BoxRec

From what I have seen, I would have to agree that the 1930s and 1940s era
for HW was less than stellar. That being said, I think Louis was more or less
susceptible to 'flash' knock downs and always seemed to recover well when
hurt or KD.

Ray... yeah, I'll correct myself. In the seventh round Ali kind of plays with Foster but he doesn't so much "let" Foster hit him. Foster did hit him flush on the chin several times though, and as I said earlier, Foster hit a bit harder than Conn as far as Light Heavyweights go. Ali never looked hurt, so perhaps you'll have to provide a "source" for that quote.

As for this notion that we're "ignoring styles" well what does that really mean? Jeffries didn't come forward? Dempsey didn't come forward? Marciano didn't come forward? Liston didn't? Foreman didn't? Holyfield did at times. Ali spent a lot of his latter career on the ropes, he wasn't always moving away. The idea that Louis deserves more slack because he came forward is ridiculous. A majority of Heavyweight champions had come forward styles.

I haven't read much of the rest of the thread. Just a lot of BS as far as I can see. When did I write off Heavyweights from the 30s and 40s? Dempseyfire is all over the place making things up in this thread. Do I think Buddy Baer and Galento were as good as a lot of the contenders in the 60s and 70s and 90s? No. Do I think they likely hit harder than Foreman and Shavers? No. Maybe I'm crazy, but that's my opinion. What I haven't done is write these guys off. What I've said is that, if Louis could get hurt and dropped by Galento and put through the ropes by Baer, maybe better fighters like Dempsey or Liston do worse to him. Does someone want to argue with me that Galento and Baer were not as good as Dempsey and Liston? Go right ahead.

And where did I say that Braddock and B. Baer put Louis in "la la land"? No where, dempseyfire made it up. Galento did hurt Louis a bit, though I wouldn't say he was in "la la land." Conn put him there, though...

I Feel Fine wrote:As for this notion that we're "ignoring styles" well what does that really mean? Jeffries didn't come forward? Dempsey didn't come forward? Marciano didn't come forward? Liston didn't? Foreman didn't? Holyfield did at times. Ali spent a lot of his latter career on the ropes, he wasn't always moving away. The idea that Louis deserves more slack because he came forward is ridiculous. A majority of Heavyweight champions had come forward styles.

To this point I haven't even been reading your posts, so I wasn't addressing you with my "ignoring styles" comment. However, since you did acknowledge my post, perhaps you might want to elaborate on exactly how many HW champions had "come forward styles". Do you really think Holyfield and Louis had similar "come forward styles"? Maybe you could provide a list of HW champs and those that you think had "come forward styles"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7FjbaaIwvI

until 3:20 i wondered about this left hookjab ...

I guess styles does make a difference.

Early in his career Ali got hit far less but was dropped by someone like Cooper. A good shot and it happens but I don't think Cooper could have done the same thing to 70s Ali.

Post FOTC, Ali seemed to set himself more to take incoming shots, using his defensive skills to block, parry and turn his head. A generalisation would be: I'll take the best you can throw at me and then I'll knock you out. That version of Ali was a very hard man to put down.

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:That you would comfortably rate Pastor,Farr, and Nova above Mercer, Ruddock and Foreman pretty much sums up our diffence in opinion. I comfortably rate Mercer, Ruddock, and Foreman (and Moorer for that matter) above them.

Thinking they had a good chance of beating Bowe is beyond ridiculaus. I can't believe that you would say something like that.

I'm not sure exactly what time period you are referring to concerning post- prison Tyson. The Tyson that destroyed Bruno again and gave Holyfield a tough fight would have rolled over these guys.
The post-Holyfield Tyson certainly declined but when he first came out of prison he was still a very dangerous fighter.

I notice that you didn't compare these guys to Holyfield, Lewis and pre prison Tyson. I would hope that you don't consider any of the 1940's (besides Louis )heavyweight close to them.

Comparing Thompson, Ray, and Bivins to the 2nd Tier of 1990's heavyweights is atleast arguable. (Though Louis didn't fight Thompson and Ray and only fought Bivins when they were both over the hill.)

One guy having more fights than another guy means very little. Of course some guys (and more often in recent eras) have a lot of easy fights coming up.
However, just having a lot fights doesn't make you more durable. Actually it can the reverse effect if you take too much punishment too soon and are washed up at a younger age.

Jim Jeffries was as durable as they come and he only had 23 fights. Can you imagine him getting stopped by Billy Conn like Pastor was?

Bowe, Mercer, and Ruddock all had extensive amatuer careers. They gained a lot of boxing experience before they ever turned pro. Holyfield, Tyson, and Lewis did as well.

Pastor, Farr, Nova fought their share of "tomato cans". Of course if you think that anyone with a pulse in the 1940's was "durable", than you won't think anyone is a tomato can. Look at their oppenents throughout their careers. There are plenty of names of guys on their records that were never contenders even in that era.

Book after book that I have read mentions how bad the heavyweight division was in the 1940's.
Just about everything I have seen on film confirms this.

And again, I make a distinction between the 1930's and the 1940's. The 1930's heavyweights (Sharkey,Baer, Schmeling, Schaaf, Risko, Uzcudun, Loughran etc. and of course Louis) as a group were clearly better than the 1940's heavyweights.

Many of the 1940s era HWs had extensive amateur careers as well, so I don't get your point there.

And many top guys in the 30s fought into the 40s (just like Bruno, Tyson, McCall etc. fought from the 80s into the 90s) You can't just cut off a decade. And there was also a little something called World War II that stalled more than a few careers.

And I was mentioning 2nd tier guys. If you want to include the 1st tier, then yes I'll take Charles, Walcott, and Louis to best Holyfield, Lennox, and 1992 Tyson overall in a round robin tournament.

-Most of the Top 1990's fighters had much more extensive amatuer careers. Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield ,Mercer all fought the best amatuers in the world at the Olympics, as well as the World Championships. Ruddock and Tyson also fought world class competition as amatuers. Many of these guys had high level trainers when they 10 or 12 years old.

-Of course not everything changes from December 31 of the last year of one decade to Jan 1 of the first year of the next decade. I am saying in general. Though the early 1930's was better than the late 1930's and by 1940, the heavyweight division was pretty weak outside of Louis.

-Charles and Walcott didn't emege until the end of the decade. Between the 2nd Schmeling fight, and the first Walcott fight, Louis title defenses were not against strong contenders when compared to other eras.

-Of course you would take Walcott/Charles/Louis over Tyson/Lewis/ Holyfield.
I certainly wouldn't. First of all, Walcott and Charles didn't emerge as heavyweight contenders until the late 1940's.
For the first 7 or so years of the decade the best contenders were the Galento, Farr, Buddy Baer, Nova etc. group. They were the First Tier for the majority of the decade. And they weren't as good as the 2nd Tier of the 1990's, and not remotley as good as the 1st Tier of the 1990's.

The guys that I have been talking about were serious players during a large part of the 1990's. (even if they also fought at the end of the 1980's and/or in the 2000's.)

-If you are going to go with just the late 1940's, the 1990's would still win. Post WW II Louis isn't going to beat these guys and Charles and Walcott wouldn't.

Of course you severely underrate Bowe, and I have said before Mercer, Ruddock,old Foreman, and Moorer were much better than the rest of the 1940's heavyweights.

-Overall, besides obviously the 1970's, and possibly the 1910-1919 decade or the 1960's, there was probably more depth in the heavyweight division in the 1990's than in any other decade.

Next to the current decade, the 1940's is the weakest era since atleast 1900. Yes there was Joe Louis. However, take the #2 guy from the 1940's and compare him to the #2 guy from another era. Then take the #3 guy compare him to the #3 guy from another era, the # 4 guy etc. Go to about # 15. Of course if you have some preconcieved notion that the 1940's heavyweights were more "durable", you can spin it anyway you want to. However, if you do this objectively you can see how weak the era was.

I Feel Fine wrote:Ray... yeah, I'll correct myself. In the seventh round Ali kind of plays with Foster but he doesn't so much "let" Foster hit him. Foster did hit him flush on the chin several times though, and as I said earlier, Foster hit a bit harder than Conn as far as Light Heavyweights go. Ali never looked hurt, so perhaps you'll have to provide a "source" for that quote.

As I wrote, it was a paraphrase, not a quote and I was going by memory. But I recall reading an article - I think it was in SI - that Ali visited the Mayo Clinic for neurological testing sometime around the Holmes fight. The story said that Ali, when asked if he had ever been hurt in a fight, replied that he had been out on his feet in the Foster fight and that, if Foster had followed up, he might have stopped him. If I recall correctly, the writer of the article thought it preposterous that Ali said the only time he was hurt was in the Foster fight, and lamented that the physicians at the Mayo Clinic, who apparently knew little about Ali, actually believed him when making their assessment of his neurological health.

Without going to the library and pulling SIs (which I'm not inclined to do), that's the best I can do for a source.

BTW, when I have a source for information, I provide it; if its a quote, I put quotation marks around it. I will always tell you when I'm going by memory, as I did in this instance.

Louis's dominance and the number of top contenders beaten by him are unmatched in heavyweight history except possibly by Ali. Speculating what Frazier, Tyson, Dempsey or Liston could do to him is fine but none of these men came close to matching the dominance of Louis in their own eras. Louis's chin did not prevent him from dominating the division in a manner that Dempsey and Tyson fell far short of.

John L... I didn't say that Holyfield had a consistent come-forward style. I said that he came forward "at times." It seems pretty clear as I re-read it, and I think I named many other champions with good-great chins who came forward consistently. I don't see that Louis more so than a Jeffries or a Marciano should get extra credit for taking punches merely because he came forward most of the time; so did they, perhaps even more so than Louis.

Ray... that's fair, but are you sure you're not thinking of Shavers, perhaps? I know that Ali said that about Shavers, I don't remember him saying it about Foster.

Coji... well no one is questioning Louis' dominance. Like you said, he beat more rated Heavyweights than any other Heavyweight champion, other than Ali. But, as you say, we're merely talking about how well he might hypothetically take a punch from some other great punching Heavyweight champion, who might also have better finishing ability than a Galento or a Baer.

With regards to the size of Louis's opponents it should be noted that many of Ali's opponnents were tiny by todays standards. Frazier was barely above cruiserweight and it seems concievable that some of todays cruiserweights might actually enter the ring heavier than Frazier and Norton. What big punchers did Ali face that were as big as Wladimir Klitschko? And when did Ali face a man with the size and athleticism of Lennox Lewis?

Why should someone be impressed with Frazier? One can believe he was better than Louis's opponnents but where is the evidence of this?

I Feel Fine wrote:John L... I didn't say that Holyfield had a consistent come-forward style. I said that he came forward "at times." It seems pretty clear as I re-read it, and I think I named many other champions with good-great chins who came forward consistently. I don't see that Louis more so than a Jeffries or a Marciano should get extra credit for taking punches merely because he came forward most of the time; so did they, perhaps even more so than Louis.

Ray... that's fair, but are you sure you're not thinking of Shavers, perhaps? I know that Ali said that about Shavers, I don't remember him saying it about Foster.

Coji... well no one is questioning Louis' dominance. Like you said, he beat more rated Heavyweights than any other Heavyweight champion, other than Ali. But, as you say, we're merely talking about how well he might hypothetically take a punch from some other great punching Heavyweight champion, who might also have better finishing ability than a Galento or a Baer.

No, I recall him making reference to Foster.

To say Tony Galento didnt belong with the all-time contenders, is a sad one. Or that his left hook wasnt on par with some of the ATG's. This was a man who knew to capitolize himself as a hamburger eating, beer guzzling, cigar smoking bar tender out of New Jersey, to make himself look harmless, that he never trained, etc....much like George Foreman would do in his comeback with his jokes that the only excercise he got was chasing down a Dunkin Donuts truck...but Galento was a serious athlete, and he trained mainly at night (his argument was "Hey I fight at night dont I?")...and he handled alot more skilled, larger foes much easier than some would think...his fight with Lou Nova goes down as one of the best brawls ever.

Even the great Joe Louis said that Galento was not only his most hated opponent, but arguably his toughest as well, that he was a throwback to the bareknuckle days.

He may have looked like a fat man, may have seemed like a loud mouth, but alot of what he did was to gain a psychological edge, to piss his opponents off before a fight, and make them fight his fight, which was to make it into a street fight, an all out war. And not too many were able to take his left hook.

The reason I have doubts ray is that what you said implied that Ali was saying that the only time that he had ever come close to being knocked out was against Foster. But I know that Ali said this of Shavers, so why would he name Foster as the only guy to come close? It seems more likely that it was really Shavers who he mentioned in the article you read, since as you say you don't remember 100%. And, it's never apparent in the fight that Ali is hurt in any way by Foster, quite the opposite, unlike in his fight with Shavers where he is clearly hurt.

Coji... Joe Louis beat an opponent better than Joe Frazier? Not really. Marciano is the only one of his opponents who you could really argue for, and Marciano of course beat Louis. Who would have beaten Frazier among Louis' victims? Walcott? I doubt it. Schmeling? Unlikely. Frazier is universally regarded as a top ten all time Heavyweight, Louis never beat any one fighter who would be universally regarded as a top ten Heavyweight.

And, you know, I'm not sold on this "super Heavyweight" notion. Taking shots from Foreman will do.

As for the idea that we're underrating Galento, well, I don't think thats quite fair. I haven't said that he wasn't an all time great contender, though he's not exactly high on that list either, but either way I'm not speculating as to how Louis would do against Quarry or Bonavena, my original point was simply that I wonder how he would take a similar kind of shot from Dempsey or Liston or Frazier. Not really the same thing; I don't think I'm underrating Galento by saying that he's not as dangerous as those men in terms of power and skill and finishing ability...

I don't think Frazier is a top ten all time heavyweight.

If you look at records in sports you will see that athletes of more modern times consistently outperform their predecessors in events in which performance is measured. The best athletes of the 1970s did not run or swim as fast or lift as much weight as athletes of later years. If you go by this logic you could perhaps argue that the 70s fighters would beat their predecessors but what reason is there to think they could beat the heavyweights of later years?

If Frazier is so great why did he get obliterated by the clumsy Foreman who struggled with Ron Lyle and was beaten by Jimmy Young. Is Jimmy Young also in the top ten? Moreover, if Joe Bugner could give Frazier considerable trouble why is it a strech to say guys beaten by Louis could

Cojimar 1945 wrote:I don't think Frazier is a top ten all time heavyweight.

If you look at records in sports you will see that athletes of more modern times consistently outperform their predecessors in events in which performance is measured. The best athletes of the 1970s did not run or swim as fast or lift as much weight as athletes of later years. If you go by this logic you could perhaps argue that the 70s fighters would beat their predecessors but what reason is there to think they could beat the heavyweights of later years?

If Frazier is so great why did he get obliterated by the clumsy Foreman who struggled with Ron Lyle and was beaten by Jimmy Young. Is Jimmy Young also in the top ten? Moreover, if Joe Bugner could give Frazier considerable trouble why is it a strech to say guys beaten by Louis could

Here I'll come in on the side of IFF.

If the future athletes are so much better, how could the 'clumsy' Foreman, fat and 45 years old, win the Heavyweight title 20 years later?

You have much more people swimming competitively now than 40 years ago, of course records will be broken. The opposite is true of boxing.

Frazier very much had a shooting star 'burn twice as bright, fall twice as fast' career . . partly due to his fighting style, partly due to his lifelong bout with high blood pressure/hypertension. After the FOTC his career went on a considerable decline.

I do not get the impression that boxing is considerably less popular now than in the 70s. Boxing has become more global these days. Back in the 1970s due to the Soviet Union the fighters from the USSR and eastern Europe were not allowed to turn professional. These days there is considerable talent emerging from these areas in the professional ranks.

It does appear that boxing was once considerably more popular in America than it is these days but that would be back in the early to mid 1900s. By the 1970s boxing was not as dominant.

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but when Galento fought Max Baer their cursing was picked up on the ring mike suspended over the ring. The language was every bit as colourful as the fight.

I Feel Fine wrote:The reason I have doubts ray is that what you said implied that Ali was saying that the only time that he had ever come close to being knocked out was against Foster. But I know that Ali said this of Shavers, so why would he name Foster as the only guy to come close? It seems more likely that it was really Shavers who he mentioned in the article you read, since as you say you don't remember 100%. And, it's never apparent in the fight that Ali is hurt in any way by Foster, quite the opposite, unlike in his fight with Shavers where he is clearly hurt.

As I recall, that was the point of the article: That he told the Drs. that the only guy who seriously hurt him was Bob Foster, and he deceived his physicians at the Mayo, who really knew nothing about his career, and accepted his word for it.

Foster hit Ali with a LOT of shots. It was a bizarre fight: Ali would floor Foster with single shots but between knockdowns, Foster (who would take sensible long counts) hit Ali flush over and over. It went that way for eight rounds. Foster's chilling knockout of the usually iron-jawed Mike Quarry came just five months earlier.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:I do not get the impression that boxing is considerably less popular now than in the 70s. Boxing has become more global these days. Back in the 1970s due to the Soviet Union the fighters from the USSR and eastern Europe were not allowed to turn professional. These days there is considerable talent emerging from these areas in the professional ranks.

It does appear that boxing was once considerably more popular in America than it is these days but that would be back in the early to mid 1900s. By the 1970s boxing was not as dominant.

You're quite wrong. Boxing was 10 times more popular in America in the 1970s as it was in the mid 1990s.

The opening of the Soviet Union has not managed to offset the massive loss of participation in pugilism in the West in the upper weight classes. It's no wonder that most of the top Slavic fighters of recent years. (Klitschko brothers, Maskaev, Golota) are fighters who were basically 'forced' to fight as youngsters under the Soviet system. If the Klitschkos had been born slightly later they probably would have gone to basketball, which has swelled in popularity in Russia and its nieghbors and far eclipses boxing.

By the 1970s athletes had other sports like football and basketball to turn to rather than boxing.

The reason why alot of these Eastern Euro's do so well
is because they come from a tremendous amatuer system
which was very heavily state sponsored. EVEN today, sports
like boxing and wrestling are valued and nurtured early on
in the youth.

DF, these 'slavs' are not forced to fight. Being an elite
athlete under these regimes is a much better alternative
to national service in the army. These youngsters show
an aptitude at these sports above so many others and are
developed and nurtured.


Does the USA, have amateur programmes like this ?

Robinson wrote:The reason why alot of these Eastern Euro's do so well
is because they come from a tremendous amatuer system
which was very heavily state sponsored. EVEN today, sports
like boxing and wrestling are valued and nurtured early on
in the youth.

DF, these 'slavs' are not forced to fight. Being an elite
athlete under these regimes is a much better alternative
to national service in the army. These youngsters show
an aptitude at these sports above so many others and are
developed and nurtured.


Does the USA, have amateur programmes like this ?

Rob, I've talked to guys who were in these programs. They would take kids who showed athletic promise, who were 11,12, 13 years old, temporarily away from their parents, and put them through very intense sports camps, to weed out the best. The Chinese have a similar system in place now. Without the state programs, you wouldn't have had so many kids boxing. Now you still have the well established amateur programs in those countries, but kids growing up have more options, such as basketball, which will get you as much or more $ than your typical boxing career and you won't get your nose broken/ribs cracked doing it.

The guys I learned to wrestle from are children of this
system. They think it was one of the few good things
to come from the Communist system.