Joe Louis's Opposition (old story, I know)

[cross_trainer]

There are two schools of thought on Joe Louis's opposition: Either it was poor (no standout fighters), or that it was good, but Louis's dominance PREVENTED any standout fighters from emerging because he destroyed everyone with ease.

I ascribe to the second school of thought. Think about this for a moment--some of Louis's most highly rated opponents (Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Braddock, even Carnera) made their careers before or after Louis's prime years. I doubt very much that new talent simply disappeared circa 1937 and reemerged in 1949, even accounting for the effects of the war. There must have been a "would have been" ATG heavyweight somewhere in the mix during Louis's prime.

Question: Did Louis have significantly more trouble with his most highly rated opponents (aside from the first Schmeling loss) than he did with the top contenders during his peak? Again, mostly not. Carnera was annihilated, Baer was annihilated, Schmeling was annihilated once Joe corrected his mistake, and Braddock was (gamely) beaten up after a smidgeon of early success. Only Walcott did well, and it was at the tail end of Louis's career (Walcott lost twice anyway, once by brutal knockout).

Now ask yourself: What if Baer, Schmeling, Carnera, Braddock, and Walcott had come into their primes during Louis's peak years...say, in 1940 or 1941? If that was the case, they would never have made their marks as champions or dominant contenders, and we would dismiss them (just like we dismiss many of Louis's peak opponents) as bums of the month that Louis destroyed...even if you keep the fight results identical.

Most fighters are very lucky they live in competitive, Louis-free eras. Ironically, the harder you struggle against your opposition, the better your opposition is rated.

[OLD FOGEY]

There are two schools of thought on Joe Louis's opposition: Either it was poor (no standout fighters), or that it was good, but Louis's dominance PREVENTED any standout fighters from emerging because he destroyed everyone with ease.

I ascribe to the second school of thought. Think about this for a moment--some of Louis's most highly rated opponents (Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Braddock, even Carnera) made their careers before or after Louis's prime years. I doubt very much that new talent simply disappeared circa 1937 and reemerged in 1949, even accounting for the effects of the war. There must have been a "would have been" ATG heavyweight somewhere in the mix during Louis's prime.

Question: Did Louis have significantly more trouble with his most highly rated opponents (aside from the first Schmeling loss) than he did with the top contenders during his peak? Again, mostly not. Carnera was annihilated, Baer was annihilated, Schmeling was annihilated once Joe corrected his mistake, and Braddock was (gamely) beaten up after a smidgeon of early success. Only Walcott did well, and it was at the tail end of Louis's career (Walcott lost twice anyway, once by brutal knockout).

Now ask yourself: What if Baer, Schmeling, Carnera, Braddock, and Walcott had come into their primes during Louis's peak years...say, in 1940 or 1941? If that was the case, they would never have made their marks as champions or dominant contenders, and we would dismiss them (just like we dismiss many of Louis's peak opponents) as bums of the month that Louis destroyed...even if you keep the fight results identical.

Most fighters are very lucky they live in competitive, Louis-free eras. Ironically, the harder you struggle against your opposition, the better your opposition is rated.

I remember Ray Arcel being quoted years ago as saying Lou Nova had
the most talent of anyone Louis fought but the bad beating Louis gave him effectively destroyed him.

Excellent post, Cross-Trainer.

[NickHudson]

Yes, this post is excellent. I agree that smashing your opposition can be taken two ways, either you are brilliant or they are shite.

All we can do in these instances is look at the quality of the fight, number of punches thrown, number blocked and slipped, speed and agility, ability to tough it out when hurt etc.

On these criteria I agree that Louis's brilliance prevented a champion-to-be from emerging, rather than there was no champion to be.

[cross_trainer]

I remember Ray Arcel being quoted years ago as saying Lou Nova had
the most talent of anyone Louis fought but the bad beating Louis gave him effectively destroyed him.

Excellent post, Cross-Trainer.

Thank you. This is why I rate Louis over Ali--we could only tell that Ali's opponents were ATG's because he was not invincible himself. Since Louis dominated an era comparable to Ali's run in duration (when you factor in the war and the "exile"), he must have defeated opponents of ATG caliber somewhere in there, every bit as good as Frazier or Foreman.

Now, we can't count any of his opponents as ATG's in the same realm as Foreman or Frazier because Louis never gave them the chance to prove it...but there's at least one of them....which is why dominance regardless of how "good" you subjectively think an era is should be the prime consideration in rating heavyweight accomplishments.

[Marciano Frazier]

There are two schools of thought on Joe Louis's opposition: Either it was poor (no standout fighters), or that it was good, but Louis's dominance PREVENTED any standout fighters from emerging because he destroyed everyone with ease.

I ascribe to the second school of thought. Think about this for a moment--some of Louis's most highly rated opponents (Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Braddock, even Carnera) made their careers before or after Louis's prime years. I doubt very much that new talent simply disappeared circa 1937 and reemerged in 1949, even accounting for the effects of the war. There must have been a "would have been" ATG heavyweight somewhere in the mix during Louis's prime.

Question: Did Louis have significantly more trouble with his most highly rated opponents (aside from the first Schmeling loss) than he did with the top contenders during his peak? Again, mostly not. Carnera was annihilated, Baer was annihilated, Schmeling was annihilated once Joe corrected his mistake, and Braddock was (gamely) beaten up after a smidgeon of early success. Only Walcott did well, and it was at the tail end of Louis's career (Walcott lost twice anyway, once by brutal knockout).

Now ask yourself: What if Baer, Schmeling, Carnera, Braddock, and Walcott had come into their primes during Louis's peak years...say, in 1940 or 1941? If that was the case, they would never have made their marks as champions or dominant contenders, and we would dismiss them (just like we dismiss many of Louis's peak opponents) as bums of the month that Louis destroyed...even if you keep the fight results identical.

Most fighters are very lucky they live in competitive, Louis-free eras. Ironically, the harder you struggle against your opposition, the better your opposition is rated.
I largely agree, although I wouldn't go as far as you on this one. I do think that at least Schmeling and Walcott actually were better than anyone Louis met in the middle of his title reign, on the basis of their general careers/results against him. However, for example, if we were to shuffle things around slightly, like, say, transposing the primes of Primo Carnera and Buddy Baer's careers, or Tommy Farr and Jack Sharkey, or Arturo Godoy and Jim Braddock- I can certainly see where they could potentially fall into each others' own niches in history with only that slight circumstantial alteration to their fortunes.

[Senya13]

Only Walcott did well, and it was at the tail end of Louis's career (Walcott lost twice anyway, once by brutal knockout).
Arturo Godoy, Tommy Farr?

[Zakman]

I would agree with the second interpretation. As everyone around here knows, I think the world of Max Baer's ability - the guy had an IRON chin and a helacious punch. And in 84 fights Joe Louis is the ONLY guy to put him on the canvas for the the ten count. Yeah, Max was conscious and could've gotten up, but he knew what was coming. That Lewis could do that to such an anvil-chinned puncher is impressive, very impressive.

In Louis's absense and with a bit more motivation, Baer would have won the title again and had quite a career if Lewis weren't around

[Amsterdam]

I would agree with the second interpretation. As everyone around here knows, I think the world of Max Baer's ability - the guy had an IRON chin and a helacious punch. And in 84 fights Joe Louis is the ONLY guy to put him on the canvas for the the ten count. Yeah, Max was conscious and could've gotten up, but he knew what was coming. That Lewis could do that to such an anvil-chinned puncher is impressive, very impressive.

In Louis's absense and with a bit more motivation, Baer would have won the title again and had quite a career if Lewis weren't around

Lewis would have been starched early!:rofl

But I agree with CT's post, it is an excellent one and his comment "the more competitive you are with your opponent, the more credit you will recieve for the opponent in the long run" is very true.

Tyson's 80's competition is often underrated due to how badly he wrecked them at his peak, a resume of completely destroying/outclassed Berbick, Holmes, Tucker, Smith, Ruddock, Tubbs is really pretty decent, especially when we have a gauge to compare since two of them(Tucker&Holmes) went on to give other elite level fighters tough fights when they were even further stretched from their prime, where as Tyson blew out Holmes and outclassed a peaked Tucker.

Louis' competition and regard by some fans is very similiar to the above Tyson analogy.

[Amsterdam]

Posts like this are why cross trainer is the invincible champion of the writing contests.

I fully agree with the second interpretation, The same thing happens with mike tyson.

:good

[McGrain]

There are two schools of thought on Joe Louis's opposition: Either it was poor (no standout fighters), or that it was good, but Louis's dominance PREVENTED any standout fighters from emerging because he destroyed everyone with ease.



I know i've posted this about 3 times, but I love it and I think it sums things up rather well:

ALI: You really think you would've whipped me?

LOUIS: When I was fighting we had a thing called the bum of the month tour.

ALI?: You calling me a bum?!

LOUIS: You would've been, on the tour.


The point being that there are some people incapable of giving Louis credit for the guys he destroyed because he destroyed them rather than Ali would've beat Louis (he would have).

As an aside, I don't care. I am interested in two things - how does he look on film (murderous), did he fight the best available (yes).

[mcvey]

Thank you. This is why I rate Louis over Ali--we could only tell that Ali's opponents were ATG's because he was not invincible himself. Since Louis dominated an era comparable to Ali's run in duration (when you factor in the war and the "exile"), he must have defeated opponents of ATG caliber somewhere in there, every bit as good as Frazier or Foreman.

Now, we can't count any of his opponents as ATG's in the same realm as Foreman or Frazier because Louis never gave them the chance to prove it...but there's at least one of them....which is why dominance regardless of how "good" you subjectively think an era is should be the prime consideration in rating heavyweight accomplishments.
Title Defenses against the likes of Jack Roper , Tony Musto ,and Gus Dorazio were pretty dismal,Roper was 36 had a record of 26 W 22L 5 Ds,Musto had lost9of 33 fights with 1 drawand had won 4 of his lasty 9 fights, Dorazio, who couldnt break an egg, had a record of36 W 9 L 1 D his only win over a "name was a split dec over Bob Pastor3 years before,Al Ettore ,Arturo Godoy, Patsy Perroni and even Willie Reddish had beaten him.NONE OF THESE MEN WERE RATED CONTENDERS WHEN THEY MET LOUIS.Apart from looking at how Louis demolished them you have to factor in how good they were,their records tell us they were poor undeserving challengers.Louis ,s best opponents fromToomy Farr ,his 1st defence in37 toAbe Simon in 42 ,were Farr,Schmeling,Buddy Baer ,and Billi Conn,only one,Conn could be called an ATG, and he was a light heavy who weighed 169 lbs when he fought Louis ,giving the Champion 30 lbs,Louis when great but the calibre of his opponents was not,better fighters than those mentioned should have had the opportunity to test him complexion played a big part in the choice of Louis,s challengers,and overall they cannot compare to those Ali beat.

[janitor]

--some of Louis's most highly rated opponents (Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Braddock, even Carnera) made their careers before or after Louis's prime years. I doubt very much that new talent simply disappeared circa 1937 and reemerged in 1949,

This is how I see it.

We do however see flashes of what some of his challengers might have been.

Tommy Farr and Lou Nova both proved efective against some of the previous champions suggesting that they might have been on a similar level.

Bob Pastor compiled a resume that suggests that he would have been well in the picture in the absence of Louis.

Buddy Baer remains an all time first round knockout king.

Light heavyweights of the era had a free hand before they stepped up to heavyweight. Nobody would question the greatness of John Henry Lewis or Billy Conn for example.

[janitor]

Posts like this are why cross trainer is the invincible champion of the writing contests.


Who do you see being writing champion if Cross Trainer was not arround.

Are some of the current contenders under rated for the same reasons.

[fists of fury]

God post Cross_Trainer. I wrote a long reply, but it didn't display for some reason, and I'm not doing it all over again!

There are some extremely well-informed people on these boards. I'm not going to name a whole list, but when Cross_Trainer or Stonehands post, I definitely take the time to read their material. There's a whole bunch of great posters though...

[McGrain]

Posts like this are why cross trainer is the invincible champion of the writing contests.

And he's been about more since the fall, which is good.

I see it as a three way dust up, Janitor v Cross Trainer v My Dinner With Conteh.

I fully agree with the second interpretation, The same thing happens with mike tyson.

Who do you think the preeminant heavyweight would have been had Tyson taken up pigeon breeding instead of fighting?

[ChrisPontius]

I agree and i think that, ironically, Ali's Vietnam induced layoff made him end up ranked higher on ATG lists because it gave Frazier & Foreman a chance to establish themselfes so Ali could beat them, even if he lost the first time to Frazier.

[Mendoza]

There are two schools of thought on Joe Louis's opposition: Either it was poor (no standout fighters), or that it was good, but Louis's dominance PREVENTED any standout fighters from emerging because he destroyed everyone with ease.

I ascribe to the second school of thought. Think about this for a moment--some of Louis's most highly rated opponents (Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Braddock, even Carnera) made their careers before or after Louis's prime years. I doubt very much that new talent simply disappeared circa 1937 and reemerged in 1949, even accounting for the effects of the war. There must have been a "would have been" ATG heavyweight somewhere in the mix during Louis's prime.

Question: Did Louis have significantly more trouble with his most highly rated opponents (aside from the first Schmeling loss) than he did with the top contenders during his peak? Again, mostly not. Carnera was annihilated, Baer was annihilated, Schmeling was annihilated once Joe corrected his mistake, and Braddock was (gamely) beaten up after a smidgeon of early success. Only Walcott did well, and it was at the tail end of Louis's career (Walcott lost twice anyway, once by brutal knockout).

Now ask yourself: What if Baer, Schmeling, Carnera, Braddock, and Walcott had come into their primes during Louis's peak years...say, in 1940 or 1941? If that was the case, they would never have made their marks as champions or dominant contenders, and we would dismiss them (just like we dismiss many of Louis's peak opponents) as bums of the month that Louis destroyed...even if you keep the fight results identical.

Most fighters are very lucky they live in competitive, Louis-free eras. Ironically, the harder you struggle against your opposition, the better your opposition is rated.
There is a lot to ponder here. My first thoughts are Louis opposition as a whole is average by championship standards. The best fighters Louis meet in the Ring were Schmeling, Walcott, Charles, and Marciano, and each one of these men defeated Louis except for Walcott who was robbed of a decision in Madison Square Garden. Louis managers of course had a speical contract with Madison Square Garden. While age had a lot to do with Louis' defeats to Charles and Marciano, the point here was looking at the best fighters Louis meet.

The next best group of fighters Louis fought was B Baer, Godoy, Farr, and Conn. Each fighter had there share of moments vs Louis. Baer floored him, Godoy might have won the first fight via decision, Farr vs Louis was rather close, and if the Conn fight was 12 rounds, the Pittsburgh kid would have been a heavyweight champion at 168 pounds.

We don't know how Louis would have done vs Liston, Ali, Holmes or Tyson, but in my opinion Liston, Ali, Holmes, and Tyson would not struggle to defeat Baer, Godoy, Farr, and Conn. I beleive Liston, Ali, Holmes or Tyson were far better than Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Braddock, and Carnera. So I would say Louis was well suited to fight in the time line he did.

The early 1930's were the graveyard years of heavyweight boxing. Nat Fleischer wrote that heavyweight boxing was on life support when Carnera was champion.

If Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Braddock, or Carnera made their careers before or after Louis's prime years, I doubt they would be viewed as special fighters simply because they were not consistent enough in the ring. I can't see Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Braddock, or Carnera beating the better champions before or after them. While an upset is possible, their ring records in a weak 1930's / 1940's heavyweight division was too inconstant to suggest they would be great in other era's.

[cross_trainer]

I note that several tend to rate how good a fighter is from Louis's era based upon how good he was against Louis. Seems a bit circular if we're considering Louis's legacy (so-and-so gave Louis trouble, so he must be an excellent fighter, so he contributes to Louis's legacy).

Instead, we should consider who has the best record against other non-Louis contenders, even if Louis clobbered them in a single round (as Foreman clobbered Frazier and Liston clobbered Patterson, even though Patterson and Frazier were great fighters).

[OLD FOGEY]

Title Defenses against the likes of Jack Roper , Tony Musto ,and Gus Dorazio were pretty dismal,Roper was 36 had a record of 26 W 22L 5 Ds,Musto had lost9of 33 fights with 1 drawand had won 4 of his lasty 9 fights, Dorazio, who couldnt break an egg, had a record of36 W 9 L 1 D his only win over a "name was a split dec over Bob Pastor3 years before,Al Ettore ,Arturo Godoy, Patsy Perroni and even Willie Reddish had beaten him.NONE OF THESE MEN WERE RATED CONTENDERS WHEN THEY MET LOUIS.Apart from looking at how Louis demolished them you have to factor in how good they were,their records tell us they were poor undeserving challengers.Louis ,s best opponents fromToomy Farr ,his 1st defence in37 toAbe Simon in 42 ,were Farr,Schmeling,Buddy Baer ,and Billi Conn,only one,Conn could be called an ATG, and he was a light heavy who weighed 169 lbs when he fought Louis ,giving the Champion 30 lbs,Louis when great but the calibre of his opponents was not,better fighters than those mentioned should have had the opportunity to test him complexion played a big part in the choice of Louis,s challengers,and overall they cannot compare to those Ali beat.

Louis made 7 title defenses in 1941. Three were against outstanding
contenders, Conn, Nova, and Baer. Why is it so terrible then that he
defended against Musto and Dorazio, and why is Dorazio so bad. He
had been rated in the top ten and would be in the future. According to
Boxrec, he came into the Louis fight at 50-9-1, good for that era and
not awful for today. His career record was 73-23-2, and he defeated
six men who were at one time or another top five heavyweigths (Harry
Bobo, Johnny Flynn, Buddy Walker, Joe Baksi, Lem Franklin, and Gunnar
Barlund). His record certainly stands up to Brian London (37-20-1),
who got two shots at the title, David Bey (18-11-1), Chuck Wepner
(35-14-2), not to mention Manuel Ramos (25-29-3), let alone someone
like Terry Daniels.

[OLD FOGEY]

I note that several tend to rate how good a fighter is from Louis's era based upon how good he was against Louis. Seems a bit circular if we're considering Louis's legacy (so-and-so gave Louis trouble, so he must be an excellent fighter, so he contributes to Louis's legacy).

Instead, we should consider who has the best record against other non-Louis contenders, even if Louis clobbered them in a single round (as Foreman clobbered Frazier and Liston clobbered Patterson, even though Patterson and Frazier were great fighters).

These are some top heavys' records for the 1930 to 1955 era:
1. 56-10-4 (40) 2. 71-13-0 (53) 3. 51-26-6 (26)
4. 38-14-3 (13) 5. 81-30-13(24) 6. 53-7-5 (17)
7. 68-3-0 (54) 8. 64-12-1 (15) 9. 50-7-0 (45)
10. 49-9-5 (31) 11. 82-13-1 (60) 12. 51-18-2 (32)
13. 90-25-1 (51) 14. 49-0-0 (43) 15. 93-40-3 (65)
16. 185-23-11 (131) 17. 90-14-0 (72) 18. 87-13-1 (70)

Comment--If I asked you to chose the outstanding fighters out of these,
I think most would pick #14 and #7 who clearly have the outstanding
records.

These are some top heavys' records for the early 1980's to today:
1. 69-6-0 (44) 2. 42-8-2 (27) 3. 41-2-1 (32) 4. 76-5-0 (68)
5. 70-6-3 (43) 6. 42-1-0 (33) 7. 48-3-0 (43) 8. 33-6-1 (21)
9. 41-18-1 (28) 10. 53-6-2 (33) 11. 35-2-0 (34) 12. 34-3-2 (27)
13. 42-1-0 (35) 14. 55-13-1 (38) 15. 49-4-1 (38) 16. 42-6-2 (33)
17. 40-5-0 (38) 18. 41-7-1 (28) 19. 51-8-0 (36) 20. 40-3-1 (21)
21. 42-3-0 (31) 22. 64-2-0 (43) 23. 50-6-0 (44) 24. 47-3-1 (42)

Comment-If you couldn't guess whose records are whose, could you
figure out who the best fighters are? #13 and #22 have among the
best records. I wonder if anyone on this forum would consider them
among the top ten heavyweights of their era.

I did not try to stack the results. These are the records of highly
rated fighters taken off Boxrec and shuffled about.

*The goofy smiling guy is an 8.

[Mendoza]

These are some top heavys' records for the 1930 to 1955 era:
1. 56-10-4 (40) 2. 71-13-0 (53) 3. 51-26-6 (26)
4. 38-14-3 (13) 5. 81-30-13(24) 6. 53-7-5 (17)
7. 68-3-0 (54) 8. 64-12-1 (15) 9. 50-7-0 (45)
10. 49-9-5 (31) 11. 82-13-1 (60) 12. 51-18-2 (32)
13. 90-25-1 (51) 14. 49-0-0 (43) 15. 93-40-3 (65)
16. 185-23-11 (131) 17. 90-14-0 (72) 18. 87-13-1 (70)

Comment--If I asked you to chose the outstanding fighters out of these,
I think most would pick #14 and #7 who clearly have the outstanding
records.

These are some top heavys' records for the early 1980's to today:
1. 69-6-0 (44) 2. 42-8-2 (27) 3. 41-2-1 (32) 4. 76-5-0 (68)
5. 70-6-3 (43) 6. 42-1-0 (33) 7. 48-3-0 (43) 8. 33-6-1 (21)
9. 41-18-1 (28) 10. 53-6-2 (33) 11. 35-2-0 (34) 12. 34-3-2 (27)
13. 42-1-0 (35) 14. 55-13-1 (38) 15. 49-4-1 (38) 16. 42-6-2 (33)
17. 40-5-0 (38) 18. 41-7-1 (28) 19. 51-8-0 (36) 20. 40-3-1 (21)
21. 42-3-0 (31) 22. 64-2-0 (43) 23. 50-6-0 (44) 24. 47-3-1 (42)

Comment-If you couldn't guess whose records are whose, could you
figure out who the best fighters are? #13 and #22 have among the
best records. I wonder if anyone on this forum would consider them
among the top ten heavyweights of their era.

I did not try to stack the results. These are the records of highly
rated fighters taken off Boxrec and shuffled about.

*The goofy smiling guy is an 8.

Can you give us the names behind the numbers. With or without a goofy smile is fine by me.