Who ranks higher historically? Chris Byrd or Ingemar Johansson

[DrDuke]

some more eye candy for alp, this time a bit more artistic

2 questions there. Why is Vitali shorter than Wlad in that picture, and...where the f*ck did you even find something like that?

He hacked alpie's laptop.

[Ambling Alp II]

Alp rates Joe Louis highly, but I don't think there's anyone who would ever say that particular era in heavyweight history was really any good. So there seems to be a contradiction with his logic because if you can't rate the Klitschko brothers highly because they were dominant in a subpar era then you can't rank Joe Louis highly because even in his own time his title defenses were referred to as the bum of the month club.

Louis was more "dominant" that the Klitschkos. He had one loss near his prime and that was to a great fighter. Wlad lost three times to three guys who weren't even contenders. Vitaly lost both times that he fought someone decent.

Some of the guys he fought weren't very good. some were very good-great. Some were in between. You shouldn't fighters by their wins over their worst opponents. Louis had quality wins. He has wins over Schmeling, Baer and Walcott. That dwarfs a win over Corrie Sanders.

[oogiebe]

Alp rates Joe Louis highly, but I don't think there's anyone who would ever say that particular era in heavyweight history was really any good. So there seems to be a contradiction with his logic because if you can't rate the Klitschko brothers highly because they were dominant in a subpar era then you can't rank Joe Louis highly because even in his own time his title defenses were referred to as the bum of the month club.

Louis was more "dominant" that the Klitschkos. He had one loss near his prime and that was to a great fighter. Wlad lost three times to three guys who weren't even contenders. Vitaly lost both times that he fought someone decent.

Some of the guys he fought weren't very good. some were very good-great. Some were in between. You shouldn't fighters by their wins over their worst opponents. Louis had quality wins. He has wins over Schmeling, Baer and Walcott. That dwarfs a win over Corrie Sanders.

Dude, you cut and paste the same crap on every thread about heavyweights.

[Ambling Alp II]

How is it crap? Feel free to point out what is not true.
Are you really going to argue that Louis didn't beat great fighters? Or that Vitaly did?
Or that their losses were worse?

Really, I would like to what specifically is "crap".

[oogiebe]

How is it crap? Feel free to point out what is not true.
Are you really going to argue that Louis didn't beat great fighters? Or that Vitaly did?
Or that their losses were worse?

Really, I would like to what specifically is "crap".

"Wlad lost three times to three guys who weren't even contenders"

Ok, we read that the first 15 times you posted that.

[margaret thatcher]

How is it crap? Feel free to point out what is not true.
Are you really going to argue that Louis didn't beat great fighters? Or that Vitaly did?
Or that their losses were worse?

Really, I would like to what specifically is "crap".

james toney's cruiser career rates higher than usyk's, there's some crap for ya

[oogiebe]

How is it crap? Feel free to point out what is not true.
Are you really going to argue that Louis didn't beat great fighters? Or that Vitaly did?
Or that their losses were worse?

Really, I would like to what specifically is "crap".

james toney's cruiser career rates higher than usyk's, there's some crap for ya

Losses count for this guy, but not that guy.

Cleveland Williams.

[margaret thatcher]

sweet pea williams

[oogiebe]

sweet pea williams

[DrDuke]

Also, let's remember that Byrd was ahead against Vitali at the moment of the stoppage and every great welterweight beats the klits.

[HomicideHenry]

Alp rates Joe Louis highly, but I don't think there's anyone who would ever say that particular era in heavyweight history was really any good. So there seems to be a contradiction with his logic because if you can't rate the Klitschko brothers highly because they were dominant in a subpar era then you can't rank Joe Louis highly because even in his own time his title defenses were referred to as the bum of the month club.

Louis was more "dominant" that the Klitschkos. He had one loss near his prime and that was to a great fighter. Wlad lost three times to three guys who weren't even contenders. Vitaly lost both times that he fought someone decent.

Some of the guys he fought weren't very good. some were very good-great. Some were in between. You shouldn't fighters by their wins over their worst opponents. Louis had quality wins. He has wins over Schmeling, Baer and Walcott. That dwarfs a win over Corrie Sanders.

Yes Joe Louis had quality wins.

However context is everything. Carnera? Passed it. Baer? He's top 20. Schmeling? Older, slower version. Sharkey? Passed it. Braddock? Not even top 20. Conn? Blown up middleweight. Lewis? Another blown up middleweight well passed his prime. Walcott? Was seen as nothing more than a stepping stone when Joe Louis fought him the first time.

As for the Klitschko brothers especially Vladimir it can't be held against them that there was really nobody around to really test their mettle, and I think there has already been enough breath wasted on people defending at least two out of three losses for Vladimir and Vitali's two losses. So there's no sense going down this same old road.

The bulk of Joe Louis's career was wins over non-entities and men who were undersized or old. If arguing someone has a superior record simply on the basis of names that would be like some 20-year-old beating up George Foreman and Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson right now and declaring that they are in the same level of greatness as someone who was legitimately a top 10 heavyweight.

That is essentially what you are arguing against the Klitschko brothers because Joe Louis defeated men who were well passed their prime or had yet to prove themselves to be great fighters in their own right. The only solid test that Joe Louis ever fought in his prime was against Billy Conn.

And from my point of view though it is a minority view Corrie Sanders was an overlooked and underrated heavyweight for his time period. He was an underachiever but he certainly had all the size and skills a heavyweight should have which is why he was written off prior to facing Vladimir Klitschko because he underperformed in fights he should have won. But he was not garbage or crap.

[keithmoonhangover]

How is it crap? Feel free to point out what is not true.
Are you really going to argue that Louis didn't beat great fighters? Or that Vitaly did?
Or that their losses were worse?

Really, I would like to what specifically is "crap".

"Wlad lost three times to three guys who weren't even contenders"

Ok, we read that the first 15 times you posted that.

What do you want Alp to type? Wlad never lost a fight? Wlad lost nine times?

[oogiebe]

How is it crap? Feel free to point out what is not true.
Are you really going to argue that Louis didn't beat great fighters? Or that Vitaly did?
Or that their losses were worse?

Really, I would like to what specifically is "crap".

"Wlad lost three times to three guys who weren't even contenders"

Ok, we read that the first 15 times you posted that.

What do you want Alp to type? Wlad never lost a fight? Wlad lost nine times?

yes he did.

[p4p1]

Is there much proof or any proof that Wlad's era was weaker than Louis' era?

[DrDuke]

Is there much proof or any proof that Wlad's era was weaker than Louis' era?

Yes, it was later than Luis' one, so it definitely gotta be worse.

[keithmoonhangover]

Louis' only losses were against Hall of Famers. Joe Louis didn't get smashed by anyone like Sanders, Puritty and Brewster. The reason? He was lots better than Klitschko.

[p4p1]

Louis' only losses were against Hall of Famers. Joe Louis didn't get smashed by anyone like Sanders, Puritty and Brewster. The reason? He was lots better than Klitschko.

I’m not convinced Schmeling was any better than anyone who beat either Klitschko.
I also wonder how much WW2 had to do with shrinking the talent pool during that period. I’m not arguing that Louis wasn’t better than either Klitschko just that his era wasn’t any stronger.

[keithmoonhangover]

Louis' only losses were against Hall of Famers. Joe Louis didn't get smashed by anyone like Sanders, Puritty and Brewster. The reason? He was lots better than Klitschko.

I’m not convinced Schmeling was any better than anyone who beat either Klitschko.
I also wonder how much WW2 had to do with shrinking the talent pool during that period. I’m not arguing that Louis wasn’t better than either Klitschko just that his era wasn’t any stronger.

Behave yourself. Max Schmeling was the heavyweight champion of the world with wins over Sharkey, Stribling, Walker, Louis, Heuser.

[DrDuke]

Louis' only losses were against Hall of Famers. Joe Louis didn't get smashed by anyone like Sanders, Puritty and Brewster. The reason? He was lots better than Klitschko.

I’m not convinced Schmeling was any better than anyone who beat either Klitschko.
I also wonder how much WW2 had to do with shrinking the talent pool during that period. I’m not arguing that Louis wasn’t better than either Klitschko just that his era wasn’t any stronger.

Behave yourself. Max Schmeling was the heavyweight champion of the world with wins over Sharkey, Stribling, Walker, Louis, Heuser.

By the way, rolled on the floor while holding his balls to become THE HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION. Also, was destroyed by Baer and the fighters which names you will never f8cken remember.

[Ambling Alp II]

Louis' only losses were against Hall of Famers. Joe Louis didn't get smashed by anyone like Sanders, Puritty and Brewster. The reason? He was lots better than Klitschko.

I’m not convinced Schmeling was any better than anyone who beat either Klitschko.
I also wonder how much WW2 had to do with shrinking the talent pool during that period. I’m not arguing that Louis wasn’t better than either Klitschko just that his era wasn’t any stronger.

Behave yourself. Max Schmeling was the heavyweight champion of the world with wins over Sharkey, Stribling, Walker, Louis, Heuser.

Sad that you would have to point this out. Schmeling was a great heavyweight. His resume speaks for itself. Nobody is saying that he was the all-time best. He did fight a lot good-great competition. Won more often than not against them.

He did lose to Hamas, Sharkey (many people thought he should have the decision) Louis, and Baer. But if you counter that with the quality wins, that's pretty good. He also beat wins over Uzcudun, and was the only guy who stopped Risko.

If you watch a lot of film of him, you can see that he was for real.
He isn't that far outside of the top 20 and many would have him inside it.

[DrDuke]

I’m not convinced Schmeling was any better than anyone who beat either Klitschko.
I also wonder how much WW2 had to do with shrinking the talent pool during that period. I’m not arguing that Louis wasn’t better than either Klitschko just that his era wasn’t any stronger.

Behave yourself. Max Schmeling was the heavyweight champion of the world with wins over Sharkey, Stribling, Walker, Louis, Heuser.

Sad that you would have to point this out. Schmeling was a great heavyweight. His resume speaks for itself. Nobody is saying that he was the all-time best. He did fight a lot good-great competition. Won more often than not against them.

He did lose to Hamas, Sharkey (many people thought he should have the decision) Louis, and Baer. But if you counter that with the quality wins, that's pretty good. He also beat wins over Uzcudun, and was the only guy who stopped Risko.

If you watch a lot of film of him, you can see that he was for real.
He isn't that far outside of the top 20 and many would have him inside it.

You still haven't answered the question, who is better on film, Bobby the Fitz or Vitty the Klit, so what Schmeling films are you talking about?

[HomicideHenry]

Louis' only losses were against Hall of Famers. Joe Louis didn't get smashed by anyone like Sanders, Puritty and Brewster. The reason? He was lots better than Klitschko.

I’m not convinced Schmeling was any better than anyone who beat either Klitschko.
I also wonder how much WW2 had to do with shrinking the talent pool during that period. I’m not arguing that Louis wasn’t better than either Klitschko just that his era wasn’t any stronger.

The post-Tunney heavyweight scene was pretty weak. Truth be told one could make an argument that it wouldn't be until after Joe Louis retired did the quality of heavyweights go up. When the top men are Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer and Braddock it shows there was a shallow pool.

Now are those guys good? Yes. But they are in that 20-50 all time heavyweight rankings. There's no point in increasing the talent levels just because we're talking about the beloved American hero Joe Louis. Schmeling arguably was the best of the lot but he was not the most consistent fighter.

As I pointed out in another thread that during his prime years he was knocked out in the first round by a light heavyweight named Gypsy Daniels. He could be so overly cautious in the ring that it led to his own defeat. He could be too methodical for his own good. He tended to be too mechanical.

I think that was largely part of the shock along with his advanced age (in his 30s) when he defeated Joe Louis because he was thought to be just another stepping stone for the rising prospect. Because he could be outboxed or out fought.

Now for a long time I considered him to be the best heavyweight to ever come out of Europe but when Vladimir Klitschko unified the titles and became the new lineal champion I made Schmeling number two. I think one could also make an argument for Vitali being ahead of him as well though it would take a stronger argument.

Anyways if you look at the late 1920s and 1930s and 40s you basically had an era that was pretty weak. I reckon one could draw a comparison to our present time because it has been 20 years since Lennox Lewis retired and even his era was relatively weak. The 90s was 33 years ago, and that was the last great era for heavyweights.

Joe Louis might be comparable to someone like Tyson Fury today and somebody like Vladimir Klitschko would have been comparable to somebody like Max Schmeling. Usyk being comparable to somebody like Billy Conn. Deontay Wilder being comparable to someone like Max Baer.

It's not a perfect comparison but I think one gets the point that you can have decades of time where the talent is weak or average but you have your standout competitors. I know my grandfather thought Joe Louis was the greatest heavyweight of all time because he saw them all from basically Jack Dempsey to Lennox Lewis, and I think you can have that opinion but still say someone fought in a really crappy time frame where the opposition was simply mediocre or average.

[keithmoonhangover]

I’m not convinced Schmeling was any better than anyone who beat either Klitschko.
I also wonder how much WW2 had to do with shrinking the talent pool during that period. I’m not arguing that Louis wasn’t better than either Klitschko just that his era wasn’t any stronger.

Behave yourself. Max Schmeling was the heavyweight champion of the world with wins over Sharkey, Stribling, Walker, Louis, Heuser.

By the way, rolled on the floor while holding his balls to become THE HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION. Also, was destroyed by Baer and the fighters which names you will never f8cken remember.

For a time, Schmeling was the #1 heavyweight in the world and was recognised all over the world as the champ. Ross Purrity, well, he wasn't.

[DrDuke]

Behave yourself. Max Schmeling was the heavyweight champion of the world with wins over Sharkey, Stribling, Walker, Louis, Heuser.

By the way, rolled on the floor while holding his balls to become THE HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION. Also, was destroyed by Baer and the fighters which names you will never f8cken remember.

For a time, Schmeling was the #1 heavyweight in the world and was recognised all over the world as the champ. Ross Purrity, well, he wasn't.

If you weren't so silly and knew the 1st grade math, you would realize that Klit himself was somehow #1 HW about 10 times longer than Schmeling.

[HomicideHenry]

By the way, rolled on the floor while holding his balls to become THE HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION. Also, was destroyed by Baer and the fighters which names you will never f8cken remember.

For a time, Schmeling was the #1 heavyweight in the world and was recognised all over the world as the champ. Ross Purrity, well, he wasn't.

If you weren't so silly and knew the 1st grade math, you would realize that Klit himself was somehow #1 HW about 10 times longer than Schmeling.

Erm why argue.... once again their so called number one heavyweight lost to a guy arguably worse than Ross Puritty in Gypsy Daniels by first round knockout.