johnson was nothing like a Rhino... in fact he was so adept at reading, reacting and defending an opponent he would often block punches by catching them in the air almost like he knew what they were gonna throw before they threw it. . Don't assume that because the medium used to record fighters and fights of the past was poor compared to today that this also means the fighters were of a lesser calibre too.
You made a sweeping statement that fighters get better... in general terms I agree... better training, better knowledge of diet and how the body works. Boxing is perhaps more of a science now then it has ever been. However fighters from the past would fight to the finish 20 - 30 - 40+ rounds... maybe throwing less punches per round than todays fighters but still imagine for a moment fighting for 40 rounds and the amount of punishment the body and mind would have to absorb. It's truly amazing.
There are probably a greater depth of good quality fighters around now but there are certain fighters who would have been great no matter what era they fought in. Louis, Marciano, Ali, Johnson, Tyson, Robinson, Hagler, Duran, Leonard, Barrera, Cotto these guys were born to do what they do and would have done it to an exceptional level whatever period of history they were born in.
I'm trying to respect your view point but in a way what you said dismisses some of the golden years and timless heroes of the sport I love and I find that hard to accept.
Have some good rep for expressing your opinion so well.
:)
Thanks man !Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanVery well put, Shamrock. For someone with just over 100 posts, you argue very wisely. I guess it's just that I'm not crazy about the style of boxing way back when. Johnson may have been dominant in his age, but I have problems seeing him with the same dominance if matched up against some of the all-time greats from the later eras. Joe Louis is about as far back as I can watch fights that truly entertain me. Beyond that, the style bores me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShamrockQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
I have to issues with your statement... firstly watch the grainy, black and white films more closely and you will notice Johnson was nothing like a Rhino... in fact he was so adept at reading, reacting and defending an opponent he would often block punches by catching them in the air almost like he knew what they were gonna throw before they threw it. . Don't assume that because the medium used to record fighters and fights of the past was poor compared to today that this also means the fighters were of a lesser calibre too.
You made a sweeping statement that fighters get better... in general terms I agree... better training, better knowledge of diet and how the body works. Boxing is perhaps more of a science now then it has ever been. However fighters from the past would fight to the finish 20 - 30 - 40+ rounds... maybe throwing less punches per round than todays fighters but still imagine for a moment fighting for 40 rounds and the amount of punishment the body and mind would have to absorb. It's truly amazing.
There are probably a greater depth of good quality fighters around now but there are certain fighters who would have been great no matter what era they fought in. Louis, Marciano, Ali, Johnson, Tyson, Robinson, Hagler, Duran, Leonard, Barrera, Cotto these guys were born to do what they do and would have done it to an exceptional level whatever period of history they were born in.
I'm trying to respect your view point but in a way what you said dismisses some of the golden years and timless heroes of the sport I love and I find that hard to accept.
Have some good rep for expressing your opinion so well.
:)
Yeah I appreciate it is hard to to visualise how someone like Johnson would have competed with more modern fighters when there is so limited footage of him.
I kinda get carried away defending boxings past but I'm pleased you took my reply in the spirit it was meant. Respect Tito ;)
Shamrock is changing his name to Nostalgia
Foreman's jab the weakest ?? you have to be kidding me ?? Foreman had very good jab in his 2nd career.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmbtandy
Anyway heres my list.
Longevity = Joe Louis
Jab = Larry Holmes
Footwork = Muhammad Ali
Combinations = Mike Tyson
Speed = Floyd Patterson
Power = Earnie Shavers
Heart = Evander Holyfield
Chin = George Foreman In His 2nd Career
But IMO you just need Mike Tyson with Rocky Marciano's heart.
Or Muhammad Ali with Earnie Shavers Power.
And you have two complete Heavyweights.
Not a bad list,Id addQuote:
Originally Posted by ICBForeman's jab the weakest ?? you have to be kidding me ?? Foreman had very good jab in his 2nd career.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmbtandy
Anyway heres my list.
Longevity = Joe Louis
Jab = Larry Holmes
Footwork = Muhammad Ali
Combinations = Mike Tyson
Hand speed = Floyd Patterson
Power = Earnie Shavers
Heart = Evander Holyfield
Chin = George Foreman In His 2nd Career
But IMO you just need Mike Tyson with Rocky Marciano's heart.
Or Muhammad Ali with Earnie Shavers Power.
And you have two complete Heavyweights.
Head movement=Joe Frazier
Setting Up=Johnson
Thanks ICB for using Shavers in your list, I mentioned him earlier in the post.
Mate - I've been called a lot worse in my time... ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by boozeboxer
left jab of larry holmes
right hand power of earnie shavers
left hook of joe frazier
counter punching of michael dokes
uppercut of mike tyson
ring strategy of gene tunny
footwork of muhammad ali
body punching of bob fitzsimmons
raw power of sonny liston
aggression of rocky marciano
stamina of ken norton
chin george chavalo
defensive skills of jack johnson
physique of mike weaver
hand speed of floyd patterson
close quarter work of jack dempsey
determination of evander holyfield