Is Gene Tunney vs Joe Louis - pickem ????

LOUIS vs conn - "By the end of the12th round I was exhausted...I was praying he'd go ahead and gamble because I didn't see any other way I was going to keep my title....Then he threw a long left hook...I countered he went numb and I thought I've got you now !!"

Did Louis have an off night against Conn............??

Did coming in at 199 affect Louis ??..........Against Tunney he probably would be 210 !!!

Was Tunney a similar operator to Conn......?? Would he have got carried away against Louis...Probably not..

Tunney was 16 pounds heavier than Conn and a bigger hitter...........

Is this a 50/50 fight..............or am I full of crap !!

Never see this matchup talked about and yet to me like Corbett-Fitz 2, Dempsey-Marciano and Frazier- Tyson it's one of the more fascinating..

would Tunney fight a black man?

He may have tamed the swarming dempsey, but he's not got the pop to stop louis so has to avoid him. Tunney was good defensively but did get hit. Whilst he will have developed a defensive strategy to keep him out of harm's way as much as possible, I don't see him keeping louis off him. But I do agree Truss, its an interesting match up and there's an argument louis is more suited to cutting down true heavies than chasing a more elusive foe.

Interesting one, Truss. Like you say, bit of a surprise that it doesn't get pondered a bit more although I think I remember Superfly a long time ago putting together a pretty strong argument as to why he'd take Tunney in this one.

Louis' most pronounced weakness was his heavy feet which isn't really news. Conn and Walcott showed that he could struggle against good footwork and movement - Tunney certainly had those going for him and was comfortable at a solid 190 lb, so straight away I'd say he's got a decent foundation to at least give Louis a good argument. I don't think Tunney would be bothered about Louis following his attacking inclinations and trying to stalk him, as that's how he let Dempsey fight against him twice over and he beat him both times, alebit Louis brings more to the table than Jack. Tunney controlling the range and trying to beat Louis to the punch on the outside, avoiding in-close exchanges, is how I'd see him going about the job.

But Louis was a proven fifteen-round fighter at championship level who pulled out some fights that were going against him late on even if it was simply down to putting in more effort late on than his opponent (Conn I, Godoy I). Tunney beat Dempsey twice, but they were over ten rounds and Dempsey looked very, very flat to me in both encounters. Tunney had a great defence but I'm not sure that'd be enough here, because even Conn, while he used his legs a lot, stood in close with Louis at times and mixed it up with a lot of quick combinations to prevent Louis from settling in to a continuous forward rhythm. That kind of blurring combination punching wasn't one of Tunney's strengths and I think he'd need to mix it up a bit more than he did against Dempsey to pull this one off, ala Conn's first performance against Joe.

Over fifteen rounds I don't think Tunney's style and (I imagine) preferred game plan would be enough. I can see Tunney making a good fist of it and maybe building up an early lead but I think Louis would have chopped him down eventually, maybe somewhere around the eighth or ninth round.

Even though Louis has to be the higher ranked fighter i would pick Gene to handle Louis with relative ease. Tunney was much better than most give him credit for and one of the sharpest brains ever to enter a boxing ring, i think his ring generalship, footwork, hand speed and skills would badly frustrate Louis and he would win a comfortable decision.

Louis pulverizes Tunney.

People accuse me of having it in for Eddie but what about Trussy continually running down Louis?

You only have to look at the ATG ratings to see the cavernous gap between how Louis and Tunney are viewed as heavyweight greats.

For someone who's apparently got six degrees........why are so stupid ???

There is a cavernous gap between Ali and Norton !!

Geez..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For someone who's apparently got six degrees........why are so stupid ???

There is a cavernous gap between Ali and Norton !!

Geez..

I'm not so slow as to not understand this thread is all about your hero Ali being the No.1 heavy of all time. You don't like Louis being in the mix for No.1.

Gene Tunney with all of 3 world title fights quite rightly isn't going to be regarded as highly as Louis as a Heavyweight but that absolutely nothing to do with a head to head match up.

Seven times out of ten I think Louis beats Tunney, whether he's able to connect enough to force a stoppage I don't know but on an off night there's every possibility that Gene goes one better than Conn and wins comfortably on points. While not quite as fleet footed as Conn, Tunney was bigger, stronger, fitter, tougher, hit a lot harder, would not get all macho and throw it away late.

Conn was a blip, Ali had them too. Louis did beat Conn it should be noted.

Tunney is lauded for beating a washed up Dempsey, 1 + 1 does not equal 5.

Louis for me. Gene has many qualities, but as Chris as rightly said high output was not one of them. He tended to be more thoughtful in his shot selection and did not tend to throw unless he was sure he would land, no insult implied or meant in this, but this approach is not likely to stop Joe getting into his rhythm and once Joe is into this he is a tough guy to beat. He might be a good few rounds down after six or seven but if he does not do enough to catch Gene and stop him late Joe almost certainly does enough to claw back the deficit and get the decision.

Tunney may have many skills, but what Joe lacked with footwork he more than made up for with his unerring combination punching, arguably the best in the business.
Tunney may start well but I can't help feel that those combinations from Joe will start to get through, and I don't see Tunney seeing the final bell.

Could be close….or it's Tyson-Spinks. My money is on it being the latter.

Tunney isn't going to capitulate like that at all HH.

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For someone who's apparently got six degrees........why are so stupid ???

There is a cavernous gap between Ali and Norton !!

Geez..

I'm not so slow as to not understand this thread is all about your hero Ali being the No.1 heavy of all time.   You don't like Louis being in the mix for No.1.

I'm calling my next alias "Paddy" ......You won't be saying I've got an agenda then !!

horizontalhero wrote:Could be close….or it's Tyson-Spinks. My money is on it being the latter.

Tunney doesn't strike me as a bottler......

Dempsey had a murderous reputation........Think you're underselling Gene ...a bit mate.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For someone who's apparently got six degrees........why are so stupid ???

There is a cavernous gap between Ali and Norton !!

Geez..

I'm not so slow as to not understand this thread is all about your hero Ali being the No.1 heavy of all time.   You don't like Louis being in the mix for No.1.

I'm calling my next alias "Paddy" ......You won't be saying I've got an agenda then !!

I might make up an alias......Psuedo Septic (tank)

Nico the gman wrote:Tunney may have many skills, but what Joe lacked with footwork he more than made up for with his unerring combination punching, arguably the best in the business.
Tunney may start well but I can't help feel that those combinations from Joe will start to get through, and I don't see Tunney seeing the final bell.

It's widely acknowledged on here, nico,that louis invented combination punching.

Strongback, Louis obviously gets a place in 90-odd percent of people's top two Heavyweights of all time (I can't see a case for him going above Ali for top spot, personally, but that's another story) based on his career record, consistency over such a long period of time and his own abilities which were considerable. But I think Louis is one of those cases where his head-to-head merits don't necessarily match up to his record on paper.

How many Welters can you put in front of Armstrong in terms of achievements / record? One, maybe two. Basically the Sugar Rays. But I'd feel pretty confident in making more than only one or two Welters in history a favourite to beat him head-to-head. I don't think it's a slight against Louis to toy with the idea of someone like Tunney giving him a good fight and possibly beating him.

All fighters had blips but Louis found a way to make himself look pretty poor technically at times against the likes of Schmeling, Conn and Godoy. The first two are more understandable as they were quality performers, but if you had no knowledge of Louis at all and watched the first Godoy fight without any preconceptions you'd probably think he (Louis) was nothing more than a club fighter. It's not as if he was in there against a skilled or top class fighter who was making it look worse than it was, either. Appreciate that those examples are the worst of Louis but it's hard to make a case for him being a favourite or even money over a decent number of Heavyweights who might rank below him on career accomplishments when you consider them.

88Chris05 wrote:Interesting one, Truss. Like you say, bit of a surprise that it doesn't get pondered a bit more although I think I remember Superfly a long time ago putting together a pretty strong argument as to why he'd take Tunney in this one.

Louis' most pronounced weakness was his heavy feet which isn't really news. Conn and Walcott showed that he could struggle against good footwork and movement - Tunney certainly had those going for him and was comfortable at a solid 190 lb, so straight away I'd say he's got a decent foundation to at least give Louis a good argument. I don't think Tunney would be bothered about Louis following his attacking inclinations and trying to stalk him, as that's how he let Dempsey fight against him twice over and he beat him both times, alebit Louis brings more to the table than Jack. Tunney controlling the range and trying to beat Louis to the punch on the outside, avoiding in-close exchanges, is how I'd see him going about the job.

But Louis was a proven fifteen-round fighter at championship level who pulled out some fights that were going against him late on even if it was simply down to putting in more effort late on than his opponent (Conn I, Godoy I). Tunney beat Dempsey twice, but they were over ten rounds and Dempsey looked very, very flat to me in both encounters. Tunney had a great defence but I'm not sure that'd be enough here, because even Conn, while he used his legs a lot, stood in close with Louis at times and mixed it up with a lot of quick combinations to prevent Louis from settling in to a continuous forward rhythm. That kind of blurring combination punching wasn't one of Tunney's strengths and I think he'd need to mix it up a bit more than he did against Dempsey to pull this one off, ala Conn's first performance against Joe.

Over fifteen rounds I don't think Tunney's style and (I imagine) preferred game plan would be enough. I can see Tunney making a good fist of it and maybe building up an early lead but I think Louis would have chopped him down eventually, maybe somewhere around the eighth or ninth round.

I was probably just winding up jimmystuart.  

I think the case for Tunney has already been well enough stated without going into it in more detail other than to point out that Tunney could really pop when he wanted to (Dempsey was probably being overgenerous when he said that Tunney caught him with the hardest punch he was ever hit with - considering the punches that Firpo caught Dempsey with - but there's no doubt his power was enough to keep Jack honest) and that coupled with his ability to fight on the back foot and stick to a game plan when under pressure (as shown after the knockdown against Dempsey and by the tactics in the later Greb fights) are enough to cause Louis serious problems.  

Tough fight to call on one-off basis and even harder to call over a series of fights as both fighters showed that they could learn from defeats and adapt.

I've got Bowe a good few places behind Holy but would pick him to beat him everytime....

I still think the second fight turned on fan man..........Bowe was upping the ante and he gave Holy a good 20 mins to get a breather.......Even then I scored it a draw...

Bowe was unlucky in the second fight, agree there Truss. Looked as if he was about to turn the screw in round 7 before fan man interrupted his momentum and he never really got it back.

He'd probably have conceded the last two or three rounds to Holyfield in any case, as he had already started to lose the battle of the bulge to a degree and Holyfield did put in a fantastic shift down the stretch, but without the fan man I could see Bowe taking 7, 8 and 9 to make it too big a lead for Evander to overcome.

Even without that happening I thought Bowe did just about enough to keep hold of his titles via a one-point margin or a draw, but it was too close for any real complaints on that front. Not the outright classic that thier first fight was but a really good, enjoyable fight all the same.

88Chris05 wrote:Strongback, Louis obviously gets a place in 90-odd percent of people's top two Heavyweights of all time (I can't see a case for him going above Ali for top spot, personally, but that's another story) based on his career record, consistency over such a long period of time and his own abilities which were considerable. But I think Louis is one of those cases where his head-to-head merits don't necessarily match up to his record on paper.

How many Welters can you put in front of Armstrong in terms of achievements / record? One, maybe two. Basically the Sugar Rays. But I'd feel pretty confident in making more than only one or two Welters in history a favourite to beat him head-to-head. I don't think it's a slight against Louis to toy with the idea of someone like Tunney giving him a good fight and possibly beating him.

All fighters had blips but Louis found a way to make himself look pretty poor technically at times against the likes of Schmeling, Conn and Godoy. The first two are more understandable as they were quality performers, but if you had no knowledge of Louis at all and watched the first Godoy fight without any preconceptions you'd probably think he (Louis) was nothing more than a club fighter. It's not as if he was in there against a skilled or top class fighter who was making it look worse than it was, either. Appreciate that those examples are the worst of Louis but it's hard to make a case for him being a favourite or even money over a decent number of Heavyweights who might rank below him on career accomplishments when you consider them.

I turned on my car radio last night on the way home from work to listen to a talk sport show and lo and behold they are interviewing Jerry Izenberg.  As we know Izenberg as a journalist wrote extensively about Ali throughout his hey day and beyond.  Izenberg waxed lyrically about Ali and is proud that he was a confidant to the fighter and part of the inner circle.  It was clear to me that this famed boxing journalist loved Ali.  

Towards the end of the interview Izenberg was asked was Ali the greatest sporting figure of the 20th century and he duly agreed, he then added though that Ali in his opinion was not the greatest heavyweight of all time, that was Joe Louis.

Given Izenberg is 84 years old and has seen and written about all the great champions since the  1940's I feel he is well positioned to make a call on who is the greatest heavyweight.   That Louis is valued less on 606v2 than just about anywhere else I have ever read it does beg the question do some people here have an agenda against Louis. It is my belief they do and that goes beyond Trussy.

That's it Louis number 1 for me now Jerry Izenberg thinks so......he's a journalist like Al Bernstein who has Jack Johnson number 7 in an alltime list and Hagler Top 10 too...Can't argue with these guys..

Nat Fleischer picked Dempsey to knock Ali out in 3 and he's probably more respected than Izenberg..

Dempsey is my number 2 now......and If Hugh McIlvanney and even more respected journo has Bugner above Ali........

Ali will have to move to number 4 !!

No agenda against Louis, Strongback. My idea of a true sporting hero and obviously he was a great fighter. I just don't happen to think his resume or talents were a match for those of Ali, that's all. In terms of gaps between all-time number ones and twos across the weight classes, it's one of the bigger gaps in my opinion.

A bit daft to say that it's an unsustainable view or that you'd need an agenda to hold it. Ali clearly beat an array of opponents better than anything Louis beat. He also didn't have as many wobbly performances in his championship prime against guys he was meant to be outclassing as Louis did, either. On a more subjective note, I think Ali was the all-round better fighter who was better-equipped to deal with all styles.

Ergo, I think he's clearly the greatest Heavyweight of all time, but with Louis a strong second. Izenberg is obviously well qualified and most people would no doubt look for his opinion over mine - but that's the one I hold. I've given reasons for it so trying to blow it out of the water with, "Well, you must have an agenda, simple as that" or words to that effect doesn't hold much water.

Maybe Louis was a more 'technically correct' fighter than Ali if you're judging it on a textbook, maybe he accounted for more Ring Magazine number one contenders (how significant that is hinges on the era, mind you), maybe his win:loss ratio, knockout statistics and amount of title fight wins read better on paper and all that jazz to close the gap, but they ain't enough for him to seriously challenge Ali, for me.

I back Tunney.

Faster feet, was a great thinker and had a sturdy chin. Yes louis can bang but I think Tunney could keep this fight at a distance and get a decision, or dare I say a late stoppage.

Louis still ranks higher as a heavyweight but I have to say I edge towards Gene on a head to head. Too smart and outboxes Louis.

88Chris05 wrote:No agenda against Louis, Strongback. My idea of a true sporting hero and obviously he was a great fighter. I just don't happen to think his resume or talents were a match for those of Ali, that's all. In terms of gaps between all-time number ones and twos across the weight classes, it's one of the bigger gaps in my opinion.

A bit daft to say that it's an unsustainable view or that you'd need an agenda to hold it. Ali clearly beat an array of opponents better than anything Louis beat. He also didn't have as many wobbly performances in his championship prime against guys he was meant to be outclassing as Louis did, either. On a more subjective note, I think Ali was the all-round better fighter who was better-equipped to deal with all styles.

Ergo, I think he's clearly the greatest Heavyweight of all time, but with Louis a strong second. Izenberg is obviously well qualified and most people would no doubt look for his opinion over mine - but that's the one I hold. I've given reasons for it so trying to blow it out of the water with, "Well, you must have an agenda, simple as that" or words to that effect doesn't hold much water.

Maybe Louis was a more 'technically correct' fighter than Ali if you're judging it on a textbook, maybe he accounted for more Ring Magazine number one contenders (how significant that is hinges on the era, mind you), maybe his win:loss ratio, knockout statistics and amount of title fight wins read better on paper and all that jazz to close the gap, but they ain't enough for him to seriously challenge Ali, for me.

When Ali has greater longevity...................Has better wins on his CV.................and would no doubt beat the crap out Louis If they fought too....

It's pretty hard to make a case for Louis................

In fairness the historian/journalist David Irving knows more about world war 2 than I ever will but I don't think I'll be saying thw holocaust didn't happen anytime soon..

The old he's a journo so he knows more trick !! Wore thin with moron-Haz ..............It doesn't hold water and it's first grade debating !!..

Then again Strongy thinks Pedrosa belongs above Mayweather so we are dealing with a grade A idiot !!.

Wouldn't say its a pick'em but not one you could write Tunney off with, you could possibly argue Gene faced the biggest puncher in Heavyweight history,got hit clean and never got flattened.

Tunney is a candidate who may get past Louis *just once though. He would take a horrible beat down if they fought again, once Louis figured a fighters gameplan/movements its curtains and that includes Ali.

Cheers, Rodders

Wouldn't have the chin to trouble Ali....In my opinion Rodders..

milkyboy wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:Tunney may have many skills, but what Joe lacked with footwork he more than made up for with his unerring combination punching, arguably the best in the business.
Tunney may start well but I can't help feel that those combinations from Joe will start to get through, and I don't see Tunney seeing the final bell.

It's widely acknowledged on here, nico,that louis invented combination punching.

I beg to differ, Joe would like every other boxer would have been a novice when starting off, so its more than likely his trainer would have had a bit to do with it.
Not really bothered who on here widely acknowledges Louis combination punching, I acknowledge it and that's all that matters to me.

Try and be sarcastic with someone who's actually bothered, picked the wrong person I'm afraid.

I'd say it was more that Ali had the chin truss. I think early Ali is too fleet footed... Exactly the type Louis struggled with but much bigger and better than anything Louis faced.

The later Ali that Louis wouldn't have to look for is a much closer fight to call for me.

But hey, I think Ali is better than Louis so have an agenda.

I can't see Louis ever beating Ali, that isn't a slight on him but the gulf in class and size is too big especially when your opponent has an iron chin, is quicker with better footwork and a far superior jab.

I also don't see how anyone other than Ali could ever be considered the greatest Heavyweight of all time; Frazier twice, Liston twice and Foreman is enough let alone adding in Patterson, Chuvalo, Shavers, Lyle, Foster, Quarry and a host of other top Heavyweights. He had a bogeyman in Norton and was lucky against Young but that's no different to Louis needing a beneficial decision over Walcott and struggling with Conn. When it comes to it, Ali's vastly superior opposition and subjective ability puts him head and shoulders above the rest; Louis included.

Nico the gman wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:Tunney may have many skills, but what Joe lacked with footwork he more than made up for with his unerring combination punching, arguably the best in the business.
Tunney may start well but I can't help feel that those combinations from Joe will start to get through, and I don't see Tunney seeing the final bell.

It's widely acknowledged on here, nico,that louis invented combination punching.

I beg to differ, Joe would like every other boxer would have been a novice when starting off, so its more than likely his trainer would have had a bit to do with it.
Not really bothered who on here widely acknowledges Louis combination punching, I acknowledge it and that's all that matters to me.

Try and be sarcastic with someone who's actually bothered, picked the wrong person I'm afraid.

I suspect most would admire Louis' combination punching Nico.

Strongback and several board members had a long running argument about joe Louis and combination punching. If you avoided it you were lucky. The joke was at their expense not yours Nico.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Tunney isn't going to capitulate like that at all HH.

You may be right HH, but prior to the ring walks no-one thought Spinks was going to- in most peoples eyes he was going to be Tyson's toughest opponent to date, a fair few were picking him to win- He, like Tunney,was a nailed on LHW ATG, had two wins over an ATG HW champion (perhaps a little past their bests) and Spinks also had a couple of KO defenses,one against a murderous puncher in Cooney. But then he came face to face with a top notch fast , accurate, hungry destroyer, and that is exactly what Tunney would be doing in this fight. And given the importance of this fightI can't imagine that Joe would be anything less than fired up and focussed.

milkyboy wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:Tunney may have many skills, but what Joe lacked with footwork he more than made up for with his unerring combination punching, arguably the best in the business.
Tunney may start well but I can't help feel that those combinations from Joe will start to get through, and I don't see Tunney seeing the final bell.

It's widely acknowledged on here, nico,that louis invented combination punching.

I beg to differ, Joe would like every other boxer would have been a novice when starting off, so its more than likely his trainer would have had a bit to do with it.
Not really bothered who on here widely acknowledges Louis combination punching, I acknowledge it and that's all that matters to me.

Try and be sarcastic with someone who's actually bothered, picked the wrong person I'm afraid.

I suspect most would admire Louis' combination punching Nico.

Strongback and several board members had a long running argument about joe Louis and combination punching. If you avoided it you were lucky. The joke was at their expense not yours Nico.

Fair enough didn't read that thread to be honest, so wouldn't even have a clue when it was posted, see where you're coming from.

88Chris05 wrote:No agenda against Louis, Strongback. My idea of a true sporting hero and obviously he was a great fighter. I just don't happen to think his resume or talents were a match for those of Ali, that's all. In terms of gaps between all-time number ones and twos across the weight classes, it's one of the bigger gaps in my opinion.

A bit daft to say that it's an unsustainable view or that you'd need an agenda to hold it. Ali clearly beat an array of opponents better than anything Louis beat. He also didn't have as many wobbly performances in his championship prime against guys he was meant to be outclassing as Louis did, either. On a more subjective note, I think Ali was the all-round better fighter who was better-equipped to deal with all styles.

Ergo, I think he's clearly the greatest Heavyweight of all time, but with Louis a strong second. Izenberg is obviously well qualified and most people would no doubt look for his opinion over mine - but that's the one I hold. I've given reasons for it so trying to blow it out of the water with, "Well, you must have an agenda, simple as that" or words to that effect doesn't hold much water.

Maybe Louis was a more 'technically correct' fighter than Ali if you're judging it on a textbook, maybe he accounted for more Ring Magazine number one contenders (how significant that is hinges on the era, mind you), maybe his win:loss ratio, knockout statistics and amount of title fight wins read better on paper and all that jazz to close the gap, but they ain't enough for him to seriously challenge Ali, for me.

It very much depends on what a person values in a fighter. If you like defensive slick fighters then Sweet Pea and Mayweather fit the bill.  If you are a person who like offensive fighters then it's hard to see past Louis.  

606v2 is defensivecentric, a few poster have influenced a lot of views.

I have no problem seeing Louis beating Ali, the other Joe  demonstrated Ali could be beaten.


Another opinion from a knowledgeable fighter:

Offering thoughts with regard to his place in boxing history, Moore declared, “I must admit that I feel Archie Moore ranked up there with the best. Joe Louis was the best heavyweight I’ve ever seen. John Henry Lewis was the best light heavyweight. But if anyone wants to dispute this and throw my name in, I’ll listen to the discussion with rapt attention.”

Archie Moore picked Johnson to beat Louis you Muppet...

Nico the gman wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:Tunney may have many skills, but what Joe lacked with footwork he more than made up for with his unerring combination punching, arguably the best in the business.
Tunney may start well but I can't help feel that those combinations from Joe will start to get through, and I don't see Tunney seeing the final bell.

It's widely acknowledged on here, nico,that louis invented combination punching.

I beg to differ, Joe would like every other boxer would have been a novice when starting off, so its more than likely his trainer would have had a bit to do with it.
Not really bothered who on here widely acknowledges Louis combination punching, I acknowledge it and that's all that matters to me.

Try and be sarcastic with someone who's actually bothered, picked the wrong person I'm afraid.

I suspect most would admire Louis' combination punching Nico.

Strongback and several board members had a long running argument about joe Louis and combination punching. If you avoided it you were lucky. The joke was at their expense not yours Nico.

Fair enough didn't read that thread to be honest, so wouldn't even have a clue when it was posted, see where you're coming from.

No worries fella. It's the problem with in-jokes on forums - not everyone's in on them. I probably should have given some context.

Milky you're defensive centric please keep off this thread..

F*ck off u yank cnut. That better?

That's better

Glad to be back on point.

Glad your sex life has improved..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Archie Moore picked Johnson to beat Louis you Muppet...

Once you have to resort to personal insults you've lost the debate.

Strongback wrote:It very much depends on what a person values in a fighter. If you like defensive slick fighters then Sweet Pea and Mayweather fit the bill.  If you are a person who like offensive fighters then it's hard to see past Louis.  

606v2 is defensivecentric, a few poster have influenced a lot of views.

I have no problem seeing Louis beating Ali, the other Joe  demonstrated Ali could be beaten.


Another opinion from a knowledgeable fighter:

Offering thoughts with regard to his place in boxing history, Moore declared, “I must admit that I feel Archie Moore ranked up there with the best. Joe Louis was the best heavyweight I’ve ever seen. John Henry Lewis was the best light heavyweight. But if anyone wants to dispute this and throw my name in, I’ll listen to the discussion with rapt attention.”

Who might beat who, or what you'd consider impressive on the eye test, is a subjective thing, Strongy. I'd take Ali as the better all-round fighter than Louis and I'd back him to win head-to-head, but naturally not everyone is going to agree and some will pick Louis to win and prefer his power, precision and consistency over Ali's dancing, reflexes and speed.

I'm just genuinely interested in how you (or anyone else who goes for Louis as top dog) deals with the respective levels of their opposition. Eye test and style preferences have to count to some degree in weighing up the greatness of a fighter, but for me they're not as important as who each man had to beat to establish their credentials. I think to put Louis above Ali you'd basically have to give this factor next to no consideration at all. I haven't seen too many people who put Louis at number one really deal with this issue head on or give a proper breakdown of why Louis' record can compare. Their arguments often rely on airbrushing that element out to a degree and just focussing on Louis' statistics (KO record, number of title defences etc) and his technical merits.

As for your quote from Moore, again all that really says to me is that Archie thought Louis was the best Heavyweight of all time. Good for him and obviously great for Louis. But seeing as you've mentioned Whitaker and Mayweather, I could eaily point out Chauncy Welliver saying, "Personally, to me, I think Pernell Whitaker is absolutely and bar none the greatest fighter in the history of boxing....You look at who he beat, he didn't just beat those guys - he schooled them. He made it look easy, and he let them know it was easy...For me, the absolute best. The best fighter ever."

Likewise, I could referene Paulie Malignaggi saying, "I think Floyd beats everyone in history, and anyone who doesn't realise that by now is stubborn, blind, stupid or all three. Me and Floyd aren't friends, I don't need to say this if I truly don't believe it - I'm saying it because it is simply the truth. I respect the guy but I don't know him well, I don't owe him any favors, so when I say he's the best ever it's because that's truly what I feel."

Chauncy and Paulie are in and around the fight game every day of their lives - if they're still saying that in another thirty, forty years time when their hair has gone white, does that suddenly mean you'd accept it as cold, hard evidence of Pernell and Floyd's GOAT claims, or take them as a really authoritative source? I doubt it.

Should also be considered that Archie used to train Ali in his early days and is fairly widely known they had some issues during that period. Perhaps if we are going to take a fighters opinions on this matter Archie is not the most objective guy in the world.

88Chris05 wrote:

Strongback wrote:It very much depends on what a person values in a fighter. If you like defensive slick fighters then Sweet Pea and Mayweather fit the bill.  If you are a person who like offensive fighters then it's hard to see past Louis.  

606v2 is defensivecentric, a few poster have influenced a lot of views.

I have no problem seeing Louis beating Ali, the other Joe  demonstrated Ali could be beaten.


Another opinion from a knowledgeable fighter:

Offering thoughts with regard to his place in boxing history, Moore declared, “I must admit that I feel Archie Moore ranked up there with the best. Joe Louis was the best heavyweight I’ve ever seen. John Henry Lewis was the best light heavyweight. But if anyone wants to dispute this and throw my name in, I’ll listen to the discussion with rapt attention.”

Who might beat who, or what you'd consider impressive on the eye test, is a subjective thing, Strongy. I'd take Ali as the better all-round fighter than Louis and I'd back him to win head-to-head, but naturally not everyone is going to agree and some will pick Louis to win and prefer his power, precision and consistency over Ali's dancing, reflexes and speed.

I'm just genuinely interested in how you (or anyone else who goes for Louis as top dog) deals with the respective levels of their opposition. Eye test and style preferences have to count to some degree in weighing up the greatness of a fighter, but for me they're not as important as who each man had to beat to establish their credentials. I think to put Louis above Ali you'd basically have to give this factor next to no consideration at all. I haven't seen too many people who put Louis at number one really deal with this issue head on or give a proper breakdown of why Louis' record can compare. Their arguments often rely on airbrushing that element out to a degree and just focussing on Louis' statistics (KO record, number of title defences etc) and his technical merits.

As for your quote from Moore, again all that really says to me is that Archie thought Louis was the best Heavyweight of all time. Good for him and obviously great for Louis. But seeing as you've mentioned Whitaker and Mayweather, I could eaily point out Chauncy Welliver saying, "Personally, to me, I think Pernell Whitaker is absolutely and bar none the greatest fighter in the history of boxing....You look at who he beat, he didn't just beat those guys - he schooled them. He made it look easy, and he let them know it was easy...For me, the absolute best. The best fighter ever."

Likewise, I could referene Paulie Malignaggi saying, "I think Floyd beats everyone in history, and anyone who doesn't realise that by now is stubborn, blind, stupid or all three. Me and Floyd aren't friends, I don't need to say this if I truly don't believe it - I'm saying it because it is simply the truth. I respect the guy but I don't know him well, I don't owe him any favors, so when I say he's the best ever it's because that's truly what I feel."

Chauncy and Paulie are in and around the fight game every day of their lives - if they're still saying that in another thirty, forty years time when their hair has gone white, does that suddenly mean you'd accept it as cold, hard evidence of Pernell and Floyd's GOAT claims, or take them as a really authoritative source? I doubt it.

He's a troll......

horizontalhero wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Tunney isn't going to capitulate like that at all HH.

You may be right HH, but prior to the ring walks no-one thought Spinks was going to- in most peoples eyes he was going to be Tyson's toughest opponent to date, a fair few were picking him to win- He, like Tunney,was a nailed on LHW ATG, had two wins over an ATG HW champion (perhaps a little past their bests) and Spinks also had a couple of KO defenses,one against a murderous puncher in Cooney. But then he came face to face with a top notch fast , accurate, hungry destroyer, and that is exactly what Tunney would  be doing in this fight. And given the importance of this fightI can't imagine that Joe would be anything less than fired up and focussed.

Agree with this.

Just want to add, and I hope that I don't take this subject off topic, but I keep hearing how Ray Leonard was rusty after having three years out of the ring. Well, wasn't Tunney's best win at heavyweight against a fighter who had been out of the ring for three years? If we accept that 3 years out of the ring makes someone rusty then what makes anyone think Tunney could beat  a young, prime Joe Louis just beacause he beat an old, rusty Jack Dempsey?

Most people think he's in with a shout because Conn outboxed a prime-ish Joe Louis...

Stylistically they seem pretty similar......Styles make fights..

Imagine most on here despite rating Dempsey above Tunney,  would think for Louis.....Tunney would be the harder fight ??

I think most people do consider dempsey's age/rustiness as a factor Atila. Out of interest do you think ring rust is a myth? Not a Leonard hagler thing... We know leonard had behind closed doors fights anyway (can't completely replicate the real thing, but obviously better than standard sparring)

I don't think anyone on here is particularly anti Joe Louis but it's quite a sad state of affairs when you have certain boxers considered be beyond criticism, for every expert who has Louis at number one there are probably five or so who have Ali top.