elmersalsa wrote:jezzamundo wrote:Honestly, I have always believed that rating fighters of one era against those of another is hard enough in lighter weight divisions, but with heavies it is absurd.
Most of the greats of the distant past - Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Charles, Marciano - were cruiserweights or light heavies by todays standards: perhaps talented enough to beat a 41yo Holyfield or a plodder like John Ruiz, or a blown up Light Heavy like Chris Byrd, but too light and weak for someone with the size, strength and power of say Lennox Lewis. Picture Marciano giving away 60lb, seven inches in height and 16 in reach to a man with Lewis' speed and skill. Ali and Holmes were lighter and considerably weaker than Holyfield who was Lewis' smallest serious opponent. Joe Louis would have been to small and fragile to survive the the Lennox Lewis of more than half a century later.
Louis was knocked down ten times in his career and out twice, both times by comparatively small men.
The only feasible way to compare boxers of different decades is in terms of what they managed in their time, with the equipment and technique they had available. In terms of what he accomplished, Louis is easily an all time top five, and possibly as high as a top two.
I cannot agree more. These guys are too big for Louis. These guys are not Primo Carnera or Max Baer here. These guys have more skills than those mentioned. Even Tommy Morrison who was MEDIOCRE was better than Primo Carnera, a 6'5" 260lb DUMB GIANT WITH NO SKILL.
For YAH's sake, Two-Ton Tony Galento that was not even 5'7" dropped "The Brown Bomber". Max Scmelling, that I think that never passed 195 pounds in his career, KNOCKED HIM OUT.
The great Jersey Joe Walcott dropped him too, and a great 169 pound fighter like Billy Conn had Louis in trouble.
Like somone said before: Louis is on the top 5 greatest fighters on my list or ina any list, but with the modern technology, these guys look like DINOSAURS close to Louis. 
Boxing is not about size. People will never fully understand this until they either go to a gym and train/spar and/or really study the fight game as it was 30-40 years ago. A 180 lb man, if he has punching power, can knock out an atheltic, 260 man NO QUESTION. Punching power is not about size. Is weight a factor-of course. But when you're talking about 6'1-'6'2 guys like Danny Williams, Kirk Johnson, Hasim Rahman, David Tua etc. you are talking about guys who are NEGATING their punching power b/c they weigh so damn much. If you are 6'2 or below, you have no business weighing above 220. It will do nothing for you except slow you down and give you excess mass that tires you out by the middle rounds. Guys 30 years ago understood this, and if they didn't they would get beat around the ring by the guys who knew how to train properly. Nowadays the talent pool and participation in the HW ranks is so meek, and the discipline so bad, you have guys getting away with weighing 20-30 lbs overweight and being top fighters, but those fights end up looking like Ruiz-Rahman and Klitschko-Sanders, some of the ugliest disgraces of a so-called title fight I've ever witnessed.
And what about the (realitvely very few) really big behemoths, like Jameel McCline, Lance Whitaker, and the Klitschko brothers? Well, other then most of those pranksters having the same issues with weight, they have not shown that they are above the giant-fighters of the past at all. Carnera was in fact more skilled then McCline and Whitaker, and he'd have a chance vs the Klitschkos just given the fact his stamina was 3 times as good and he could take a good shot (He didn't have an iron chin but it was def. above average). Buddy Baer was more skilled and a harder puncher then all of those guys save Wladimir, and unlike Wlad he could take a good shot and didn't mentally collapse when he wasn't dominating . . . .
I would honestly bet my car and house that Louis would KO ALL of today's top ten, in under 10 rounds. Take away Vitali and Byrd-in under 5.
