jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ali was decked by Tiny Henry Cooper, and struggled with fast guys like Doug Jones and Jimmy Ellis. Holmes battered monsters like Shavers and Cooney, but was flummoxed by the smaller and faster Spinks. Louis struggled with Conn, precisely because he was smaller and quicker, Louis loved taking on big guys.
Louis beat Baer, Carnera and Abe Simon, stopping all of them by knockout. Now I am not saying these guys are on a par with Lewis, although Baer by all accounts was phenomenally talented, but loved the high life too much.
Also, you'd have to figure with modern training, Louis would have weighed around 220-225 maybe slightly more, and his speed would be pretty impressive when compared to modern heavyweights.
Louis also could fight at a serious pace for 15 rounds, very few modern heavyweights fight at any sort of pace at all, something which has been the case since the 80's onward.
I know it is certainly conceivable that Lewis had the power to drop and stop Louis, but how easy would he find it to land on Louis who faced technically better boxers than Lewis. Joe Walcott for instance was a real technical fighter, and in general I think the technique of heavyweights was superior.
Buddy Baer wasn't as skilled as Louis, but he wasn't a primo Carnera. Max Baer was a very talented fighter also,
I think too much is made of size differentials. Tyson was what, 215 in his prime, and he had plenty of punchpower.
Speed can certainly make up for size difference if it is translated into timing and power.
It's all conjecture of course, and I'm not saying I cannot envisage Lewis beating Louis, but I'm giving the other side of the argument, which is that Lewis would really struggle with the pace, determination, speed of hand and two fisted punching power of Louis.
The guy who got decked by a fairly wide shot from McCall, would certainly have been susceptible to Louis' fists, as Louis was far more accurate and deadly with his punching.
I used to be of the opinion that Lewis would have mullered Louis, but not any more, I think the increase in size of heavyweights is no indication of increasing prowess, Tyson in terms of pure devastating power is the best heavyweight of the last 20 years, Holyfield the hardest man along with Mercer, neither are big by modern standards.
i see what your saying james but when cooper caught the then clay he certainly wasnt 50 pounds lighter than clay. and true tyson was around the 215 mark in his prime but that is still a good stone heavier than the brown bomber.
weight isnt everything but lewis carried his pounds well, he wasnt an oversized musclebound type and i was often surprised to hear his weight because he didnt look that heavy. i think his advantages in weight, reach, height and strength (not neccesarily punching power) would be too much for joe or even marciano for that matter, imo that is.
i`m not saying i rate lewis above louis or rocky in the all time lists i`m just saying if they fought each other without accounting for the older guys using modern nutrition and training i think size would matter.
plus when i think of lewis bombing out the likes of botha and rahman i dont think i`d particulary want to see a 14 stone fella take one of those shots.
He rates Joe Louis as number 1 & Tyson at 7 or 8. He didn't give his full top 10.
what he's earned in his ring career is pocket change compared with those grills. 
is foreman over rated in the all time listings???? 
