How Would Joe Louis Have Done In The 1960s or 1970s era

[p4p1]

Maybe. When Louis first came up, there was some good competition. but the division was not that strong for several years after that. World War II messed things up. All a guy can do is beat the best available, and when fighting weak competition, beat them badly, which Louis almost always did.

Still this is a guy that beat the 5 previous hw champions. Champions not WBS titleholders. Nobody else has done this. He also beat Walcott twice.

As for size, we need to get away from that. As in, this guy has a 50-pound weight "advantage" or something like that.
There have only been a handful of heavyweight champions in history that puncher harder than Louis, regardless of size.

If we want to the bigger guy puncher harder or whatever (if he really did) than just say he punched harder. There is no need to bring up weight. He would have had competitive matches against Liston, foreman etc, because of their ability, not because of their size.

In other sports, we don't do this. Yes ideally a qb is probably going to be 6'3-6'5. However, if a guy is 6'1 and great, then he was great. Nobody cares that he was a little shorter.

In a lot of other sports, the persons size does not matter as much. Talent and athletic ability is still going to be the major determining factor but height and weight can go a long way to making up for talent. If you give someone who is 6ft tall, Carnera or Willards skills and ability, they don't become a world champion.

[Controversial]

Would you say Bivol stood a good chance of being a world class HW in Louis time?

Maybe.

Yes I agree size isn't the be all and end all but it can make a difference. IMO Bivol would've been very successful in Louis' era, he is the same dimensions and weight as most of them (190-195 on fight night) and skilful enough to beat lots of fighters of that era as many were in that 175-200 range. But would you give Bivol the same chance in the 60/70s or even now? Bivol wouldn't dream of moving up to HW now as he would be giving too much weight and size away. That's not saying he is incapable of beating some HWs today but at the very top level it would be an uphill struggle.

[hhaehre]

The bottom line is, George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Jerry Quarry, Big Cat Williams nor any big and strong heavyweight of the talented 60s and 70s era would get dropped by Two Ton Tony Galento.

Quarry got dropped by Al Jones and Joe Alexander for Christ's sake. Williams was knocked down several times by journeymen fighters and do you think Bonavena was a bigger puncher than Galento?
You can cherry pick this to death, but I think you are overestimating the difference between 1935 and 1965. It's like saying Lennox Lewis wouldn't have been competitive today. Louis had a modern style compared to many of his contemporaries and he wouldn't have looked out of place in the 60's.

I bet you that Big Cat Williams ain't gonna be dropped by Two Ton Tony Galento, though.

Why not? Williams was knocked down by lesser guys than Galento. I'm not saying Galento was great, but he could crack and had plenty of kayos on his record. Maybe a powerhouse like Mel Turnbow would knock Louis out?

[elmersalsa]

Quarry got dropped by Al Jones and Joe Alexander for Christ's sake. Williams was knocked down several times by journeymen fighters and do you think Bonavena was a bigger puncher than Galento?
You can cherry pick this to death, but I think you are overestimating the difference between 1935 and 1965. It's like saying Lennox Lewis wouldn't have been competitive today. Louis had a modern style compared to many of his contemporaries and he wouldn't have looked out of place in the 60's.

I bet you that Big Cat Williams ain't gonna be dropped by Two Ton Tony Galento, though.

Why not? Williams was knocked down by lesser guys than Galento. I'm not saying Galento was great, but he could crack and had plenty of kayos on his record. Maybe a powerhouse like Mel Turnbow would knock Louis out?

Stop it, bruh! Stop it! Two Ton Tony Galento? C'mon bruh! C'mon!

[Ambling Alp II]

Maybe. When Louis first came up, there was some good competition. but the division was not that strong for several years after that. World War II messed things up. All a guy can do is beat the best available, and when fighting weak competition, beat them badly, which Louis almost always did.

Still this is a guy that beat the 5 previous hw champions. Champions not WBS titleholders. Nobody else has done this. He also beat Walcott twice.

As for size, we need to get away from that. As in, this guy has a 50-pound weight "advantage" or something like that.
There have only been a handful of heavyweight champions in history that puncher harder than Louis, regardless of size.

If we want to the bigger guy puncher harder or whatever (if he really did) than just say he punched harder. There is no need to bring up weight. He would have had competitive matches against Liston, foreman etc, because of their ability, not because of their size.

In other sports, we don't do this. Yes ideally a qb is probably going to be 6'3-6'5. However, if a guy is 6'1 and great, then he was great. Nobody cares that he was a little shorter.

In a lot of other sports, the persons size does not matter as much. Talent and athletic ability is still going to be the major determining factor but height and weight can go a long way to making up for talent. If you give someone who is 6ft tall, Carnera or Willards skills and ability, they don't become a world champion.

I disagree with that, atleast in regard to sports like basketball and football. It certainly helps. But it isn';t the end all be all. you still have to get it done.
In basketball for example, height is obviously and advantage. Everything else being even, the taller guy is going to be a better player.
but how do judge how good of player he is? We go by his shooting stats, rebounds, assists etc. If the taller player clearly has the better stats,, than he is better. However, in cases where the shorter guy has clearly better stats, he is better. and nobody disputes it.

It should be that way with heavyweights. If the smaller guy punches harder than the bigger guy, (and I don't mean pound for pound) than he punches harder.
We should be talking about power, speed, endurance, jabs, hooks, footwork etc. not just saying "well this guy only weighed this amount, he can't possibly be that good".
We need to get away from the brain dead "Fighter A has a 50- pound weight "advantage" over fighter B, so fighter B has no chance" The scales don't win fights. Punches do.

My general theory is that there is an ideal weight range where most great heavyweights are. However, the emphasis is on most. If a guy is way smaller, (or way bigger for that matter) and is great, then we should say he is great. It should be that simple.

[John C Reilly]

Enjoyed reading this post,I've not seen Floyd Paterson's name mentioned yet,how do think a fight between him and Joe would've went ?

[Controversial]

We need to get away from the brain dead "Fighter A has a 50- pound weight "advantage" over fighter B, so fighter B has no chance" The scales don't win fights. Punches do.

My general theory is that there is an ideal weight range where most great heavyweights are. However, the emphasis is on most. If a guy is way smaller, (or way bigger for that matter) and is great, then we should say he is great. It should be that simple.

I don't think anyone is automatically writing off fighters like that. If a HW is mainly fighting guys who would effectively be LHWs or CWs today then it makes a difference to them fighting naturally much larger fighters. As mentioned before Bivol would likely have been a top HW in Louis' era, he wouldn't be today though because he would be too small to hang with the top HWs of the division. So as good as Bivol is his lack of size would be a factor.

[keithmoonhangover]

We need to get away from the brain dead "Fighter A has a 50- pound weight "advantage" over fighter B, so fighter B has no chance" The scales don't win fights. Punches do.

My general theory is that there is an ideal weight range where most great heavyweights are. However, the emphasis is on most. If a guy is way smaller, (or way bigger for that matter) and is great, then we should say he is great. It should be that simple.

I don't think anyone is automatically writing off fighters like that. If a HW is mainly fighting guys who would effectively be LHWs or CWs today then it makes a difference to them fighting naturally much larger fighters. As mentioned before Bivol would likely have been a top HW in Louis' era, he wouldn't be today though because he would be too small to hang with the top HWs of the division. So as good as Bivol is his lack of size would be a factor.

That's a big assumption. With new training techniques, nutrition and PEDs, boxers from history could be bigger, not smaller.

[Controversial]

We need to get away from the brain dead "Fighter A has a 50- pound weight "advantage" over fighter B, so fighter B has no chance" The scales don't win fights. Punches do.

My general theory is that there is an ideal weight range where most great heavyweights are. However, the emphasis is on most. If a guy is way smaller, (or way bigger for that matter) and is great, then we should say he is great. It should be that simple.

I don't think anyone is automatically writing off fighters like that. If a HW is mainly fighting guys who would effectively be LHWs or CWs today then it makes a difference to them fighting naturally much larger fighters. As mentioned before Bivol would likely have been a top HW in Louis' era, he wouldn't be today though because he would be too small to hang with the top HWs of the division. So as good as Bivol is his lack of size would be a factor.

That's a big assumption. With new training techniques, nutrition and PEDs, boxers from history could be bigger, not smaller.

Not really, I was talking about the majority of Louis' opponents, guys 6'0" and shorter and 175-200lbs, it's unlikely they would be HWs today when we have CW's bigger than that. Of course some could make HW but they would be small in comparison to a lot of HWs. As I said Bivol on fight night is 190-195lbs so as big as many of Louis opponents but could you see Bivol being a top HW today?

[keithmoonhangover]

I don't think anyone is automatically writing off fighters like that. If a HW is mainly fighting guys who would effectively be LHWs or CWs today then it makes a difference to them fighting naturally much larger fighters. As mentioned before Bivol would likely have been a top HW in Louis' era, he wouldn't be today though because he would be too small to hang with the top HWs of the division. So as good as Bivol is his lack of size would be a factor.

That's a big assumption. With new training techniques, nutrition and PEDs, boxers from history could be bigger, not smaller.

Not really, I was talking about the majority of Louis' opponents, guys 6'0" and shorter and under 200lbs, it's unlikely they would be HWs today when we have CW's bigger than that. Of course some could make HW but they would be small in comparison to a lot of HWs.

Louis beat everyone he fought who was taller than him. Fury's a giant, who struggled with Steve Cunningham and just got stuffed off Usyk, twice.

[Controversial]

That's a big assumption. With new training techniques, nutrition and PEDs, boxers from history could be bigger, not smaller.

Not really, I was talking about the majority of Louis' opponents, guys 6'0" and shorter and under 200lbs, it's unlikely they would be HWs today when we have CW's bigger than that. Of course some could make HW but they would be small in comparison to a lot of HWs.

Louis beat everyone he fought who was taller than him. Fury's a giant, who struggled with Steve Cunningham and just got stuffed off Usyk, twice.

That's not what I meant, Louis fought a lot of small guys. 52 of 69 opponents were under 200lbs, he was fighting LHWs and CWs so my point is he fought very few good big men. Uyk isn't small, he is around 6'3 (some say more likely 6'4") and 220lbs, that is a good size for a HW. If training methods are so good today then why isn't Bivol a HW as arguably he is more skilled than any of them?

[keithmoonhangover]

why isn't Bivol a HW as arguably he is more skilled than any of them?

Because he chooses not to. Another thing in these discussion is, you are only looking at what Joe Louis would be like not, if you put the modern guys in his era, it would be a completely different story.

[Seamus]

For many years now my point has been that these smaller heavyweights of yesteryear could actually beat some of the big men of today on occasion but that the law of averages would be against them, which sooner or later would lead to them ending up on the wrong end of a brutal KO. There's a good reason we no longer see 185 lb guys challenging for the Heavyweight title, or 240 lb offensive linemen, or 6-6 NBA centers.

[Controversial]

why isn't Bivol a HW as arguably he is more skilled than any of them?

Because he chooses not to. Another thing in these discussion is, you are only looking at what Joe Louis would be like not, if you put the modern guys in his era, it would be a completely different story.

He choses not to, exactly because he knows he isn’t big enough but he would’ve been a HW in the 40/50s and likely a very good one. I’m not saying Louis wouldn’t be decent today either. I’m saying he would be fighting naturally bigger and stronger opponents than he faced in his era and that does make a difference otherwise we would see far more smaller guys being great HWs.

[Controversial]

For many years now my point has been that these smaller heavyweights of yesteryear could actually beat some of the big men of today on occasion but that the law of averages would be against them, which sooner or later would lead to them ending up on the wrong end of a brutal KO. There's a good reason we no longer see 185 lb guys challenging for the Heavyweight title

Exactly. There are always exceptions but on the whole size matters. We are all fans of the sport but you only have to listen to trainers and fighters talk about weight and size advantages at HW, they know more than we do.

[keithmoonhangover]

For many years now my point has been that these smaller heavyweights of yesteryear could actually beat some of the big men of today on occasion but that the law of averages would be against them, which sooner or later would lead to them ending up on the wrong end of a brutal KO. There's a good reason we no longer see 185 lb guys challenging for the Heavyweight title

Exactly. There are always exceptions but on the whole size matters. We are all fans of the sport but you only have to listen to trainers and fighters talk about weight and size advantages at HW, they know more than we do.

Mike Tyson beat Tony Tucker despite a 7" height disadvantage. David Haye gave up 9" against Valuev. They won because they were better. Joe Louis is consensus 1st or 2nd heavyweight ever. I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem beating someone who's a bit taller than him.

[Seamus]

Check the heights-weights of the top 50 Heavyweights in the World now. Check it 10-20 years ago. It's not a coincedence. I know, Marciano and Dempsey would clean out the Heavyweight division of today, but we'll never ever see fighters like them again. Sorry, that's an argument based on nostalgia for a different era.

[elmersalsa]

Enjoyed reading this post,I've not seen Floyd Paterson's name mentioned yet,how do think a fight between him and Joe would've went ?

That would be a fair fight for both combatants. The speed of Floyd Patterson vs the combination punching of Joe Louis.

Both fighters had the worst of chins. I could see a series of knockdowns. But, I will give the edge to Louis.

[Controversial]

For many years now my point has been that these smaller heavyweights of yesteryear could actually beat some of the big men of today on occasion but that the law of averages would be against them, which sooner or later would lead to them ending up on the wrong end of a brutal KO. There's a good reason we no longer see 185 lb guys challenging for the Heavyweight title

Exactly. There are always exceptions but on the whole size matters. We are all fans of the sport but you only have to listen to trainers and fighters talk about weight and size advantages at HW, they know more than we do.

Mike Tyson beat Tony Tucker despite a 7" height disadvantage. David Haye gave up 9" against Valuev. They won because they were better. Joe Louis is consensus 1st or 2nd heavyweight ever. I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem beating someone who's a bit taller than him.

You are taking it too literally. No one is saying if you are shorter or lighter you automatically lose. Charley Burley knocked a HW out and gave 70lbs away so of course it can happen. As I said before Louis fought 52 out of 69 opponents that were 173-200lbs, many of them would not be HWs today. If a top HW today fought guys that weight he get criticised that they are too small. It's not a criticism it was just how it was back then. But they eventually realised 175+ is too small and bought in the CW division, they done that for a reason and that reason was size!

[keithmoonhangover]

Check the heights-weights of the top 50 Heavyweights in the World now. Check it 10-20 years ago. It's not a coincedence. I know, Marciano and Dempsey would clean out the Heavyweight division of today, but we'll never ever see fighters like them again. Sorry, that's an argument based on nostalgia for a different era.

You're saying Joe Louis wouldn't beat any of the top 50 heavyweight boxers today, because they are bigger?

[keithmoonhangover]

Exactly. There are always exceptions but on the whole size matters. We are all fans of the sport but you only have to listen to trainers and fighters talk about weight and size advantages at HW, they know more than we do.

Mike Tyson beat Tony Tucker despite a 7" height disadvantage. David Haye gave up 9" against Valuev. They won because they were better. Joe Louis is consensus 1st or 2nd heavyweight ever. I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem beating someone who's a bit taller than him.

You are taking it too literally. No one is saying if you are shorter or lighter you automatically lose. Charley Burley knocked a HW out and gave 70lbs away so of course it can happen. As I said before Louis fought 52 out of 69 opponents that were 173-200lbs, many of them would not be HWs today. If a top HW today fought guys that weight he get criticised that they are too small. It's not a criticism it was just how it was back then. But they eventually realised 175+ is too small and bought in the CW division, they done that for a reason and that reason was size!

No, I'm not.

[Controversial]

Mike Tyson beat Tony Tucker despite a 7" height disadvantage. David Haye gave up 9" against Valuev. They won because they were better. Joe Louis is consensus 1st or 2nd heavyweight ever. I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem beating someone who's a bit taller than him.

You are taking it too literally. No one is saying if you are shorter or lighter you automatically lose. Charley Burley knocked a HW out and gave 70lbs away so of course it can happen. As I said before Louis fought 52 out of 69 opponents that were 173-200lbs, many of them would not be HWs today. If a top HW today fought guys that weight he get criticised that they are too small. It's not a criticism it was just how it was back then. But they eventually realised 175+ is too small and bought in the CW division, they done that for a reason and that reason was size!

No, I'm not.

You have given examples of two natural HWs beating other natural HWs. I was taking about Louis’ opponents who were mainly LHWs. Billy Conn supposedly weighed 169lb when he fought Louis, you get welterweights today weighing more than that on fight night. As I said before I’m not saying Louis wouldn’t have success but it’s harder fighting big guys than smaller ones. Which is kinda obvious otherwise no one would bother being a LHW or CW

[keithmoonhangover]

You are taking it too literally. No one is saying if you are shorter or lighter you automatically lose. Charley Burley knocked a HW out and gave 70lbs away so of course it can happen. As I said before Louis fought 52 out of 69 opponents that were 173-200lbs, many of them would not be HWs today. If a top HW today fought guys that weight he get criticised that they are too small. It's not a criticism it was just how it was back then. But they eventually realised 175+ is too small and bought in the CW division, they done that for a reason and that reason was size!

No, I'm not.

You have given examples of two natural HWs beating other natural HWs. I was taking about Louis’ opponents who were mainly LHWs. Billy Conn supposedly weighed 169lb when he fought Louis, you get welterweights today weighing more than that on fight night. As I said before I’m not saying Louis wouldn’t have success but it’s harder fighting big guys than smaller ones. Which is kinda obvious otherwise no one would bother being a LHW or CW

David Haye was not a natural heavyweight, quite the opposite in fact. David had to bulk up and was lighter between fights.

[Controversial]

No, I'm not.

You have given examples of two natural HWs beating other natural HWs. I was taking about Louis’ opponents who were mainly LHWs. Billy Conn supposedly weighed 169lb when he fought Louis, you get welterweights today weighing more than that on fight night. As I said before I’m not saying Louis wouldn’t have success but it’s harder fighting big guys than smaller ones. Which is kinda obvious otherwise no one would bother being a LHW or CW

David Haye was not a natural heavyweight, quite the opposite in fact. David had to bulk up and was lighter between fights.

He’s a big lad having met him, he’s 6’3 and still weighs 210 today aged in his mid 40s. He struggled to make CW

[keithmoonhangover]

You have given examples of two natural HWs beating other natural HWs. I was taking about Louis’ opponents who were mainly LHWs. Billy Conn supposedly weighed 169lb when he fought Louis, you get welterweights today weighing more than that on fight night. As I said before I’m not saying Louis wouldn’t have success but it’s harder fighting big guys than smaller ones. Which is kinda obvious otherwise no one would bother being a LHW or CW

David Haye was not a natural heavyweight, quite the opposite in fact. David had to bulk up and was lighter between fights.

He’s a big lad having met him, he’s 6’3 and still weighs 210 today aged in his mid 40s. He struggled to make CW

When he fought Wlad and Valuev, he was still having to bulk up.