Joe Louis v the best of the rest. Who wins?

v Ali

v Holmes

v Foreman

v Frazier

v Norton

v Tyson

v Holy

v Lewis

v Spinks

v RJJ

v Hopkins

Just to add Balance

Floyd v

SRL

SRR

Hearns

Duran

JCC

Trinidad

Benitez

Armstrong

B Leonard

Saddler

Angott

Interesting little card. I like Louis against most of these, generally by the short route. Think he gets outclassed by the young Ali, however, outlasted by the older version and mashed by Foreman and Tyson, simply because of the differing styles on offer. The Frazier fight, as with any involving Smokin' Joe, would be worth going a long way to see and depends on whether Frazier can get started before round four. If not, he could lose very early. If so, however, a nasty night for Louis, the result of which I wouldn't like to predict.

As for Floyd, and I've done a couple of these before, reckon he is decisioned by Robinson and Ray Leonard, starched by Tommy, splits a pair of chess matches with Benny Leonard and beats Duran, JCC, Trinidad, Angott and Benitez fairly comfortably. Armstrong is a pick'em cracker at 135 or 147. Doubt Floyd fights Saddler, who was basically a feather who did a bit at 130, but he would have a horrible night of it if it did take place with a 1940s referee. Saddler, with that wingspan, that power and that disregard for the rules, was a handful for any fighter in history at 126/130. With a modern ref, Saddler is DQ'd within three.

In most cases, I'd feel comfortable enough sticking a tenner on the fights concerning Louis. Ali I'd back to decision him going away almost every time, while Foreman and Tyson take advantage of his slow starting and less than fortified chin to take him out by the mid rounds.

On the other hand, I'm absolutely positive that Louis would have taken Norton apart in quick time, and have too much for both Spinks and Hopkins, eventually taking them out when he felt ready to do so.

Jones is a tricky one. The size difference is huge, but if anyone had the gifts and style to make light of that difference, it was Jones. He also hits hard enough to at least make Louis think about what he's doing, too. The problem is that Jones is going to have to go the full distance without getting caught cleanly once, because if Joe clocks him cleanly at any stage, it's over. Jones wasn't averse to retreating to the ropes and letting the other man have a go at his body (see the McCallum and Tarver I fights) and he can't really afford to do that here. I'll go with Louis to get the job done after having had a torrid time of it, much like his first fight with Conn. I guess with his size, power and style, I'd favour Lewis, too, although not with any great conviction.

That leaves us with three fights I'd really consider to be pick 'ems for Louis; Holyfield, Holmes and Frazier. In all three cases, both Louis and the opponent in question have a mix of performances which suggest they would win, as well as performances which suggest they'd lose. Can't imagine too many would lean massively towards one fighter either way for any of those ones?

I think in the two Sugar Rays and Tommy, you've got the three real 'head to head monsters' of Welterweight and I think it's asking just too much of Floyd to beat them considering that he's the naturally smaller man in all cases. I'd see both of the Rays winning competitive but still unquestionable decisions over him. I think he loses a wider decision to Hearns, possibly visiting the canvas on the way, but I still think he's too good to be disgraced and blown out. I could imagine that one being similar-ish to Hearns-Benitez.

I make him a pretty narrow favourite over Duran, while the jobs Whitaker and Randall did on Chavez tell me all I need to know about how that would get on. Chavez could beat back foot movers, but if they had a good inside game to go with it and could do the unthinkable and actually push Chavez back rather than be pushed back by him, as Pea and The Surgeon did, then he was in trouble.

Shuts Trinidad out similar to how Wright did, pips Benitez in a stinker, does the same against Leonard, has a fairly comfortable time of it against Angott and counters Saddler all over the place if Sandy adheres to the rules. Wouldn't like to bet too much either way on fights against Armstrong, though.

Louis' chin wasn't that unfortified when he only lost 1 fight out 61 before he retired. Louis was susceptible to being bowled over because he planted his feet a lot of the time when throwing his own power punches. Ali stayed light on his feet in his prime but his punches were often called pitter patter.

Tyson Fury has been knocked over a few time but like Louis, bar Schmelling and Marciano, he was never in any danger of being KO'd. Fury doesn't have a weak chin he just doesn't know how to set up his bodies mechanics to resist the force of a punch and often gets caught square on.

Louis could beat all of them -- not sure why you have Jones and Hopkins there, though, hardly fair fights. You'd have to favour Ali over him.

SRR and Hearns both stop Floyd. Leonard outboxes him and Duran overruns him. I don't fancy his chances against Trinidad but he conceivably has a chance with the others -- difficult to say. If a dogmeat version of De la Hoya could run him to a SD and Castillo could give him fits then all of these guys could also.

All a bit pie in the sky this stuff. If Frazier hadn't fought Foreman, everyone would be saying that Big George wouldn't have had a prayer against Joe based on their respective showings against Ali.

Everyone said it anyway before Foreman fought Frazier the first time. Joe was a massive favourite in Kingston, weird though it seems from this distance.

I think we have to suppose that we're dealing with the best versions of Louis and Mayweather here. After all, the Louis who pitched up against Schmeling, Godoy and Conn (first time out on each occasion) is going to have his work cut out to beat any of the true heavies in az's list, just as surely as the Mayweather who appeared against Castillo wouldn't get that far with Robinson or Hearns.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Everyone said it anyway before Foreman fought Frazier the first time. Joe was a massive favourite in Kingston, weird though it seems from this distance.

I think we have to suppose that we're dealing with the best versions of Louis and Mayweather here. After all, the Louis who pitched up against Schmeling, Godoy and Conn (first time out on each occasion) is going to have his work cut out to beat any of the true heavies in az's list, just as surely as the Mayweather who appeared against Castillo wouldn't get that far with Robinson or Hearns.

Surely you have to use assume you're using the version that fought his toughest comp. at the weight? The best version of Floyd was against Corrales but a junior lightweight isn't going to have much joy here. At or around welterweight his best win remains Oscar doesn't it? A faded, part-time, overrated fighter who managed to push him close on the cards (I had it much wider personally).

Equally, I'm assuming the Louis from the Schmeling return. He'd have proven a real menace against any of that lot.

Are we really starting to suggest that Louis' chin was anything more than serviceable?

I chose my words carefully in my post as it's clear that Joe's chin wasn't glass, but it sure as hell wasn't iron, either. What he did have were fantastic powers of recuperation when he was in a spot of bother, but let's not pretend that him being shaken up / put over multiple times by the likes of Walcott, Galento, Braddock, Conn, Schmeling etc was always down to his balance or positioning.

Two stoppage defeats in a career is nothing to be ashamed of, and he dug himself out of some considerable holes in fights where he was hurt - but never did he face a puncher and finisher of Foreman or Tyson's calibre. The closest he came in his best years (or close to them) was arguably Max Baer, by then drifting away from boxing and who never really managed to give Joe's chin a proper examination. Buddy Baer also sent him through the ropes lest we forget, albeit the calmness with which Louis recovered, climbed back in and went about his business again was amazing.

If Louis had got himself in to a similar spot of bother against a Foreman or Tyson, I make his chances of recovering a lot smaller. Tyson was an immaculate finisher, and the only man I can remember seeing being hurt by anything like a peak Foreman but staying in the fight all the way afterwards was Young.

88Chris05 wrote:Are we really starting to suggest that Louis' chin was anything more than serviceable?

I chose my words carefully in my post as it's clear that Joe's chin wasn't glass, but it sure as hell wasn't iron, either. What he did have were fantastic powers of recuperation when he was in a spot of bother, but let's not pretend that him being shaken up / put over multiple times by the likes of Walcott, Galento, Braddock, Conn, Schmeling etc was always down to his balance or positioning.

Two stoppage defeats in a career is nothing to be ashamed of, and he dug himself out of some considerable holes in fights where he was hurt - but never did he face a puncher and finisher of Foreman or Tyson's calibre. The closest he came in his best years (or close to them) was arguably Max Baer, by then drifting away from boxing and who never really managed to give Joe's chin a proper examination. Buddy Baer also sent him through the ropes lest we forget, albeit the calmness with which Louis recovered, climbed back in and went about his business again was amazing.

If Louis had got himself in to a similar spot of bother against a Foreman or Tyson, I make his chances of recovering a lot smaller. Tyson was an immaculate finisher, and the only man I can remember seeing being hurt by anything like a peak Foreman but staying in the fight all the way afterwards was Young.

Ali's chin was concrete but he was wobbled, put over and shook up plenty in his career also.

Baer was a hellacious hitter and just as Foreman and Tyson could hurt Louis, Joe had every chance of putting those two to bed himself. Again, all a bit wishy washy this stuff.

Strongback wrote:Louis' chin wasn't that unfortified when he only lost 1 fight out 61 before he retired.  Louis was susceptible to being bowled over because he planted his feet a lot of the time when throwing his own power punches.  Ali stayed light on his feet in his prime but his punches were often called pitter patter.

Tyson Fury has been knocked over a few time but like Louis, bar Schmelling and Marciano, he was never in any danger of being KO'd.  Fury doesn't have a weak chin he just doesn't know how to set up his bodies mechanics to resist the force of a punch and often gets caught square on.

Got to pull you on that one -- Fury was very nearly stopped against both Pajkic and Cunningham -- his knees dipped in both fights.

Ali for me comfortably outpoints Louis,but he ko's Norton,Rjj,Hookins,and Spinks,and quite possibly takes Holyfield out.The rest are 50/50 fights Holmes for me is one of the greatest Heavyweights in history and in full flow is a nightmare for anyone.

Much is been made about Louis's chin, against fighters like Tyson,Foreman and Frazier but equally Louis had a vast arsenal of punches,does Tyson,Foreman,and Frazier take Louis's accumulation of power punches, Louis's combination punching is one of the best in the business, and much as I rate Lewis he got took out early by 2 fighters he was expected to beat comfortably.

Now on to Mayweather,had many discussions on how he gets on against Leonard, my argument, Leonard naturally bigger,harder hitting,faster and great stamina,so Leonard by decision or late stoppage,Robinson too big for Mayweather and could take him out late on,Hearns right hand detonates on Mayweathers chin and its all over and Hearns was an excellent boxer with a superb jab, so Hearns by KO or decision.
Mayweather against Duran is a tough one to call,many would see Mayweather winning this one easily, I don't, I feel Duran more than holds his own Mayweather possibly by close decision.
Armstrong and Benny Leonard are a hard fight for anyone in history both 50/50 fights for me, and Mayweather decisions the rest but not as easily as some may think.
Mayweather is so far ahead in todays game but he's never faced anyone in the same league as the fighters mentioned.

88Chris05 wrote:Are we really starting to suggest that Louis' chin was anything more than serviceable?

I chose my words carefully in my post as it's clear that Joe's chin wasn't glass, but it sure as hell wasn't iron, either. What he did have were fantastic powers of recuperation when he was in a spot of bother, but let's not pretend that him being shaken up / put over multiple times by the likes of Walcott, Galento, Braddock, Conn, Schmeling etc was always down to his balance or positioning.

Two stoppage defeats in a career is nothing to be ashamed of, and he dug himself out of some considerable holes in fights where he was hurt - but never did he face a puncher and finisher of Foreman or Tyson's calibre. The closest he came in his best years (or close to them) was arguably Max Baer, by then drifting away from boxing and who never really managed to give Joe's chin a proper examination. Buddy Baer also sent him through the ropes lest we forget, albeit the calmness with which Louis recovered, climbed back in and went about his business again was amazing.

If Louis had got himself in to a similar spot of bother against a Foreman or Tyson, I make his chances of recovering a lot smaller. Tyson was an immaculate finisher, and the only man I can remember seeing being hurt by anything like a peak Foreman but staying in the fight all the way afterwards was Young.

What I am saying is there is a difference between getting knocked down and getting knocked bandy where you lose your senses.  Watch how controlled Louis is after the knock downs.  He was never really that hurt so he didn't need massive powers of recuperation.  Louis' brain just didn't get scrabbled.  

The concept of a fighter getting knocked over because he has planted his feet is one of the first things I learned in the gym.  Standing flat foot when a punch lands means it travels all the way down to your heels. There is nothing to dissipate the energy of the punch, you take its full force.  Standing too square on with little distance between the feet accentuates the problem.

Schmelling got videos of Louis as we know and he was very well prepared for his fight with an 18 month novice.  Schmelling won't have lasted a few rounds against a more experienced Louis.


The Conn fight is also thrown at Louis.  Louis down on the cards by two rounds at the end of the twelfth needed a big finish.   we know Louis managed to catch up with Conn.  Maybe a comparison to a fight that went a similar way might be interesting.   Lets take Leonard v Hearns I.  In that fight based on the judges cards Leonard need a KO to win going into the 13th.  Ray managed to turn it around in the 13th and finished it in the 14th.  Based on that performance Leonard is given great credit for sticking with the fight until the opportunity cam.  Louis does the same against Conn but paradoxically he gets eternally criticized.  It's not like Conn wasn't an all time great and Louis was no bigger than a cruiser weight.


Regarding the choice of words I would read the words "less than" as somewhat disparaging.  An example: "Johnny is less than intelligent."

Strongback wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Are we really starting to suggest that Louis' chin was anything more than serviceable?

I chose my words carefully in my post as it's clear that Joe's chin wasn't glass, but it sure as hell wasn't iron, either. What he did have were fantastic powers of recuperation when he was in a spot of bother, but let's not pretend that him being shaken up / put over multiple times by the likes of Walcott, Galento, Braddock, Conn, Schmeling etc was always down to his balance or positioning.

Two stoppage defeats in a career is nothing to be ashamed of, and he dug himself out of some considerable holes in fights where he was hurt - but never did he face a puncher and finisher of Foreman or Tyson's calibre. The closest he came in his best years (or close to them) was arguably Max Baer, by then drifting away from boxing and who never really managed to give Joe's chin a proper examination. Buddy Baer also sent him through the ropes lest we forget, albeit the calmness with which Louis recovered, climbed back in and went about his business again was amazing.

If Louis had got himself in to a similar spot of bother against a Foreman or Tyson, I make his chances of recovering a lot smaller. Tyson was an immaculate finisher, and the only man I can remember seeing being hurt by anything like a peak Foreman but staying in the fight all the way afterwards was Young.

What I am saying is there is a difference between getting knocked down and getting knocked bandy where you lose your senses.  Watch how controlled Louis is after the knock downs.  He was never really that hurt so he didn't need massive powers of recuperation.  Louis' brain just didn't get scrabbled.  

The concept of a fighter getting knocked over because he has planted his feet is one of the first things I learned in the gym.  Standing flat foot when a punch lands means it travels all the way down to your heels. There is nothing to dissipate the energy of the punch, you take its full force.  Standing too square on with little distance between the feet accentuates the problem.

Schmelling got videos of Louis as we know and he was very well prepared for his fight with an 18 month novice.  Schmelling won't have lasted a few rounds against a more experienced Louis.


The Conn fight is also thrown at Louis.  Louis down on the cards by two rounds at the end of the twelfth needed a big finish.   we know Louis managed to catch up with Conn.  Maybe a comparison to a fight that went a similar way might be interesting.   Lets take Leonard v Hearns I.  In that fight based on the judges cards Leonard need a KO to win going into the 13th.  Ray managed to turn it around in the 13th and finished it in the 14th.  Based on that performance Leonard is given great credit for sticking with the fight until the opportunity cam.   Louis does the same against Conn but paradoxically he gets eternally criticized.  It's not like Conn wasn't an all time great and Louis was no bigger than a cruiser weight.


Regarding the choice of words I would read the words "less than" as somewhat disparaging.  An example: "Johnny is less than intelligent."

Fair point Strongback, Larry Holmes is another prime example of a fighter who could be put down but who had great powers of recovery,you would hardly call him chinny though.

Well, you saw my comment regarding Louis' whiskers as disparaging. That wasn't my intention. As I said, Louis' chin wasn't terrible, but it'll take a lot of convincing to make me think it was anything better than merely decent overall.

All fighters get tagged, and all of them get tagged with their feet planted at some stage. Despite this, some are still able to digest a punch better than others and for me, Louis just wasn't one of the very best in this department. You and Haz debate Louis really well, but whenever one of his apparent weaknesses or unconvincing moments in his career is mentioned, there always seems to be a mitigating factor. I don't think I've heard either of you acknowledge any single flaw, no matter how slight, in Louis' arsenal so far.

He's being painted as absolutely perfect in all areas, but to me he just wasn't. Magnificent fighter, but not without his draw backs, same as basically every other fighter who has ever laced them up.

As for your comparison between Conn-Louis and Hearns-Leonard, I think you're barking up the wrong tree somewhat. Conn may have been the shortest priced challenger to Louis since Schmeling three years beforehand, but the bettings odds were apparently never any closer than 11-5 having opened at 18-5. Louis was roundly expected to do away with the light-punching challenger who was 25 lb lighter.

Hearns, on the other hand, was a narrow betting favourite against Leonard, wasn't overmatched in terms of size or weight, punched like a mule kicks, boxed like a dream and was unbeaten! There was nothing particularly surprising about Leonard being outboxed or stunned by Hearns at various times in their fight, whereas Conn outboxing Louis for so long and making relative light of the physical disadvantages, as well as visibly hurting and rocking him a couple of times, just wasn't meant to happen.

A great victory for Louis which tells us a lot about his heart, character and coolness under pressure, but not comparable to Leonard-Hearns, at least not in the way that you're alluding to, I feel.

hazharrison wrote:

Strongback wrote:Louis' chin wasn't that unfortified when he only lost 1 fight out 61 before he retired.  Louis was susceptible to being bowled over because he planted his feet a lot of the time when throwing his own power punches.  Ali stayed light on his feet in his prime but his punches were often called pitter patter.

Tyson Fury has been knocked over a few time but like Louis, bar Schmelling and Marciano, he was never in any danger of being KO'd.  Fury doesn't have a weak chin he just doesn't know how to set up his bodies mechanics to resist the force of a punch and often gets caught square on.

Got to pull you on that one -- Fury was very nearly stopped against both Pajkic and Cunningham -- his knees dipped in both fights.

My view is Fury got caught square-on on both occasions by an overhand right he didn't see. He got up straight away after the Pajkic KD and composed himself. He was cognisant enough to hold on which is always the right thing to do when knocked over. The Cunningham knock down was similar. Neither of those fighters has much of a punch and Fury has been in with bigger hitters. I see those knockdowns as purely being the result of a very basic fighter not being able to implement basic boxing technique. Fury was also acting the clown in both fighters.

Michael spinks vs Joe Louis is the most intriguing matchup i can think of........

A 205 pound awkward spinks could be a nightmare for Joe considering Conn was.......Love to see that......

Agree that Foreman and Tyson blast him out...........Lewis bombs him out too.........Holy out muscles him...........

Louis was a small heavy and back in the day they were all small heavies.........So I find it hard believing he beats the Klits or a fit Page or spoon.........

Louis was another era...............It's just not fair to expect him to survive with the beasties we have now........Like Dempsey he was a product of his times.

88Chris05 wrote:Well, you saw my comment regarding Louis' whiskers as disparaging. That wasn't my intention. As I said, Louis' chin wasn't terrible, but it'll take a lot of convincing to make me think it was anything better than merely decent overall.

All fighters get tagged, and all of them get tagged with their feet planted at some stage. Despite this, some are still able to digest a punch better than others and for me, Louis just wasn't one of the very best in this department. You and Haz debate Louis really well, but whenever one of his apparent weaknesses or unconvincing moments in his career is mentioned, there always seems to be a mitigating factor. I don't think I've heard either of you acknowledge any single flaw, no matter how slight, in Louis' arsenal so far.

He's being painted as absolutely perfect in all areas, but to me he just wasn't. Magnificent fighter, but not without his draw backs, same as basically every other fighter who has ever laced them up.

As for your comparison between Conn-Louis and Hearns-Leonard, I think you're barking up the wrong tree somewhat. Conn may have been the shortest priced challenger to Louis since Schmeling three years beforehand, but the bettings odds were apparently never any closer than 11-5 having opened at 18-5. Louis was roundly expected to do away with the light-punching challenger who was 25 lb lighter.

Hearns, on the other hand, was a narrow betting favourite against Leonard, wasn't overmatched in terms of size or weight, punched like a mule kicks, boxed like a dream and was unbeaten! There was nothing particularly surprising about Leonard being outboxed or stunned by Hearns at various times in their fight, whereas Conn outboxing Louis for so long and making relative light of the physical disadvantages, as well as visibly hurting and rocking him a couple of times, just wasn't meant to happen.

A great victory for Louis which tells us a lot about his heart, character and coolness under pressure, but not comparable to Leonard-Hearns, at least not in the way that you're alluding to, I feel.

I'll make the same point I did yesterday. Heavyweights get knocked over regularly due to the power of their punches. As the weight classes go up there are more knock outs. There isn't a great heavyweight who hasn't been down.

Conn was two rounds up on the judges cards. I think its a bit of a myth that Conn punched Louis' head off for 12 rounds. As Louis said after the fight Conn's punches didn't hurt him it was just he was just getting hit with too many of them.

I can see comparisons with the Hearns fight because Leonard was down on the cards and needed a KO. The bookies can't help you when the bell rings for the first round. While Louis was bigger than Conn I note Louis also beat fighters 3 stone heavier than him.

As long as a couple of people have Louis ranked at 25 I will continue to be uncompromising. Luckily I don't have this argument on other boards.

There is no comparison to the Leonard fight........As Conn tried to knock Louis out and got caught......

Leonard was the aggressor against Hearns..........

If after staggering Louis Conn had played it safe.....he wins simple as........Took liberties which say's it all......

I can't see Hearns KOing FMJ, Is there's' a blue print for this fight it would be Hearns v Benetiz, but with FMJ making it a closer affair, I don't like Mayweather! but his chin seems excellent on the rare occasion it's been tested, and he''so hardly going to stick out against Hearns, closer fight than most believe it would be.

I can see Hearns knocking out anybody If that right hand lands.........

I can see Hearns beating every fighter from 147 -160 in history unless he's caught......

Hearns with a chin........For me is the best fighter ever........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:There is no comparison to the Leonard fight........As Conn tried to knock Louis out and got caught......

Leonard was the aggressor against Hearns..........

If after staggering Louis Conn had played it safe.....he wins simple as........Took liberties which say's it all......

So if Tommy coasts he doesn't win?

Tommy was better than Leonard but blew it just like Conn. Leonard then waited a hundred years to give Tommy a rematch and needed a robbery to get a draw.

Leonard is No.6 ever though he was a part time fighter.

Tommy wasn't allowed to coast.........

Conn went for the finish not Louis.............Nothing to suggest Louis hadn't accepted his fate and was grateful for a present........

Conn blew it.......Leonard took it.

It's not his chin that's the problem Truss, more his tendency to not to stick to the right game plan, his tendency to lose concentration, and his willingness to brawl instead of box, and a defense that wasn't as good as a fighter of his calibre should have had. I agree that with his talent and his physical gifts he could have been even greater than he was.

Agreed....Hearns with a brain and a chin..........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tommy wasn't allowed to coast.........

Conn went for the finish not Louis.............Nothing to suggest Louis hadn't accepted his fate and was grateful for a present........

Conn blew it.......Leonard took it.

You're wearing rose tinted there kid.  Tommy was 3 rounds up.  All he had to do was spoil and coasts.

I suppose Louis didn't go for the KO, it was a phantom punch that sent Conn to the canvas.

You're not making sense son.

Let's not quibble.............

Me I saw Leonard come out firing combos galore in the 13th..........Hard to spoil when you're knackered and under that kind of assault.....

Me I saw Louis legs do a dance and conn look for a finish and getting hurt doing so.......

Okay that's what I saw..........

Now take your stupid sarcasm and shove it up your a**e..............

Just stop trying to wind me up constantly.........Boring..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tommy wasn't allowed to coast.........

Conn went for the finish not Louis.............Nothing to suggest Louis hadn't accepted his fate and was grateful for a present........

Conn blew it.......Leonard took it.

Spot on. Conn got carried away and blew it. SRL had one option left to him. He took it. How anyone can compare conn to hearns needs to apologise.

Great posts capt and Chris.

Spinks v Louis is the fight that intrigues me the most. It would be the most competitive. I fancy Mike to win via UD. Just too awkward and fast for Joe. Ditto RJJ who would school Joe. Holmes would out jab him and ko him late. Lets not forget that Larry had the best jab in hw history and the second best in boxing history behind Hearns (Tommy not Eddie).

I can't see Floyd being kod. SRR SRL and hearns all win. Too big and fast. But Floyd beats the rest. A tremendous fight with Duran with Floyd's accuracy being the difference maker. Hard to score in that it would be quality against quantity.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I can see Hearns knocking out anybody If that right hand lands.........

I can see Hearns beating every fighter from 147 -160 in history unless he's caught......

Hearns with a chin........For me is the best fighter ever........

Pretty much agree with all of that, in my opinion if he had been around in today's weaker era he would dominate boxing so completely that we would be saying that he is top 3 of all time and maybe Ray Robinsons biggest challenger for the greatest ever, shame for him to have shared a time with so many other great fighters. Floyd, GGG, Manny, Bradley, JMM and all the rest would be in his shadow and I dont see any of them having the skills or the chin to deal with his huge power and massive reach any lighter man moving up to challenge him would just get blown away the top class operators like Mayweathers, JMMs and Mannys of this world would not take his shot in a million years just too big and too powerful for them and the current middleweights just simply would not be good enough.

Great for the fans that Hearns was around when he was though. Those were unforgettable fights. They made Hearns the legend he is.

catchweight wrote:Great for the fans that Hearns was around when he was though. Those were unforgettable fights. They made Hearns the legend he is.

Boxing flourishes if great fighters fight one another at their best and at their best weight. Granting Mayweather with a top ten place is more or less rewarding him for doing the opposite.

Imagine how poor boxing history would have been if Ali, Frazier and Foreman stayed away from one another defending alphabet belts. Or the Fab Four.

It was the boxing in the 1980s that really drew me in as a fan. Primarily the fab four but there were other brilliant fighters around and when Tyson arrived the buzz was incredible. To be honest I dont think anything in boxing over the last decade would have drawn me in as a fan if I wasnt already a fan. Its dull by comparison to the 1980s and 1990s. Watered down or something. I kind of lost interest during the tail end of Lennox Lewis reign. It was really Hatton that brought back my interest. Im not one for lists but but I dont see how Mayweather deserves to be ranked above the fab four guys. If you put any of the fab four around in Mayweathers era I would bet they would absolute dominate the boxers Mayweather fought. But if you take Mayweather and put him in the 1980s and pit him against all the top names from then then really he is not going to look anywhere near as good. I could see him having plenty of losses. Boxing is much better when the very best fighters face each other to see who is the champion. Its much more exciting that way. A lot of Mayweathers opponents were past it when they boxed so he had things much easier as he was against weaker competition in general.

Joe Louis against Hopkins? Sweet Jesus.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Michael spinks vs Joe Louis is the most intriguing matchup i can think of........

A 205 pound awkward spinks could be a nightmare for Joe considering Conn was.......Love to see that......

Agree that Foreman and Tyson blast him out...........Lewis bombs him out too.........Holy out muscles him...........

Louis was a small heavy and back in the day they were all small heavies.........So I find it hard believing he beats the Klits or a fit Page or spoon.........

Louis was another era...............It's just not fair to expect him to survive with the beasties we have now........Like Dempsey he was a product of his times.

Well what the hell were Baer and Carnera (midgets) I guess you chose to forget them. Find it a mystery about super heavies and old time fighters yet the rule stops at Ali a smallish heavyweight (in comparison to today) and a prime fighter over 50years ago. Ali v Louis is no foregone conclusion , Louis has the style to give Ali hell and may catch up with him in the championship rounds.

Surprised so many are picking Mayweather to pitch a shut out on Trinidad on what form ? Felix was a tremendous puncher at Welter and a big long guy, you would have to say he's victory against Vargas far surpaasses Mayweathers defensive display against Alvarez, couldn't see Floyd keeping that precious 0 in the late 90s early noughties welters, Mosley, Oscar, Trinidad, Quartey, Forrest etc.. Thats of course he didn't avoid them like the plague.

Cheers Rodders

catchweight wrote:Joe Louis against Hopkins? Sweet Jesus.

Why not? He would be the same size as Conn? Perhaps bigger and definitely more intelligent.

azania wrote:

catchweight wrote:Joe Louis against Hopkins? Sweet Jesus.

Why not?  He would be the same size as Conn?  Perhaps bigger and definitely more intelligent.

Louis would do to Hopkins what Frazier did to Bob Foster,Hopkins has only moved up to Light Heavy in the twilight of his career.

Nico the gman wrote:

azania wrote:

catchweight wrote:Joe Louis against Hopkins? Sweet Jesus.

Why not?  He would be the same size as Conn?  Perhaps bigger and definitely more intelligent.

Louis would do to Hopkins what Frazier did to Bob Foster,Hopkins has only moved up to Light Heavy in the twilight of his career.

Hopkins would spend most of the fight rolling around the floor holding his crotch, shoulder or the back of his head in an amazing display of "gamesmanship".

Hopkins is also a fair bit slower than Conn, he's more intelligent but he is a completely different fighter. Jones would be a better comparison.

hazharrison wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

azania wrote:

catchweight wrote:Joe Louis against Hopkins? Sweet Jesus.

Why not?  He would be the same size as Conn?  Perhaps bigger and definitely more intelligent.

Louis would do to Hopkins what Frazier did to Bob Foster,Hopkins has only moved up to Light Heavy in the twilight of his career.

Hopkins would spend most of the fight rolling around the floor holding his crotch, shoulder or the back of his head in an amazing display of "gamesmanship".

Mostly on his back once Louis hit him. Hopkins was never even a particularly brilliant light heavyweight. Overrated technical ability unless spoiling is considered great technique.

SRL, SRR and Hearns all beat Floyd, Duran and B Leonard are 50:50s. Armstrong 40:60.

Rest Floyd beats.

You don't keep winning at 48 if you're not a brilliant technician, he didn't spoil overly in any of his 175lb fights other than Calzaghe and Wright.

Way overrated technically. Spoils the life out of a fight when he actually face a skilled technical boxer. His own technical ability cant cope so he turns it into a stink fest. Taylor, Jones, Calzaghe, Dawson. Even a fat Winky Wright he had to rely on headbutting and wrestling to nick a narrow win.

What about Trinidad, Pavlik, Pascal, Tarver, De La Hoya, Allen, Brown and Joppy?

He adapts his style depending on the opponent, Calzaghe wasn't a technical fighter but he had speed and work rate where a reasonable tactic is to spoil. He's had his shocking fights but to suggest he isn't technically brilliant is just falacy.

He is overrated technically. He is fine against more one dimensional fighters like Pavlik or Trinidad who were big punchers coming up from smaller weights to face him. But against slicker boxers his technical ability is nowhere near as good as he is portrayed. He is reduced to trying to spoil his way through fights and usually loses. He is a crafty fighter who knows how to spoil and good at identifying his opponents strengths and weaknesses but he isnt as good technically as he is made out and a lot of his spoiling is passed off by people as evidence of great technical ability when it isnt.

Hopkins for me is lucky to be fighting in one of the worst lightheavy era's I can remember,effective but awful fighter to watch.

Trinidad is one dimensional? What a k.n.o.b.

Yes a bg punching but one dimensional fighter. Thanks for confirming Im right again.

Very much confirmed.

Yes. I doubt you ave ever even watched him fight. In fact I doubt you watch any boxing seeing as you spend your life on here instead writing stuff designed to provoke up arguments for your own amusements. Sad man.

In fairness Trinidad and Pavlik are both very one dimensional, take away Titos left hand and he looks half the fighter but that said it takes in my opinion a brilliant technician to do it.