Balance: Napoles & Louis

First topic message reminder :

Another Wylie video here:

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

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:That your best answer?

Did Louis struggle with Conn more or less than Ali did with Norton, for example??

Did he struggle more than Foreman did against Young??

Again I must state, Norton was a monster of a man, not a 170lb fighter.

Don't know why Ali keeps getting dragged into this. Louis is nowhere near the level of Ali.

Doug Jones weighed 188 lbs - Ali (Clay as he was then) struggled mightily with Jones (and Young) way more than he did monsters like Foreman and Norton.

Ali might be the greater fighter but the gap isn't as great as you imagine.

Was Ali at his peak and champion then?

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.

I have the magazine somehwere - the criteria centred around number of knockouts, who they knocked out and who they knocked out in important fights. Attempting to predict who hit hardest is a way more random exercise.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:That your best answer?

Did Louis struggle with Conn more or less than Ali did with Norton, for example??

Did he struggle more than Foreman did against Young??

Again I must state, Norton was a monster of a man, not a 170lb fighter.

Don't know why Ali keeps getting dragged into this. Louis is nowhere near the level of Ali.

Doug Jones weighed 188 lbs - Ali (Clay as he was then) struggled mightily with Jones (and Young) way more than he did monsters like Foreman and Norton.

Ali might be the greater fighter but the gap isn't as great as you imagine.

Was Ali at his peak and champion then?

Did Louis underestimate Conn? Henry Cooper - another tiny heavyweight - almost stopped Clay. Small, quick guys aren't necessarily easier propositions than huge, more lumbering types.

I get it Haz, pick holes in Ali to justify Louis getting a boxing lesson from someone half his size.

It's just as well Liston or Foreman were not in Louis era, otherwise we would not even be having this debate.

AdamT wrote:Same guys on here that back Louis, blast Floyd.

Floyd has met much tougher challenges than Louis plus he hasn't been decked by nobodies or outboxed by midgets

He also hasn't ruled a division with an iron fist for nigh on a decade.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:That your best answer?

Did Louis struggle with Conn more or less than Ali did with Norton, for example??

Did he struggle more than Foreman did against Young??

Again I must state, Norton was a monster of a man, not a 170lb fighter.

Don't know why Ali keeps getting dragged into this. Louis is nowhere near the level of Ali.

You mean the little 200 pounder with the incredible skill and balance who got squashed of the one dimensional Schmelling, wobbled off a 170 pounder and decked off two ton Tony !!

Wouldn't be pushing the monster Foreman back and owning him with his jab for six rounds until he landed the Coup de grace ??????

Well I never....

Do you need reminding Ali visited the canvas 4 times.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Same guys on here that back Louis, blast Floyd.

Floyd has met much tougher challenges than Louis plus he hasn't been decked by nobodies or outboxed by midgets

He also hasn't ruled a division with an iron fist for nigh on a decade.

I agree, he fancied moving up to challenge himself and get more titles. Obviously I can not hold that against Louis as he was already a heavy!

AdamT wrote:I get it Haz, pick holes in Ali to justify Louis getting a boxing lesson from someone half his size.

It's just as well Liston or Foreman were not in Louis era, otherwise we would not even be having this debate.

I'm not attempting to pick holes in Ali's career - the big man is beyond reproach. Merely making the point that size isn't the be all and end all when we're dealing with a great fighter such as Conn.

The latter is supposition - nothing more. Louis would have fought them at least.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Same guys on here that back Louis, blast Floyd.

Floyd has met much tougher challenges than Louis plus he hasn't been decked by nobodies or outboxed by midgets

He also hasn't ruled a division with an iron fist for nigh on a decade.

I agree, he fancied moving up to challenge himself and get more titles. Obviously I can not hold that against Louis as he was already a heavy!

And if you believe that, well....

He moved up to make more money, nothing more. If he'd wanted to challenge himself he'd have fought that Filipino guy (or taken on the brilliant welterweight division he ducked out of after beating up Hatton).

I do think Louis is a good fighter. Bad fighters do not dominate for 11 years.

However I stand by view that he is not a top 2 heavy at least on a head to head basis.

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:That your best answer?

Did Louis struggle with Conn more or less than Ali did with Norton, for example??

Did he struggle more than Foreman did against Young??

Again I must state, Norton was a monster of a man, not a 170lb fighter.

Don't know why Ali keeps getting dragged into this. Louis is nowhere near the level of Ali.

But we're not just talking about size.

Otherwise answer my question why Valuez isnt' a great and Haye isn't Top10 all time HW lists???!!

You've written off Louis because he struggled with 1 guy (who he still managed to knock out!!) and you give a free pass to all the fighters you like against the oppos they've struggled against.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:That your best answer?

Did Louis struggle with Conn more or less than Ali did with Norton, for example??

Did he struggle more than Foreman did against Young??

Again I must state, Norton was a monster of a man, not a 170lb fighter.

Don't know why Ali keeps getting dragged into this. Louis is nowhere near the level of Ali.

Doug Jones weighed 188 lbs - Ali (Clay as he was then) struggled mightily with Jones (and Young) way more than he did monsters like Foreman and Norton.

Ali might be the greater fighter but the gap isn't as great as you imagine.

Being the operative word.....

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.

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.

Fantastic post!

That is why I bring up Conn.

Louis is called a technical genuis and murderous puncher! Then even in his worst night little Conn should not get by a couple of rounds.

AdamT wrote:I do think Louis is a good fighter. Bad fighters do not dominate for 11 years.

However I stand by view that he is not a top 2 heavy at least on a head to head basis.

That's a rather fruitless argument, though. You can only really rank fighters on what they achieved.

I thought Ali beat Jones, but I also suspect had Joined been the Olympic champion a different fighters hand would have been raised that fight. Still, Ali won the rematch comprehensively enough, and he was pretty young come the fight.

I will state something I mentioned earlier.

On a head to head basis Louis in noway in hell makes my top 6, never mind top 2!

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.

AdamT wrote:I will state something I mentioned earlier.

On a head to head basis Louis in noway in hell makes my top 6, never mind top 2!

In a head to head basis Meg Ryan doesn't make my top ten Hollywood pin ups - but does that stop Truss rating her?

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:I will state something I mentioned earlier.

On a head to head basis Louis in noway in hell makes my top 6, never mind top 2!

In a head to head basis Meg Ryan doesn't make my top ten Hollywood pin ups - but does that stop Truss rating her?

Fair point!

AdamT wrote:I will state something I mentioned earlier.

On a head to head basis Louis in noway in hell makes my top 6, never mind top 2!

Who beats him and why?

Tyson- faster, stronger and better (underrated defense as well)

Liston, Better jab, great reach, tough man.

Ali- Goes without saying

Lewis- Too big, too strong

Vitali- See above!

Evander Holyfield- Again he is bigger and has a lot of heart and I think Out works Joe and is tough enough to take his punch

Wlad- Jabs Louis silly in the most boring heavyweight fight ever.

Larry Holmes- Far too good an all rounder and boxes Louis silly

Excuse the grammer folks, trying to multi task at work!

AdamT wrote:Tyson- faster, stronger and better (underrated defense as well)

Liston, Better jab, great reach, tough man.

Ali- Goes without saying

Lewis- Too big, too strong

Vitali- See above!

Evander Holyfield- Again he is bigger and has a lot of heart and I think Out works Joe and is tough enough to take his punch

Wlad- Jabs Louis silly in the most boring heavyweight fight ever.

Larry Holmes- Far too good an all rounder and boxes Louis silly

Spot on.................Tubbs, Witherspoon and Page too good also.............Bruno 50/50............

Louis was a heavy of his time.................and that time was cruiserweight............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

AdamT wrote:Tyson- faster, stronger and better (underrated defense as well)

Liston, Better jab, great reach, tough man.

Ali- Goes without saying

Lewis- Too big, too strong

Vitali- See above!

Evander Holyfield- Again he is bigger and has a lot of heart and I think Out works Joe and is tough enough to take his punch

Wlad- Jabs Louis silly in the most boring heavyweight fight ever.

Larry Holmes- Far too good an all rounder and boxes Louis silly

Spot on.................Tubbs, Witherspoon and Page too good also.............Bruno 50/50............

Louis was a heavy of his time.................and that time was cruiserweight............

Yep, also Riddick Bowe far too big and strong.

Louis thought in a weak era

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.

AdamT wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

AdamT wrote:Tyson- faster, stronger and better (underrated defense as well)

Liston, Better jab, great reach, tough man.

Ali- Goes without saying

Lewis- Too big, too strong

Vitali- See above!

Evander Holyfield- Again he is bigger and has a lot of heart and I think Out works Joe and is tough enough to take his punch

Wlad- Jabs Louis silly in the most boring heavyweight fight ever.

Larry Holmes- Far too good an all rounder and boxes Louis silly

Spot on.................Tubbs, Witherspoon and Page too good also.............Bruno 50/50............

Louis was a heavy of his time.................and that time was cruiserweight............

Yep, also Riddick Bowe far too big and strong.

Louis thought in a weak era

And Ron Stander. A bigger Two Tonne Tony. And Wepner. And Audley (too big). And Sprott.....

You left out Tyson Fury!

Louis was a great heavy..............Personally though like old Archie I think Johnson beats him...

Fact is he was 199 against Conn......and two stone is a lot with his style and chin to give up against gifted heavies.......

Walcott 1-1 , Charles L15, Marciano Lko8 were the only top calibre guys he fought...

Granted he was past his prime....

You're reading what you want to read and imagining what we're saying, Haz. Nobody is saying that losing rounds is a crime, that Louis doesn't deserve immense credit for pulling the win out having struggled for so long beforehand or any of that jazz.

What we're questioning is the way you refuse to acknowledge any flaws in his arsenal and talk as if he was a totally infallible, perfect fighting machine - he wasn't (the same as just about any fighter who has ever lived, ultimately). Whenever a critique is made of Louis in some way - his footwork, his ring IQ, his chin etc - you tend to counter that, in fact, Louis is underrated if anything in that respect and it's not a weakness at all, or that the perceived criticism is out of proportion. With that in mind, people are just putting forward the question of why he toiled so badly with a guy whose skill set, while very good, never gets talked up to the same kind of proportions, who wasn't a great puncher and who weighed 25 lb less. Fair enough?

Hey, count yourself lucky. People are only bringing up the Conn barnstormer - can you imagine if they touched upon the hammering he took off Schmeling first time out, the gift he got against Walcott in their first fight, the split decision against Godoy, the trips to the canvas / first row against Buddy Baer and Braddock, etc?.....

For what it's worth, while I'm obviously not as amazed to my core with Louis' abilities as you are, I do think that Adam and Truss are selling him very short in their head to head posts.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Louis was a great heavy..............Personally though like old Archie I think Johnson beats him...

Fact is he was 199 against Conn......and two stone is a lot with his style and chin to give up against gifted heavies.......

Walcott 1-1 , Charles L15, Marciano Lko8 were the only top calibre guys he fought...

Granted he was past his prime....

He didn't lose to Walcott and you completely underestimate his opposition. Who, aside from Ali (perhaps), faced more top ten ranked opponents?

Before he hit the skids he lost once - and then nearly killed the guy who beat him.

Opinion is opinion...........Fairplay...

88Chris05 wrote:You're reading what you want to read and imagining what we're saying, Haz. Nobody is saying that losing rounds is a crime, that Louis doesn't deserve immense credit for pulling the win out having struggled for so long beforehand or any of that jazz.

What we're questioning is the way you refuse to acknowledge any flaws in his arsenal and talk as if he was a totally infallible, perfect fighting machine - he wasn't (the same as just about any fighter who has ever lived, ultimately). Whenever a critique is made of Louis in some way - his footwork, his ring IQ, his chin etc - you tend to counter that, in fact, Louis is underrated if anything in that respect and it's not a weakness at all, or that the perceived criticism is out of proportion. With that in mind, people are just putting forward the question of why he toiled so badly with a guy whose skill set, while very good, never gets talked up to the same kind of proportions, who wasn't a great puncher and who weighed 25 lb less. Fair enough?

Hey, count yourself lucky. People are only bringing up the Conn barnstormer - can you imagine if they touched upon the hammering he took off Schmeling first time out, the gift he got against Walcott in their first fight, the split decision against Godoy, the trips to the canvas / first row against Buddy Baer and Braddock, etc?.....  

For what it's worth, while I'm obviously not as amazed to my core with Louis' abilities as you are, I do think that Adam and Truss are selling him very short in their head to head posts.

How has defending ridiculous over-the-top criticism of a fighter been construed as refusing to acknowledge any flaws in Joe's arsenal? Maybe you're imagining what I'm saying?

The ease with which Schmeling dealt with Louis is pretty damning. In Joe's defence, he was about where Joshua is now and so that can probably be mitigated somewhat (as some have with Ali against Jones).

I'm not suggesting Louis was a perfect fighter - merely that his skills are underrated in comparison to someone like Ali. Louis was every bit as good a boxer as Ali - albeit in a more subtle, nuanced fashion.

All my imagination time is taken up by Miss Charlize Theron, Haz. Maybe the odd glimmer of Forest winning a third European Cup before I hit 150, but that's it. So I plead not guilty to your charge.

Interesting set of scores you've found for the Ali-Jones fight, mind you. I know there'll be a good few on here who've seen it - did any of us score it anything other than an Ali win, seriously? Baffles me a bit that so many thought Jones got it. Competitive fight, but not a razor's edge one by any means in my eyes.

Louis lovers thought Jones won...............Remember Haz thinks both Ali-Liston fights were fixed....

where's london ring rules when you need him for an objective appraisal of ali-jones

haz, I think you mentioned the other day that you maybe get a bit over protective of him in the face of perceived ott criticism. Think we all do it to be honest when we think a fighter is getting an unfair rap. Some on here have misguidedly presumed me to be a leonard fan, in light of me defending him from assorted libellous claims... and idiots thinking hagler gave him a silent beating

Leon Spinks....The most underrated heavy of alltime....

88Chris05 wrote:All my imagination time is taken up by Miss Charlize Theron, Haz. Maybe the odd glimmer of Forest winning a third European Cup before I hit 150, but that's it. So I plead not guilty to your charge.

Interesting set of scores you've found for the Ali-Jones fight, mind you. I know there'll be a good few on here who've seen it - did any of us score it anything other than an Ali win, seriously? Baffles me a bit that so many thought Jones got it. Competitive fight, but not a razor's edge one by any means in my eyes.

We're looking back in hindsight, though. We see a legend against Doug Jones. More press scored for Jones from ringside (based on the snapshot above).

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Louis lovers thought Jones won...............Remember Haz thinks both Ali-Liston fights were fixed....

I whole-heartedly do. I don't see myself as any more a fan of Louis than Ali mind you. My guys were Joe Frazier and Lennox Lewis.

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.

Very biased post. Very much one way traffic. Have a reread.

Biased because it doesn't revere Joe Louis as a god amongst men.

milkyboy wrote:where's london ring rules when you need him for an objective appraisal of ali-jones

haz, I think you mentioned the other day that you maybe get a bit over protective of him in the face of perceived ott criticism. Think we all do it to be honest when we think a fighter is getting an unfair rap. Some on here have misguidedly presumed me to be a leonard fan, in light of me defending him from assorted libellous claims... and idiots thinking hagler gave him a silent beating

Don't open that can of worms man! (But only one of them would have been walking like he'd filled his keks the next day).

Strongback 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.

Very biased post.  Very much one way traffic.  Have a reread.

I scored it 5-3-2 to Jones. I can't see how anyone could give Jones less than five rounds (had him 4-1-1 up after 6). Clay looked awful that night. He missed more than I ever saw him, looked jaded and his timing was off. Jones old manned him - shooting his shots stright down the pipe to catch Clay pulling back with his head up.

The ref's score of 8-1-1 Clay was preposterous, a stinker. Clay was booed to the rafters (hardly indicative of a guy who was "appeciably the better man).

As I said earlier, Jones was a popular New Yorker who the Garden crowd were familiar with. Ali was the brash upstart who was already rubbing a lot of people up the wrong way with his proclamations of greatness and who a lot of people wanted to see put in his place - so I don't read too much in to the crowd booing. The whole crowd might have been in uproar, and yet by your own evidence there were plenty of others who scored it for Ali. Kind of demonstrates my point that perhaps crowd reaction isn't the best thing to gauge on.

Hey, I've got loads of De la Hoya fanatics booing the decision in the Mayweather fight, Jim Watt's Glasgow faithful screaming that their man destroyed O'Grady and that O'Grady being pulled out robbed him of a glorious knockout victory (when in reality if it had been anywhere other than Glasgow he'd have been thrown out on his ear), Gorres' home town fans almost starting a riot when he 'only' got a draw against Darchinyan, despite the fact that it was Vic who got shafted, not him and so on.

I thought Ali won the fight beyond a reasonable doubt overall. It was competitive, he was hurt a couple of times, Jones showed that the aggressive style and good movement coming in could cause him problems (a point which Frazier drilled home years later). But in my opinion the fight was far from a robbery and Jones fought in spurts too much, spending a bit too much time being reactive and looking to counter Ali (who was too quick for that, really) and getting beaten to the punch. Ali outworked and outlanded him with weighty combinations, which he sat down on more and more as the fight went on, in many rounds which Jones just couldn't defend against.

I'll happily stand by that and I maintain that it's hard to make a case for Jones winning unless you're looking to give him rounds and giving him every single bit of the benefit of the doubt. Plenty of people feel the same, I'm sure. Maybe I've underestimated how many disagree with that point so if anyone else has got an opinion of the scoring in that one, I'm all ears.

Anyway, long and short of it is that repeatedly bringing up the Ali-Jones fight isn't really a way to make Louis' problems with Conn look any better. Different stages of their careers, different styles against them, less of a weight advantage etc.

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 was an 18 month novice when he fought the wily Schmelling. What happened in the rematch. Fairly significant fight it was too.

The difference with Conn is that he is an ATG P4P'er. He's in a different class to any opponent being mentioned.

The mark of a champion is he finds a way to win on a night things aren't going his way. It's not like Conn won the fight.

The scoring in Conn v Louis is also a lot closer than some around here care to remember.

An 18 month novice who'd beaten two former world champions and another world title challneger, hardly the sign of a novice but as expected the excuses soon come out. In one instance you'll use P4P to back up your pro Louis viewpoint but the next second you'll dismiss it as meaningless when it suits your argument.

The scoring doesn't mean a thing, it was not a close fight but I do have to commend your use of Boxrec there Strongy.

At the same respective point in his career Ali was struggling past Jones but still winning whereas Louis was getting humiliated by Schmeling. When Louis was struggling past Conn, Ali was breezing past Foster (an ATG P4P'er and comparative to Conn)

[quote="88Chris05"]As I said earlier, Jones was a popular New Yorker who the Garden crowd were familiar with. Ali was the brash upstart who was already rubbing a lot of people up the wrong way with his proclamations of greatness and who a lot of people wanted to see put in his place - so I don't read too much in to the crowd booing. The whole crowd might have been in uproar, and yet by your own evidence there were plenty of others who scored it for Ali. Kind of demonstrates my point that perhaps crowd reaction isn't the best thing to gauge on.

Hey, I've got loads of De la Hoya fanatics booing the decision in the Mayweather fight, Jim Watt's Glasgow faithful screaming that their man destroyed O'Grady and that O'Grady being pulled out robbed him of a glorious knockout victory (when in reality if it had been anywhere other than Glasgow he'd have been thrown out on his ear), Gorres' home town fans almost starting a riot when he 'only' got a draw against Darchinyan, despite the fact that it was Vic who got shafted, not him and so on.

I thought Ali won the fight beyond a reasonable doubt overall. It was competitive, he was hurt a couple of times, Jones showed that the aggressive style and good movement coming in could cause him problems (a point which Frazier drilled home years later). But in my opinion the fight was far from a robbery and Jones fought in spurts too much, spending a bit too much time being reactive and looking to counter Ali (who was too quick for that, really) and getting beaten to the punch. Ali outworked and outlanded him with weighty combinations, which he sat down on more and more as the fight went on, in many rounds which Jones just couldn't defend against.

I'll happily stand by that and I maintain that it's hard to make a case for Jones winning unless you're looking to give him rounds and giving him every single bit of the benefit of the doubt. Plenty of people feel the same, I'm sure. Maybe I've underestimated how many disagree with that point so if anyone else has got an opinion of the scoring in that one, I'm all ears.

Anyway, long and short of it is that repeatedly bringing up the Ali-Jones fight isn't really a way to make Louis' problems with Conn look any better. Different stages of their careers, different styles against them, less of a weight advantage etc. [/quote]

Jones landed the majority of effective shots. Clay threw tonnes of punches but the majority of them missed - Jones rolled well from the shoulders before reassuming his position deftly in order to ram punches at Clay down the middle. How can you score rounds 1,2, 5 and 6 any other way than Jones? Clay looked quite poor overall - even when he rallied Jones managed to clock him upside his head (regularly). I don't agree that fans booed Clay for the reasons you suggest. They booed the decision.

I pointed Adam to Clay-Jones to make the point that small, quick guys can trouble the likes of Louis and Ali far more than beasts like Buddy Baer or George Foreman ever could. I wasn't attempting to deflect from Louis's problematic night against Conn.

Louis struggled to catch up with an all time great who was nippy as hell and caught him on off guard yet Louis adjusted and got him out of there - I don't see what the big issue is? Conn is repeatedly used to beat Louis over the head - as is Walcott. And there's another 606v2 double standard: Ali benefitted from way more iffy decisions than Louis ever did (Jones, Norton, Young for example).

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.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:An 18 month novice who'd beaten two former world champions and another world title challneger, hardly the sign of a novice but as expected the excuses soon come out. In one instance you'll use P4P to back up your pro Louis viewpoint but the next second you'll dismiss it as meaningless when it suits your argument.

The scoring doesn't mean a thing, it was not a close fight but I do have to commend your use of Boxrec there Strongy.

At the same respective point in his career Ali was struggling past Jones but still winning whereas Louis was getting humiliated by Schmeling. When Louis was struggling past Conn, Ali was breezing past Foster (an ATG P4P'er and comparative to Conn)

Anthony Joshua a gold medalist has been fighting pro for 2 years. Louis was an 18 month pro. Put that into context. Remember what happened in the Schmelling rematch, often called the biggest fight in the history of boxing.

BTW I don't need Boxrec to check Louis stats. At this stage I know them off by heart.