Billy Conn the reason why Louis can never be no1.

Staggered off a 170lb light-heavyweight.....outboxed by a guy who basically admitted all he did was circle the ring and punch straight with no roundhouses...Kind of an indictment really considering Dempsey, Ali, Frazier etc all demolished the great 175ers of their day!!!!

Louis is a strange phenomenon on here..otherwise intelligent people (who I respect) seem to throw logic out the window!! For such a great champion, and he was bless him, he never really beat anybody....However Mayweather, Calzaghe's records are abused by the same guys who have Louis a thin piece of paper away from the greatest Ali...The same guys who pooh pooh longevity as a yardstick usually...

Always said the best guys he fought were Walcott, Marciano and Charles.....Lost to them all (Walcott got ripped off in the 1st fight)...Although Louis was way past his best but he still lost!!!!

We'll leave schmelling out of it.. anyone can lose a fight......

Think being mastered by a light heavy in your pomp before the guy took liberties and let you set him up..... probably should be the reason Louis never gets any higher than second!!! and rightly so...

You say that he never really beat anybody?? Back in the 30's when he was beating Sharkey, Baer, and Carnera before he became champ, these were considered good wins over world class opponents. Also the fact that Louis was a dominant champion made his opponents look worse than they actually were.

Head to head, I don't think that Louis beats Ali, Holmes or Lewis, but in his day, based on the length of his reign and the way he beat most of his opponents, I can easily see why some would regard him as the greatest heavyweight.

There's a lot of revisionism going on these days.

Never really beat anybody was mean't more in a quality heavyweight perspective....

All those you mentioned were coming off losses......Carnera 11 times down against Baer.....Baer beaten by the journeyman Braddock.......Sharkey knocked out by the worst heavy in history...

All about perspective..

Remarkeably harsh summary of Louis which I cant agree with this whatsoever. Having routinely seen the likes of Dempsey, Maciano and Jeffries dimished on these boards I guess it must the turn of Joe Louis now. What an unreasonable synopsis and dismissing of Louis. Might I dismiss Ali on the basis of having his senses rattled and put on the seat of his pants by Henry Cooper?

Who has a finer heavyweight resume than Louis with the exception perhaps of Ali? Who else dominated the division so effectively?

Regarding the fight itself with Conn, its something of a myth Louis was getting completely outboxed. With 3 rounds remaining, Luois was still in the fight and had he won the last three rounds then the fight would have been his on the cards. As it happened, the fact is he knocked Conn out and then won a rematch decisively. Stoppage wins over fine light heavies such as John Henry Lewis, Lee Savold and Bob Pastor together with his decisive rematch stoppage of Conn also debunks the idea he struggled with light heavies.

As for claiming Walcott was robbed, conviniently forgetting he was stopped in a rematch is indictive of the kind of imbalanced take this is on Louis.

As for losing to the best fighters he faced in Marciano and Charles? Well suffice to say Ali may have lost to the best he faced in Holmes who himself lost to the best he faced in Tyson if one wants to adopt the most unreasonable of approaches.

I agree there is no way Joe Louis should be number1. The best heavyweights were Ali and Lewis and they would destroy Joe Louis imo. The top 4 should be Ali, Lewis, Tyson and Marciano. Joe Louis should be about 10th and lets not forget that Marciano knocked him out.

I think you're being ridiculously harsh there, Waingro, let's not forget that Louis was somewhat past his best by the time of that fight.

Actually, I'll stop there, I can see those wriggling worms through the split in the can...

People might say he was past his best for Marciano but he still got knocked out by him and he hadnt lost many before that so I think Marciano was better than Lewis and he also never lost to anyone.

Jesus Christ who lets you on unsupervised?

Lol I meant Louis and not Lewis in that last post

I haven't been on here regularly for ages and it's like I've never been away. Sadly, I don't mean it's like a welcome return to a place of comfort, it's more like "Here we go again with TRUSSMAN still banging the same boring old anti-Louis drum" How many times have you had a new skin stretched across that thing now TRUSS? I make it about 17 and counting. "Billy Conn BOOM BOOM...Max baer BOOM BOOM...Bum of the Month BOOM BOOM"

Not one single poster can add anything new to this topic, TRUSS just cuts and pastes his five year old argument and everyone else simply repeats their same old replies.

Utterly pointless effort from all parties involved and I include myself in this as there's no way any of you are going to say, "You know what, this one's been done to death, let's try and discuss something new!"

Shame on all of you, especially the OP who should know better but clearly doesn't. Seems fatherhood has lost it's allure already.

What's next, "Calzaghe wasn't all that special"?

Dave I think you should read TRUSSMANS article again, it makes very good, valid points. I agree TRUSS Louis does not have the quality of opposition as Ali but he reigned as champ longer then any heavyweight which makes him top 5 at least.

Idiot boy, I've already read TRUSSMAN's article, about 15 times in the past five years. He's saying nothing new, we get it, he doesn't think Louis deserves the top spot....shut up!

Old stuff| but Louis won thats why he can be number 1
Conn lost

Gotta admit there's a sorta common thread in Truss's stuff. Does he work for the Daily Mail?

I think it speaks volumes for Louis that people are consistently reduced to mentioning fights which he actually won when trying to degrade his achievements. However, if we are going to cast such a seriously critical eye over Louis in such a way, I'd say that having difficulties against a 175 lb Billy Conn is no worse than having difficulties against a 185 lb Henry Cooper, and Louis' perceived limitations makes me ask the question - if he was so overrated, why have none of these so-called 'more talented' Heavyweights ever been able to rule the Heavyweight division with such an iron fist?

Like it or not, there is only one fighter with any kind of claim to match Ali's in the stakes of greatest Heavyweight of them all, and his name is Joe Louis Barrow.

This Barrow guys sounds legit. He fight in colour?

The idea that Louis fought nobodies is a fallacy.

Some time ago, I took the trouble to analyse the records of the usual candidates for a top ten heavies' list and, taking what we might logically conclude to be their ' prime ' ( I detest that word, ) periods, I worked out their records as percentages, their opponents' records as percentages, number of HOF fights and several other statistics.

If we consider Louis' best years to be from the Carnera fight in 1935 to his first retirement in 1949, his opponents' average records come to 86.5%. This is better than Jeffries' opponents ( 85.5% ) considerably better than Johnson's ( 74.6% ) and also superior to Dempsey's ( 81% ) Marciano's ( 78.9% ) Liston's ( 81% ) Frazier's ( 85.5% ) and Foreman's, which are the lowest of the lot ( 73.4% )

Even those whose opponents have superior records in terms of percentages fought men who were, largely, less experienced than Louis' opponents. For example, Larry Holmes' opponents sported an average record of 94.4% but from a mere 18 fights. Louis' opponents during his peak years had averaged 63 fights.

Additionally, Louis fought ten HOF fights during his best years, going 9 - 1 - 0. Jack Johnson is the only fighter to have engaged in more HOF fights and, while Dempsey also fought ten, he lost two of them. Even Ali falls one shy of Louis in HOF competition during his peak years.

I could go on, but as DAVE667 has said, I've argued the other points for Louis countless times, so there would be little point in saying it all over again except, perhaps, that I could make a very good argument for Louis having been the most technically perfect and complete heavyweight who ever lived and that he would be an absolute nailed on certainty for me as one of the two greatest heavies of all time.

I'll save the rest for another day.

So what are you trying to say Windy..?

The problem I have with the whole Conn line of thinking are manifold but to summarise a few of them, firstly Louis won, so for me cannot be too much of a stick to beat him with. Secondly for it to really mean anything it would have to pre-suppose Louis was the only great fighter or indeed heavyweight to labour with a guy he should beat more comfortably, patently this is not the case because Dempsey laboured early doors against Gibbons, Johnson was god awful against Battling Jim Johnson and so on and so on. Also it does overlook Conn was a terrific fighter arguably turning in the performance of a lifetime.

I have Ali top, and don't tend to waver over this as for me wins over Liston, Frazier and Foreman rightly earn him this status but the idea he never struggled against guys he shouldn't have or didn't ever fight guff is simply not the case, and as Windy says in terms of technical perfection you'd be hard pushed to ask for more than Louis bought to the table.

Marciano struggled with Charles
Ali got decked by Cooper
Holmes lost twice to Spinks
Jeffries struggled with Fitzsimmons second time around
Johnson was knocked out by Choynski
Dempsey lost twice to Tunney

The list goes on and on

Not trying to degrade Louis........I have him at no2 I'm just saying that Conn is a big factor in why he should be no higher..

Shame people have to take things out of context......

I could have used Schmelling and the fact that his best opponents beat him If I'd have wanted...

Rocked and outboxed off a 175 guy just isn't good..

Ali > Louis

Tommy > Duran

Mayweather > Manny

Curry > Honey, McCallum, Nunn, Norris


If only Trussy drank Carlsburg.

Its a shame certain people like Dave have to resort to insults when they can either put forward a sensible argument or decline to comment. Trussman i think this is a very good article that once again been hijacked by morons. I for one want to talk boxing TRUSS as you do. We all look forward to your input here TRUSS keep it up.

ps how is the young one coming along?

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Its a shame certain people like Dave have to resort to insults when they can either put forward a sensible argument or decline to comment. Trussman i think this is a very good article that once again been hijacked by morons. I for one want to talk boxing TRUSS as you do. We all look forward to your input here TRUSS keep it up.

ps how is the young one coming along?

You still pretending to be Trussy?

The Internet never ceases to amaze.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Its a shame certain people like Dave have to resort to insults when they can either put forward a sensible argument or decline to comment. Trussman i think this is a very good article that once again been hijacked by morons. I for one want to talk boxing TRUSS as you do. We all look forward to your input here TRUSS keep it up.

ps how is the young one coming along?

You be just a tad creepy sometimes OneTwo.

Being rocked by one of the all time great light heavyweights isn't nearly as bad as being dropped by such a mediocre fighter like Cooper, these things happen, the most important thing is that Ali and Louis won the fights in question. I could pinpoint that Ali lost to 3 of his 5 best opponents but that would be entirely out of context or that he got a few questionnable decisions in his time against Norton and Young.

Rubbish.......Everybody can get knocked down but hey being ouboxed for 12 rounds is a little different..

the rocked stuff is chucked in with the boxing lesson as well you know!!!!

People are incredibly touchy over Louis. I love the man as a human being, but do think his shoe-in as number two heavy is even a bit knee-jerk. He had limitations as a fighter, Truss is perfectly entitled to draw our attention to this fact.

The touchiness develops when comparisons are drawn between one of the greatest ever heavyweight champions who reigned for a decade facing all the best conteners and beating most of them and somebody like Calzaghe who defended a mere portion of a title for a decade against average opposition and has one meaningful SD win over a HoF fighter. Or with statemets like Louis never really beat anybody.

Think you will find if an article is well balanced people are more than willing to debate but the above is simply an overly negative and innaccurate view of Louis.

Take your condescending attitude somewhere else..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Take your condescending attitude somewhere else..

Thus spake the Lord of Irony!

Mate you don't add anything.....

Why bother......No Peter Jackson or Bradley Pryce on here today so get on with your important job!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mate you don't add anything.....

..and you endless harping on about a subject you've already be ridiculed and lambasted for says nothing for you...except that perhaps you're too stupid to know when you're whipped. The fact you've reacted so angrily to the criticism heaped upon you does tend to suggest you're aware of how stupid you are to keep doing it but the inherent masochism you display tends to suggest you actually like being insulted

Why bother......No Peter Jackson or Bradley Pryce on here today so get on with your important job!!

Tis true, the board certainly lacks the level of sophistication and articulation a Peter Jackson article would undoubtedly bring. What a shame you lack the ability to produce anything approaching that standard.

Still, I look forward to reading that article again in another few months when you add a comma or full stop somewhere else and try convince us all it's a new fresh and exciting take on the same old subject.

Good luck with that TRUSS.

I'll make sure I post in a few months then so you're not disappointed...

My guess is that one more disappointment in your life might tip you over the edge.

we wouldn't want that...

Can't criticise Truss too greatly for recycling old articles or subjects close to his heart, Charley Burley's birthday tomorrow, struggle to imagine I will let it pass without paying tribute.

Burley vs Jackson at catchweight?????

Now there is a fight

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'll make sure I post in a few months then so you're not disappointed...

My guess is that one more disappointment in your life might tip you over the edge.

we wouldn't want that...

[list=1][*]

Aww, the so-called the big dog seems to have lost his bite.

I couldn't be more disappointed that I am right now, son, but you go right ahead and try your best. The fact you'd try to tip me over the edge says a lot for you. It'll be fun watching you make an even bigger ass of yourself that you already are. Now...go lick your wounds Rover, we'll throw you a doggy treat when you learn to stop peeing on the floor.

I said "we wouldn't that".....

Repeat it back... so I know that you understand... basic English..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I said "we wouldn't that".....

Repeat it back... so I know that you understand... basic English..

Aw bless, you're trying to convince us that there's no subtext to that comment. Sorry lad but we invented the English language (the clue's in the title) so your efforts to convince us you've mastered it will undoubtedly end in an epic fail....again.

Give it up and have a little dignity if you can!

My article has been hijacked.......

and the perpetrator talks about being dignified!!

You boys shouldnt play so rough...somebody is gonna start crying

Dave Truss, since both of you have not been on here much of late will do the kindly thing and tell you both the mods have not been showing massive tolerance for arguing and the like on here and bans have been handed out, as you both amuse me on occasions would hate to see this happen, so might want to kiss and make up.

No tongues..........

Your article was a disaster waiting to happen, I simply diverted it to it's logical destination...ridicule. Course, I'm certain it would have ended up there without my intervention but time's a'marchin' on and we got sh!t to be getting on with.

Where's your "Baker vs Candlestick maker" article?

In fairness Rowley (and with all the respect due to one such as yourself) I'm quickly reaching the stage where being banned wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Maybe it's just because boxing was in "closed season" but the quality of articles did leave a lot to be desired (hence my absence) and if TRUSSMAN re-hashing the same old guff is what we have in store for the furture, I'd rather not bother if it's all the same.

His Tunney article is fine and dandy but I'm so incredibly bored of reading the same old dross from him.

guys i think you should show more respect and stop insulting each other boxing is a sport that teaches respect so there should be no need for insults in a boxing forum

imo there is not much wrong with this article the poster is just giving his opinion which i agree with the louis is not the number 1 heavyweight

Waingro writes - "imo there is not much wrong with this article"

Oh dear, that says it all right there!

Subject closed...hopefully!

The lady doth protest too much.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The lady doth protest too much.........

Your fault for marrying her

You just can't leave it can you....Son.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You just can't leave it can you....Son.

No, it's pathalogical, but then you seem to suffer with the same affliction...which tends to suggest you're no better than me. Should be interesting to see how long it is before you simply HAVE to retort, thus compounding your situation.

tick...tick...tick...tick...tick...