Would Joe Louis be too small to be successful at heavyweight today ?

Would Joe Louis be a successful heavyweight today or would he simply be too light to compete effectively against the likes of Fury and Joshua ?

Some cruiser weights of today would beat Louis.
He was great in his day.

Yes.

Joe Louis is ATG heavyweight with his record number of defenses, consistency and what he did as a champion. He did not weigh over 200lb at his peak because he was superstitious but could hit very hard.

Wilder is not that much heavier than Louis but AJ, Lewis and Fury’s of this world are considerably heavier and would use it to their advantage.

Conversely if Joe Louis was born in this era he would be bigger so would have smashed them all. :)

I agree with Master. Looking at Louis' comparative size against the average person in the 1930's ..... if he was born today he would be a 6'8 monster.

A 6'8" Joe Louis utterly destroys anybody he steps in the ring with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Joe Louis is ATG heavyweight with his record number of defenses, consistency and what he did as a champion. He did not weigh over 200lb at his peak because he was superstitious but could hit very hard.

Wilder is not that much heavier than Louis but AJ, Lewis and Fury’s of this world are considerably heavier and would use it to their advantage.

Conversely if Joe Louis was born in this era he would be bigger so would have smashed them all. :)

---

This is exactly the point of comparing fighters from different eras. Not only size, but technological advancements in Training and nutrition enabling guys to be quicker and stronger all have to be taken into consideration when making comparisons. So basically , give the fighter of the old days all the advantages and attributes of the modern day fighter he’s being compared with and then the question is fairer, and the answer very different.

People forget that Louis fought big heavyweights. Max Baer was 6’3 and very strong. Primo Carnera was 6’6. He was basically the size of Wlad. Buddy Baer was the same height. Abe Simon was 6’4.

Now I’m not saying these guys were as good as AJ or Fury, but Louis destroyed these fighters. It wasn’t even close. I think he would do much better than many think. Also, he would walk through the cruiserweights of today. Even from todays standards Louis has great technique.

Tyson 5/11
Wilder 216 lbs
Uysk will be favoured Vs all but the top 2-4 depending on opinion

Little guys as such not out of it yet!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Joe Louis is ATG heavyweight with his record number of defenses, consistency and what he did as a champion. He did not weigh over 200lb at his peak because he was superstitious but could hit very hard.

Wilder is not that much heavier than Louis but AJ, Lewis and Fury’s of this world are considerably heavier and would use it to their advantage.

Conversely if Joe Louis was born in this era he would be bigger so would have smashed them all. :)

---

This is exactly the point of comparing fighters from different eras. Not only size, but technological advancements in Training and nutrition enabling guys to be quicker and stronger all have to be taken into consideration when making comparisons. So basically , give the fighter of the old days all the advantages and attributes of the modern day fighter he’s being compared with and then the question is fairer, and the answer very different.

---

I find these amusing because people always think about the ways improved life makes better fighters but you don’t often hear how improved life makes worse fighters. People today aren’t tough, not their fault they just don’t need to be. Fighters today are very strong, very fast, and very good at what they do well. But they are not very diverse. Real inside fighting stopped 80 years ago, that art is dead. We have no clue what a Joe Louis of today would be, why would he choose to get hit in the face? Would he put on muscle, would he cut to lightheavy, would he be a rapper, we don’t know. We couldn’t possibly. Wet blanket response, but that’s what I do. He was great in his time and that’s enough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

People forget that Louis fought big heavyweights. Max Baer was 6’3 and very strong. Primo Carnera was 6’6. He was basically the size of Wlad. Buddy Baer was the same height. Abe Simon was 6’4.

Now I’m not saying these guys were as good as AJ or Fury, but Louis destroyed these fighters. It wasn’t even close. I think he would do much better than many think. Also, he would walk through the cruiserweights of today. Even from todays standards Louis has great technique.

---

Those fighters you mentioned are garbage , or do we conclude David Haye is the greatest of all time because he beat 7'1 Valuev ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

People forget that Louis fought big heavyweights. Max Baer was 6’3 and very strong. Primo Carnera was 6’6. He was basically the size of Wlad. Buddy Baer was the same height. Abe Simon was 6’4.

Now I’m not saying these guys were as good as AJ or Fury, but Louis destroyed these fighters. It wasn’t even close. I think he would do much better than many think. Also, he would walk through the cruiserweights of today. Even from todays standards Louis has great technique.

---

Those fighters you mentioned are garbage , or do we conclude David Haye is the greatest of all time because he beat 7'1 Valuev ?

---

And most HWs today are garbage. Max Baer was actually legit and very strong. And saying that Haye beat Valuev proves that smaller fighters can beat bigger fighters. I’m showing that Joe Louis in fact did beat bigger fighters. It’s not as if there were no giant HWs at his time. It’s just your perception on who is good and who isn’t. Valuev was basically Primo Carnera of today. And Valuev did well for himself.

I’ve seen lots and lots of Louis fights and I’ll tell you what, his technique is amazing. No HW today is better than him. You could argue that maybe size would be his downfall, but Wilder is out here knocking out super HWs while he is light for the division. I don’t see why Louis couldn’t do the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

People forget that Louis fought big heavyweights. Max Baer was 6’3 and very strong. Primo Carnera was 6’6. He was basically the size of Wlad. Buddy Baer was the same height. Abe Simon was 6’4.

Now I’m not saying these guys were as good as AJ or Fury, but Louis destroyed these fighters. It wasn’t even close. I think he would do much better than many think. Also, he would walk through the cruiserweights of today. Even from todays standards Louis has great technique.

---

Those fighters you mentioned are garbage , or do we conclude David Haye is the greatest of all time because he beat 7'1 Valuev ?

---

And most HWs today are garbage. Max Baer was actually legit and very strong. And saying that Haye beat Valuev proves that smaller fighters can beat bigger fighters. I’m showing that Joe Louis in fact did beat bigger fighters. It’s not as if there were no giant HWs at his time. It’s just your perception on who is good and who isn’t. Valuev was basically Primo Carnera of today. And Valuev did well for himself.

I’ve seen lots and lots of Louis fights and I’ll tell you what, his technique is amazing. No HW today is better than him. You could argue that maybe size would be his downfall, but Wilder is out here knocking out super HWs while he is light for the division. I don’t see why Louis couldn’t do the same thing.

---

Easy Tiger. Now take that back!;)

Size is overrated. That's what she said :-X. The field over the last 30 + years is littered with guys 165 to 190ish who packed on a few pounds and competed at heavy. I don't doubt for a minute Louis would pick up a belt or 3 and maybe that's in large part to the wba having 101 available. But seriously his talent, skill and commitment compared to many of todays heavies puts them to shame. And I guarantee he wasn't shoving a suitcase of illegal banned substances in his arse and veins to help him along. Let Louis land a right hand on Wilder..going backwards like the slow motion glacial mass that is Breazeale did and see how that goes. We seem to always speak of yesterdays fighters like they're on some literal evolutionary chart and came to the ring in loin cloths and carrying clubs. This sport is more mental than physical too. It's a two way street. I'd say if many of todays comforts, politics in the sport and everything being at a fingers touch were stripped away from todays fighters and they were dropped into yesteryear v top guys they'd be in for some real trouble.

I don't agree that Max Baer was garbage. He was a big guy, fantastic athlete with a shattering right hand. A 1930's Wilder except he could box too.

I couldn't say for sure, but I definitely do not automatically subscribe to the view that everything modern is somehow 'better' than what has gone before. It's a bit solipsic and very disrespectful and naive if the past. Life wasn't really in black and white and slow motion.

Nutrition, science and wealth have certainly changed the way people train now compared to the old timers .... but nobody can tell me that any modern Fighters trains harder or tougher than, say, Rocky Marciano. Those guys didn't use PEDs.

Life was harder then, people were hungry and poorer and maybe even more desperate. Slick, pure boxers like Ray Robinson, Benny Leonard, Joe Gans, Jim Corbett were actually tough and violent motherfuckers who would eat the Adrian Broners of the world for breakfast. They fought every few weeks, 15 rounders, no standing counts, little referee interference. Muhammad Ali, the quintessential 'beautiful' boxer was one of the hardest and toughest people you will ever have heard of.

What is certain is that there was a lot more competition. You can be a ranked heavyweight much more easily now than at any time in the past because there are simply less fighters.

Heavyweights stay down quite easy now. Wladimir, even Lennox did. James Jeffries fought on after 7 knockdowns, shattered orbital, broken arm, broken ribs and jaw and several missing teeth.

Jack Dempsey was a truly violent and ferocious beast. He fought grown men in mining town bars for a few cents when he was in his teens. Does anybody really think Audley Harrison beats him just because he is bigger?

Niw, there is no way I am saying that ALL old timers would have beaten today's fighters, and that modern guys are all garbage etc etc ....... but I am definitely challenging the view that ALL modern fighters are somehow generally better and would beat most of the historical guys.

If he had the healthcare, diet, etc of today's athlete then he'd probably be around Lennox/Evander size.

He wasn't a small man and his stamina and punching power would still see him effective.

Greatest heavyweight champion of all time!

When I read that Jack Johnson stated Joe was susceptible to the very punch that Max kept landing over and over, how is that skill? Rematch he won by taking it to Max.

Billy Conn didn't out brawl Joe, he out boxed him and then Joe did to him what Wilder does....catch up to his foe with that eraser. Conn landed that left hook over & over. At times he threw 10-15 nonstop. But he stayed inside, where Joe eventually started landing that uppercut and after taking so many, Conn wilted.


Take that Joe and he beats Lennox Lewis? Vitali? Maybe he catches Wladimir, but in his prime he was a master clincher with a huge advantage with his jab/reach.

@ 6,2 he has good height, but was very economical with his punch out put albeit very accurate when he did throw. He wasn't very fluid, rather methodical. And his skills was against what he himself called was the bum of the month club.


Kethcel, Braddock, Schmelling, Walcott, Charles, Conn, 2-ton Galento, Baer. Are these the top fighters Joe beat? How would they do against Lennox, Vitali, AJ, Deontay, Fury?


Depending on when they fought Walcott or Charles determines how they'd fare as those guys fought WAY past their primes. Didn't Walcott fight Louis after 18 years at pro vs 14? One started in 1930, the other 1934. Today when that happens we take it into account.

Louis has the benefit of being a golden age fighter where we respect our previous era, then meticulously brake the future generation apart with critiques we over look for fighters of yesteryear. Joe does well in this era, but not sure he would be a hall of famer, at least not on the first ballot.

Joe Louis did not fight Stanley Kethcel but Joe was a deadly puncher. His style of boxing would not be out of place in this era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

If he had the healthcare, diet, etc of today's athlete then he'd probably be around Lennox/Evander size.

He wasn't a small man and his stamina and punching power would still see him effective.

Greatest heavyweight champion of all time!

---

Second only to Muhammad Ali. ;D

If grandad Povetkin rattled AJ then I think Joe Louis' diverse and superior punches put him away.

If Cunningham put Fury on his arse then so can Joe Louis, not too sure he would stay down after seeing the wilder fight.

If Fury made Wilder look like an amateur then so will Joe Louis.

But he would struggle against the true skilled big man in Lennox Lewis but not these big men we have now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

Size is overrated. That's what she said :-X. The field over the last 30 + years is littered with guys 165 to 190ish who packed on a few pounds and competed at heavy. I don't doubt for a minute Louis would pick up a belt or 3 and maybe that's in large part to the wba having 101 available. But seriously his talent, skill and commitment compared to many of todays heavies puts them to shame. And I guarantee he wasn't shoving a suitcase of illegal banned substances in his arse and veins to help him along. Let Louis land a right hand on Wilder..going backwards like the slow motion glacial mass that is Breazeale did and see how that goes. We seem to always speak of yesterdays fighters like they're on some literal evolutionary chart and came to the ring in loin cloths and carrying clubs. This sport is more mental than physical too. It's a two way street. I'd say if many of todays comforts, politics in the sport and everything being at a fingers touch were stripped away from todays fighters and they were dropped into yesteryear v top guys they'd be in for some real trouble.

---

She only says that to make you feel better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

If he had the healthcare, diet, etc of today's athlete then he'd probably be around Lennox/Evander size.

He wasn't a small man and his stamina and punching power would still see him effective.

Greatest heavyweight champion of all time!

---

Second only to Muhammad Ali. ;D

---

25 successful consecutive title defenses and he missed years of his prime...so he's statistically the best by a mile.


What makes Ali so great? He wasn't the youngest champ, he wasn't the oldest champ, he wasn't the champ for the longest period of time. Was it his competition that made him great??? Then how would his competition handle other eras? Joe Frazier would give such hell to the division in any other era? Foreman maybe depending on where his mind was at the time....Shavers? Quarry? Norton? Ron Lyle? I mean they're ok but why do they look so impressive on Ali's resume and the guys Joe Louis beat don't look as impressive? They were the best fighters out there at the time and Louis won 25 title defenses in a row how many did Ali string together? Also know this Ali prompted his supporters to say "I'm the greatest of all time" and he talked and talked and talked and he was a cult of personality he had the media and counter culture behind him he was riding a wave of popularity...Joe Louis didn't have the luxury of having such an attitude but he always got the business done in the ring!

Also Marciano going 49-0-0 is pretty fucking impressive and I don't really care about "his era was weak!" it's 49 in a row and he didn't duck anyone did he?

Fighters can have shitty records and still be good fighters. Fighters can have a limited style but give the better fighter Hell for one reason or another. 25 in a row is a record,nobody has beaten it and nobody is going to beat it.


But say someone is the greatest and it's not Ali and it's a federal case :rolleyes:

Luckily boxing isn't soley based on statistics and you partly make the case for me why Muhammid Ali is the best heavyweight of all time. He was not the youngest, oldest, longest champion but still considered the best by the majority of people. His competition was great Joe Frazier, Liston and Foreman could have been champions longer if they lived in another period.

It is well known why Ali did not make consecutive defences

Ali was all business in the ring and did not always have that popularity that you claim he rode.

There is no federal case or attack just look with your eyes and appreciate his boxing qualities.

Notice I did not criticise Louis or Rocky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Luckily boxing isn't soley based on statistics and you partly make the case for me why Muhammid Ali is the best heavyweight of all time. He was not the youngest, oldest, longest champion but still considered the best by the majority of people. His competition was great Joe Frazier, Liston and Foreman could have been champions longer if they lived in another period.

It is well known why Ali did not make consecutive defences

Ali was all business in the ring and did not always have that popularity that you claim he rode.

There is no federal case or attack just look with your eyes and appreciate his boxing qualities.

Notice I did not criticise Louis or Rocky.

---

You said Ali was ahead of Joe Louis I said otherwise. I then provided examples as to why Joe Louis was better. I know that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying because you're assuming a different tone than I wrote my post in. Ali was a great boxer and unique in that he was the champion but also a celebrity at the same time. I don't want to feel forced to bow before an Ali statue every time I mention his name. He's a great great great boxer that I don't think is the greatest of all time despite what he said about himself but don't expect me to kiss his ass. He gets the respect he gets from me what can I tell you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Joe Louis did not fight Stanley Kethcel but Joe was a deadly puncher. His style of boxing would not be out of place in this era.

---

So I went boxrecing....:-\

He would do well. I just don't think he could have beaten a prime Lennox, because he had skills to go with size and reach. we'll never know, because HW's back then weren't as mobile as guys like Ali to Fury. A lot of movement. Where Joe was deadly inside. Outside? again his era didn't have the mobility post Ali, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Joe Louis did not fight Stanley Kethcel but Joe was a deadly puncher. His style of boxing would not be out of place in this era.

---

So I went boxrecing....:-\

He would do well. I just don't think he could have beaten a prime Lennox, because he had skills to go with size and reach. we'll never know, because HW's back then weren't as mobile as guys like Ali to Fury. A lot of movement. Where Joe was deadly inside. Outside? again his era didn't have the mobility post Ali, IMO.

---

Anything Louis could hit, he could hurt and if it was the right spot they were knocked out. He was flat footed and could be out boxed until he caught up with you. He had that famous saying "you can run but you can't hide".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Luckily boxing isn't soley based on statistics and you partly make the case for me why Muhammid Ali is the best heavyweight of all time. He was not the youngest, oldest, longest champion but still considered the best by the majority of people. His competition was great Joe Frazier, Liston and Foreman could have been champions longer if they lived in another period.

It is well known why Ali did not make consecutive defences

Ali was all business in the ring and did not always have that popularity that you claim he rode.

There is no federal case or attack just look with your eyes and appreciate his boxing qualities.

Notice I did not criticise Louis or Rocky.

---

You said Ali was ahead of Joe Louis I said otherwise. I then provided examples as to why Joe Louis was better. I know that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying because you're assuming a different tone than I wrote my post in. Ali was a great boxer and unique in that he was the champion but also a celebrity at the same time. I don't want to feel forced to bow before an Ali statue every time I mention his name. He's a great great great boxer that I don't think is the greatest of all time despite what he said about himself but don't expect me to kiss his ass. He gets the respect he gets from me what can I tell you?

---

I’m with you on this, people have this beautiful ideal of Ali. As a Boxer, Fighter, call it what you like, he wasn’t the greatest. As a sporting icon , we’ll thats clearly a different story.
I have to say, if he hadn’t of lost the peak 3 years of his career , it would be a very different conversation , I’m certain of that. But it is what it is and it’s not gonna change.
I know what you mean about how we’re not allowed to even very slightly criticise Ali. When Floyd pointed out about him losing his Title to a 7 fight novice when he was 34 years old , people wouldn’t see it for what it’s meant. You can’t argue against the point unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Luckily boxing isn't soley based on statistics and you partly make the case for me why Muhammid Ali is the best heavyweight of all time. He was not the youngest, oldest, longest champion but still considered the best by the majority of people. His competition was great Joe Frazier, Liston and Foreman could have been champions longer if they lived in another period.

It is well known why Ali did not make consecutive defences

Ali was all business in the ring and did not always have that popularity that you claim he rode.

There is no federal case or attack just look with your eyes and appreciate his boxing qualities.

Notice I did not criticise Louis or Rocky.

---

You said Ali was ahead of Joe Louis I said otherwise. I then provided examples as to why Joe Louis was better. I know that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying because you're assuming a different tone than I wrote my post in. Ali was a great boxer and unique in that he was the champion but also a celebrity at the same time. I don't want to feel forced to bow before an Ali statue every time I mention his name. He's a great great great boxer that I don't think is the greatest of all time despite what he said about himself but don't expect me to kiss his ass. He gets the respect he gets from me what can I tell you?

---

I’m with you on this, people have this beautiful ideal of Ali. As a Boxer, Fighter, call it what you like, he wasn’t the greatest. As a sporting icon , we’ll thats clearly a different story.
I have to say, if he hadn’t of lost the peak 3 years of his career , it would be a very different conversation , I’m certain of that. But it is what it is and it’s not gonna change.
I know what you mean about how we’re not allowed to even very slightly criticise Ali. When Floyd pointed out about him losing his Title to a 7 fight novice when he was 34 years old , people wouldn’t see it for what it’s meant. You can’t argue against the point unfortunately.

---

You can argue all you want but you are intelligent enough to know that Ali was old in terms of ring years. He was at the tail end of a hard and distinguished career and still avenged the loss.

Yes. Louis was too small and too motionless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Luckily boxing isn't soley based on statistics and you partly make the case for me why Muhammid Ali is the best heavyweight of all time. He was not the youngest, oldest, longest champion but still considered the best by the majority of people. His competition was great Joe Frazier, Liston and Foreman could have been champions longer if they lived in another period.

It is well known why Ali did not make consecutive defences

Ali was all business in the ring and did not always have that popularity that you claim he rode.

There is no federal case or attack just look with your eyes and appreciate his boxing qualities.

Notice I did not criticise Louis or Rocky.

---

You said Ali was ahead of Joe Louis I said otherwise. I then provided examples as to why Joe Louis was better. I know that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying because you're assuming a different tone than I wrote my post in. Ali was a great boxer and unique in that he was the champion but also a celebrity at the same time. I don't want to feel forced to bow before an Ali statue every time I mention his name. He's a great great great boxer that I don't think is the greatest of all time despite what he said about himself but don't expect me to kiss his ass. He gets the respect he gets from me what can I tell you?

---

I’m with you on this, people have this beautiful ideal of Ali. As a Boxer, Fighter, call it what you like, he wasn’t the greatest. As a sporting icon , we’ll thats clearly a different story.
I have to say, if he hadn’t of lost the peak 3 years of his career , it would be a very different conversation , I’m certain of that. But it is what it is and it’s not gonna change.
I know what you mean about how we’re not allowed to even very slightly criticise Ali. When Floyd pointed out about him losing his Title to a 7 fight novice when he was 34 years old , people wouldn’t see it for what it’s meant. You can’t argue against the point unfortunately.

---

You can argue all you want but you are intelligent enough to know that Ali was old in terms of ring years. He was at the tail end of a hard and distinguished career and still avenged the loss.

---

firstly you’ve got to understand that this is no “Bill Paxtom” style witch hunt. Ali was amazing and I love him.
But you have to be honest. When you say Old in terms of ring years, well some of that was his own doing and choice.
1. The way he chose to fight against monsters like Foreman and Shavers. I’m not saying he was wrong, it was incredible, but getting hit a lot will take its toll.
2. Fighting in places that will drain the life out of you like Manila and Zaire. But that’s where the money was.
But on the spin side , he also had 3 years rest as well, so that should balance it out a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Luckily boxing isn't soley based on statistics and you partly make the case for me why Muhammid Ali is the best heavyweight of all time. He was not the youngest, oldest, longest champion but still considered the best by the majority of people. His competition was great Joe Frazier, Liston and Foreman could have been champions longer if they lived in another period.

It is well known why Ali did not make consecutive defences

Ali was all business in the ring and did not always have that popularity that you claim he rode.

There is no federal case or attack just look with your eyes and appreciate his boxing qualities.

Notice I did not criticise Louis or Rocky.

---

You said Ali was ahead of Joe Louis I said otherwise. I then provided examples as to why Joe Louis was better. I know that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying because you're assuming a different tone than I wrote my post in. Ali was a great boxer and unique in that he was the champion but also a celebrity at the same time. I don't want to feel forced to bow before an Ali statue every time I mention his name. He's a great great great boxer that I don't think is the greatest of all time despite what he said about himself but don't expect me to kiss his ass. He gets the respect he gets from me what can I tell you?

---

I’m with you on this, people have this beautiful ideal of Ali. As a Boxer, Fighter, call it what you like, he wasn’t the greatest. As a sporting icon , we’ll thats clearly a different story.
I have to say, if he hadn’t of lost the peak 3 years of his career , it would be a very different conversation , I’m certain of that. But it is what it is and it’s not gonna change.
I know what you mean about how we’re not allowed to even very slightly criticise Ali. When Floyd pointed out about him losing his Title to a 7 fight novice when he was 34 years old , people wouldn’t see it for what it’s meant. You can’t argue against the point unfortunately.

---

You can argue all you want but you are intelligent enough to know that Ali was old in terms of ring years. He was at the tail end of a hard and distinguished career and still avenged the loss.

---

firstly you’ve got to understand that this is no “Bill Paxtom” style witch hunt. Ali was amazing and I love him.
But you have to be honest. When you say Old in terms of ring years, well some of that was his own doing and choice.
1. The way he chose to fight against monsters like Foreman and Shavers. I’m not saying he was wrong, it was incredible, but getting hit a lot will take its toll.
2. Fighting in places that will drain the life out of you like Manila and Zaire. But that’s where the money was.
But on the spin side , he also had 3 years rest as well, so that should balance it out a bit.

---

If life was that simple where you can pick and choose who and the locations you fight you would be just another heavyweight. Those are the fights that make him the best heavyweight ever. The 3 years out hurt the momentum he was on and made him a less mobile fighter which meant he had to show his resilience and courage. I amsure Ali would have preferred to have danced his way to victory and use his boxing skills.

I know you are and El Kabong are not hating but I am pointing out holes in the critique of him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Luckily boxing isn't soley based on statistics and you partly make the case for me why Muhammid Ali is the best heavyweight of all time. He was not the youngest, oldest, longest champion but still considered the best by the majority of people. His competition was great Joe Frazier, Liston and Foreman could have been champions longer if they lived in another period.

It is well known why Ali did not make consecutive defences

Ali was all business in the ring and did not always have that popularity that you claim he rode.

There is no federal case or attack just look with your eyes and appreciate his boxing qualities.

Notice I did not criticise Louis or Rocky.

---

You said Ali was ahead of Joe Louis I said otherwise. I then provided examples as to why Joe Louis was better. I know that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying because you're assuming a different tone than I wrote my post in. Ali was a great boxer and unique in that he was the champion but also a celebrity at the same time. I don't want to feel forced to bow before an Ali statue every time I mention his name. He's a great great great boxer that I don't think is the greatest of all time despite what he said about himself but don't expect me to kiss his ass. He gets the respect he gets from me what can I tell you?

---

I’m with you on this, people have this beautiful ideal of Ali. As a Boxer, Fighter, call it what you like, he wasn’t the greatest. As a sporting icon , we’ll thats clearly a different story.
I have to say, if he hadn’t of lost the peak 3 years of his career , it would be a very different conversation , I’m certain of that. But it is what it is and it’s not gonna change.
I know what you mean about how we’re not allowed to even very slightly criticise Ali. When Floyd pointed out about him losing his Title to a 7 fight novice when he was 34 years old , people wouldn’t see it for what it’s meant. You can’t argue against the point unfortunately.

---

You can argue all you want but you are intelligent enough to know that Ali was old in terms of ring years. He was at the tail end of a hard and distinguished career and still avenged the loss.

---

Huge Ali fan so don’t take this as a criticism of him, like you have said he was past his best. But if memory serves me the ref was forced to stop Ali’s holding an average of 15 times per round in that fight. Left right hold, left right hold, left right hold. It’s best to not point to that as an accomplishment since it should have been a disqualification. What Ali did is enough to champion him without building low points into high points.

The mans talent and will are a remarkable combination. Perhaps the greatest combination of the 2 of all time. But we can never know for sure. Comparing eras is a guessing game weighted by personal preferences. Lewis was talented but lazy, Tyson was talented but mentally fragile, Ali was talented but refused fundamentals he could have employed, Louis was talented but slow of foot. Lewis could have beaten Ali but lost to a number of Ali’s opponents, Ali could have beaten Louis but lost to a few of his opponents. The could haves could go on forever.

I, like you, think Ali is the greatest. But we can’t say we know that. And we can’t tell others that disagree that they are wrong. Well, we could, but that would point to our ignorance more than theirs.

Just to clarify, I’m not saying Louis beats Ali and I’m not saying Ali isn’t the greatest HW Of all time. I just don’t think he was the Greatest Boxer of all time . Sorry, we’ve taken this thread way off piste.

I'm under the impression that if Joe were born in this era, he'd weigh the same, because of where he got his genes from. Example: Primo wasn't born big because of the era he came up in, it was his genes that determined it. So In my boldest opinion Joe Louis weighs the same no matter when he was born. Eddie Chambers to Chris Byrd would be the same size had they been born in the 1920s. Jack Johnson was ripped back then, Cleveland Williams had a body builder physique but today they would both be accused of juicing.;D

It is interesting how Ali's opponents are meticulously scrutinized, but not Joe Louis opponents. They all fought tough back then, they were the best then. Same for Ali's opponents. They, too grew up tough & were the best at that time.

Who were the great fighters that Joe fought? What made them great? I'm asking to learn, as I have no reason to counter nor disagree.

When I'm asked that of Ali..my reply is not so much based on just who he fought & beat but HOW he did it.
Ali was the 1st HW that used movement constantly. How could a methodical Joe do against such a style? As a result of Ali, not Joe, many fighters have adjusted and or adopted his style. Regardless of weight division.

Did Joe bring something to the game that wasn't done before? Just asking.

Ali beat up the old guards like Patterson & Moore on his way to the title, not after he got it like Marciano or many of today's HWs.
Ali's fight with Cleveleand Williams shows him throwing lightening combination upstairs...and believe or not..downstairs! His defense consisted of bobbing, weaving, this 6'3 master of footwork got under Cleveland's punches. At times he threw coming forward which had Big Cat bleeding all day.

Clay Ali went on to prove he could do this for 15rds post 1970s. Fluid footwork, combination punching, not pot-shotting. Getting under punches, using reflexes to just back straight out & evade. Time and counter.
See Liston vs Williams-- 2 guys who were accurate punchers, stayed in the pocket & didn't throw haymakers. Ali took these 2 apart. Easily at that!

He banged against Doug Jones, he outboxed Liston at 19 fights in the game. He beat the F outta Williams.

I see his career in the same light of a Pernell Whitaker or Ray Leonard as neither fighters had long careers, but looking at what they did and how they did it is taken into consideration.
Neither Pernell, Ray or Ali had long careers without a loss. So ti doesn't negate their greatness, rather shortens the period in which they claim greatness.

Respect to those who say Joe Louis was one if not the best. But I agree with the old Jew in the movie Coming to America...Marciano beat Joe Louis' azz, retirement or not!;D
Claiming if he hit you he got you, not true. Again Conn outboxed him & at timse put combinations on him, please put up the video here & we can go round by round and see a prime Joe compromised by the skills of a Billy Conn that went on to do what? This guy didn't fall to one shot. It was many shots because he stayed on the inside. Joe's son talked about how after that fight The Brown Bomber was swollen from ear to ear. & LHW did that!

David Tua on the inside wouldn't get shots in on Joe? Joe would force his way inside against the master clinching Klitschkos? How does he time & catch Fury who uses reach, lateral movement & countering?

Last- Wilder & Joe weighing similar IMO isn't something I'd call the one in the same. As Skinny dudes have shown from the Explosive Thin man aka Arguello to Hearns to Wilder the speed in which they throw & extend their long azz reach is how they generate power. Joe did it standard, natural power swinging from the hip. So his size today would matter along with. ..as Jack Johnson put it "mechanical" footwork and susceptibility to certain punches would make him a great in our era? yes, I'd say so. But he wouldn't have gone 25 wins as in 1936-1950. Like Ali, Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson he would've lost and more than once in his prime.
1976-1990 he beats all? 1986-2000 he beats all? 2006-current?

Joe Louis would stand a good chance against Wilder if he got on the inside and let his hooks rip into him. Joe could also end up knocked out as any heavyweight ever could against Wilder because he hits so damn hard. Joe Louis was technically a better boxer than Wilder will ever be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Joe Louis would stand a good chance against Wilder if he got on the inside and let his hooks rip into him. Joe could also end up knocked out as any heavyweight ever could against Wilder because he hits so damn hard. Joe Louis was technically a better boxer than Wilder will ever be.

---

I think he would get inside as well. As you stated Joe was a technical boxer, something Wilder can forget about. He'd probably chop him down from the body & up. A slow beating. Since Wilder has been known to move backwards and throws ok would be his best chance. But this is the fight where I'd agree Wilder could run, but he can't hide!


I'm not sure about AJ or Fury.

​My video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought. In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on foreman or people he fought?

he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs. guys in the 70s-'90s

so why say Joe would do good based on who he fought?
Why say he would do good vs Deontay, when Deon even as an amateur Was way more advanced and fought way more advanced fighters than the whole louis era.

The video clearly shows his whole era were novice like compared in angles/tech/fluidity/timing/defense and they fought really dumb to a lot of times standing right in front of the opposition and waiting for them to counter or to hit them, I specifically chose no names to show even those guys were way more advanced than the whole louis erahttps://youtu.be/a27vtfAuSyI?si=3hWYGti1eWHos7Cu


See how using that odd quote of his tech was to great is ridiculous, look at the all 4 fighters, in the video like come on, how exactly would his punch tech alone allow him to land, while lacking greatly in angle use/fluidity/timing/defense that even as my video showed no name-mid carders foreman fought had way more than his era, see how it doesn't make any logical sense saying he would do good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

This is exactly the point of comparing fighters from different eras. Not only size, but technological advancements in Training and nutrition enabling guys to be quicker and stronger all have to be taken into consideration when making comparisons.

---

Size I agree with, but I said this before and I don't like repeating myself but to me (and this is just my personal opinion others may think different) there has be no technological advancements in boxing training in the last 100 years

1. Jogging
2. Jumping Rope
3. Lifting Weights
4. Bag Work
5. Sparring
6. Maybe Rowing Machines And Cycling

That's it. That's boxing training.

And all those have been around since the late 19th century.

And even boxing trainers where better in the past. There is no way that Shane McGuigan, Ben Davidson, Boom McIntrye knew more about boxing than
Cus D'amato, Charlie Goldman, Angelo Dundee, Eddie Futch, Jack Blackburn, Manny Steward etc

Honestly I think these old school trainers took a lot of their secrets to the grave. Inside fighting is starting to become a lost art. That's why we see a lot more clinching because people don't know what to do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

So basically , give the fighter of the old days all the advantages and attributes of the modern day fighter he’s being compared with and then the question is fairer, and the answer very different.

---

I just want to know what advantages (apart from PED's) do modern day fighters have ?

If anything fighter from the past had the advantages because of their lifestyle which made them tougher.

Want water to do, well, anything? Grab a bucket and walk to the well. Haul that heavy bucket back. Wash all the clothes by hand. Hang the laundry on the line by hand. Make every bite of food, by hand. Dirty carpet? Drag it outside, hang it, and beat it clean.

My great grandfather used to work the docks in Liverpool n the 1920's. Bk then, the bags weight in ships weighted 100 kg or 200 lbs.

That was the normal weight.

And people like my g.father, could carry them all day long. And compared to modern men he was a tinny guy. Now a days, bags can be no heavier then 25 kg or you'll have Health & Safety on your case

They could build cathedrals and get all these heavy stones 100 metre high and had no cranes, only muscles. Nowadays EVERYONE and his momma is depressed and has "mental health issues"

Give me a break. Our pansy Millennial boxers born in the last 40 yrs would be trampled to death by their predecessors.

I said it before that Boxing is different to ANY OTHER SPORT

A boxer who has less than perfect technique can be a great fighter whereas almost every other sport requires perfect technique to excel. No one will break sprinting or swimming records without near perfect technique, nor power lifting records or high jumping records.

So boxing, unlike basically every single other timed, individual sport on earth, does not rely on being bigger, stronger, faster

In boxing, it really makes no difference. We only need to look Andy Ruiz - AJ in the first fight. Even Mayweather or Ali wasn't big and strong. It's not a team sport, so an entire team of bigger, stronger, faster guys might mean something...but boxing doesn't work that way. It's just you and someone else punching each other.

I’m definitely gonna reply to the post above, as soon as I work out how to condense it and answer point by point without taking up 2 pages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denilson3.0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

This is exactly the point of comparing fighters from different eras. Not only size, but technological advancements in Training and nutrition enabling guys to be quicker and stronger all have to be taken into consideration when making comparisons.

---

Size I agree with, but I said this before and I don't like repeating myself but to me (and this is just my personal opinion others may think different) there has be no technological advancements in boxing training in the last 100 years

1. Jogging
2. Jumping Rope
3. Lifting Weights
4. Bag Work
5. Sparring
6. Maybe Rowing Machines And Cycling

That's it. That's boxing training.
Yes , but I think you're being a bit simplistic here. for example Rowing Machines and Bicycles are better and you can train better on them . Also nutritional and conditioning information is better, meaning people can get fitter by working smarter not harder. Heart rates while training , GPS etc.etc. Even the machines for lifting weights probably mean that the way they are set up targets the muscles that need to be worked on better.

And all those have been around since the late 19th century.

And even boxing trainers where better in the past. There is no way that Shane McGuigan, Ben Davidson, Boom McIntrye knew more about boxing than
Cus D'amato, Charlie Goldman, Angelo Dundee, Eddie Futch, Jack Blackburn, Manny Steward etc

Honestly I think these old school trainers took a lot of their secrets to the grave. Inside fighting is starting to become a lost art. That's why we see a lot more clinching because people don't know what to do


No, not for one second do I think that the modern day trainers know as much as D'Amato, Futch, Dundee, Steward etc. And that is probably why Fighters probably aren't as skilled as those from bygone eras. But with the technology that the modern day trainers have at their disposal , they can improve fighters .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

So basically , give the fighter of the old days all the advantages and attributes of the modern day fighter he’s being compared with and then the question is fairer, and the answer very different.

---

I just want to know what advantages (apart from PED's) do modern day fighters have ?
as above , but also the fact that they can concentrate on training for boxing only and their muscles aren't tired from a hard day's graft , because as you quite rightly allude to below, all jobs were a lot more manual then , but machines do a bit of the work now. So today's fighters can put more into their training.

If anything fighter from the past had the advantages because of their lifestyle which made them tougher.

Want water to do, well, anything? Grab a bucket and walk to the well. Haul that heavy bucket back. Wash all the clothes by hand. Hang the laundry on the line by hand. Make every bite of food, by hand. Dirty carpet? Drag it outside, hang it, and beat it clean.

My great grandfather used to work the docks in Liverpool n the 1920's. Bk then, the bags weight in ships weighted 100 kg or 200 lbs.

That was the normal weight.

And people like my g.father, could carry them all day long. And compared to modern men he was a tinny guy. Now a days, bags can be no heavier then 25 kg or you'll have Health & Safety on your case

They could build cathedrals and get all these heavy stones 100 metre high and had no cranes, only muscles. Nowadays EVERYONE and his momma is depressed and has "mental health issues"
i Agree with that.

Give me a break. Our pansy Millennial boxers born in the last 40 yrs would be trampled to death by their predecessors.
Probably not , cos these old guys were probably knackered when it came to fight night, while the modern day guy is fresh as he has been training only for this moment.

I said it before that Boxing is different to ANY OTHER SPORT

A boxer who has less than perfect technique can be a great fighter whereas almost every other sport requires perfect technique to excel. No one will break sprinting or swimming records without near perfect technique, nor power lifting records or high jumping records.

So boxing, unlike basically every single other timed, individual sport on earth, does not rely on being bigger, stronger, faster

In boxing, it really makes no difference. We only need to look Andy Ruiz - AJ in the first fight. Even Mayweather or Ali wasn't big and strong. It's not a team sport, so an entire team of bigger, stronger, faster guys might mean something...but boxing doesn't work that way. It's just you and someone else punching each other.

---

Yeah , Boxing is different , of course it is , and no other sport relies on Heart as much as Boxing does. But there are sports where some guys can get to the top with imperfect technique.(Michael Johnson for example), but i don't want to labour the point, because it makes no odds to the point we are debating which is modern day versus previous eras.