BoxRec

Ezzard wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 07:14 Going back to the original question...

Louis v Ali
Louis v Foreman
Louis v Frazier
Louis v Norton
Louis v Young

I can see arguments that he wins all 5 or loses all 5.

Are we talking absolute peak for all concerned?

Ezzard wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 05:01 So Louis stays at 195 and the fact that nobody 195 or under has won a world title fight in 60+ years is irrelevant?

Or he bulks up because size is an advantage. Your choice.

I understand there are times when this is not so but we are talking about this for the majority of cases.

Roy Jones was 193lbs when he beat John Ruiz for the WBA title.

That's John Ruiz who could wrestle and shove around ogres like Valuev, Golota, Rahman, McCline etc but 193lb Jones wobbled him and biffed him around easily.

Seamus wrote: ↑03 Apr 2025, 10:01 Which means he's bigger than George Foreman who was considered a monster.

Facile take. Do you think people have the same tangibles because they have similar or the same dimensions?

Foreman was a monster because of his punch power. Usyk wasn't even a puncher at cruiser. Usyk is a much bigger man than Mike Tyson, so by your logic he must be a bigger puncher.

Some horrific takes of this thread, lads. I thought people sufficiently interested in boxers of the past to post on a forum about them would be beyond newbie posts. I thought Uysk going 5-0 over giants would finally have proven that skills trump size but evidently not.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 09:47

Ezzard wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 05:01 So Louis stays at 195 and the fact that nobody 195 or under has won a world title fight in 60+ years is irrelevant?

Or he bulks up because size is an advantage. Your choice.

I understand there are times when this is not so but we are talking about this for the majority of cases.

Roy Jones was 193lbs when he beat John Ruiz for the WBA title.

That's John Ruiz who could wrestle and shove around ogres like Valuev, Golota, Rahman, McCline etc but 193lb Jones wobbled him and biffed him around easily.

Jones was still below 195. And he had the ref in his pocket and list of phamaceuticals in his sytem as long as Tommy Hearns's right arm. It was also really a fight between 2 contenders with a chintzy belt attached to it.

Most importantly he never fought at the weight again. He knew.

But in the tradition of frienship let's count him. That's one in 60+ years. Let's go with Neon Leon too who beat up the shell of a shell of Ali. He lost the rematch. That's two in 60+ years.

And Roy Jones wanted no part of Lennox Lewis.

Louis v Ali - Peak Ali beats everyone, Louis included
Louis v Foreman - Either Foreman early or Joe late
Louis v Frazier - Could go either way. Louis is a murderous puncher, Joe hits damn hard.
Louis v Norton - Joe puts him to sleep in the mid rounds.
Louis v Young - Joe wide points

Seamus wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 10:06 And Roy Jones wanted no part of Lennox Lewis.

I don't know why they didn't make Jones-Tyson.

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 11:21 Louis v Ali - Peak Ali beats everyone, Louis included
Louis v Foreman - Either Foreman early or Joe late
Louis v Frazier - Could go either way. Louis is a murderous puncher, Joe hits damn hard.
Louis v Norton - Joe puts him to sleep in the mid rounds.
Louis v Young - Joe wide points

I my view, he loses to all of them. Too much talent in the 70s decade. A talented era of heavyweight division that was unmatched.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 13:50

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 11:21 Louis v Ali - Peak Ali beats everyone, Louis included
Louis v Foreman - Either Foreman early or Joe late
Louis v Frazier - Could go either way. Louis is a murderous puncher, Joe hits damn hard.
Louis v Norton - Joe puts him to sleep in the mid rounds.
Louis v Young - Joe wide points

I my view, he loses to all of them. Too much talent in the 70s decade. A talented era of heavyweight division that was unmatched.

A guy who lost to Randy Neuman and Roy Williams is going to beat Joe Louis?

The mere existence of the Cruiserweight Division must really be a bitter pill for some of you guys to swallow, because it's a clear acknowledgement from Boxing's authorities that times have changed and Heavyweights are much bigger now.

Seamus wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 15:38 The mere existence of the Cruiserweight Division must really be a bitter pill for some of you guys to swallow, because it's a clear acknowledgement from Boxing's authorities that times have changed and Heavyweights are much bigger now.

Usyk ain't that big and he's at the top of the tree.

He's huge compared to Marciano, Dempsey, Walcott, Charles, etc

Seamus wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 16:55 He's huge compared to Marciano, Dempsey, Walcott, Charles, etc

Usyk just beat a guy six inches bigger than him with a massive weight advantage. Being 'huge' does not win fights.

Never said that. Guys under 200 can't dominate anymore. How big you suppose Usyk's successor will be ?

Seamus wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 17:14 Never said that. Guys under 200 can't dominate anymore. How big you suppose Usyk's successor will be ?

The giants aren't dominating. Usyk is. His successor could be shorter than him.

I think there is a lot to consider here. I think we have to put more of a premium on facts and not speculation.

-We can speculate that Roy Jones would or would not have beat so and so. However, it is a fact that beat Ruiz.
Louis often weighed more than 200. He seldom was below 195.

I don't think anyone is saying that under 195 is an ideal weight for a heavyweight. The question is if Joe louis could compete with best in another era.
-We know for a fact that Louis could beat guys more than 250. That happened in real life. It should not be brushed off. So lets to take that into consideration.

-Usyk is not small by historical standards but he is small by todays standards. It is a fact that he beat bigger guys. He is universally regarded as the best. I really thought that we would hear less about the weight issue once he beat Joshua and Fury.

Just wish we were like how we used to be. We should be talking about power, speed, chin, stamina etc. That's what determines fights. You can't hit your opponent over the head with a scale.

Ezzard wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 09:56 Most importantly he never fought at the weight again. He knew.

It's fine to dislike Jones, I do too, but this is not true. He had a fight lined up with Corrie Sanders in the second half of 2003 for the WBO belt, being unable to pin down Tyson or Holyfield. A mega fight with Lewis was being discussed. Lewis mentions it as one of his upcoming fights in the HBO prefight prior to Klitschko.

Obviously Jones being an imbecile instead opted at 35 to drain himself back down to light heavy for a grudge match with Tarver which rendered him unable to handle light heavies, never mind heavies. He couldn't get out of the way of punches anymore.

I like Lennox and dislike Jones; but the speed, reflexes & power Jones demonstrated at heavy would obviously be difficult for the fading Lennox of 2003. It wouldn't be an upset if that Jones beat that Lewis.

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 13:56

elmersalsa wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 13:50

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 11:21 Louis v Ali - Peak Ali beats everyone, Louis included
Louis v Foreman - Either Foreman early or Joe late
Louis v Frazier - Could go either way. Louis is a murderous puncher, Joe hits damn hard.
Louis v Norton - Joe puts him to sleep in the mid rounds.
Louis v Young - Joe wide points

I my view, he loses to all of them. Too much talent in the 70s decade. A talented era of heavyweight division that was unmatched.

A guy who lost to Randy Neuman and Roy Williams is going to beat Joe Louis?

Yes. Why? He is talented, bigger, stronger, in better nutrition and training methods regimen. Plus, he was talented, not a stiff.

Two Ton Tony Galento would not dropped him even if he was fighting with one hand. That's how bad that Galento fight with Louis was.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑05 Apr 2025, 11:50 Yes. Why? He is talented, bigger, stronger, in better nutrition and training methods regimen. Plus, he was talented, not a stiff.

Two Ton Tony Galento would not dropped him even if he was fighting with one hand. That's how bad that Galento fight with Louis was.

How do you know he was stronger?
What were the different training methods he us?
What was the better nutrition he used?

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑05 Apr 2025, 12:00

elmersalsa wrote: ↑05 Apr 2025, 11:50 Yes. Why? He is talented, bigger, stronger, in better nutrition and training methods regimen. Plus, he was talented, not a stiff.

Two Ton Tony Galento would not dropped him even if he was fighting with one hand. That's how bad that Galento fight with Louis was.

How do you know he was stronger?
What were the different training methods he us?
What was the better nutrition he used?

You can't see? The advancements in nutrition training methods and medicine have improved since 1940. That's 85 years. While in Muhammad Ali's era, the boxers were much more talented, stronger and bigger.

It's night and day.

Just look at Primo Carnera. What a wimp. all that flab. Look at Tyson Fury, not an ounce of fat on him with all the advance training techniques. This had enabled him and other big heavyweights of recent times to fight at such a fast pace. Undoubtedly it would be even faster if they had to go 15 rounds.

Another thing to consider is that life was so easy in the 1930s and 1940s so people were not as tough back then.

No reason to actually use are brains and look at what actually happened. The date of birth is all that we need.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑06 Apr 2025, 19:37

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑05 Apr 2025, 12:00

elmersalsa wrote: ↑05 Apr 2025, 11:50 Yes. Why? He is talented, bigger, stronger, in better nutrition and training methods regimen. Plus, he was talented, not a stiff.

Two Ton Tony Galento would not dropped him even if he was fighting with one hand. That's how bad that Galento fight with Louis was.

How do you know he was stronger?
What were the different training methods he us?
What was the better nutrition he used?

You can't see? The advancements in nutrition training methods and medicine have improved since 1940. That's 85 years. While in Muhammad Ali's era, the boxers were much more talented, stronger and bigger.

It's night and day.

We weren't talking about 85 years. You said Jimmy young was..... stronger, had better nutrition and training methods. So, I'll ask you again.

How do you know Jimmy Young was stronger?
What were the different training methods he used?
What was the better nutrition he used?

Billy Tully wrote: ↑05 Apr 2025, 08:28

Ezzard wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 09:56 Most importantly he never fought at the weight again. He knew.

It's fine to dislike Jones, I do too, but this is not true. He had a fight lined up with Corrie Sanders in the second half of 2003 for the WBO belt, being unable to pin down Tyson or Holyfield. A mega fight with Lewis was being discussed. Lewis mentions it as one of his upcoming fights in the HBO prefight prior to Klitschko.

Obviously Jones being an imbecile instead opted at 35 to drain himself back down to light heavy for a grudge match with Tarver which rendered him unable to handle light heavies, never mind heavies. He couldn't get out of the way of punches anymore.

I like Lennox and dislike Jones; but the speed, reflexes & power Jones demonstrated at heavy would obviously be difficult for the fading Lennox of 2003. It wouldn't be an upset if that Jones beat that Lewis.

The 3 Tarver fights were after the Ruiz one.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑05 Apr 2025, 08:28

Ezzard wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 09:56 Most importantly he never fought at the weight again. He knew.

It's fine to dislike Jones, I do too, but this is not true. He had a fight lined up with Corrie Sanders in the second half of 2003 for the WBO belt, being unable to pin down Tyson or Holyfield. A mega fight with Lewis was being discussed. Lewis mentions it as one of his upcoming fights in the HBO prefight prior to Klitschko.

Obviously Jones being an imbecile instead opted at 35 to drain himself back down to light heavy for a grudge match with Tarver which rendered him unable to handle light heavies, never mind heavies. He couldn't get out of the way of punches anymore.

I like Lennox and dislike Jones; but the speed, reflexes & power Jones demonstrated at heavy would obviously be difficult for the fading Lennox of 2003. It wouldn't be an upset if that Jones beat that Lewis.

He had a fair chance of taking Chris Byrd's IBF Heavyweight Title, and possibly becoming a Unified Heavyweight Champion. He would not have beaten Lennox Lewis, and I don't think he'd have fought Lennox Lewis.

Jaywheel wrote: ↑07 Apr 2025, 09:42

Billy Tully wrote: ↑05 Apr 2025, 08:28

Ezzard wrote: ↑04 Apr 2025, 09:56 Most importantly he never fought at the weight again. He knew.

It's fine to dislike Jones, I do too, but this is not true. He had a fight lined up with Corrie Sanders in the second half of 2003 for the WBO belt, being unable to pin down Tyson or Holyfield. A mega fight with Lewis was being discussed. Lewis mentions it as one of his upcoming fights in the HBO prefight prior to Klitschko.

Obviously Jones being an imbecile instead opted at 35 to drain himself back down to light heavy for a grudge match with Tarver which rendered him unable to handle light heavies, never mind heavies. He couldn't get out of the way of punches anymore.

I like Lennox and dislike Jones; but the speed, reflexes & power Jones demonstrated at heavy would obviously be difficult for the fading Lennox of 2003. It wouldn't be an upset if that Jones beat that Lewis.

The 3 Tarver fights were after the Ruiz one.

What did you read in my post that led you to believe I didnt know that?