Louis' Best Opponent

[Monte Cox]

I dont have time to respond to everything, which is why I dont post on boards too much anymore.

Better trainers in the 19th and early 20th century. First off I doubt if many fighters even had trainers that were worth a shit, and if they did what era did they come from- 1880's ? So you are telling me that 1880's bare knuckle fighters knew more than Dundee and Soliman. And your comments that Dundee and Arcel didn't know fundementles-come on. They spent their lives in the gym. Hey, I think Blackburn was an excellant trainer, but I wouldn't place him on the same lofty pedistool that you do. You'd think that maybe Blackburn would have had Louis better prepared for Conn. What, did the Dumbass think that conn was going to stand in front of Louis and trade with him. He didn't have a clue, and don't give me this "Louis wore him down" theory (as though he was Joe Frazier), the only reason Conn lost was because he got gready after he had hurt Louis. As far as your "great fighters make great trainers" theory, what was Joe Frazier a great trainer ? And I can give you a ton of other champions who failed as trainers. People praise Archie Moore for being some guru, how many world champions did he produce ? I know him and Sadler did a lousy job with Foreman in regards to fundementles. Of coarse both of them were quick to jump on Foreman after he lost to Ali, as if the kid wasn't following their "search and destroy game plan". You also contridict yourself on Duran, stating that he was the last technically sound fighter- who trained him-Ray Arcel.

Louis was not ill prepared for Conn. If one reads the press of the day, for example Dan Daniel wrote an article before the fight, Joe Wearing Out The fact that Louis had defended his title 18 times in 4 years was taking its toll on him. Daniel wrote, "But now the Louis-Conn fight in June looks a pretty good match." Nat Fleischer said, "Louis is overtrained. He needs a rest for sure." Further don't ignore the details of the fight. Louis dehydrated himself so he would weigh under 200 pounds for the fight so people wouldnt say he beat up on a little guy. By the 7th round he was exhausted.

Calling Jack Blackburn a dumbass doesnt speak well of your understanding of boxing history.

Also Freddie Brown who mostly trained Duran early on, he was a disciple of Charley Goldman who claimed to have had 300 fights. Irregardless Duran already knoew how to fight when Arcel got him. Arcel is quoted as saying, In The Corner p 140, "I never had to tell Duran how to fight or what to do. He knew what to do." No contradictions.

-M

[thumper3852]

Against my better judgement, I'll also oblige on this:

1. Shoemaker, what does the vast majority of your posts in this thread actually have to do with the topic of Louis' best opponent? The answer, of course is nothing whatsoever. You've hijacked the thread to carry on the effective same several statements you did in the thread that was locked not long ago.

2. Your contentions, no matter how many times you reiterate them or hold them so sacred, are still just your contentions/opinions/conjectures/theories. In your zeal to reiterate ad nauseum those same points, you have consistently ignored points that others have raised or questions to you regarding what you have wrote seemingly/typically in a way that would lead one to believe that you are rather adept at wiggling away from getting nailed down, only to return yet again with consecutive posts attempting to counter what individuals have written in response, but with the same skill at avoiding answers to pertinent questions generated by the very statements you make.

3. As an example of the above, some time back (actually twice) I responded to your repeatedly posed rhetoric of why there hadnt been a under 190# power hitter in the heavy ranks for 40 years with names of a few (Quarry, Martin, etc) who fought in that lower heavy range and had done rather well with some much bigger fighters....your answer was Quarry didn't count, because you had said under 190#s. I tried again by asking what was magic about the 190# line, as if 189 3/4 was a great deal different than 193 or 194. Of course you never responded to that. I've noticed that you're lately posing the question using 1853s as the magic line. Those are just a couple of examples, there are many more.

4. As to the Shoemaker versus the "rest of the world" jag you seem to be on...no one denied heavies are bigger and or that size can pose difficulties or that athletes are bigger today in general, although you never did counter anything that was brought up about other weight division's long past champs somehow seemingly matching up well with modern champs. I think what I find the most lacking in your contentions is how absolutely more close minded you get with each post, so certain in your statements and so ready to toss off any other possibilities that you get rather vitriolic with your assertions.

I think your failure to account for or realize one simple fact about boxing is where/when/what/how you let the gas out of your own self inflated balloon...because the only thing for certain in boxing throughout its history is NOTHING IS EVER FOR CERTAIN. My pick for greatest is Ali, but Ken Norton had that certain style, and a punch to go with it, and tremendous athletic ability that gave Ali fits and at times made him look rather bad. You cannot with any or the even slightest degree of certainty, say that a Dempsey or Jeffries style would not have completely nullified a style of a Lewis or a Ruddock or Morrison....these are just hypothetical examples, so don't write a post about them.....and just to throw a non hypothetical example in here, I'll say I think Jack Johnson had a an excellent style to beat a Mike Tyson....wrestle a bit, push on him, and make him pay for being inside on his way out, just as Buster Douglas did. The point being is that styles have dictated winners and losers forever, and one man's nemesis style wise can be tailor made for a different opponent. You can't change that about boxing, where smaller guys have consistently been able to pull off upsets over much larger guys forever....but not every time. You can't alter the fact by pointing to the Packers of the 60's or any other citing of athletic records because boxing doesn't and never has fit those molds.

Almost done here.....another point I have to make is that you use a derisive style of argument...I find that to be the cheapest trick in the book, topping even your repeatedly saying the same lines over and over as if saying it more often wins just because it was said more often. I'm convinced by your style, your frequency of posts, the same monologue you use, and just a few over the top comments you make here and there that you simply came to flame.

I think Louis' best opponent is a tie between Max Baer, Schmeling, Conn, and Walcott.

[hawk5ins]

Stating Balckburn is a dumbass is pretty dimwitted I think most would agree with.

But to limit Dundee and Arcel as simply strategists and lacking fundamentals becuase they were not great fighters themselves I think is a bit shortsighted as well.

Dundee with SRL and Arcel with Duran were INDEED just strategists. They essentially came in the last two weeks of trianing camp before the bout and developed strategy for their charges.

But to suggest that was ALL they did throughout their careers as trainers? C'mon now. They both did the grunt work and devleoped fighters when they themselves were younger men. Arcel had been retired for years as a trainer before he began training Duran.

Gil Clancy got his degree in physical education. He was a gym teacher. He taught. When he became a trainer, he also taught. And it wasn't becuase he himself was a grat fighter. But becuse he COULD teach his fighters and LIKE Dundee and Arcel, had the ability to teach their fighters the fundamentals of he game.

Did Dundee hammer fundamentals into Ali? No. Bet if he tried, he would have ruined him as a fighter as well. Dundee WITH Ali was more of a strategist. But to suggest that's all he was with Basilio or Rodriguez....

I don't think it's necesary to belittle one trainer or era of trainers in order to make your case for another.

But dismissing and belittling has become the backbone of this thread hasn't it?

Sharks wave the towel my man (how odd is that for me to suggest that to YOU?). It's not going anywhere.

Hawk

[thumper3852]

"posing the question using 1853s"
should read: posing the question using 185#s as the magic line

[Sharkey]

Just asking questions. I ought to know better.

[The Shoemaker]

Sharkey,
You're correct that it is a faulty arguement to blow off all negative evidence to my arguement as being "biased", while I'll admit my own bias. But like I said, at least with Fleischer and Rickert, I've given evidence as to WHY I BELIEVE they are bias or not credable sources. I'll try and list the reasons for refuting evidence that goes against my opinion. But as you can see my posts are long enough as it is.

As far as being certain of my opinions. Of coarse I don't know for sure that the fighters from 1895-1905 were inferior to the post WWII fighters. If I could for certainly know who would win a fight based on viewing them on film or in person, I'd be betting a shitload more money on fights than I do now. In fact I just lost money on Lacy-Calzaghe and Brewster-Liaovich, which should be easier to predict than matching up fighters from seperate eras. You're correct, I shouldn't state that "George Foreman would shove Fitz's scrawny ass into a corner and blast him out of there". Maybe I should have stated, "I THINK George MIGHT be too big and strong for 165 llb Bob Fitzsimmons, and even though Jim Jeffries is just as strong and just as good of a fighter as George, I don't see Fitz going 11 rounds with George". I mean really, i am in the middle of an arguement, and i believe my point is made more strongly in the first scenario than in the second. Plus I, believe more in the first scenario than in the second. So instead of adding "I think" or "it's plausable" to every arguement, I'll stick to the first scenario when i feel strongly on a point, even though i am not 100% sure that Foreman would KO Fitz (although IMO it is highly likely).

Where have i said that my points arn't open to questioning ? Everyone else questions them, and i've tried to argue their counter-points. You know, in my last post, I gave you a ton of examples of arguements I've made and what evidence I used to back up my statements- and they are open to criticism. Sorry if didn't follow your "logical proceedure" correctly, nor did I present empirical evidence everytime i reached my hypothesis (silloquism ?).

[Ted Spoon]

You're correct in stating that Ali was a very strong fighter, physically.

Although he proved his strength vs. many he was constantly forced to the ropes vs. Foreman, unable to hold ring centre as he [George] plodded forward.

The only part of your post that really caught Ted Spoons eye was:

"Johnson fought in an era, when most guys stood in front of each other and winged punches"

It would appear your perception of this era is off the mark.

When bouts were long winded most fighters were well rehearsed in the art of feinting, straight punches, and clinching. They paced themselves and parried allot.

Clinching itself was not an excuse to rest or wait for the referee to part them (as it is today), but a complex routine of spinning one another, short uppercuts inside, and disabling each others arms. Referees were very liberal with wrestling and pushing, which lent for a different breed of fighting.

I'm betting the accessible footage made you come to your conclusion.

Johnson playing with Burns and his overkill on Ketchel does not help guide first time viewers of the supposed "defensive genius".

Try an get a hold of Johnson peppering Ketchel in the early rounds with snappy double jabs, or breaking Jeffries down with scything uppercuts.

Johnson could handle small or large fighters n' he aptly demonstrates vs. Burns, Ketchel, Jeffries, and Willard (before he ran out of steam) via different tactics -- this is all on film. His punches were straight n' short, and all thrown at great speed.

Johnson would proceed to see what his opponents had -- clinching, a little smile/remark (pushing their buttons to see how they'd react) n' then begin to carve out his game plan accordingly. He had terrible strength, top punching power and all the craftsmanship needed for his era.

The coup de' Grace was his supreme ability to emasculate fighters throughout a slow beat down. He would either demoralise or infuriate the opponent further degenerating their in-ring ability as he neutralized their advances.

He purposely held up weakening foes until they could no longer move. Some site Johnson's fights as excruciatingly painful to watch as his opponents must have felt fighting him, but for efficiency, he can't be faulted.

This is not my opinion vs. your opinion, I'm asking you to seek out the footage of these men to get a better picture. Naturally, when I first saw Dempsey steam rolling big Jess Willard in that reckless manner I made it known I did not believe him to be this slick pre-Tyson...but then I saw rounds 2 + 3 of the 'massacre', I saw his neat work vs. Carpentier and his clever smothering of Gibbons...

...I went back to read on his previous handiwork, bit by bit I was taking off the fancy wrapping.

After observing more footage and watching it multiple times those sometimes romanticised comments better described what I was seeing.

The cyber world does not help ones tone -- everyone fails to acknowledge points as a means to stand by their beliefs as they feel their under attack, but this reiterating of where you stand talks into deaf ears on both sides.

You have brought up allot of points that I have enjoyed responding too.

Remember everyone means well here, we're all just passionate fans.

[The Shoemaker]

Gentlemen,
Yes, calling Blackburn a "dumbass" was out of line, it was more to counter what i perceived as Monte placing him on a pedistool him high above Dundee and Arcel. In fact, right before i called him a dumbass, i said he was a great trainer, i should have said, "he had a dumbass strategy for fighting Conn". And Monte, i am sure if he had been alive for Louis-Conn II in say 1942, he'd have had Louis taking the fight to Conn, going to his body, and slowing him down. just like he made the adjustment in Louis' second fight with Schmelling.

Thumper: As a general rule no one has contended for a heavyweight title that weighed under 200 llbs since the 1960's. Yes, you can find exceptions to the rule by fighters who fought close to 1965, but the further away you go from the 60's, the more they die out. And bigger (and fluid) fighters are what phased them out, by the late 70's their gone. You want it exact: okay 1965- GENERALLY- no one under 190. 1970- GENERALLY, no one under 195. 1975- GENERALLY-no one under 200. 1980-GENERALLY- no one under 205. 1995-2000, GENERALLY, no one under 220. And so on-do you notice a pattern ? So instead of putting all of that into a post, I condensed it down to "no one under 190" in the last 40 years. No, i didn't mean that if you weighed 190 1/2
you were safe. I thought most people would get it, apparently you didn't. Now if you want to argue POWER punchers, the number of cases and exceptions gets smaller, and the weight goes up. That is relevant in regards to my questioning of whether Dempsey at 185 would have the power in the modern era, or whether Fitz at 165 would magically produce power at heavyweight in the modern era. And as far as me NOT ignoring other peoples points I've tried to argue them and to give credit to excellant counter arguements (I listed a few of them a few post ago, try reading them). And as I've stated one-thousand times, I AM NOT CERTAIN that 19th Century fighters couldn't compete today, nothings for sure, but at least i give reasons why I FEEL they can't, and at least I GIVE EXAMPLES when I try and refute a counter arguement (such as Tex Rickert never seeing a prime Jim Jeffries fight). I don't think i've ever belittled a poster, except the guy that disputed whether Dominique Wilkens-type athletes existed during the 1940's, but that was AFTER he blasted one of my posts. Anyway, most of your posts have been little digs at me, like i said, why don't you post something, isn't there any controversial topics that you are in the minority on and wonder why ? And as far as me straying from the joe Louis post, that happens on every thread. And after all, i was the one that started this thread in the first place.

[The Shoemaker]

Ted,
Yes, you are correct that it is unfair for me to lable Johnson as just a mauler and grabber. Plus he is fighting by those rules of his era. Of coarse if he fights by today's rules, they'd DQ him (not that he couldn't adjust). I would argue though that he is one of the first of his era to use defense as a weapon (obviously Gans, Corbett, and others did, but what i can see he is more of an exception to the rule). I do think that a lot of times you did have two guys standing in front of each other in lean-back styles throwing roundhouse punches, i think that Johnson ate that style up, tying them up and wearing them down. People rave about Jeffries' strength, johnson did out muscle him in Reno-although it's not fair that Jeffries was a shot fighter.

The old addage about beating a lean back fighter was that the "body will take you to the head". In many ways lean-back fighters are giving up their bodies, so swarmers like Dempsey will naturally be a problem for them-but the question is in a johnson-Dempsey match, is how easy does Johnson tie up Dempsey. If Dempsey's hands are free Johnson's in big trouble, plus Dempsey is very fast handed. Another thing that lean-back fighters are weak defending, is the fient to the head, rip to the body. Obviously, the worst thing you can do is reach for their heads, because they will sway back and counter the shit out of you. Actually, Vitali Klitschko's "throw back" style worked for him, but he was 6-7 and slow, and never really faced a swarmer like Tyson or Tua, who had the chin to get inside. Whether swarmers like Dempsey, or the refs disalowing holding and hitting, or wrestling is what did in that style, or the emphasis on offense (slipping punches rather than parrying) by the 1930's that style was phased out (Schmelling and burley are about the only holdovers, but they wern't as exaggerated). Certainly, Jimmy Young, Chris Byrd, and others have used modified styles like that, but not to the pre WWI degree. I know Jack Johnson bitched about how bad Blackburn was mishandling Louis, and if he trained him Louis would be unbeatable (Johnson bet on Schmelling in the first Louis fight, made a ton of cash, then was the only ex-heavyweight champion to pick Schmelling in the rematch). But a lot of johnson's criticisms of Louis-Blackburn were based on his jealousy of Louis and his hatred of Blackburn.

You are correct that I was wrong about Ali "manhandling Foreman" But he did grab George around the neck a few times and shoved him around, probably trying to send Foreman a message that you're not going to throw me around. But yes, Foreman did force him to the ropes, but part of that was because Ali figured out that in THAT HEAT and at that age, he couldn't waste energy by trying to outbox George, plus George took two steps and he had the ring cut off. That was one of the biggest myths ever that Ali "gave Foreman a boxing lesson in Zaire". He beat Foreman by letting Foreman beat on him until foreman was exhausted. there arn't too many heavyweights that can lay on the ropes and take Foreman's body attack, plus even the shots to ali's arms had to hurt. I made a point once, that everyone blasted, that POSSIBLY Foreman would have had a better chance of beating the 1960's Ali than the bigger, stronger Ali in the 70's. Yes, Ali's speed would have been a killer for George to deal with, but Ali would have been running for his life, so I don't know if he puts the power on his punches to get George's respect early like he did in Zaire. Plus I don't know if the 60's Ali was as tough or as smart as the 70's. I am sure in the 60's Ali thought he could take a punch (Liston got in a few, nothing devestating), while the 70's Ali after Bonevena, and Frazier twice, KNEW he could take a punch, and thought he couldn't be hurt.

[Kid Achilles]

Fitzsimmons had proven power against heavyweights and I believe he knocked a close to three hundred pound fighter of some recognition out with a body blow. Langford tore up some of the best heavyweights of his era. Jeffries said Choynski hit him with the hardest punch he received in his career.

It is not that I'm guessing that a Fitzsimmons, Langford, Choysnki etc could hurt and knock out 220+ lb opponents: they actually demonstrated such feats during their careers.

[The Shoemaker]

Kid,
Using Box rec as my source, Bob Foster also KO'ed 212 llb Roy wallace, 199 llb Charlie Polite, 205 llb Sonny Moore, 200+ llb'er Willie Besamonoff, and went 12 rounds with Zora Folley. The trouble was when he faced ELITE modern heavyweights, his punches didn't move them (It wasn't like he didn't hit Ali, Frazier or Terrelle). Are you telling me that John Mugabi didn't have any power at middleweight ? And, he'd have a good chance of nailing a heavy due to thier lack of speed (when compared to a middleweight). And i am sure that Rocky Graziano (a big hitter at middleweight) might get some shots in on Joe Louis, but they ain't moving him, and when Louis hits him ... Why are 19th century fighters so different, they're human beings. you are talking about an era when Lightweights fought Middleweights, welterweights fought light Heavies, and middleweights fought heavies. yes, sometimes the smaller fighters won and in fitz's case he KO'ed some heavies, but like I said, I think it's more of a case that boxing was in its embryonic stages and if you had two guys fighting each other in lean-back styles lighter weight fighters can compete with much larger men. But that stuff ended after the 1920's (I am sure someone can dig up cases where fighters jumped 3 weight classes). Why ? maybe because boxing changed, bigger people (on average) got more coordinated, the switch to a more orthodox stance allowed fighters to press their size advantages ? I think those are greater possibilities than Fitz, Langford, and Choynkski were freaks of nature and able to generate power from their size, power that no group of fighters in that weight range have been able to generate in 100 years. like i keep saying, it comes down to ecconomics. If a middleweight can blast out a heavyweight contender today, he'd do it. i think they'd notice him, because he'd be destroying Middleweights
and Light heavies.

[Kid Achilles]

If Graziano, Stanley Ketchel, Langford, etc. hit Louis with his best right of course he'd move him, probably even rock him or drop him as Ketchel did to Johnson. If you're a natural puncher and you hit someone with a clean punch, it's going to hurt them. You are overestimating the protection that size affords you. Don't forget that Bob Foster was the only man to cut Ali in his entire professional career. Do you think Ali was immune to his power, that he had nothing to fear from getting hit by Bob Foster?

If a great middleweight or larger puncher hits anyone with their best punch (unless they have a granite chin, and even that's no guarantee as Robinson showed Fullmer) do you think they'll just take it without flinching? That's still close to 160 pounds of bodyweight (if we're talking about an all time great puncher he can put nearly all his pounds behind his best shot) being slung at a human head that weighs maybe 6-8 pounds.

Graziano's major problem in a matchup against Louis is the enormous discrepancy in strength and frame size, and that fact that he would crumble under the weight of his naturally larger and stronger opponent's punches. It's not as if Louis would be able to stand there and let him tee off on him without any fear. What completely locks Graziano out of a chance of beating Louis would be his inability to take those heavyweight punches to the head or even the body, but he would still be able to hurt Louis with his best shots if he could last long enough to mount any kind of appreciable offense. Hell, Billy Conn hurt Louis a few times in that fight and he is not even close to the hitter Graziano was.

People underestimate just how powerful a big puncher in boxing is at any weight. I love hearing from the 250 pound bodybuilders who post on weightlifting forums about how they'd crush "skinny assed" Trinidad or Vargas in a streetfight and would be completely unaffected by their punches.

I don't remember the guy's name but there was this enormous (over 300 pounds) bodyguard and a notorious tough guy who worked for some bigshot celebrity. Anyway he got into an altercation with a drunk 130-140 pound Roberto Duran who proceeded to hit him in the chest with what this guy remembered as being the hardest punch he had received in his life. This was from a guy who worked as a bodyguard for many years and had been hit with his share of punches, bottles, chairs etc.

I'm fine with your opinion that the modern guy beats the smaller old timer by using his size advantage, but to think that he can sit back and have nothing to fear from the smaller man is just naive. If Lennox Lewis drops his hands and lets Choynski hit him with his best right, you can bet he's going to be hurt to some degree whether dazed, staggered, or dropped. Now if we're talking about David Tua or Samuel Peter, that's another matter altogether. Those guys don't take a great punch because they're big, they take it because they each have a steel chin. It's the same reason natural middleweight Toney can take such a great shot from the heavyweights he fights.

Size is no protection from a great puncher throwing his best shots clean at your jaw with full bodyweight behind them. Dempsey-Willard should have taught you that.

[Elmer Ray]

In the end, I am not sure if there was a best fighter so to speak. Given Rocky never lost..and that any potential foe will bear the burden on not being lumped into mirroring someone similar (or not-so) that Rocky defeated, would not one have to say Marciano if the way we figure these things is on a who-beats-who basis?

sharkey,


rocky is clearly the best heavyweight louis ever fought. rocky is a top 5-10 heavyweight of all time and IMO rates well head to head.

[Elmer Ray]

Yes, calling Blackburn a "dumbass" was out of line, it was more to counter what i perceived as Monte placing him on a pedistool him high above Dundee and Arcel. In fact, right before i called him a dumbass, i said he was a great trainer, i should have said, "he had a dumbass strategy for fighting Conn". And Monte, i am sure if he had been alive for Louis-Conn II in say 1942, he'd have had Louis taking the fight to Conn, going to his body, and slowing him down. just like he made the adjustment in Louis' second fight with Schmelling.

the reason louis did so bad, besides conn being a master boxer was because louis was dehydrated. game plans didnt have anything to do with it considering joes condition

[PeteLeo]

During his championship days (featherweight, I think), an out-of-training Jeff Fenech got drunk and became unruly in a Vegas casino, whereupon two 6' +, 240 lb. + martial arts trained bouncers attempted to escort the Champ from the premises. Little Jeff coldcocked both of them. Sometimes it's the size of the fight in the dog. PeteLeo.

[The Shoemaker]

Kid,
Obviously if they can't fight or don't have the coordination to throw a correct punch, a pro at any weight will kill them (Too Tall Jones and Gastenaue), but at the elite fighter level ? Hey, there is no scientific formula that I can use in regards to what generates power in a human being(obviously in physics it would be speed and weight). I think a lot of them are born with a punch. I mean power punchers do come in all sizes, tall and rangey like Foster, Fitz and Hearns, to short and squat like Tyson and Tua. But I'd still argue the higher up in weight you go the more power hitters there are. Guys like Hearns, Mugabi, Fitz, and Trinadad are rare at the lower weights, while light heavies and especially heavyweight, power becomes a huge factor. Strangely, I can't think of the last major heavyweight fatality (Leotis Martin vrs Sonny Moore in the 60's ?). Some people think that fist size has a lot to do with power (Liston) but Carnera had a huge fist as well and he didn't have big time power.

The ability to take a punch is even more of a mystery (thickness of your skull ?). Certainly, mentle toughness plays a part, but like your example with Fullmer, who was as tough as nails, you get blasted you get blasted. Again it seems that the bigger guys have the advantage. A buddy of mine was a middleweight and he used to nail Tex Cobb with bombs in sparring, he said that Cobb just laughed at him. He also said that he sparred Jimmy Young, who was a notorious light hitter, he said it was like getting hit with a ton of bricks.

My point is that at the beginning of the 20th century, Lightweights like Ganns and Blackburn could fight Middleweights, welterweights like Joe Walcott can beat Light Heavies and Fitz and Choynski can beat heavyweights. Duran was a great lightweight, but he isn't hanging with Monzon, Napoles isn't beating Foster, and Monzon sure as hell isn't getting into the ring with Foreman (he was afraid of Foster, he'd crap his pants with Foreman). What changed ?

People will bring up Spinks-Cooney. But Spinks must have nailed Cooney, who didn't have the greatest beard, with about 100 right hands and Cooney never nailed Michael solid (he just missed a left hook bomb early in the fight). as far as Ali-Foster, no ali couldn't walk right through him, but Bob did nail him and as you've stated was the first and only man to cut ali. But did he ever hurt Ali ? I know it's hard to tell if ali was ever hurt, since he's usually screwing around if he gets hit hard. but Ali never mentioned Foster (Mac or Bob) as being a big hitter.

[PeteLeo]

Duran hung with Hagler and beat Barkley (later lightheavy champ). With his slickness, who knows how he might have managed with Monzon?
The bantamweight division has produced some of the greatest knockout hitters in history: Zarate, Zamora, Olivares, Jofre, Gomez, McGovern, etc. I think I read in Ring once that the bantams had a higher KO per centage per fight than any other division. The welters are power-heavy, too, during most seasons. PeteLeo.

[The Shoemaker]

Elmer Ray,
Maybe it is an oversimplification for me to say that Louis had trouble with boxers (Paster, Conn, Walcott) but he's never going to put the heat on like Dempsey, Marciano, or Frazier. Not his style not his make up (plus they've fought as swarmers their whole career-no choice) Thing is, that's his pace for practically all of his fights. About the only time that i can see blackburn making an adjustment was when he took the fight to Schmelling, going to Schmelling's body, smothering Schmelling's right hand. I am not saying that Louis was simply a counter puncher who couldn't lead, but he was certainly methodical in most of his fights. To me, he looks the same in the Conn I fight as he does in practically every other fight. Maybe he overtrained, maybe he was dehydrated, but he did have the energy to come back after being hurt by Conn in the 13th round to finish him, so how dehydrated was he ? Like I said, Blackburn is not going to get him to fight like Frazier, but I think you have to make adjustments to Conn, who is a fast moving small target, rather than having the slow, methodical style for Conn as you would for Buddy Baer. Whether Joe was in perfect shape for the re-match or not (no dyhydration or overtraining) he's in for a tough fight unless he pressures Conn or gets real lucky.

[Sharkey]

Elmer,

I don't think however that that means the Marciano Louis fought was the best fighter he ever faced...BUT if any Marciano in any form is considered, he still had no losses..so some will have a hard time stating that any other Louis foe was better..even if such opinion is perhaps right on the money. Thus the problem of trying to figure the answer to the question.

That was my point.

Aa an aside, I am fully aware of Marciano's history, fights, and standing and I do not think he was a top 5 heavyweight of all time. The statement that he was top 5 or 10 is wonderful as an effective phrase but doesn't do much for me to make me think I am living outside the realm of reality.

[hawk5ins]

That even if one WERE to consider Rocky a top 5 All Time Heavyweight, the version that Louis faced was not a PEAK PRIME Marciano (and it goes without saying that Louis was MUCH further removed from his.)

I beleive that Larry Holmes was one of the 5 greatest Heavyweights of all time. But I'm not willing to give Mike Tyson credit for beating THAT Holmes becuase Mike clearly did NOT face THAT Larry Holmes.

Granted Rocky was closer to HIS prime for Louis than Holmes was to HIS for Tyson, but IMO, if we are going to credit a fighter with facing a certain level rated fighter, he would need to do that when the fighter was at their peak and not prior to or after.

(hey is this actually the subject matter of this thread?)

Hawk

[Elmer Ray]

Elmer,

I don't think however that that means the Marciano Louis fought was the best fighter he ever faced...BUT if any Marciano in any form is considered, he still had no losses..so some will have a hard time stating that any other Louis foe was better..even if such opinion is perhaps right on the money. Thus the problem of trying to figure the answer to the question.

That was my point.

Aa an aside, I am fully aware of Marciano's history, fights, and standing and I do not think he was a top 5 heavyweight of all time. The statement that he was top 5 or 10 is wonderful as an effective phrase but doesn't do much for me to make me think I am living outside the realm of reality.

i think marciano was in his prime when he fought louis, my father believes marcianos peak fight was joe louis. he makes a good case too.

even if u dont consider marciano a top 5 heavyweight, im sure u consider him a top 10 heavyweight of all time as do most.

[hawk5ins]

For Rocky being in his prime for Louis?

Hawk

Note: BTW, Rocky falls outside of MY top 5 but in my top 10. Not real sure how much weight that holds. Or how much weight it would hold if my views mirrored your views. The weight of the ink this is typed on?

[Elmer Ray]

That even if one WERE to consider Rocky a top 5 All Time Heavyweight, the version that Louis faced was not a PEAK PRIME Marciano (and it goes without saying that Louis was MUCH further removed from his.)

I beleive that Larry Holmes was one of the 5 greatest Heavyweights of all time. But I'm not willing to give Mike Tyson credit for beating THAT Holmes becuase Mike clearly did NOT face THAT Larry Holmes.

Granted Rocky was closer to HIS prime for Louis than Holmes was to HIS for Tyson, but IMO, if we are going to credit a fighter with facing a certain level rated fighter, he would need to do that when the fighter was at their peak and not prior to or after.

(hey is this actually the subject matter of this thread?)

Hawk

i think rocky was in his prime vs louis. he was a harder puncher back in 1951, before goldman tinkered with his style late in his career. rocky was 28 when he fought louis, full of youthness and he seemed faster than in his later career. rocky may not have totally devoloped his crouch yet, but he bobbed and weaved a lot more since he was more of a standup slugger in 1951.

[Elmer Ray]

For Rocky being in his prime for Louis?

Hawk

Note: BTW, Rocky falls outside of MY top 5 but in my top 10. Not real sure how much weight that holds. Or how much weight it would hold if my views mirrored your views. The weight of the ink this is typed on?

ill post his opinion in a sec......


i rate rocky 5th all time HW, so our opinion isnt that much different.

[hawk5ins]

But here's the problem, We may see Rocky in a similar or relatively similar light. Thus my opinion or viewpoint becuase of this, may be worth something to you.

What if for another fighter we did not see eye to eye on? Would my opinion's value change?

That's the problem with either placing TOO much value into any one historian's (or fan's) opinion, rather than just viewing his opinion as JUST that, an Opinion.

One that you can utilize that opinions as a tool or choose not to. But if one's opinion does NOT necessarily fall in line with your's, it doesn't make it WRONG or mean that it should be dismissed or belittled.

I think that's where some guys here get into trouble.

Hawk