Balance: Napoles & Louis

First topic message reminder :

Another Wylie video here:

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

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.

"Torrid time".....hyperbole. One of the most evasive fighters in history had success until the champion knocked him out. Name a fighter who did not struggle with a a certain fighter. I watched a supposed Top 10 ATG in Mayweather lose to Castillo only for the judges to do the dirt. I watched Maidana give Mayweather a "torrid time".

Hammer called Conn Poppie earlier in the thread

From memory Conn won 10 odd heavyweight fights beating a number of top contenders.

Haz likes Duran.......If he'd trained for the second fight with Leonard (forgetting the fact he only sneaked past a brawling Leonard the first time by one point) He'd have won against a boxing Leonard........Some hack in Mongolia agrees too so it makes it right !!

Haz likes Louis.......Schmelling, Sharkey etc were all top quality fighters !!! Nat Fleischer (Ali hater, "Dempsey stops Ali early") agrees with him...So it makes it right !!

Haz likes Hagler......So all the experts (like Vito Antuofermo) who shout robbery are right and the hundred others who thought Leonard don't know s**t...(What does Gil Clancy know)

Haz doesn't like Ali - So Liston dropped down twice on purpose, Jones got robbed.....

All modern fighters are s**te .....blah, blah, blah............

The Conn schooling never happened.............He was green against Schmelling.....Uranus was in juxtaposition with Venus when Galento decked him.....

Past it when he lost.......etc etc

Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Lyle all lose the center of the ring to the cruiserweight....blah blah..blah..

Strongback wrote:

"Torrid time".....hyperbole.  One of the most evasive fighters in history .

Pot, kettle.

Strongback wrote:"Torrid time".....hyperbole.  One of the most evasive fighters in history had success until the champion knocked him out. Name a fighter who did not struggle with a a certain fighter.  I watched a supposed Top 10 ATG  in Mayweather lose to Castillo only for the judges to do the dirt.  I watched Maidana give Mayweather a "torrid time".

Hammer called Conn Poppie earlier in the thread

From memory Conn won 10 odd heavyweight fights beating a number of top contenders.

I don't think it's hyperbole really, Strongback. Conn had much the better of the first twelve rounds. He was hurt a couple of times but made Louis look very poor for long periods, periods in which he was getting hit with every shot in the book, getting hurt himself and having immense trouble in finding Conn with anything of note. It's not as if Conn was prancing all around the ring all night before the thirteenth as history likes to pretend, either. He spent plenty of time in the pocket reeling off dazzling combinations and still Louis had a hard time making his power and size count.

I'll repeat - going on the official scorecards, Louis didn't necessarily have to knock Conn out to retain his title. But the offical cards were pretty kind to Louis in my opinion.

Nobody has argued that Louis' problems in this fight automatically put an end to his top ten claims either, so not sure why you're dragging Mayweather up. But if you insist, I'd say that while Louis ended up knocking Conn out and getting an indisputable win whereas Mayweather had to settle for a contentious verdict which could have gone either way against Castillo, Floyd still wasn't made to look as average or cumbersome as Louis was for twelve rounds against Conn.

But it's not about where Louis ranks, and I'm not arguing that the Conn fight has a massive bearing on that. The initial point of this thread was regarding the technical aspects of Louis' game, and to my mind that's what has mostly been debated. Conn didn't beat Louis so can't really knock him down any pegs in the all-time greats list, but it's fair enough to question if he highlighted some flaws in Louis' style, that's all.

Every time this happens, though, you hear, "Well, what about Ali against figher A, Mayweather against fighter B" etc. That's not the point. Nobody is denying that all greats have had rough nights in fights they were expected to walk - but this thread is about Louis. Only natural that people are going to question why someone 25 lb heavier and almost unanimously agreed to be technically better had so many problems against the smaller, less gifted man, particularly when Louis is one of the greatest, most significant figures in sporting history, never mind boxing. I'd deduce that Louis just had weaknesses (no shame in that, as there's never been a perfect fighter) which Conn took advantage of but it seems that my view isn't popular with the Louis die hards.

Rowley wrote:

Strongback wrote:

"Torrid time".....hyperbole.  One of the most evasive fighters in history .

Pot, kettle.

I've read Conn's evasiveness being compared to Willie Pep.

88Chris05 wrote:

Strongback wrote:"Torrid time".....hyperbole.  One of the most evasive fighters in history had success until the champion knocked him out. Name a fighter who did not struggle with a a certain fighter.  I watched a supposed Top 10 ATG  in Mayweather lose to Castillo only for the judges to do the dirt.  I watched Maidana give Mayweather a "torrid time".

Hammer called Conn Poppie earlier in the thread

From memory Conn won 10 odd heavyweight fights beating a number of top contenders.

I don't think it's hyperbole really, Strongback. Conn had much the better of the first twelve rounds. He was hurt a couple of times but made Louis look very poor for long periods, periods in which he was getting hit with every shot in the book, getting hurt himself and having immense trouble in finding Conn with anything of note. It's not as if Conn was prancing all around the ring all night before the thirteenth as history likes to pretend, either. He spent plenty of time in the pocket reeling off dazzling combinations and still Louis had a hard time making his power and size count.

I'll repeat - going on the official scorecards, Louis didn't necessarily have to knock Conn out to retain his title. But the offical cards were pretty kind to Louis in my opinion.

Nobody has argued that Louis' problems in this fight automatically put an end to his top ten claims either, so not sure why you're dragging Mayweather up. But if you insist, I'd say that while Louis ended up knocking Conn out and getting an indisputable win whereas Mayweather had to settle for a contentious verdict which could have gone either way against Castillo, Floyd still wasn't made to look as average or cumbersome as Louis was for twelve rounds against Conn.

But it's not about where Louis ranks, and I'm not arguing that the Conn fight has a massive bearing on that. The initial point of this thread was regarding the technical aspects of Louis' game, and to my mind that's what has mostly been debated. Conn didn't beat Louis so can't really knock him down any pegs in the all-time greats list, but it's fair enough to question if he highlighted some flaws in Louis' style, that's all.

Every time this happens, though, you hear, "Well, what about Ali against figher A, Mayweather against fighter B" etc. That's not the point. Nobody is denying that all greats have had rough nights in fights they were expected to walk - but this thread is about Louis. Only natural that people are going to question why someone 25 lb heavier and almost unanimously agreed to be technically better had so many problems against the smaller, less gifted man, particularly when Louis is one of the greatest, most significant figures in sporting history, never mind boxing. I'd deduce that Louis just had weaknesses (no shame in that, as there's never been a perfect fighter) which Conn took advantage of but it seems that my view isn't popular with the Louis die hards.

The point of comparing other fighters poor performances to Louis is that other fighters get a free ride while Louis gets hammered for Conn, well around here anyway. Why should Louis be judged by different standards.

Conn is a lot better fighter than he is being given credit for also.

Using words liker "torrid" and "cumbersome" etc are emotive and show an underlying prejudgment made about Louis.

Strongback wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

Strongback wrote:"Torrid time".....hyperbole.  One of the most evasive fighters in history had success until the champion knocked him out. Name a fighter who did not struggle with a a certain fighter.  I watched a supposed Top 10 ATG  in Mayweather lose to Castillo only for the judges to do the dirt.  I watched Maidana give Mayweather a "torrid time".

Hammer called Conn Poppie earlier in the thread

From memory Conn won 10 odd heavyweight fights beating a number of top contenders.

I don't think it's hyperbole really, Strongback. Conn had much the better of the first twelve rounds. He was hurt a couple of times but made Louis look very poor for long periods, periods in which he was getting hit with every shot in the book, getting hurt himself and having immense trouble in finding Conn with anything of note. It's not as if Conn was prancing all around the ring all night before the thirteenth as history likes to pretend, either. He spent plenty of time in the pocket reeling off dazzling combinations and still Louis had a hard time making his power and size count.

I'll repeat - going on the official scorecards, Louis didn't necessarily have to knock Conn out to retain his title. But the offical cards were pretty kind to Louis in my opinion.

Nobody has argued that Louis' problems in this fight automatically put an end to his top ten claims either, so not sure why you're dragging Mayweather up. But if you insist, I'd say that while Louis ended up knocking Conn out and getting an indisputable win whereas Mayweather had to settle for a contentious verdict which could have gone either way against Castillo, Floyd still wasn't made to look as average or cumbersome as Louis was for twelve rounds against Conn.

But it's not about where Louis ranks, and I'm not arguing that the Conn fight has a massive bearing on that. The initial point of this thread was regarding the technical aspects of Louis' game, and to my mind that's what has mostly been debated. Conn didn't beat Louis so can't really knock him down any pegs in the all-time greats list, but it's fair enough to question if he highlighted some flaws in Louis' style, that's all.

Every time this happens, though, you hear, "Well, what about Ali against figher A, Mayweather against fighter B" etc. That's not the point. Nobody is denying that all greats have had rough nights in fights they were expected to walk - but this thread is about Louis. Only natural that people are going to question why someone 25 lb heavier and almost unanimously agreed to be technically better had so many problems against the smaller, less gifted man, particularly when Louis is one of the greatest, most significant figures in sporting history, never mind boxing. I'd deduce that Louis just had weaknesses (no shame in that, as there's never been a perfect fighter) which Conn took advantage of but it seems that my view isn't popular with the Louis die hards.

The point of comparing other fighters poor performances to Louis is that other fighters get a free ride while Louis gets hammered for Conn, well around here anyway.  Why should Louis be judged by different standards.

Conn is a lot better fighter than he is being given credit for also.

Using words liker "torrid" and "cumbersome" etc are emotive and show an underlying prejudgment made about Louis.  

Why don't you let Haz argue for you....

He knows something about the sport..

Come on now, Strongback.

Emotive? What's there to be emotional about? Louis isn't going to pay my bills. I'll maintain that Louis had a torrid time for twelve rounds. How would you describe it? A minor test, a decent argument or something? I'd say it was a bit more than that.

I've watched the Conn-Louis fight (first one) multiple times. It's nothing to do with pre-judging Louis at all - I'm saying what I saw. He looked poor for the most part. He got hit a lot. He had trouble getting off. He looked cumbersome. It's all on film. He didn't look like that in every fight of his by any means, but he did in this one. As far as skill and ability goes I think Louis was brilliant and if you read what I've posted about him before, you'd see I'm full of praise for his hand speed, combination punching, jab, feints, accuracy, ability to adapt and improve for rematches etc. But I'm not going to say he had fantastic footwork or great defence, or deny that he could be a slow starter who could be relatively easy to tag and shake up, because that's not how I see it.

How am I being pre-judgemental of him?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Haz likes Duran.......If he'd trained for the second fight with Leonard (forgetting the fact he only sneaked past a brawling Leonard the first time by one point) He'd have won against a boxing Leonard........Some hack in Mongolia agrees too so it makes it right !!

Haz likes Louis.......Schmelling, Sharkey etc were all top quality fighters !!!  Nat Fleischer (Ali hater, "Dempsey stops Ali early") agrees with him...So it makes it right !!

Haz likes Hagler......So all the experts (like Vito Antuofermo) who shout robbery are right and the hundred others who thought Leonard don't know s**t...(What does Gil Clancy know)

Haz doesn't like Ali - So Liston dropped down twice on purpose, Jones got robbed.....

All modern fighters are s**te .....blah, blah, blah............

The Conn schooling never happened.............He was green against Schmelling.....Uranus was in juxtaposition with Venus when Galento decked him.....

Past it when he lost.......etc etc

Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Lyle all lose the center of the ring to the cruiserweight....blah blah..blah..

1. If Duran had managed to maintain his dedication - the second Leonard contest would have been a fight. I don't know who'd have won - neither do you!
2. Aside from Ali, Louis fought as good a crop of heavyweights as any heavyweight champion before or since.
3. I've never claimed Hagler was "robbed" against Leonard but I think he deserved the decision by a point or two.
4. The Liston fights were ridiculous and I felt Jones was hard done to against Clay. Big deal. I still love Ali (contrary to your teenage girl at the back of the class sniping).
5. Most of them are.
6. Conn didn't school Louis and he was a 23 month old pro against Schmeling (which makes him fairly raw in my eyes).

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Strongback.

Emotive? What's there to be emotional about? Louis isn't going to pay my bills. I'll maintain that Louis had a torrid time for twelve rounds. How would you describe it? A minor test, a decent argument or something? I'd say it was a bit more than that.

I've watched the Conn-Louis fight (first one) multiple times. It's nothing to do with pre-judging Louis at all - I'm saying what I saw. He looked poor for the most part. He got hit a lot. He had trouble getting off. He looked cumbersome. It's all on film. He didn't look like that in every fight of his by any means, but he did in this one. As far as skill and ability goes I think Louis was brilliant and if you read what I've posted about him before, you'd see I'm full of praise for his hand speed, combination punching, jab, feints, accuracy, ability to adapt and improve for rematches etc. But I'm not going to say he had fantastic footwork or great defence, or deny that he could be a slow starter who could be relatively easy to tag and shake up, because that's not how I see it.

How am I being pre-judgemental of him?

Torrid to me in a boxing  context means a fighter turning up the heat and the pressure.  Louis was more outfoxed by a quick and evaisive fighter who fought on the back foot.  Not many could do it better than Conn.  

In terms of Louis my reading of your posts is you damn with faint praise.  They are pretty biased which isn't typically your style.  Louis has been denigrated on this board for a long time which is a shame given his punching prowess.  I blame Truss for 90% of it, he prefers Ali so runs Louis down.  To my eyes there have been few more exciting fighters than Louis.

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

Yep it does, but a 'puncher' is a description of someone who hits hard

strongback wrote:"Every other forum I read Louis is regarded as a lock in Top 10 P4P ATG and the greatest puncher of all time. The only anomaly is on 606v2."

The first point is an exaggeration though he makes more than he misses. The second is complete ballcocks. Just slightly less ballcocks if you choose to take the mcgrain definition of composite puncher rather than the generally accepted notion that when you talk about great punchers you are referring to who bangs the hardest. Whichever, whatever definition you choose,  there is no consensus on the p4p greatest puncher.

Every other forum hates Hearn.....

Every other forum loves Louis...

Makes you wonder why he comes on here ???

Because they all think he's a kingsized D**khead.....Perhaps ??

Strongback wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Strongback.

Emotive? What's there to be emotional about? Louis isn't going to pay my bills. I'll maintain that Louis had a torrid time for twelve rounds. How would you describe it? A minor test, a decent argument or something? I'd say it was a bit more than that.

I've watched the Conn-Louis fight (first one) multiple times. It's nothing to do with pre-judging Louis at all - I'm saying what I saw. He looked poor for the most part. He got hit a lot. He had trouble getting off. He looked cumbersome. It's all on film. He didn't look like that in every fight of his by any means, but he did in this one. As far as skill and ability goes I think Louis was brilliant and if you read what I've posted about him before, you'd see I'm full of praise for his hand speed, combination punching, jab, feints, accuracy, ability to adapt and improve for rematches etc. But I'm not going to say he had fantastic footwork or great defence, or deny that he could be a slow starter who could be relatively easy to tag and shake up, because that's not how I see it.

How am I being pre-judgemental of him?

Torrid to me in a boxing  context means a fighter turning up the heat and the pressure.  Louis was more outfoxed by a quick and evaisive fighter who fought on the back foot.  Not many could do it better than Conn.  

In terms of Louis my reading of your posts is you damn with faint praise.  They are pretty biased which isn't typically your style.  Louis has been denigrated on this board for a long time which is a shame given his punching prowess.  I blame Truss for 90% of it, he prefers Ali so runs Louis down.  To my eyes there have been few more exciting fighters than Louis.

That's Chris for you,  Only biased when he disagrees with you.

Fair point about truss. He is our spiritual leader and young, green and lacking knowledge, we all suck up to him like little lambs fighting over a teat. I like Louis, but bit by bit you're turning me off him... Maybe that's why he gets a bad press on here... Which in general I do agree he does. Just not as much as you make out.

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Strongback.

Emotive? What's there to be emotional about? Louis isn't going to pay my bills. I'll maintain that Louis had a torrid time for twelve rounds. How would you describe it? A minor test, a decent argument or something? I'd say it was a bit more than that.

I've watched the Conn-Louis fight (first one) multiple times. It's nothing to do with pre-judging Louis at all - I'm saying what I saw. He looked poor for the most part. He got hit a lot. He had trouble getting off. He looked cumbersome. It's all on film. He didn't look like that in every fight of his by any means, but he did in this one. As far as skill and ability goes I think Louis was brilliant and if you read what I've posted about him before, you'd see I'm full of praise for his hand speed, combination punching, jab, feints, accuracy, ability to adapt and improve for rematches etc. But I'm not going to say he had fantastic footwork or great defence, or deny that he could be a slow starter who could be relatively easy to tag and shake up, because that's not how I see it.

How am I being pre-judgemental of him?

Torrid to me in a boxing  context means a fighter turning up the heat and the pressure.  Louis was more outfoxed by a quick and evaisive fighter who fought on the back foot.  Not many could do it better than Conn.  

In terms of Louis my reading of your posts is you damn with faint praise.  They are pretty biased which isn't typically your style.  Louis has been denigrated on this board for a long time which is a shame given his punching prowess.  I blame Truss for 90% of it, he prefers Ali so runs Louis down.  To my eyes there have been few more exciting fighters than Louis.

That's Chris for you,  Only biased when he disagrees with you.

Fair point about truss. He is our spiritual leader .

Now gimme an Amen...

These boards have a definite slant. I've taken on the established order numerous times (on leonard, Ali, Hagler, Louis, Floyd, Oscar etc.) only to be labelled as worse than a Hammersmith Harrier.

Chris is the ringleader!

Chris = L Ron Hubbard.

superflyweight wrote:Chris = L Ron Hubbard.  

Can I be Tom Cruise ??

Sure - as long as I can be John Travolta.

milkyboy wrote:

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

Yep it does, but a 'puncher' is a description of someone who hits hard

strongback wrote:"Every other forum I read Louis is regarded as a lock in Top 10 P4P ATG and the greatest puncher of all time. The only anomaly is on 606v2."

The first point is an exaggeration though he makes more than he misses. The second is complete ballcocks. Just slightly less ballcocks if you choose to take the mcgrain definition of composite puncher rather than the generally accepted notion that when you talk about great punchers you are referring to who bangs the hardest. Whichever, whatever definition you choose,  there is no consensus on the p4p greatest puncher.

You have your opinion and you're sticking to it, that's to be commended.

My opinion is different. If I am watching a fight I will comment on a fighter being a good puncher based on his skill set not just on his power, that is pretty common parlance around boxing in my experience. As I said earlier I would never consider Louis a harder puncher than Shavers but I would say he is a better puncher than Shavers. I would also say at short range Louis is a particularly fearsome puncher.

hazharrison wrote:These boards have a definite slant. I've taken on the established order numerous times (on leonard, Ali, Hagler, Louis, Floyd, Oscar etc.) only to be labelled as worse than a Hammersmith Harrier.

Chris is the ringleader!

Your took on the 'established order' on the beeb too haz. Or did you get banned for agreeing with everyone in an orderly fashion  

You just have your favourites and opinions and defend them to the hilt. Fine by me, we all do it to one level or another. It's only you and strongy who insist that you are fighting for the consensus against the biased, rather than accepting that while there are those who follow blindly, most people are just giving their own opinion on a sport that perhaps more than any other lends itself to opinion over proof... Scoring, weights classes, multiple world champions, no clear ranking system etc.

If they want to think a Cruiser with no chin can assume the center of the ring and shove Foreman back with his jab...

Let them.....................

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Strongback.

Emotive? What's there to be emotional about? Louis isn't going to pay my bills. I'll maintain that Louis had a torrid time for twelve rounds. How would you describe it? A minor test, a decent argument or something? I'd say it was a bit more than that.

I've watched the Conn-Louis fight (first one) multiple times. It's nothing to do with pre-judging Louis at all - I'm saying what I saw. He looked poor for the most part. He got hit a lot. He had trouble getting off. He looked cumbersome. It's all on film. He didn't look like that in every fight of his by any means, but he did in this one. As far as skill and ability goes I think Louis was brilliant and if you read what I've posted about him before, you'd see I'm full of praise for his hand speed, combination punching, jab, feints, accuracy, ability to adapt and improve for rematches etc. But I'm not going to say he had fantastic footwork or great defence, or deny that he could be a slow starter who could be relatively easy to tag and shake up, because that's not how I see it.

How am I being pre-judgemental of him?

Torrid to me in a boxing  context means a fighter turning up the heat and the pressure.  Louis was more outfoxed by a quick and evaisive fighter who fought on the back foot.  Not many could do it better than Conn.  

In terms of Louis my reading of your posts is you damn with faint praise.  They are pretty biased which isn't typically your style.  Louis has been denigrated on this board for a long time which is a shame given his punching prowess.  I blame Truss for 90% of it, he prefers Ali so runs Louis down.  To my eyes there have been few more exciting fighters than Louis.

That's Chris for you,  Only biased when he disagrees with you.

Fair point about truss. He is our spiritual leader and young, green and lacking knowledge, we all suck up to him like little lambs fighting over a teat. I like Louis, but bit by bit you're turning me off him... Maybe that's why he gets a bad press on here... Which in general I do agree he does. Just not as much as you make out.

There were a few influential posters around here when Chris was still a whippersnapper who set the tone on Louis. They didn't like Louis and that was it.

Even the most independent of thinkers can be brainwashed when a loud small-balled-big-bellied faux Yank bangs on and on and on and on and on about Louis for the best part of a decade.

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

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

Yep it does, but a 'puncher' is a description of someone who hits hard

strongback wrote:"Every other forum I read Louis is regarded as a lock in Top 10 P4P ATG and the greatest puncher of all time. The only anomaly is on 606v2."

The first point is an exaggeration though he makes more than he misses. The second is complete ballcocks. Just slightly less ballcocks if you choose to take the mcgrain definition of composite puncher rather than the generally accepted notion that when you talk about great punchers you are referring to who bangs the hardest. Whichever, whatever definition you choose,  there is no consensus on the p4p greatest puncher.

You have your opinion and you're sticking to it, that's to be commended.

My opinion is different.  If I am watching a fight I will comment on a fighter being a good puncher based on his skill set not just on his power, that is pretty common parlance around boxing in my experience.  As I said earlier I would never consider Louis a harder puncher than Shavers but I would say he is a better puncher than Shavers.   I would also say at short range Louis is a particularly fearsome puncher.

Fair enough fella. Still think there's a difference between commenting on someone's punching technique as opposed to being a 'puncher' which is interchangeable with being a banger. Whichever, let's draw a line.

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Strongback.

Emotive? What's there to be emotional about? Louis isn't going to pay my bills. I'll maintain that Louis had a torrid time for twelve rounds. How would you describe it? A minor test, a decent argument or something? I'd say it was a bit more than that.

I've watched the Conn-Louis fight (first one) multiple times. It's nothing to do with pre-judging Louis at all - I'm saying what I saw. He looked poor for the most part. He got hit a lot. He had trouble getting off. He looked cumbersome. It's all on film. He didn't look like that in every fight of his by any means, but he did in this one. As far as skill and ability goes I think Louis was brilliant and if you read what I've posted about him before, you'd see I'm full of praise for his hand speed, combination punching, jab, feints, accuracy, ability to adapt and improve for rematches etc. But I'm not going to say he had fantastic footwork or great defence, or deny that he could be a slow starter who could be relatively easy to tag and shake up, because that's not how I see it.

How am I being pre-judgemental of him?

Torrid to me in a boxing  context means a fighter turning up the heat and the pressure.  Louis was more outfoxed by a quick and evaisive fighter who fought on the back foot.  Not many could do it better than Conn.  

In terms of Louis my reading of your posts is you damn with faint praise.  They are pretty biased which isn't typically your style.  Louis has been denigrated on this board for a long time which is a shame given his punching prowess.  I blame Truss for 90% of it, he prefers Ali so runs Louis down.  To my eyes there have been few more exciting fighters than Louis.

That's Chris for you,  Only biased when he disagrees with you.

Fair point about truss. He is our spiritual leader and young, green and lacking knowledge, we all suck up to him like little lambs fighting over a teat. I like Louis, but bit by bit you're turning me off him... Maybe that's why he gets a bad press on here... Which in general I do agree he does. Just not as much as you make out.

There were a few influential posters around here when Chris was still a whippersnapper who set the tone on Louis.  They didn't like Louis and that was it.

Even the most independent of thinkers can be brainwashed when a loud small-balled-big-bellied faux Yank bangs on and on and on and on and on about Louis for the best part of a decade.

Oh it can happen. Jofre took a rise on most peoples ATG lists with the captain singing his praises. I think little,  wet behind the ears Chris, is able to make his own opinions now his balls have dropped.

I'm Assuming they have dropped. Bit presumptuous.

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Strongback.

Emotive? What's there to be emotional about? Louis isn't going to pay my bills. I'll maintain that Louis had a torrid time for twelve rounds. How would you describe it? A minor test, a decent argument or something? I'd say it was a bit more than that.

I've watched the Conn-Louis fight (first one) multiple times. It's nothing to do with pre-judging Louis at all - I'm saying what I saw. He looked poor for the most part. He got hit a lot. He had trouble getting off. He looked cumbersome. It's all on film. He didn't look like that in every fight of his by any means, but he did in this one. As far as skill and ability goes I think Louis was brilliant and if you read what I've posted about him before, you'd see I'm full of praise for his hand speed, combination punching, jab, feints, accuracy, ability to adapt and improve for rematches etc. But I'm not going to say he had fantastic footwork or great defence, or deny that he could be a slow starter who could be relatively easy to tag and shake up, because that's not how I see it.

How am I being pre-judgemental of him?

Torrid to me in a boxing  context means a fighter turning up the heat and the pressure.  Louis was more outfoxed by a quick and evaisive fighter who fought on the back foot.  Not many could do it better than Conn.  

In terms of Louis my reading of your posts is you damn with faint praise.  They are pretty biased which isn't typically your style.  Louis has been denigrated on this board for a long time which is a shame given his punching prowess.  I blame Truss for 90% of it, he prefers Ali so runs Louis down.  To my eyes there have been few more exciting fighters than Louis.

That's Chris for you,  Only biased when he disagrees with you.

Fair point about truss. He is our spiritual leader and young, green and lacking knowledge, we all suck up to him like little lambs fighting over a teat. I like Louis, but bit by bit you're turning me off him... Maybe that's why he gets a bad press on here... Which in general I do agree he does. Just not as much as you make out.

There were a few influential posters around here when Chris was still a whippersnapper who set the tone on Louis.  They didn't like Louis and that was it.

Even the most independent of thinkers can be brainwashed when a loud small-balled-big-bellied faux Yank bangs on and on and on and on and on about Louis for the best part of a decade.

Yeah - Windy, the captain and Jimmystuart were terrible WUMs when it came to Louis.

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Strongback.

Emotive? What's there to be emotional about? Louis isn't going to pay my bills. I'll maintain that Louis had a torrid time for twelve rounds. How would you describe it? A minor test, a decent argument or something? I'd say it was a bit more than that.

I've watched the Conn-Louis fight (first one) multiple times. It's nothing to do with pre-judging Louis at all - I'm saying what I saw. He looked poor for the most part. He got hit a lot. He had trouble getting off. He looked cumbersome. It's all on film. He didn't look like that in every fight of his by any means, but he did in this one. As far as skill and ability goes I think Louis was brilliant and if you read what I've posted about him before, you'd see I'm full of praise for his hand speed, combination punching, jab, feints, accuracy, ability to adapt and improve for rematches etc. But I'm not going to say he had fantastic footwork or great defence, or deny that he could be a slow starter who could be relatively easy to tag and shake up, because that's not how I see it.

How am I being pre-judgemental of him?

Torrid to me in a boxing  context means a fighter turning up the heat and the pressure.  Louis was more outfoxed by a quick and evaisive fighter who fought on the back foot.  Not many could do it better than Conn.  

In terms of Louis my reading of your posts is you damn with faint praise.  They are pretty biased which isn't typically your style.  Louis has been denigrated on this board for a long time which is a shame given his punching prowess.  I blame Truss for 90% of it, he prefers Ali so runs Louis down.  To my eyes there have been few more exciting fighters than Louis.

That's Chris for you,  Only biased when he disagrees with you.

Fair point about truss. He is our spiritual leader and young, green and lacking knowledge, we all suck up to him like little lambs fighting over a teat. I like Louis, but bit by bit you're turning me off him... Maybe that's why he gets a bad press on here... Which in general I do agree he does. Just not as much as you make out.

There were a few influential posters around here when Chris was still a whippersnapper who set the tone on Louis.  They didn't like Louis and that was it.

Even the most independent of thinkers can be brainwashed when a loud small-balled-big-bellied faux Yank bangs on and on and on and on and on about Louis for the best part of a decade.

infinity and beyond .....

superflyweight wrote:

Yeah - Windy, the captain and Jimmystuart were terrible WUMs when it came to Louis.  

The real irony is Jimmy was one of the few people on here who actually placed Louis above Ali, and was only too happy to argue his point, extremely well I should add.

Rowley wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Yeah - Windy, the captain and Jimmystuart were terrible WUMs when it came to Louis.  

The real irony is Jimmy was one of the few people on here who actually placed Louis above Ali, and was only too happy to argue his point, extremely well I should add.

Jimmy is missed.............Didn't have ten mansions though......So he was a bit of a loser !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If they want to think a Cruiser with no chin can assume the center of the ring and shove Foreman back with his jab...

Let them.....................

C'mon, if Jimmy Young who wasn't that much bigger than Joe Louis managed to find a way to put Foreman on his ass, it's not impossible to see Louis doing it either.

superflyweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Strongback.

Emotive? What's there to be emotional about? Louis isn't going to pay my bills. I'll maintain that Louis had a torrid time for twelve rounds. How would you describe it? A minor test, a decent argument or something? I'd say it was a bit more than that.

I've watched the Conn-Louis fight (first one) multiple times. It's nothing to do with pre-judging Louis at all - I'm saying what I saw. He looked poor for the most part. He got hit a lot. He had trouble getting off. He looked cumbersome. It's all on film. He didn't look like that in every fight of his by any means, but he did in this one. As far as skill and ability goes I think Louis was brilliant and if you read what I've posted about him before, you'd see I'm full of praise for his hand speed, combination punching, jab, feints, accuracy, ability to adapt and improve for rematches etc. But I'm not going to say he had fantastic footwork or great defence, or deny that he could be a slow starter who could be relatively easy to tag and shake up, because that's not how I see it.

How am I being pre-judgemental of him?

Torrid to me in a boxing  context means a fighter turning up the heat and the pressure.  Louis was more outfoxed by a quick and evaisive fighter who fought on the back foot.  Not many could do it better than Conn.  

In terms of Louis my reading of your posts is you damn with faint praise.  They are pretty biased which isn't typically your style.  Louis has been denigrated on this board for a long time which is a shame given his punching prowess.  I blame Truss for 90% of it, he prefers Ali so runs Louis down.  To my eyes there have been few more exciting fighters than Louis.

That's Chris for you,  Only biased when he disagrees with you.

Fair point about truss. He is our spiritual leader and young, green and lacking knowledge, we all suck up to him like little lambs fighting over a teat. I like Louis, but bit by bit you're turning me off him... Maybe that's why he gets a bad press on here... Which in general I do agree he does. Just not as much as you make out.

There were a few influential posters around here when Chris was still a whippersnapper who set the tone on Louis.  They didn't like Louis and that was it.

Even the most independent of thinkers can be brainwashed when a loud small-balled-big-bellied faux Yank bangs on and on and on and on and on about Louis for the best part of a decade.

Yeah - Windy, the captain and Jimmystuart were terrible WUMs when it came to Louis.  

If Windy and Jimmy were here Louis wouldn't need defending. Both from memory had Louis No.1 heavyweight or jointly with Ali.

If Trussman had shaped people's opinions as much as you claim he has, Strongy, then everyone here would also be saying that Duran is the most scandalously overrated fighter of all time, that Pernell ain't even a patch on Floyd and that Tony Tubbs had the fastest hands of any Heavyweight in history!

Most (not all, but most) on here seem to say roughly the same thing or have the same opinion on Louis - that he was a fantastic fighter, but that there's a bit of daylight between him and Ali in terms of record and how good they were overall in their pomp, regardless of Louis having the more textbook technique (in the same way that Toney having more textbook technique and more of the classic 'fundamentals' you'd teach in a gym than Jones ended up making sack all difference to who had the better career, or who slapped the other one's backside when they got in the ring).

That he couldn't possibly have done any more as champion and that he totally cleared out a division which he deserves (and gets) immense credit for, but that his opposition while solid isn't as good as some of the other guys who had the luxury of being able to move up / down in weight to seek out new challenges.

That he beats most of the other guys ranked inside an all-time top ten at Heavyweight, but loses to a few of them as well, which is hardly a slight against him when you consider that the likes of Ali, Frazier, Tyson, Lewis, Holmes etc represent a pretty big step up from the Schmelings, Conns, Braddocks, Walcotts and Baers of this world - and that even then Louis didn't always have it all his own way against those guys.

Is any of the above really that controversial or hard to back up? Is it really an injustice against Louis?

Rowley wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Yeah - Windy, the captain and Jimmystuart were terrible WUMs when it came to Louis.  

The real irony is Jimmy was one of the few people on here who actually placed Louis above Ali, and was only too happy to argue his point, extremely well I should add.

That's because Jimmy was at the Louis v Conn fight.

88Chris05 wrote:If Trussman had shaped people's opinions as much as you claim he has, Strongy, then everyone here would also be saying that Duran is the most scandalously overrated fighter of all time, that Pernell ain't even a patch on Floyd and that Tony Tubbs had the fastest hands of any Heavyweight in history!

Most (not all, but most) on here seem to say roughly the same thing or have the same opinion on Louis - that he was a fantastic fighter, but that there's a bit of daylight between him and Ali in terms of record and how good they were overall in their pomp, regardless of Louis having the more textbook technique (in the same way that Toney having more textbook technique and more of the classic 'fundamentals' you'd teach in a gym than Jones ended up making sack all difference to who had the better career, or who slapped the other one's backside when they got in the ring).

That he couldn't possibly have done any more as champion and that he totally cleared out a division which he deserves (and gets) immense credit for, but that his opposition while solid isn't as good as some of the other guys who had the luxury of being able to move up / down in weight to seek out new challenges.

That he beats most of the other guys ranked inside an all-time top ten at Heavyweight, but loses to a few of them as well, which is hardly a slight against him when you consider that the likes of Ali, Frazier, Tyson, Lewis, Holmes etc represent a pretty big step up from the Schmelings, Conns, Braddocks, Walcotts and Baers of this world - and that even then Louis didn't always have it all his own way against those guys.

Is any of the above really that controversial or hard to back up? Is it really an injustice against Louis?

Firstly I think Duran does get downgraded on here. Many posters do not have Duran in their Top 10 which is a little off the norm. Maybe the Truss brainwashing thing again. There should be a Trussy lotto......First Question.....how many times has Truss written "Rolled like a drunk" in the last decade.

Secondly I would say Louis gets a lot of undue stick for the Conn fight. The impression being he was plodding around the ring like a zombie that night.

Thirdly, and this is a point I have made more subtley in the past, the board favours a particular type of fighter namely slick back foot fighters. Aggressive fighters are knocked down a notch. Its why a Mayweather or Charles are held in such esteem and a bruser like Jack Dempsey is a "blind spot". Now I am not getting at you with this comment as it has always been this way. The most influential posters set the tone a long time ago.

88Chris05 wrote:If Trussman had shaped people's opinions as much as you claim he has, Strongy, then everyone here would also be saying that Duran is the most scandalously overrated fighter of all time, that Pernell ain't even a patch on Floyd and that Tony Tubbs had the fastest hands of any Heavyweight in history!?

Does this mean I've convinced you that Lewis is Canadian ??..

Don't tell me I've labored on here all these years in vain !!

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:These boards have a definite slant. I've taken on the established order numerous times (on leonard, Ali, Hagler, Louis, Floyd, Oscar etc.) only to be labelled as worse than a Hammersmith Harrier.

Chris is the ringleader!

Your took on the 'established order' on the beeb too haz. Or did you get banned for agreeing with everyone in an orderly fashion  

You just have your favourites and opinions and defend them to the hilt. Fine by me, we all do it to one level or another. It's only you and strongy who insist that you are fighting for the consensus against the biased, rather than accepting that while there are those who follow blindly, most people are just giving their own opinion on a sport that perhaps more than any other lends itself to opinion over proof... Scoring, weights classes, multiple world champions, no clear ranking system etc.

I got banned for threatening to kill that Ceej guy actually!

Louis doesn't get the lickings of a dog on these boards - ridiculous really.

hazharrison wrote:

I got banned for threatening to kill that Ceej guy actually!

They should have had a statue of you erected for that.

Strongback wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:If Trussman had shaped people's opinions as much as you claim he has, Strongy, then everyone here would also be saying that Duran is the most scandalously overrated fighter of all time, that Pernell ain't even a patch on Floyd and that Tony Tubbs had the fastest hands of any Heavyweight in history!

Most (not all, but most) on here seem to say roughly the same thing or have the same opinion on Louis - that he was a fantastic fighter, but that there's a bit of daylight between him and Ali in terms of record and how good they were overall in their pomp, regardless of Louis having the more textbook technique (in the same way that Toney having more textbook technique and more of the classic 'fundamentals' you'd teach in a gym than Jones ended up making sack all difference to who had the better career, or who slapped the other one's backside when they got in the ring).

That he couldn't possibly have done any more as champion and that he totally cleared out a division which he deserves (and gets) immense credit for, but that his opposition while solid isn't as good as some of the other guys who had the luxury of being able to move up / down in weight to seek out new challenges.

That he beats most of the other guys ranked inside an all-time top ten at Heavyweight, but loses to a few of them as well, which is hardly a slight against him when you consider that the likes of Ali, Frazier, Tyson, Lewis, Holmes etc represent a pretty big step up from the Schmelings, Conns, Braddocks, Walcotts and Baers of this world - and that even then Louis didn't always have it all his own way against those guys.

Is any of the above really that controversial or hard to back up? Is it really an injustice against Louis?

Firstly I think Duran does get downgraded on here.  Many posters do not have Duran in their Top 10 which is a little off the norm. Maybe the Truss brainwashing thing again. There should be a Trussy lotto......First Question.....how many times has Truss written "Rolled like a drunk" in the last decade.

Secondly I would say Louis gets a lot of undue stick for the Conn fight.  The impression being he was plodding around the ring like a zombie that night.

Thirdly, and this is a point I have made more subtley in the past, the board favours a particular type of fighter namely slick back foot fighters.  Aggressive fighters are knocked down a notch.  Its why a Mayweather or Charles are held in such esteem and a bruser like Jack Dempsey is a "blind spot".  Now I am not getting at you with this comment as it has always been this way.  The most influential posters set the tone a long time ago.

   

Hate to break it to the wolf pack but he's right.

Duran hardly gets a raw deal on here, the lowest i've seen him ranked is number 12 and that's Truss, the only other poster who has him outside the top ten is Rowley.

Ezzard Charles is a back foot boxer is here now, don't think that description of him could be more wrong, slick he may have been but he was almost always on the front foot in fights.

The only back foot boxers who are rated slightly higher than the norm are Whitaker and Mayweather, in fact Willie Pep rarely features in top tens despite being nailed on by most historians and the IBRO.

Louis doesn't get any stick for the Conn fight, people call it as they see it, a great Heavyweight looking far from his best and clearly losing before pulling it out the bag, not sure what is controversial about that viewpoint.

As for aggressive fighters being knocked down a notch, how exactly would you describe Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, Langford, Fitzsimmons, Jones, Chavez, Arguello, Jofre etc. I don't think the primary intent of any of them was defensive.

Demspey and Marciano on the whole benefit from being a few things; heavyweights, brawlers, American, popular and i'll say it White.

Meh its generally all pub chat on online forums for these ratings malark. I wouldnt get worked up about it. Ive yet to read any opinion of authority that doesnt hold Louis is the highest regard.

catchweight wrote:Meh its generally all pub chat on online forums for these ratings malark. I wouldnt get worked up about it. Ive yet to read any opinion of authority that doesnt hold Louis is the highest regard.

Or any sensible opinions on here. I say sensible, because I can't recall Az's opinions on Louis.

I believe that Az's main point regarding Louis was that he had trouble just hitting a speed bag, 'fly.

He was really trying to up his WUM game at the time because the competition was stiff - I believe this was around the same time that D4 was claiming that voting for Mayweather as your pound for pound number one was akin to voting for the BNP in a general election. Think I've got to give D4 that one on points.

A rare non-knockout victory for D4 who destroyed all before him when it came to WUMMERY. If anyone was going to last the distance though, it was Az.

I have the highest regard for Louis... He's number 2 at heavy...

Fact is he beat sloppy seconds.

He struggled with a limited 170 pounder who wasn't a Jones jr.

Had a dodgy chin.

Was more or less a Cruiser..

Like Johnson a heavy of his era...

When you have to hear guff like "He takes the center of the ring against Foreman,owns him with the jab and then knocks him stiff.."

It's laughable..

Great heavy of his ERA.

Think the issue with this whole debate is it is predicated on a false position, that being that Louis is wildly undervalued, rated or appreciated on here. Obviously a bit presumptuous to assume I speak for the board when I say this but suspect he is pretty much universally accepted as the second best heavyweight ever and in most people’s list of the top 20 greatest fighters of all time, irrespective of weight. Cant help but feel there is many a fighter who would delight in being similarly undervalued.

Exactly rowley. You can, and we do, pick holes in everyone's record. When you're judging against the very best ever at every weight, you come under the highest scrutiny.  Louis had an off night against conn but still won, its a factor to consider that he struggled with a mobile, lighter opponent. Just a factor to consider, as is the schmeling loss. In the same way that a not far from prime robinson (albeit above his best weight) lost to turpin and struggled in the return. That's before we discuss his draw with henry brimm.

There's a bunch of very talented fighters with great records to squeeze into a p4p all time top 10. Most people have robbo, armstrong and ali in the top positions usually with greb. After that, there's a stack of candidates to squeeze in... most of whom had the luxury of being able to prove their abilities against champions from higher weight divisions that heavies don't have... yet it seems its sacrilege if someone has louis at 11. You hardly ever see him outside the top 2 heavies. But no, we're a bunch of louis bashers who don't know sheet.

How can you say Louis had an off night ?????????????????????????????????

Surely either he had an off night, or simply Conn was a better HW.

Which one makes more sense??

TopHat24/7 wrote:Surely either he had an off night, or simply Conn was a better HW.

Which one makes more sense??

Styles make fights...........

So if it's about styles, does Louis deserve to get more stick about Conn than Ali does about Norton, or Foreman does about Young, or Lewis does about Mercer?

My problem is that he got a Boxing lesson off a guy who just circled the ring and punched straight all night........and also the fact he got hurt and badly staggered by a 170 pounder.....

As for the Foreman stuff well........Foreman is a top 5 heavy..Norton is a top 20 heavy....and Ali was an old man when Young nearly beat him....Young also beat some quality heavies...

That argument is turd..