How competitive was Joe Louis at age 37?

[mr. magoo]

In 1951, Joe Louis was 36/37 years old and on the comeback trail. He had managed to put together a pretty good streak of wins against some decent fighters, and was maintaining a reasonable weight. Although some observers commented that his workrate and combinations had slown down to a minimal, he was still viewed as a force in the division.

1. Where would you say he rated in the heavyweight picture at this time?

2. Was he somewhat competitive against Marciano ( I did not see this fight ).

3. With any luck, could he have had a chance of regaining the belt with a rematch against either Charles or Walcott, had he gotten by, or just not faced Marciano?

4. Could he have continued to be effective, had he not retired after the Marciano loss?

[Bummy Davis]

Lets put it this way,I think he would be able to regain at least one title today and proberly more than 1

[mr. magoo]

Lets put it this way,I think he would be able to regain at least one title today and proberly more than 1

You may have a point, but these questions are directed to 1951.

[ChrisPontius]

In 1951, Joe Louis was 36/37 years old and on the comeback trail. He had managed to put together a pretty good streak of wins against some decent fighters, and was maintaining a reasonable weight. Although some observers commented that his workrate and combinations had slown down to a minimal, he was still viewed as a force in the division.

1. Where would you say he rated in the heavyweight picture at this time?

Top10 for sure.


2. Was he somewhat competitive against Marciano ( I did not see this fight ).

Yes he was. It's been a while since i saw it, but i believe he won rounds 2, 3 and 4. It was a typical case of winning the battle but not the war, though. A bit like Quarry's early succes against Frazier, only then Louis had somewhat more success. But at this point he simply couldn't take Marciano's punches too long and keep his workrate up.


3. With any luck, could he have had a chance of regaining the belt with a rematch against either Charles or Walcott, had he gotten by, or just not faced Marciano?


I don't think so. Charles busted him up pretty bad in their meeting a few years earlier. Walcott gave him hard fights when he was younger. Charles and Walcott were still going strong in 1951, i think another title was not meant for him anymore.


4. Could he have continued to be effective, had he not retired after the Marciano loss?

Maybe he could've beaten a Bob Baker, but he could've also aged over night. He certainly wouldn't be the first to decline after a Marciano beating.

[Duodenum]

Years ago, I watched the rebroadcast of one of his ten rounders with Marciano stablemate Cesar Brion. He looked good, although no longer delivering combinations like he had in earlier days. Very aggressive, hardly giving Brion a chance to breathe. By the end of the bout, Brion was visibly fading. Even with that early television technology, that huge tumor on Louis's left arm, preventing him from extending it fully to deliver a pain free jab, was plainly visible, hampering his performance. Take away that tumor, and who knows how far he would have come back? Louis was much better in the rematch with Brion than he was in their first meeting, then handled Jimmy Bivens pretty convincingly over another ten rounds, prior to facing Marciano (coming in at 203 for Bivins).

Could Louis have been able to regain at least a share of the HW Title? Prior to his rematch with Brion, Louis knocked out Lee Savold with a left hook in six rounds. This was actually a superior result to what Marciano would achieve in Savold's next and final match. (Unlike Louis, Rocky couldn't take Savold off his feet.) He was certainly a top five heavyweight after Marciano, had he continued on, but he would not have had any chance at regaining the title. Louis's knockout over the younger but more experienced Savold showed how dangerous the Bomber still remained. Nobody had knocked out Savold in five years, since Violent Ray in 1946, and Ray had been the only one to take out Savold in the previous ten years, spanning 54 fights.

Going into his match with Louis, Lee Savold was recognized by the BBBC as Heavyweight Champion. The argument could be made that British recognition should have then been transferred to Louis, but instead, they then shifted their recognition to Charles.

Louis was far from shot, but he was clearly fading, and although he could have probably remained a top ten heavyweight for a few more years, what would be the point without a championship within reach?

He did manage to inflict significant facial damage in his comeback against Charles, but erred in not getting a few competitive outings under his belt first, to shake off some rust. (Exhibitions are just not the same thing.) Louis would have done much better against Charles if he'd taken on Ezz after Bivins, although he still would have lost the decision.

[OLD FOGEY]

Joe Louis was the number one contender in the first half of 1951 and was penciled in as Ezzard Charles' next opponent in Yankee Stadium in the fall when Charles was upset by Walcott. I assume Louis then dropped to the number two contender position behind Charles after Walcott's win.
Savold was actually recognized as champion by the British Board of Boxing Control when he fought Louis, but when Louis won, they switched their recognition to Charles. In the modern era, Louis would have at least been recognized as an alphabet champion.

Louis had clearly gone back, but was impressive knocking out Savold, had won eight straight, seven against men either ranked or who were or would be ranked within a year or so of Louis fighting them. He gave Marciano a decent fight and I think would have a fair shot at beating Charles if he had fought him. He was a year older but in much better fighting trim than in the 1950 fight.
Louis went into the Marciano fight a 7-5 favorite.

[Duodenum]

Joe Louis was the number one contender in the first half of 1951 and was penciled in as Ezzard Charles' next opponent in Yankee Stadium in the fall when Charles was upset by Walcott. I assume Louis then dropped to the number two contender position behind Charles after Walcott's win.
Savold was actually recognized as champion by the British Board of Boxing Control when he fought Louis, but when Louis won, they switched their recognition to Charles. In the modern era, Louis would have at least been recognized as an alphabet champion.

Louis had clearly gone back, but was impressive knocking out Savold, had won eight straight, seven against men either ranked or who were or would be ranked within a year or so of Louis fighting them. He gave Marciano a decent fight and I think would have a fair shot at beating Charles if he had fought him. He was a year older but in much better fighting trim than in the 1950 fight.
Louis went into the Marciano fight a 7-5 favorite.Hey, we were typing our posts out on the same wavelength at the same time! (Cool!:cool:)

[OLD FOGEY]

Hey, we were typing our posts out on the same wavelength at the same time! (Cool!:cool:)

Yeah, I was typing mine when you posted yours. Oh well.

[Duodenum]

Yeah, I was typing mine when you posted yours. Oh well.But as usual, you took up less space than I, so I guess you win.

[Mega Lamps]

Yes he was competitive with Marciano but for awhile Rocky was not going at his best since he didn't want to hurt Joe.

And Rocky had trouble with Savold because of having the flu.

[Street Lethal]

He was among the top of the division. As noted, he had a good streak. He looked better against Savold than Marciano did. He put up a good fight against Charles. Charles battered him, but he battered Charles, too. Charles face was a mess. He might very well have upset Walcott. Keep in mind that Walcott lost twice to Charles and, from what I hear, should have lost his title to Charles in the fourth match. He did well against Marciano in the early rounds, but Marciano wore him out in the end. Louis' problem with Marciano was Louis' problem throughout his career: his chin. With age no longer on his side, he couldn't recover fast enough to survive Marciano's onslaught. Louis remained competitive to the end, although he had obviously slowed several steps.

[SuzieQ49]

37 year old joe louis knocked out future top contender nino valdez out in 1 round.

marciano and charles both commented on how hard joe louis jab was "like running into a telephone pole"

[mcvey]

Years ago, I watched the rebroadcast of one of his ten rounders with Marciano stablemate Cesar Brion. He looked good, although no longer delivering combinations like he had in earlier days. Very aggressive, hardly giving Brion a chance to breathe. By the end of the bout, Brion was visibly fading. Even with that early television technology, that huge tumor on Louis's left arm, preventing him from extending it fully to deliver a pain free jab, was plainly visible, hampering his performance. Take away that tumor, and who knows how far he would have come back? Louis was much better in the rematch with Brion than he was in their first meeting, then handled Jimmy Bivens pretty convincingly over another ten rounds, prior to facing Marciano (coming in at 203 for Bivins).

Could Louis have been able to regain at least a share of the HW Title? Prior to his rematch with Brion, Louis knocked out Lee Savold with a left hook in six rounds. This was actually a superior result to what Marciano would achieve in Savold's next and final match. (Unlike Louis, Rocky couldn't take Savold off his feet.) He was certainly a top five heavyweight after Marciano, had he continued on, but he would not have had any chance at regaining the title. Louis's knockout over the younger but more experienced Savold showed how dangerous the Bomber still remained. Nobody had knocked out Savold in five years, since Violent Ray in 1946, and Ray had been the only one to take out Savold in the previous ten years, spanning 54 fights.

Going into his match with Louis, Lee Savold was recognized by the BBBC as Heavyweight Champion. The argument could be made that British recognition should have then been transferred to Louis, but instead, they then shifted their recognition to Charles.

Louis was far from shot, but he was clearly fading, and although he could have probably remained a top ten heavyweight for a few more years, what would be the point without a championship within reach?

He did manage to inflict significant facial damage in his comeback against Charles, but erred in not getting a few competitive outings under his belt first, to shake off some rust. (Exhibitions are just not the same thing.) Louis would have done much better against Charles if he'd taken on Ezz after Bivins, although he still would have lost the decision.
Sam Silverman ,who promoted a lot of Marcianos fights said,Rocky would look just the same against a "Ham and Egger "opponent as a world class guy,he did look bad against Savold ,and got a bad press in the Ring magazine because of it.By the time of the Marciano fight Louis waas relying on his once immaculate jab,his reflexes had eroded,you can see in this fight he wairs for Rocky to come in,in his prime years he would be atacking,his legs were shot andhis resistance to punches wasnt the same,Ruby Goldstein,the referee for that fight said when Rocky floored Joe ,Louis went down heavily ,like an old man,not like a young fighter with that "I gotta get up reflex".Louis was still a force but no longer the Brown Bomber.

[dmt]

welcome back suzie

[KTFO]

Although some observers commented that his workrate and combinations had slown down to a minimal, he was still viewed as a force in the division.



Maybe powerwise. Joe Louis success was a success of management.

[The Kurgan]

Maybe powerwise. Joe Louis success was a success of management.

Uh, it's quite apparent that by the late 1940s Louis had a lost a LOT of power. By the time he fought Marciano, he was dependant almost entirely on skill and handspeed.

[DamonD]

Louis-Marciano is one of those fights, like Ali-Foreman, where the finish of the fight is so well-known that it shapes the public perception of it.

So just as Ali-Foreman is popularly seen as 7 rounds of George pummelling Ali on the ropes before Ali scores with a single quick combination, so the sad final visual of Louis slumped over the ring ropes obscures that he was able to make a pretty decent fist of it in the previous rounds and kept it fairly competative, even if Maricano was a little bit reticent about going all out.

I think Marciano, Charles and Walcott would've been too much for Joe by this point in time but he still would've been a solid contender type. But it's hard to settle for that once you've been a champion...

[KTFO]

Uh, it's quite apparent that by the late 1940s Louis had a lost a LOT of power. By the time he fought Marciano, he was dependant almost entirely on skill and handspeed


Interesting theory. Cause after his prime he was a slow mummy with a shyte jab.

[janitor]

I think Marciano, Charles and Walcott would've been too much for Joe by this point in time but he still would've been a solid contender type. But it's hard to settle for that once you've been a champion...

You hit the nail on the head there.

Dont hold his loses at this stage against him but give those who beat him credit for beating a still dangerous fighter.

[janitor]

Maybe powerwise. Joe Louis success was a success of management.

Joe Louis beat more ranked contenders than any other heavyweight in history.

[Duodenum]

You hit the nail on the head there.

Dont hold his loses at this stage against him but give those who beat him credit for beating a still dangerous fighter.And as you well know, we also shouldn't forget to give Louis credit for his wins after the Charles match as well. The only opponent Joe beat who finished up with a losing record was then newly crowned California HW Champ Andy Walker (who won it over the 15 round distance). Of course Joe had something to do with Walker winding up with that losing record, as Andy lost all ten of his remaining fights.

Louis handled Jimmy Bivins pretty convincingly in his final win. Marciano made life a lot easier for many other contenders and prospects by retiring Joe.

[KTFO]

Joe Louis beat more ranked contenders than any other heavyweight in history.


Joe Louis' performance was in decline since his fights with Walcott. Furthermore Louis' chin was exposed several times. Louis' success was a masterpiece of management.

[mr. magoo]

I'm convinced after reading some of these posts as well as other literature, that Louis was still very competitive in 1951. One wonders if the title had been occupied by a weaker champion, if Louis could have regained it. Still, he deserves credit for his efforts in the latter part of his career.

[KTFO]

Louis announced his retirement in 1949. He knew why. It would've been better for him to stay there. You could see how he slowed down when he fought Charles. Marciano was his last big payday. Everybody knows that Louis had financial problems.

[Vantage_West]

doesnt matter what wieght in what era as long as you have a jab, power and vetran learnt skills you can be a force.


joe even though not the combo puncher as he was before was more like tyson (bad bad example but i will explain) tyson used his speed and head slip to get close and land bombs later in his career he was purely a head hunter and could land big bombs very quickly.

now joe had the power but he also had the skill to make the power work for him. his jab could set up and out point opposition(marciano was losing some rounds becuase of that jab)

and his boxing knowledge and savy that takes over as the key principal in a boxers career later on becuase of the lack of youth and spring you have to use all you advantages work for you and all your disadvnatges hidden behind your strengths.

joe even though old was a very competative fighter he still had the power still had the jab and still had a boxing knowledge to win fights.

he could knock some skulls easily in any era just not as much as he was in his prime.

[Vantage_West]

Joe Louis' performance was in decline since his fights with Walcott. Furthermore Louis' chin was exposed several times. Louis' success was a masterpiece of management.true louis chin was getting tapped more and more. and even though maybe not weak chinned he couldnt take the big punches and not go down...thats ok when max baer ,tony galento,max baer are hitting you square on and you only get knocked down for less that 10 yeah i give you alot of credit.

but he could get decked and could be hurt...billy conn hurt him and conn was far from a puncher.

[mcvey]

Joe Louis' performance was in decline since his fights with Walcott. Furthermore Louis' chin was exposed several times. Louis' success was a masterpiece of management.
If you are correct it was certainly a master piece of management to keep him as Champion for 12 years,plus his only losing to 3 men ,all Champions in their own right,very clever management!

[Duodenum]

If you are correct it was certainly a master piece of management to keep him as Champion for 12 years,plus his only losing to 3 men ,all Champions in their own right,very clever management!Well, Roxborough and Black did talk FDR into declaring war on Japan so Louis wouldn't have to defend the title for a few years.

[Street Lethal]

Uh, it's quite apparent that by the late 1940s Louis had a lost a LOT of power. By the time he fought Marciano, he was dependant almost entirely on skill and handspeed.
I would put this a little differently. It is true that Joe Louis lost some of his power, but I think that was function of how much his power depended upon his speed, and as his speed diminished, so did his power. I'm not saying he didn't have power. He did. A man who punches like Louis doesn't lose all his power. But, like Tyson, the speed factor cannot be ignored. But Louis did have to depend on his skill, which he had accumulated a wealth of over his many years in the ring. We might also call this experience, and say that Joe Louis was still a force because he was up there with Ezzard Charles in terms of ring experience. This made him a problem for any top contender.

[Street Lethal]

Interesting theory. Cause after his prime he was a slow mummy with a shyte jab.
This is not an accurate description of the man at all.

[Street Lethal]

Joe Louis beat more ranked contenders than any other heavyweight in history.
Compare him to Ali and prove that claim.

[Street Lethal]

If you are correct it was certainly a master piece of management to keep him as Champion for 12 years,plus his only losing to 3 men ,all Champions in their own right,very clever management!
In all fairness to the man's point, he is obviously referring to the padded part of Louis' record, which is substantial.

[Marciano Frazier]

1. Where would you say he rated in the heavyweight picture at this time?
Very high. Top 5 in the world. He was actually the #1-ranked contender when Marciano beat him. He had beaten multiple guys who were legitimate contenders, and had won all his comeback fights since Charles in clear-cut, if not always spectacular, fashion. If a young guy had come up and done exactly the same thing in the same time-frame, he would've been considered a potential great champion for sure, I'd say.

2. Was he somewhat competitive against Marciano ( I did not see this fight ).
Yes, the fight was fairly even for the first five rounds. Marciano started taking a noticeable edge in the sixth and seventh, and then he broke the match wide open and destroyed Louis in the eighth.

3. With any luck, could he have had a chance of regaining the belt with a rematch against either Charles or Walcott, had he gotten by, or just not faced Marciano?
Eh, Charles had beaten him convincingly in their first fight, and Walcott was pretty much the same man he'd been in '47-48 when he should have had a win over Louis in the first fight and wasn't far from winning the rematch, whereas Louis had slipped several notches since that time, so I really don't think Louis would've had a serious chance at beating either of those guys at that point.

4. Could he have continued to be effective, had he not retired after the Marciano loss?
Yes, with his technically-sound style, talent and physical tools, I think Louis could probably have hung around in the top 10 for a few more years after that, basically beating everyone below the cream of the crop, but losing to the elites. Unless the Marciano knockout sent his career into a freefall like so many of Rocky's other opponents were.

[The Kurgan]

Interesting theory. Cause after his prime he was a slow mummy with a shyte jab.

He was SLOWER. He was not slow. If you look at the later Louis fights, he didn't have much power left, but won because he could tag opponents so often. His jab was still good enough to cut faces up.

It's all in the footage.

[The Kurgan]

I would put this a little differently. It is true that Joe Louis lost some of his power, but I think that was function of how much his power depended upon his speed, and as his speed diminished, so did his power. I'm not saying he didn't have power. He did. A man who punches like Louis doesn't lose all his power. But, like Tyson, the speed factor cannot be ignored. But Louis did have to depend on his skill, which he had accumulated a wealth of over his many years in the ring. We might also call this experience, and say that Joe Louis was still a force because he was up there with Ezzard Charles in terms of ring experience. This made him a problem for any top contender.

I agree. The comparison would be with Ali, who (while he hit far less hard than Louis) was fairly powerful in his prime as a result of his handspeed. By the time he was pushing his mid-30s, that handspeed had diminished, and his power had diminished proportionately.

[KTFO]

He was SLOWER. He was not slow.


:patsch


Shall I laugh or shall I cry,I'm still deciding. :think

[KTFO]

This is not an accurate description of the man at all.



I'll make it more accurate for you lad.

After his prime his movements were slow. He relied then on experience and still some decent power left.
In his prime he had a powerful and let's say fast jab, but it was technically awful. Plus his chin was weak. Max Schmeling set the blueprint on how to floor Louis after throwing his awful jab.

Any questions?

[Bo Bo Olson]

Blackburn was a great teacher,and was then rated as one of the best Welters of all time. The jab was good, it was his being lazy and droping it...Schmelling saw that...Then did what was new for the world....got films of Joe's fights and had them remade in slow motion....
Louis's jab was a very good one.But Louis was running the roads with broads and not training for the first Schmelling fight....
That is where the mistaken impression that Joe had a bad jab comes from....You don't whipe out the division as a contender with out a hell of a good jab.

[Dempsey1238]

Blackburn was a great teacher,and was then rated as one of the best Welters of all time. The jab was good, it was his being lazy and droping it...Schmelling saw that...Then did what was new for the world....got films of Joe's fights and had them remade in slow motion....
Louis's jab was a very good one.But Louis was running the roads with broads and not training for the first Schmelling fight....
That is where the mistaken impression that Joe had a bad jab comes from....You don't whipe out the division as a contender with out a hell of a good jab.

Unless your name happens to be Rocky Marciano.

Come on guys with out jabs on been great champs. Carman and Fullmer come to mind.

[Street Lethal]

I'll make it more accurate for you lad.

After his prime his movements were slow. He relied then on experience and still some decent power left.
In his prime he had a powerful and let's say fast jab, but it was technically awful. Plus his chin was weak. Max Schmeling set the blueprint on how to floor Louis after throwing his awful jab.

Any questions?
Joe Louis had some deficiencies, but he was never technically awful. In fact, when it came to punching technique, he is arguably technically peerless.

[mcvey]

In all fairness to the man's point, he is obviously referring to the padded part of Louis' record, which is substantial.
In his second year as a pro ,at the age of 21 Louis kod two former world championsand 4 rated contenders,in his career he kod 6 men who at one time held the world title,his only losses were to 3 men who at some point held the title one when he was young the other two when old and past his prime ,I dont see the padding.

[Luigi1985]

I'll make it more accurate for you lad.

After his prime his movements were slow. He relied then on experience and still some decent power left.
In his prime he had a powerful and let's say fast jab, but it was technically awful. Plus his chin was weak. Max Schmeling set the blueprint on how to floor Louis after throwing his awful jab.

Any questions?



Lous chin was very good, equal to Holmes, they were KD sometimes, but they almost everytime got up and won this fights. A myth that Louis had a weak chin...

[janitor]

Compare him to Ali and prove that claim.

Ali is the only other heavyweight champion who even came close to beating as many ranked contenders as Louis.

As for the rest of the pack Louis beat more ranked contenders than any of them by a ratio of 2 or 3 to 1.

[janitor]

Joe Louis' performance was in decline since his fights with Walcott. Furthermore Louis' chin was exposed several times. Louis' success was a masterpiece of management.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Louis's chin was never exposed. He was only ever knocked out by other heavyweight champions and then only after a sustained beating over many rounds.

the notion that his sucess was due to good managment is preposterous.

Which fighters exactly was he steered clear of?

Louis fought more top fighters than any champion before or since.

[janitor]

In all fairness to the man's point, he is obviously referring to the padded part of Louis' record, which is substantial.

Realy?

Where is this paded part of Louis's record exactly?

He was thrown in with former heavyweight champions 9 months into his profesional career and it was a diet of top fighters for the next 15 years.

[ChrisPontius]

Ali is the only other heavyweight champion who even came close to beating as many ranked contenders as Louis.

As for the rest of the pack Louis beat more ranked contenders than any of them by a ratio of 2 or 3 to 1.

No he didn't. Lewis was fairly close as well. After them, the number of beaten contenders do decrease drastically.

[janitor]

No he didn't. Lewis was fairly close as well. After them, the number of beaten contenders do decrease drastically.

From what I remember Lewis is way behind those two.

Honestly if you rank heavyweights on resume it is either-

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. The rest

or

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. The rest

[ChrisPontius]

That i agree with. But that's also because Ali and Louis didn't have the embarrassing losses that Lewis had.

[janitor]

That i agree with. But that's also because Ali and Louis didn't have the embarrassing losses that Lewis had.

I think that they have him beat on volume.

Both in terms of number of title defences and number of ranked oponents beaten.

No disrespect to Lewis.

[mr. magoo]

I think that they have him beat on volume.

Both in terms of number of title defences and number of ranked oponents beaten.

No disrespect to Lewis.

In all fairness,

I think that we have to have Larry Holmes rated somewhat on par with Lennox Lewis. I don't think that I'd rate him ahead of Lewis, but certainly close.

Holmes held the title for 7 years and 20 title defenses, and wasn't Ko'd until he was 38 years old, on the comeback trail, and by an all time great puncher. Additionally, he prove to still be competitive well into his 40's. One could certainly criticize the level of opposition that Holmes faced during his reign, but in all fairness, not everyone that Louis or Lewis fought was great either. Holmes' wins over Shavers, Norton, Cooney, Weaver, Witherspoon and Mercer, were not necessarily better but at least comparable to many of Lennox Lewis and Joe Louis's wins.

Not favouring Holmes, just trying to be fair here.

[janitor]

In all fairness,

I think that we have to have Larry Holmes rated somewhat on par with Lennox Lewis. I don't think that I'd rate him ahead of Lewis, but certainly close.

Holmes held the title for 7 years and 20 title defenses, and wasn't Ko'd until he was 38 years old, on the comeback trail, and by an all time great puncher. Additionally, he prove to still be competitive well into his 40's. One could certainly criticize the level of opposition that Holmes faced during his reign, but in all fairness, not everyone that Louis or Lewis fought was great either. Holmes' wins over Shavers, Norton, Cooney, Weaver, Witherspoon and Mercer, were not necessarily better but at least comparable to many of Lennox Lewis and Joe Louis's wins.

Not favouring Holmes, just trying to be fair here.

Holmes is right up there in terms of duration and volume of quality opposition.

What perhaps hurts his standing is that he did not fight a few key fighters that he should have.

It should also be said that although Louis, Ali and Lewis had their soft options they were usualy ranked soft options.

[Dempsey1238]

But Holmes out of his entire title run only fought 3 or 4 top fighters, Louis at least try to have one or 2 hard fights per year(Outside of WW2 of couse)

We didnt see Louis spended the MAJOR of his rein defended against the likes of 15-0 David Bay's. Most of Louis's title defenses had at least 50 or more fights. And since a good number of Holmes fights were against the level of prospects. I just cant rank Holmes over Louis, or Ali or even Marciano. Holmes was the Dempsey of his day lol.

Fighting overmatch foes to look good for the crowd.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=Dempsey1238]But Holmes out of his entire title run only fought 3 or 4 top fighters, Louis at least try to have one or 2 hard fights per year(Outside of WW2 of couse)

We didnt see Louis spended the MAJOR of his rein defended against the likes of 15-0 David Bay's. Most of Louis's title defenses had at least 50 or more fights. And since a good number of Holmes fights were against the level of prospects. I just cant rank Holmes over Louis, or Ali or even Marciano. Holmes was the Dempsey of his day lol.

First of all, no one is ranking Holmes over Louis.

Secondly, although You have a good point, we have to be fair about how we judge both fighter's opponents. Holmes indeed fought a lot of under developed prospects with few fights, but Louis on the other hand defended his belt against a lot of men who sometimes lost as much as a third of their fights. I'm not trying to claim that either was better than the other, but if we're going to make comparison's in opposition, then we have to do it fairly, and not just pick the parts that we like and throw away the rest.