Balance: Napoles & Louis

by hazharrison Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:01 am

First topic message reminder :

Another Wylie video here:

http://www.thefightcity.com/practical-precision-jose-napoles-joe-louis/

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:28 am

Lets not compare the early years of fighters separated by some 80 years eh Strongy, completely different times, Louis had fought 24 times in that period which would be inconceivable nowadays. The context is that you're very quick to make an excuse for Louis who is coincidentally the only pre 2010 boxer you ever actually discuss.

by hazharrison Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:34 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:A better comparison would be Louis getting dominated by Schmeling, Max is a notch or two above Jones but i'm sure that loss would be dismissed as Louis not being ready, being too green etc.

Louis had been a pro 23 months when he took a terrible drubbing from Schmeling - a former heavyweight champion and a guy McGrain ranked the 21st best heavyweight of all time.

It would be ridiculous to suggest that Louis had fully developed at this point - as it would be to suggest Ali was the full package against Jones (who, incidentally, he hadn't yet faced at a similar juncture in his career). Where was Larry Holmes two years in? He fought Charlie Green (13-14); Foreman? Stamford Harris 14-22-2. Lennox? Mike Weaver.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:44 am

If McGrain says he's the 21st best of all time then he must be good and he had such an exalted reign as champion, between Tunney and Louis all the champions are pretty insignificant such was the dirge of talent.

by hazharrison Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:45 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Iffy in your opinion, he got the rub against Norton but trying to say Jones was robbed is scraping the barrel even for you Haz.

It's not double standards because Ali beat far better opposition than Louis so his more ignominious showings are easier to overlook and they tended to be against genuine Heavyweights past his best. We're not talking about Ali struggling with say Foster slap bang in the middle of his prime which we are with Louis.

You and Strongy may think you're balancing up what is a balanced viewpoint on Louis but you've gone so far the other way that your portrayal doesn't represent the reality at all. A superb technically gifted Heavyweight for his time who struggled in fights he shouldn't have and didn't fight the greatest of opposition.

Norton was flat out robbed against Ali (3rd fight). Jones wasn't robbed (I haven't suggested it was a robbery - it was a close fight) but he was certainly hard done to.

Your second point is nonsense. Ali ranks above Louis because he slayed bigger dragons. That doesn't disguise the fact that he benefitted from a number of iffy decisions in his career - far more than Louis. Yet Louis is pilloried on here for the Walcott fight! If you're willing to overlook Norton and Young, don't then give me Walcott.

Louis very probably overlooked Conn - a little guy he probably figured wouldn't stand up to his power. Which great heavyweight hasn't overlooked an opponent?

by Strongback Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:46 am

milkyboy wrote:
Strongback wrote:
milkyboy wrote:
Strongback wrote:To value Louis people must first begin with his offensive skills which are second to no fighter. His KO punch in both hands at short range is unequalled in the sport. People talk about Louis' economical footwork, how many of today's fighters can stay within punching range and not get hit when on the offensive. We have seen Floyd Jr stand in range in recent fights as his legs are aging and he is shipping an awful lot of punches, this given I have read in many 606v2 lists that Floyd is a greater fighter than Ray Leonard. Not everything written around here makes sense. I have read Joffre being ranked as high as 7th while Louis is ranked 25th. How does that make sense?

Joe Louis is the text book on offensive fighting and that is his genius. At 14 stone he also felled fighters the size of Wlad and many of his best opponents are too easily dismissed around here. Louis still has the stat records all these years later and he was fighting a much higher caliber of opponent than Wlad is today.

It is easy to pick on a fighters perceived weakness but I feel we need to be more generous in assessing his best attributes.

Louis was 6'2 and weighed 200lb in his early reign and c 205 generally in his prime. That wasn't small for his era. Taller but not significantly lighter than punchers like Frazier, shavers, Tyson, who all felled a few trees decades later. Ali himself was sub 210 for a fair few of his earlier title fights. The giants louis knocked out... Carnera, buddy Baer, Simon? Hardly a who's who is it?

Here's the ring 100.
Http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_100_Greatest_Punchers_of_All-Time!

First living fighter at no. 9, my bad.

The mcgrain piece got debated at length on here I think? His definition of composite being, more a mix of skill and power. On that basis lewis is certainly right up there. On one punch power... I think Braddock said max Baer hit harder than Louis, just Louis hit him hard and often, which probably is a fair analysis of one punch power v 'composite'.

I was making the point Louis beat fighters as big as Wlad.

I never said Louis was the biggest puncher of all time, I said he was the best puncher of all time. There is a difference. I have never suggested he had a single shot with more power than Shavers.

The focus of my posts has been on Louis' technical genius as a puncher so I think you have muddied the milk on this one.

The Ring list is The "Greatest" Puncher of all time and not the hardest/most powerful puncher of all time.

There are fighters in the Top 20 that were current at the time. There is a need for some historical context and guys fighting currently will generally be judged down the road. The fact the names at the top are there up to 100 years later must give some credence to their position.

well i don't have the article to see their entry criteria strongy, but yes i'm confused.

So 'greatest puncher' is the greatest fighters who can also punch? greatest 'composite' punchers? Greatest technical fighters who are hard hitters? Or is just plain old Greatest fighters, because lets face it, all fighters punch (except audley harrison and david haye if he's fighting wlad) irrespective of how hard they hit.

There was silly old me, thinking with george foreman and earnie shavers in it and a whole bunch of sluggers, it was a list of who hit the hardest. I'm not really sure how you differentiate between boxing technique and power when defining best puncher (clearly there'a something ok with your technique if it delivers maximum power). And I'm not entirely sure where the line between composite puncher and heavy handed boxers is, but if its mcgrain's definition of composite puncher you're adhering to, as i said earlier, no issue. Louis certainly had a deadly attacking arsenal.

Anyway I'll let the louis/conn kerfuffle run its natural course

Re lists, they always seem to have a mix of old favourites and flavours of the month... who slip down over the years.

In the game of Trump Cards the FACT card always trumps SARCASM card. Wink

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:51 am

Wait a second Ali must have overlooked Norton in the third fight despite having real problems twice already, that would be a BS excuse wouldn't it.

That point isn't nonsense Haz, it is the very basis of why Ali is rightfully ranked higher. Fighting Poopie and struggling against Poopie is different to struggling with lesser opposition when you've been beating the top men consistently.

If either of them can use complacency as an excuse which neither of them can then Ali is the more likely, when you're used to massive events it must be tricky to get up for lesser fights. We can use the complacency excuse for any boxer we like it but sometimes it's not an excuse for struggling in fights you should be waltzing through.

by hazharrison Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:54 am

superflyweight wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:As DH has just said, Ali was an emerging contender when he fought Jones, not a peak-of-his-powers champion who was four years in to his reign as Louis was when Conn gave him fits. I'm struggling to see any reason why it should be used to try to prevent anyone having to address Louis' problems in that fight. Not sure what Ali weighed for the Jones fight, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have had anything like a 25 lb advantage as Louis did, either.

Besides, Ali's struggles in that fight get badly overstated. He won the fight over the ten rounds and much of the controversy, for me, stemmed simply from the fact that he was fighting a popular New Yorker at the Garden; Jones had fought there countless times, whereas I'm pretty sure that was only Ali's second bout at the Garden and his first time headlining a fight there. Ali was hurt in the opener but after that was appreciably the better man and I don't see how anyone could score that fight to Jones.

On the other hand, Louis was losing rounds to Conn, and lots of them. Appreciate the cards showed that he didn't necessarily have to stop Conn to retain his title, but I felt the official scores were a bit kind to Louis and in a fairly-scored fight he'd have needed to stop Conn to win - and he did of course, so all credit to him. But if you're going to extoll the virtues of his composite punching, exquisite balance, underrated and highly effective footwork and classy ring IQ (which Haz and Strongy have talked up in this very thread) then you can't dodge the question of why he struggled so badly against a 175 pounder, albeit a very fast, busy and tenacious one. Speed can go a long way, but should it really have caused Louis all those problems given his aforementioned qualities and size advantage?

On a final note, Louis gets no extra leeway for apparently underestimating Conn beforehand. Not interested in that excuse under any circumstances, really, but Conn was Louis' shortest-priced challenger for three years (13-8 by fight night) and was on an uncharacteristic run of knockouts in the build up, too. If Louis was complacent, more fool him given those circumstances. But I tend to think it's more just a convenient excuse.

I think a valid argument can be made for Jones. Here were the ringside scores:

Unofficial Scorecards:

AP: 5-4-1 Jones

UPI: 6-3-1 Clay

Long Beach Press-Telegram: 7-1-2 Clay

Oakland Tribune: 5-4-1 Jones

AP poll of 15 writers at ringside: 7 for Clay, 5 for Jones and 3 even

UPI poll of 25 writers at ringside: 13 for Jones, 10 for Clay and 2 even

How many heavyweight champions managed to retain their edge as long as Louis did? Many felt he'd lost his mojo leading up to the Conn fight. And since when did losing rounds become a crime?

Conn - a great fighter - fought the fight of his life. Louis, though, reeled him in eventually - he made Conn come to him and then knocked him out (and then repeated it). Louis probably underestimated him but got him in the end.

Incredibly generous view of proceedings.

Louis's game was built around drawing opponents to him. He didn't chase down fleet footed fighters - perhaps one of the reasons the Conn performance is blown out of proportion (certainly on here).

by hazharrison Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:58 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Wait a second Ali must have overlooked Norton in the third fight despite having real problems twice already, that would be a BS excuse wouldn't it.

That point isn't nonsense Haz, it is the very basis of why Ali is rightfully ranked higher. Fighting Poopie and struggling against Poopie is different to struggling with lesser opposition when you've been beating the top men consistently.

If either of them can use complacency as an excuse which neither of them can then Ali is the more likely, when you're used to massive events it must be tricky to get up for lesser fights. We can use the complacency excuse for any boxer we like it but sometimes it's not an excuse for struggling in fights you should be waltzing through.

Your arguments lack context. Ali wasn't unmotivated against Norton - he was damaged goods in with a guy he couldn't ever fathom out.

That's plainly different to Louis - an imperious champion who was blowing everyone away. How often do fighters (at any weight) on that sort of run maintain their edge?

And to suggest Conn was garbage is just plain ignorant.

by Strongback Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:04 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Wait a second Ali must have overlooked Norton in the third fight despite having real problems twice already, that would be a BS excuse wouldn't it.

That point isn't nonsense Haz, it is the very basis of why Ali is rightfully ranked higher. Fighting Poopie and struggling against Poopie is different to struggling with lesser opposition when you've been beating the top men consistently.

If either of them can use complacency as an excuse which neither of them can then Ali is the more likely, when you're used to massive events it must be tricky to get up for lesser fights. We can use the complacency excuse for any boxer we like it but sometimes it's not an excuse for struggling in fights you should be waltzing through.

To call Conn "Poopie" shows you are a disingenerous person with a black heart.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:08 am

Can you prove Louis was unmotivated but Ali wasn't because it just seems like an injudicious opinion lacking any supporting evidence. Either way it's still not an excuse.

Billy Conn stands out on Joe Louis' record, for any subsequent Heavyweight champion he would not, being a great light heavyweight doesn't mean a lot against the big guys. I would not try to suggest that Bob Foster was anything other than a decent win for Frazier or Ali, very few make the jump and maintain their class.

by Strongback Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:17 am

Spinks did ok stepping up from light heavy to heavy.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:22 am

Hence the very few which is pretty much confined to Tunney and Charles who didn't face any modern day standard Heavyweights and Spinks who despite the Tyson capitulation excelled the most.

by hazharrison Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:24 am

Louis struggled with Conn but knocked him out (twice). Lewis struggled with Mavrovic. Holyfield struggled with Alex Stewart. Foreman struggled with Young. Frazier struggled with Bonovena; didn't have a great time of it against Buster Mathis. Holmes had bad nights - Ali did, too. It happens. The great ones find a way to win regardless.

by hazharrison Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:32 am

Strongback wrote:Spinks did ok stepping up from light heavy to heavy.

As did other top ten all time 175 pounders Tunney and Charles (while Moore gave Marciano hell). Conn was in that bracket yet he was a poor opponent for Louis?

Conn's size possibly worked to his advantage against Louis, who made far easier work of bigger foes.

by **88Chris05** Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:36 am

I like Frazier's performance against Mathis a lot, Haz. Mathis took some chopping down as you'd expect given his bulk and Frazier's accumulative, rather than lights out power but I thought Frazier looked great there.

As a side note, how weird is it watching a guy like Mathis, who was clearly carrying too much weight and looked so podgy and lumbering from the outset, then be able to move so smoothly and be almost balletic on his toes like he was? One to make you rub your eyes. It'd be like watching someone like Solis or Arreola gliding around the ring like Pep. Looks really can be deceiving!

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:41 am

Conn was not in the bracket of Charles and Tunney Haz, not by a long way and you'll be hard pushed to find anyone who credits Marciano with facing Moore (who just happened to be the best of a bad bunch).

We'll have to chuck Stevenson in with Wlad, the massive size disadvantage will work in his favour.

by hazharrison Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:46 am

88Chris05 wrote:I like Frazier's performance against Mathis a lot, Haz. Mathis took some chopping down as you'd expect given his bulk and Frazier's accumulative, rather than lights out power but I thought Frazier looked great there.

As a side note, how weird is it watching a guy like Mathis, who was clearly carrying too much weight and looked so podgy and lumbering from the outset, then be able to move so smoothly and be almost balletic on his toes like he was? One to make you rub your eyes. It'd be like watching someone like Solis or Arreola gliding around the ring like Pep. Looks really can be deceiving!

The precursor to Tony Tubbs! His boy didn't do too badly against a rusty Tyson from what I recall (for a few rounds at least).

Might have to revisit the Frazier fight (in my head Mathis pushed him but the old grey matter isn't what it was!)

by hazharrison Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:49 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Conn was not in the bracket of Charles and Tunney Haz, not by a long way and you'll be hard pushed to find anyone who credits Marciano with facing Moore (who just happened to be the best of a bad bunch).

We'll have to chuck Stevenson in with Wlad, the massive size disadvantage will work in his favour.

Depends how big the bracket is. He'd be in or around the top ten (alongside Moore, Spinks, Tunney, Charles, Langford et al).

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:52 am

Charles, Tunney, Moore, Spinks and Foster are in a bracket of their own at 175lbs, even then the top two are a way clear of the rest. It would be the equivalent of putting Liston or Tyson in the same bracket as Louis and Ali.

by Strongback Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:04 am

IBRO Top 20 ATG LHW List

1. Archie Moore
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Sam Langford
4. Gene Tunney
5. Bob Foster
6. Tommy Loughran
7. Michael Spinks
8. Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Billy Conn
10. Roy Jones, Jr.
11. Maxie Rosenbloom
12. John Henry Lewis
13. Harry Greb
14. Tommy Gibbons
15. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
16. Jack Dillon
17. Harold Johnson
18. Jimmy Bivins
19. Georges Carpentier
20. Battling Levinsky

by **88Chris05** Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:05 am

Oh yeah, Mathis definitely gave Frazier a fight, Haz, but it's one where I feel that Joe was always comfortable. Mathis won a couple of rounds, I thought, lost a few others but made them competitive, but got a little overwhelmed as the fight went on. Frazier really hurt him for the first time in the seventh and from then on Frazier just went from strength to strength.

Although Mathis' movement and footwork was dreamy-looking for a Heavyweight, you could argue it worked against him in that fight as he was on the move so much he just couldn't get himself set to plant his feet and really hurt Frazier as he came in. Joe just kept building up that momentum round after round and eventually it just became too much for Buster.

He tried fighting Frazier on the inside early on, quickly recognised that wasn't going to work and from then on just tried to put his weight on him in the clinches when Frazier got close (he was about three stone heavier, after all) but Frazier just had too much intent, was too ferocious to the body and was too good at slipping the jab on his way in, too.

Probably the first fight of Frazier's career where he really started looking like something quite special - at least that's how I saw it!

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:12 am

Fascinating list Strongy, not that it matters a jot, Ezzard Charles finds himself below the man he beat three times at which point it becomes meaningless in my opinion. Langford and Fitzsimmons barely fought at light heavyweight so how they get on there at all is baffling but the good IBRO do love the old timers.

Do continue posting these lists to overcome your lack of knowledge, there's probably guys on their you've never heard of.

by Strongback Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:17 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Fascinating list Strongy, not that it matters a jot, Ezzard Charles finds himself below the man he beat three times at which point it becomes meaningless in my opinion. Langford and Fitzsimmons barely fought at light heavyweight so how they get on there at all is baffling but the good IBRO do love the old timers.

Do continue posting these lists to overcome your lack of knowledge, there's probably guys on their you've never heard of.

You said Conn was Poopie. He was far from Poopie.

Funny that Boxing Scene have Conn as their No.10 ATG LHW.

Seems the only person who don't know sh1t is you.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:20 am

You are very selective with what you read, I don't rate Conn as a Heavyweight because he was far too small and him being a great light heavyweight doesn't change that. Roy Jones is at 11 on the IBRO list does that automatically make him great at Heavyweight too, of course it doesn't you cretin.

by Strongback Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:51 am

Billy Conn has a good record at heavy and beat a few decent names.

Conn is an ATG, nobody disputes that.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:53 am

Yet again doesn't make him great at Heavyweight, his greatness is based on his record at middleweight and light heavyweight.

by Strongback Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:23 am

Bob Fitzsimmons, Roy Jones Jr, Michael Spinks, Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles and almost Billy Conn are amongst a very select group of LHW ATG's.

Guess what links them together fu.cko.

by milkyboy Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:41 am

Strongback wrote:
milkyboy wrote:
Strongback wrote:

In the game of Trump Cards the FACT card always trumps SARCASM card.

I don't play trumps but I presume in the absence of a FACT card, SARCASM trumps BULLSH*T, so that'll be me one up

by Strongback Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:45 am

milkyboy wrote:
Strongback wrote:
milkyboy wrote:
Strongback wrote:

In the game of Trump Cards the FACT card always trumps SARCASM card.

I don't play trumps but I presume in the absence of a FACT card, SARCASM trumps BULLSH*T, so that'll be me one up

Kind of lost it's impact when you made a hash of the quote thing.

by milkyboy Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:18 pm

Yeh, still haven't mastered the art of typing one handed on an iphone while feeding a wriggling baby. Never mind, it wasn't one of my better repostes anyway, Whistle

by Strongback Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:29 pm

Yeah it's quite obvious punching has many attributes to it.

by **superflyweight** Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:11 pm

hazharrison wrote:
superflyweight wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:As DH has just said, Ali was an emerging contender when he fought Jones, not a peak-of-his-powers champion who was four years in to his reign as Louis was when Conn gave him fits. I'm struggling to see any reason why it should be used to try to prevent anyone having to address Louis' problems in that fight. Not sure what Ali weighed for the Jones fight, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have had anything like a 25 lb advantage as Louis did, either.

Besides, Ali's struggles in that fight get badly overstated. He won the fight over the ten rounds and much of the controversy, for me, stemmed simply from the fact that he was fighting a popular New Yorker at the Garden; Jones had fought there countless times, whereas I'm pretty sure that was only Ali's second bout at the Garden and his first time headlining a fight there. Ali was hurt in the opener but after that was appreciably the better man and I don't see how anyone could score that fight to Jones.

On the other hand, Louis was losing rounds to Conn, and lots of them. Appreciate the cards showed that he didn't necessarily have to stop Conn to retain his title, but I felt the official scores were a bit kind to Louis and in a fairly-scored fight he'd have needed to stop Conn to win - and he did of course, so all credit to him. But if you're going to extoll the virtues of his composite punching, exquisite balance, underrated and highly effective footwork and classy ring IQ (which Haz and Strongy have talked up in this very thread) then you can't dodge the question of why he struggled so badly against a 175 pounder, albeit a very fast, busy and tenacious one. Speed can go a long way, but should it really have caused Louis all those problems given his aforementioned qualities and size advantage?

On a final note, Louis gets no extra leeway for apparently underestimating Conn beforehand. Not interested in that excuse under any circumstances, really, but Conn was Louis' shortest-priced challenger for three years (13-8 by fight night) and was on an uncharacteristic run of knockouts in the build up, too. If Louis was complacent, more fool him given those circumstances. But I tend to think it's more just a convenient excuse.

I think a valid argument can be made for Jones. Here were the ringside scores:

Unofficial Scorecards:

AP: 5-4-1 Jones

UPI: 6-3-1 Clay

Long Beach Press-Telegram: 7-1-2 Clay

Oakland Tribune: 5-4-1 Jones

AP poll of 15 writers at ringside: 7 for Clay, 5 for Jones and 3 even

UPI poll of 25 writers at ringside: 13 for Jones, 10 for Clay and 2 even

How many heavyweight champions managed to retain their edge as long as Louis did? Many felt he'd lost his mojo leading up to the Conn fight. And since when did losing rounds become a crime?

Conn - a great fighter - fought the fight of his life. Louis, though, reeled him in eventually - he made Conn come to him and then knocked him out (and then repeated it). Louis probably underestimated him but got him in the end.

Incredibly generous view of proceedings.

Louis's game was built around drawing opponents to him. He didn't chase down fleet footed fighters - perhaps one of the reasons the Conn performance is blown out of proportion (certainly on here).

Conn had a head-rush, got careless, blew it and you know it. You make it sound like Louis had some kind of master plan to be out-boxed, play possum and wait for his chance. Fairly clear case of revisionism.

by **superflyweight** Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:16 pm

Strongback wrote:IBRO Top 20 ATG LHW List

1. Archie Moore
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Sam Langford
4. Gene Tunney
5. Bob Foster
6. Tommy Loughran
7. Michael Spinks
8. Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Billy Conn
10. Roy Jones, Jr.
11. Maxie Rosenbloom
12. John Henry Lewis
13. Harry Greb
14. Tommy Gibbons
15. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
16. Jack Dillon
17. Harold Johnson
18. Jimmy Bivins
19. Georges Carpentier
20. Battling Levinsky

That's a terrible list. Essentially redundant as soon as you see Moore above Charles, Spinks and Foster outside the top 4 and Loughran above Spinks. Lists are subjective and obviously differ from person to person, but that list is fundamentally flawed. Saying that, I'd have Conn around 8 or 9, so not all bad.

by hazharrison Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:43 pm

superflyweight wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
superflyweight wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:As DH has just said, Ali was an emerging contender when he fought Jones, not a peak-of-his-powers champion who was four years in to his reign as Louis was when Conn gave him fits. I'm struggling to see any reason why it should be used to try to prevent anyone having to address Louis' problems in that fight. Not sure what Ali weighed for the Jones fight, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have had anything like a 25 lb advantage as Louis did, either.

Besides, Ali's struggles in that fight get badly overstated. He won the fight over the ten rounds and much of the controversy, for me, stemmed simply from the fact that he was fighting a popular New Yorker at the Garden; Jones had fought there countless times, whereas I'm pretty sure that was only Ali's second bout at the Garden and his first time headlining a fight there. Ali was hurt in the opener but after that was appreciably the better man and I don't see how anyone could score that fight to Jones.

On the other hand, Louis was losing rounds to Conn, and lots of them. Appreciate the cards showed that he didn't necessarily have to stop Conn to retain his title, but I felt the official scores were a bit kind to Louis and in a fairly-scored fight he'd have needed to stop Conn to win - and he did of course, so all credit to him. But if you're going to extoll the virtues of his composite punching, exquisite balance, underrated and highly effective footwork and classy ring IQ (which Haz and Strongy have talked up in this very thread) then you can't dodge the question of why he struggled so badly against a 175 pounder, albeit a very fast, busy and tenacious one. Speed can go a long way, but should it really have caused Louis all those problems given his aforementioned qualities and size advantage?

On a final note, Louis gets no extra leeway for apparently underestimating Conn beforehand. Not interested in that excuse under any circumstances, really, but Conn was Louis' shortest-priced challenger for three years (13-8 by fight night) and was on an uncharacteristic run of knockouts in the build up, too. If Louis was complacent, more fool him given those circumstances. But I tend to think it's more just a convenient excuse.

I think a valid argument can be made for Jones. Here were the ringside scores:

Unofficial Scorecards:

AP: 5-4-1 Jones

UPI: 6-3-1 Clay

Long Beach Press-Telegram: 7-1-2 Clay

Oakland Tribune: 5-4-1 Jones

AP poll of 15 writers at ringside: 7 for Clay, 5 for Jones and 3 even

UPI poll of 25 writers at ringside: 13 for Jones, 10 for Clay and 2 even

How many heavyweight champions managed to retain their edge as long as Louis did? Many felt he'd lost his mojo leading up to the Conn fight. And since when did losing rounds become a crime?

Conn - a great fighter - fought the fight of his life. Louis, though, reeled him in eventually - he made Conn come to him and then knocked him out (and then repeated it). Louis probably underestimated him but got him in the end.

Incredibly generous view of proceedings.

Louis's game was built around drawing opponents to him. He didn't chase down fleet footed fighters - perhaps one of the reasons the Conn performance is blown out of proportion (certainly on here).

Conn had a head-rush, got careless, blew it and you know it. You make it sound like Louis had some kind of master plan to be out-boxed, play possum and wait for his chance. Fairly clear case of revisionism.

Conn may have been slightly up on the cards (the notion he was walking the fight is a myth - had Louis won the last three rounds he'd have retained his title).

This idea that Conn got careless is also overplayed. Conn may have gone for broke at the end of the 12th after stunning Louis but he certainly didn't in the 13th (nor was he trying to knock Louis out).

Louis stepped it up after a poor showing - lured Conn closer to him and systematically broke him down. This was no Hail Mary finish.

by AdamT Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:59 pm

Strongback wrote:Spinks did ok stepping up from light heavy to heavy.

What did Spinks weigh?

Was a lot more than 170

by Coxy001 Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:28 pm

Conn - a great fighter - fought the fight of his life. Louis, though, reeled him in eventually - he made Conn come to him and then knocked him out (and then repeated it). Louis probably underestimated him but got him in the end.

Assume we're talking about the first fight?

If so, you've got your facts a bit wrong I believe. Conn had Louis all over the show in the 12th and both men went for the knockout for different reasons the following round. Conn because, well he's a boxer and went for the kill, and Louis because he knew he was behind.

To say he made Conn come to him is a tad bit incorrect in my eyes.

@Haz, don't think he systematically broke him down as you say. But I do agree this was no Hail Mary finish either. Conn fought arguably the best fight of his life, something that's not exactly unusual for big underdogs as it does happen.

And lets bring weights in to this, it's called evolution.

by Strongback Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:48 pm

superflyweight wrote:
Strongback wrote:IBRO Top 20 ATG LHW List

1. Archie Moore
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Sam Langford
4. Gene Tunney
5. Bob Foster
6. Tommy Loughran
7. Michael Spinks
8. Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Billy Conn
10. Roy Jones, Jr.
11. Maxie Rosenbloom
12. John Henry Lewis
13. Harry Greb
14. Tommy Gibbons
15. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
16. Jack Dillon
17. Harold Johnson
18. Jimmy Bivins
19. Georges Carpentier
20. Battling Levinsky

That's a terrible list. Essentially redundant as soon as you see Moore above Charles, Spinks and Foster outside the top 4 and Loughran above Spinks. Lists are subjective and obviously differ from person to person, but that list is fundamentally flawed. Saying that, I'd have Conn around 8 or 9, so not all bad.

That's a list compiled from the votes of many boxing historians. I know 606 believes it's opinion is sacrament but hey there's a big bad world out there.

Just to note the IBRO has Charles ahead of Moore in the P4P stakes. Maybe they give weight to Moore holding the LHW title for 11 years when ranking the LHW's.

by hazharrison Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:27 pm

Coxy001 wrote:
Conn - a great fighter - fought the fight of his life. Louis, though, reeled him in eventually - he made Conn come to him and then knocked him out (and then repeated it). Louis probably underestimated him but got him in the end.

Assume we're talking about the first fight?

If so, you've got your facts a bit wrong I believe. Conn had Louis all over the show in the 12th and both men went for the knockout for different reasons the following round. Conn because, well he's a boxer and went for the kill, and Louis because he knew he was behind.

To say he made Conn come to him is a tad bit incorrect in my eyes.

@Haz, don't think he systematically broke him down as you say. But I do agree this was no Hail Mary finish either. Conn fought arguably the best fight of his life, something that's not exactly unusual for big underdogs as it does happen.

And lets bring weights in to this, it's called evolution.

He chinned Louis, who then looked at sixes and sevens as he attempted to regain his position (with his back foot between Conn's stance). Louis was wobbled and Conn went after the finish.

Conn, though, started the 13th as he had the previous rounds - he certainly didn't go for the knockout. Louis began boxing more assertively - responding to the previous round and Blackburn's rallying call in the corner. He stepped it up and hurt Conn with a right, who was forced to unload on Louis in order to fend off his rally. Louis then picked his spots and closed the show.

by Coxy001 Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:41 pm

Haz, my recollection of what I've read and seen is basically summarised as:

* Louis got rocked in the 12th by a left hand, wasn't chinned as you inaccurately state
* Conn got cocky and traded with Louis in the 13th and got stopped
* Conn got knocked out whilst exchanging and going for the knockout

That's how I remember it, more than willing to write a chris-esque essay with sources if you wish.

by captain carrantuohil Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:43 pm

Would suggest that the notion of Charles being clearly ahead of Moore at 175 should not only be predicated on the fact that he beat Archie three times by increasingly convincing margins. Most of the collateral lines of form against common opponents such as Burley also give Ezz a clear edge; the one exception to this is Harold Johnson. Here, Moore obviously had the Indian sign over a great fighter, while Johnson beat Charles in their single encounter. However, this meeting occurred when Charles was a still decent, but increasingly inconsistent, heavyweight, capable of frightening the life out of Marciano but equally prone to desperately uninspiring performances against folk such as Valdes and Holman. I couldn't imagine the Charles of the 1940s starting as anything other than a heavy favourite over any incarnation of Johnson that you care to name.

A look at the light-heavyweight peaks of Charles and Moore, as well as every great light-heavyweight who ever lived, establishes Charles' inalienable right to be acclaimed as the top man at 175, in my opinion. Add this to a career at heavyweight that showcases greater achievements than any other rising 175 pounder, with the exceptions of Tunney and Spinks, both of whom had many fewer fights at the higher weight, and Charles' overall position as one of the few nailed-on top 5 boxers of all time is quite secure for me.

Conn would be among my top 10 light-heavyweights but I have to admit that I'm in the camp that would say that Louis' come from behind KO of Billy might have been thrilling, but scarcely ranks as Joe's finest hour. That would undoubtedly be reserved for the destruction of Schmeling.

by hazharrison Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:05 pm

Coxy001 wrote:Haz, my recollection of what I've read and seen is basically summarised as:

* Louis got rocked in the 12th by a left hand, wasn't chinned as you inaccurately state
* Conn got cocky and traded with Louis in the 13th and got stopped
* Conn got knocked out whilst exchanging and going for the knockout

That's how I remember it, more than willing to write a chris-esque essay with sources if you wish.

Isn't chinned the same as rocked? Same deal for me. Bit of a strange quibble.

You don't need sources - just check the video (someone could post it up). Conn was hurt before he began trading. Looked to me as though he traded as a result of being hurt and being tired.

by Strongback Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:42 pm

captain carrantuohil wrote:Would suggest that the notion of Charles being clearly ahead of Moore at 175 should not only be predicated on the fact that he beat Archie three times by increasingly convincing margins. Most of the collateral lines of form against common opponents such as Burley also give Ezz a clear edge; the one exception to this is Harold Johnson. Here, Moore obviously had the Indian sign over a great fighter, while Johnson beat Charles in their single encounter. However, this meeting occurred when Charles was a still decent, but increasingly inconsistent, heavyweight, capable of frightening the life out of Marciano but equally prone to desperately uninspiring performances against folk such as Valdes and Holman. I couldn't imagine the Charles of the 1940s starting as anything other than a heavy favourite over any incarnation of Johnson that you care to name.

A look at the light-heavyweight peaks of Charles and Moore, as well as every great light-heavyweight who ever lived, establishes Charles' inalienable right to be acclaimed as the top man at 175, in my opinion. Add this to a career at heavyweight that showcases greater achievements than any other rising 175 pounder, with the exceptions of Tunney and Spinks, both of whom had many fewer fights at the higher weight, and Charles' overall position as one of the few nailed-on top 5 boxers of all time is quite secure for me.

Conn would be among my top 10 light-heavyweights but I have to admit that I'm in the camp that would say that Louis' come from behind KO of Billy might have been thrilling, but scarcely ranks as Joe's finest hour. That would undoubtedly be reserved for the destruction of Schmeling.

In relation to the LHW list I put it up to reinforce that Conn is an ATG light heavy. He was described as crap by a poster further up the thread. The intention wasn't to make a case for Archie Moore as No.1. The only reason I can see them making a case for Moore is that he won the LH title and Charles didn't for different reasons.

As an aside I think that Charles not being the most popular of fighters in his time probably hurt him a bit. His nuanced style didn't deliver what the blood thirsty crowd wanted in the way Moore and Louis did. Also beating Louis seemed to have been perceived as the equivalent of shooting Bambi.

by **88Chris05** Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:50 pm

Don't think anyone said that about Conn, Strongy (haven't checked back every single comment, mind you!). Just that there isn't a great deal of evidence to suggest he was all that great as a Heavyweight. A decent Heavy, for sure, but it'd take a bit of a leap of faith to class him as a really impressive or top-drawer one. It's fair to question how much slack Louis should be cut for having such a torrid time with him, given that this was Louis smack-bang in the middle of his prime and it was a case of a great 175 pounder facing an even greater 200 pounder.

Maybe Conn would have proved himself a stand out Heavyweight had it not been for the War, and maybe he'd have beaten a few other Heavyweight champions aside from Louis, but that's guesswork. History suggests he'd have been hard pressed to do either though it's certainly not impossible.

Louis staged a great comeback and you tend to learn more about a champion when things aren't going their way than you do when they're just having it all on their terms, so he rightly gets plenty of credit for that. But that doesn't mean you can't still question how Conn managed to make him look so poor for long periods, or speculate that he went some way to exposing some holes and flaws in Louis' arsenal. As I've already said, whenever this gets quibbled your and Haz's reaction tends to be to state that a) Louis was just unfocussed, or b) his apparent weaknesses are being overplayed and he was actually brilliant in said area, as if the rest of us just can't see what's really going on when we watch him.

You can make excuse for any defeat / poor performance any fighter has ever suffered if you try hard enough.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:11 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Fascinating list Strongy, not that it matters a jot, Ezzard Charles finds himself below the man he beat three times at which point it becomes meaningless in my opinion. Langford and Fitzsimmons barely fought at light heavyweight so how they get on there at all is baffling but the good IBRO do love the old timers.

Do continue posting these lists to overcome your lack of knowledge, there's probably guys on their you've never heard of.

"Mayweather has never beaten anybody so he's not top 10...........Joe Louis is 6th on my list"..........

He's an idiot end of...

by AdamT Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:12 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Fascinating list Strongy, not that it matters a jot, Ezzard Charles finds himself below the man he beat three times at which point it becomes meaningless in my opinion. Langford and Fitzsimmons barely fought at light heavyweight so how they get on there at all is baffling but the good IBRO do love the old timers.

Do continue posting these lists to overcome your lack of knowledge, there's probably guys on their you've never heard of.

"Mayweather has never beaten anybody so he's not top 10...........Joe Louis is 6th on my list"..........

He's an idiot end of...

Mayweather will appreciated someday by the haters!

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:16 am

AdamT wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Fascinating list Strongy, not that it matters a jot, Ezzard Charles finds himself below the man he beat three times at which point it becomes meaningless in my opinion. Langford and Fitzsimmons barely fought at light heavyweight so how they get on there at all is baffling but the good IBRO do love the old timers.

Do continue posting these lists to overcome your lack of knowledge, there's probably guys on their you've never heard of.

"Mayweather has never beaten anybody so he's not top 10...........Joe Louis is 6th on my list"..........

He's an idiot end of...

Mayweather will appreciated someday by the haters!

Who cares If he isn't but at least try to form a coherent argument... Rolling Eyes

Then again he must have some intellect...........Why else would he own 10 mansions, 20 Ferraris, 4 Ocean liners, half of Ireland and be able to Bench press 500 with one hand tied behind his back !!... Cool

by AdamT Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:17 am

I own the other half of Ireland Cool

by **superflyweight** Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:21 am

AdamT wrote:I own the other half of Ireland

Is that the half where they make the bombs or the half where they detonate them?

by AdamT Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:22 am

superflyweight wrote:
AdamT wrote:I own the other half of Ireland

Is that the half where they make the bombs or the half where they detonate them?

unfortunately the troubled half, or more like a 5th of the island!

by hazharrison Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:40 am

88Chris05 wrote:Don't think anyone said that about Conn, Strongy (haven't checked back every single comment, mind you!). Just that there isn't a great deal of evidence to suggest he was all that great as a Heavyweight. A decent Heavy, for sure, but it'd take a bit of a leap of faith to class him as a really impressive or top-drawer one. It's fair to question how much slack Louis should be cut for having such a torrid time with him, given that this was Louis smack-bang in the middle of his prime and it was a case of a great 175 pounder facing an even greater 200 pounder.

Maybe Conn would have proved himself a stand out Heavyweight had it not been for the War, and maybe he'd have beaten a few other Heavyweight champions aside from Louis, but that's guesswork. History suggests he'd have been hard pressed to do either though it's certainly not impossible.

Louis staged a great comeback and you tend to learn more about a champion when things aren't going their way than you do when they're just having it all on their terms, so he rightly gets plenty of credit for that. But that doesn't mean you can't still question how Conn managed to make him look so poor for long periods, or speculate that he went some way to exposing some holes and flaws in Louis' arsenal. As I've already said, whenever this gets quibbled your and Haz's reaction tends to be to state that a) Louis was just unfocussed, or b) his apparent weaknesses are being overplayed and he was actually brilliant in said area, as if the rest of us just can't see what's really going on when we watch him.

You can make excuse for any defeat / poor performance any fighter has ever suffered if you try hard enough.

I haven't attempted to excuse Louis's performance as I don't feel I need to. He struggled with a smaller guy who fought out of his skin yet still knocked him out. While it wasn't a great performance it also wasn't a performance to hang Louis by. All champions struggle/have off nights from time to time. The great ones still manage to win.

Which area have I declared Louis brilliant which is, in your opinion, unrealistic?

by Sponsored content