Joe Louis vs. Ezzard Charels 1949 15rds.

[Joe E]

What if Joe had taken one more fight after Walcott II. Joe was just about through at this point in his carrer. Reflexes were starting to go, footwork had slowed, and he was more susceptible to the right hand than at any point in his carrer. Charles on the other hand was at his best and primed to move up to Heavyweight. Who takes it? Does Joe have enough left to beat Charles? Or does a prime Charles' quickness, boxing skill, and ring generalship rule the Day. Thoughts.

[Joe E]

What if Joe had taken one more fight after Walcott 2.Joe was just about through at this point in his carrer,reflexes were starting to go,legs had slowed down,and was more suseptable to the right hand than at any point in his carrer.Charles on the other hand was at his best and primed to move up to Heavyweight.Who takes it?Does Joe have enough left to beat Charles,or does a prime Charles quickness,boxing skill,and ring generalship rule the Day.Thoughts.Bump

[SuzieQ49]

Good Thread. I always thought had ezzard gotten by walcott, and the louis rematch happened in sept 1951......louis would have done much better. Louis looked very sharp in his latest 1951 fights against savold and the first 5 rounds vs marciano.



Louis declined rapidly from walcott II to charles in 2 years..he was not the same physically. I think charles even in 1949 would take joe by close unanimous decision being floored once and his face all busted up but he would be too fast to skilled for louis. Its a myth that joe louis had no power left in 1950.


I think the 1946-48 louis gets to charles late behind on points

[Joe E]

[quote=SuzieQ49]Good Thread. I always thought had ezzard gotten by walcott, and the louis rematch happened in sept 1951......louis would have done much better. Louis looked very sharp in his latest 1951 fights against savold and the first 5 rounds vs marciano. The inactivity between 1948 and 50 was a definite factor in Joes' showing against Charles. He had deteriorated much after the 2nd bout with Walcott. You Tube Louis - Valentino. An exhibition bout and see just how far gone Louis was just in 1 year. It's amazing to me just how well Louis fought after his initial loss to Charles and I think a testament to Louis' abilities as a fighter that he was able to do so well.



Louis declined rapidly from walcott II to charles in 2 years..he was not the same physically. I think charles even in 1949 would take joe by close unanimous decision being floored once and his face all busted up but he would be too fast to skilled for louis. Its a myth that joe louis had no power left in 1950.:good



I think the 1946-48 louis gets to charles late behind on points.My Father used to say that Charles could'nt of beat Louis with a stick when Louis was at his best.

[Minotauro]

In 49 i would still take Charles via decision, Louis had lost some speed and reflexs which are normally the first thing to go it would be a lot closer like 9-6.

[Joe E]

In 49 i would still take Charles via decision, Louis had lost some speed and reflexs which are normally the first thing to go it would be a lot closer like 9-6.Who would take the rematch?

[janitor]

If Louis had not retired after the Walcott fight, but had fought on until sombody beat him, then Charles might still be a prety good candidate to do the honours.

On the other hand, if Louis could have walked down Charles and got him on the floor for 10 seconds, then it would have been a significant stay of execution. It might have taken a couple of years for another potential regicide to emerge!

[red cobra]

I would still pick Charles by decision over the late 40's version of Louis. You have to also remember that the Charles that fought Louis in '50 tempered his offensive output with a great amount of respect and veneration for the old Brown Bomber, as Holmes did vs Ali...and I believe that a more firey version of Charles could have stopped Louis. A few years earlier..the Louis of the Walcott fights..Charles would have stuck to the box and move game plan and would have won much like he did in '50, and probably would have fought a smart fight, but would have been burdened less with such veneration for Louis as when they actually fought. What I'm saying is that Charles took it a bit easy on Louis in 1950, and suffered the bruises he got as a consequence...he made the fight tougher for himself, despite winning handily, by feeling such respect and awe for his idol.

[janitor]

I would still pick Charles by decision over the late 40's version of Louis. You have to also remember that the Charles that fought Louis in '50 tempered his offensive output with a great amount of respect and veneration for the old Brown Bomber, as Holmes did vs Ali...and I believe that a more firey version of Charles could have stopped Louis. A few years earlier..the Louis of the Walcott fights..Charles would have stuck to the box and move game plan and would have won much like he did in '50, and probably would have fought a smart fight, but would have been burdened less with such veneration for Louis as when they actually fought. What I'm saying is that Charles took it a bit easy on Louis in 1950, and suffered the bruises he got as a consequence...he made the fight tougher for himself, despite winning handily, by feeling such respect and awe for his idol.

It always has the be at the back of your mind though.

What if Louis lands a combo like he landed against Walcott and ends it?

His next few defences might be a bit easier.

[red cobra]

It always has the be at the back of your mind though.

What if Louis lands a combo like he landed against Walcott and ends it?

His next few defences might be a bit easier.
It could have happened..that's why, despite my call for Charles, it's very hard to bet against Louis...he could catch lightning in a bottle as well as any fighter in history.

[lufcrazy]

I think if charles would have got there before jersey joe he'd have beaten him then.

[red cobra]

Charles is one of my favorite fighters of all time based on that beating he gave Louis...that was one of the fights that kindled my interest in boxing.

[Joe E]

Bump.

[lufcrazy]

Charles beats him anytime after the war imo.

After returning louis wasn't as technically perfect but had power to win any fight out there. As his speed got worse and worse his ability to win at the highest level decreased.

[Joe E]

Charles beats him anytime after the war imo.

After returning louis wasn't as technically perfect but had power to win any fight out there. As his speed got worse and worse his ability to win at the highest level decreased.Yet he kept winning at the highest level. Louis performance againt Walcott the 2nd time around demonstrates to me that he was far from shot. Not the pre WWII Louis, but not the near shell that he was during his comeback. Charles wouldve been the quicker, sharper puncher obviously, however, given Charles style as a stand up Boxer Puncher and his propensity to want to trade, Louis, still a bit away from washed up wouldve been able to make Charles pay when Charles decided stand and throw. I see a Walcott I type bout with Charles making Louis look bad but with Joe still doing enough to take a majority decision.

[lufcrazy]

Yet he kept winning at the highest level. Louis performance againt Walcott the 2nd time around demonstrates to me that he was far from shot. Not the pre WWII Louis, but not the near shell that he was during his comeback. Charles wouldve been the quicker, sharper puncher obviously, however, given Charles style as a stand up Boxer Puncher and his propensity to want to trade, Louis, still a bit away from washed up wouldve been able to make Charles pay when Charles decided stand and throw. I see a Walcott I type bout with Charles making Louis look bad but with Joe still doing enough to take a majority decision.

As I said. Louis could knock out any man. The slower he became the less likely that was.

Ofcourse he has a puncher's chance against charles, even jersey sparked him.

But i'd favour charles to take the decision. Not by much but definitely a hindsight favourite.

[Stevie G]

Charles would still have won at this point. Albeit by a closer decsion. To find a version of Joe Louis that would have beaten Ezzard,1942 was probably the most recent year.

[Caelum]

Joe was to far past it for someone like Ezzard Charles.

His last fight that Joe said he felt (nearly like his old self) was against Tami Mauriello. That was in 1946.

Forget it. Charles beats him.

Now give me an early 1940's Louis...yeah...I'll change my mind.

Prime vs. Prime...Louis.

[SuzieQ49]

harles beats him anytime after the war imo.

Louis of 1946 knocks out charles

[SuzieQ49]

Charles would still have won at this point. Albeit by a closer decsion. To find a version of Joe Louis that would have beaten Ezzard,1942 was probably the most recent year.

I would say 1947. Charles can't survive that kind of firepower.