BoxRec

Joe Louis had primitive skills? Of all the dumb things that you have to said over the years, that may be the dumbest. Beyond stupid. Louis was more fundamentally sound than any of these guys. None of them were much bigger than Louis. Quarry was smaller. None of them were faster.


Quarry got knocked out by Chuvalo, who was not known for his power.
Liston got decked and lost to Marty Marshall. Stopped by Ali 2x, and ko'd by the legendary Leotis Martin.
Shavers got knocked down many times. Stopped by Ron Stander.
Williams got stopped 2x by Liston.
Frazier got decked by Mike Bruce. Stopped three times.
Foreman got knocked Jimmy Young.

But as always, you are just looking at it one point of view and disregarding anything that doesn't fit with your narrative.

Joe had speed , devastating punching power and a very solid boxing skills defensively as well as offensively. He was not fleet of foot particularly, so he would shuffle into range behind that terrific jab and once in range, unleash devastating combos. He would always move his head and upper body to avoid counters after he threw his shots. He didn’t make too many mistakes in there. Very well taught. Extremely skillful. Not primitive.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 Mar 2025, 13:22 Joe Louis had primitive skills? Of all the dumb things that you have to said over the years, that may be the dumbest. Beyond stupid. Louis was more fundamentally sound than any of these guys. None of them were much bigger than Louis. Quarry was smaller. None of them were faster.


Quarry got knocked out by Chuvalo, who was not known for his power.
Liston got decked and lost to Marty Marshall. Stopped by Ali 2x, and ko'd by the legendary Leotis Martin.
Shavers got knocked down many times. Stopped by Ron Stander.
Williams got stopped 2x by Liston.
Frazier got decked by Mike Bruce. Stopped three times.
Foreman got knocked Jimmy Young.

But as always, you are just looking at it one point of view and disregarding anything that doesn't fit with your narrative.

The guy was dropped by Two Ton Tony Galento of all people for crying out loud. That was a guy that was 5'7" and 233lbs with no class, no skill. And this guy supposed to drop Jerry Quarry?

Yes, and Joe Louis style was primitive. Compared to the guys fighting in the 1970s, they were. In no such a fashion, I can't see a Jerry Quarry, Earnie Shavers or Big Cat Williams get dropped to the canvas by Two Ton Tony Galento, please! That's reality.

And that was supposed to be a dumb comment? I think that you defending Joe Louis on his skills and that he could beat the top heavyweights since 1960 is beyond STUPID. How about that? I could play your game, Church Choir Boy!

Expug wrote: ↑22 Mar 2025, 17:52 Joe had speed , devastating punching power and a very solid boxing skills defensively as well as offensively. He was not fleet of foot particularly, so he would shuffle into range behind that terrific jab and once in range, unleash devastating combos. He would always move his head and upper body to avoid counters after he threw his shots. He didn’t make too many mistakes in there. Very well taught. Extremely skillful. Not primitive.

To the times of the 1970s heavyweight, he was primitive, undersized and his chin would not hold on to those guys since Sonny Liston.

C'mon man! How can Louis beat someone like Jerry Quarry, Earnie Shavers and Smokin' Joe Frazier for example? Can you picture Two Ton Tony Galento dropping these guys?

I broke down his style. Didn’t say anything about him beating Frazier etc. I know a little about the fight game and there’s nothing inaccurate about what I said there.

Expug wrote: ↑22 Mar 2025, 17:52 Joe had speed , devastating punching power and a very solid boxing skills defensively as well as offensively. He was not fleet of foot particularly, so he would shuffle into range behind that terrific jab and once in range, unleash devastating combos. He would always move his head and upper body to avoid counters after he threw his shots. He didn’t make too many mistakes in there. Very well taught. Extremely skillful. Not primitive.

100% accurate IMO.

Louis wasn't the biggest and fought a lot of opponents who would've been LHWs or CWs today. I think something like 52 of his 69 fights his oppenents was 200lb or under. Of course he was a great HW but his footwork slow and I think he would struggle when he fought the naturally bigger and stronger opponents like Liston, Foreman etc. Yes Louis beat a few big guys but let's not kid ourselves that they were anything special.

Controversial wrote: ↑23 Mar 2025, 09:46 Louis wasn't the biggest and fought a lot of opponents who would've been LHWs or CWs today. I think something like 52 of his 69 fights his oppenents was 200lb or under. Of course he was a great HW but his footwork slow and I think he would struggle when he fought the naturally bigger and stronger opponents like Liston, Foreman etc. Yes Louis beat a few big guys but let's not kid ourselves that they were anything special.

A big thank you! Controversial. Thank you, like Reggie Jackson waved the crowd after his 3rd home run of Game 6 of 1977 World Series. Thank you!

Controversial wrote: ↑23 Mar 2025, 09:46 Louis wasn't the biggest and fought a lot of opponents who would've been LHWs or CWs today. I think something like 52 of his 69 fights his oppenents was 200lb or under. Of course he was a great HW but his footwork slow and I think he would struggle when he fought the naturally bigger and stronger opponents like Liston, Foreman etc. Yes Louis beat a few big guys but let's not kid ourselves that they were anything special.

Love this line of reasoning:

It's important to beat big guys to prove yourself.
Then when you beat really big guys, it doesn't count because they were not anything special.

That makes no logical sense.

There have only been two really big heavyweights that have been special. Lennox Lewis and for a shorter period of time, Riddick Bowe. Ever. in the history of the sport. That's it.

Louis had slow footwork? Well somehow or another, he was able to get to all those fast guys under 200 pounds. It stands to reason that he would be able to get to Liston and Foreman.
How fast was George Foreman and Sonny Liston's footwork?

We can pick apart Louis' weaknesses. We can cherry-pick an opponent that he should have beaten easier. However, we also have to look at all of his strengths. and we maybe most of all, we have to look at the weaknesses and bad performances of everyone that we are comparing him too; whether it's another great fighter like Foreman or Liston or someone nowhere near Louis like Williams, Shavers or Quarry.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 Mar 2025, 16:09

Controversial wrote: ↑23 Mar 2025, 09:46 Louis wasn't the biggest and fought a lot of opponents who would've been LHWs or CWs today. I think something like 52 of his 69 fights his oppenents was 200lb or under. Of course he was a great HW but his footwork slow and I think he would struggle when he fought the naturally bigger and stronger opponents like Liston, Foreman etc. Yes Louis beat a few big guys but let's not kid ourselves that they were anything special.

Love this line of reasoning:

It's important to beat big guys to prove yourself.
Then when you beat really big guys, it doesn't count because they were not anything special.

That makes no logical sense.

There have only been two really big heavyweights that have been special. Lennox Lewis and for a shorter period of time, Riddick Bowe. Ever. in the history of the sport. That's it.

Louis had slow footwork? Well somehow or another, he was able to get to all those fast guys under 200 pounds. It stands to reason that he would be able to get to Liston and Foreman.
How fast was George Foreman and Sonny Liston's footwork?

We can pick apart Louis' weaknesses. We can cherry-pick an opponent that he should have beaten easier. However, we also have to look at all of his strengths. and we maybe most of all, we have to look at the weaknesses and bad performances of everyone that we are comparing him too; whether it's another great fighter like Foreman or Liston or someone nowhere near Louis like Williams, Shavers or Quarry.

I said Louis was a great HW and I think he would struggle against guys like Liston and Foreman, nothing controversial there at all. Yes he beat some bigger HWs but they weren't on the level of Liston and Foreman. Canelo could probably beat a few HWs too but doesn't mean he could beat the better ones. All fighters have strengths and weaknesses but I think it's easier to be fighting smaller guys than naturally bigger and stronger world class HWs. Could Louis have success, yes I'm sure he could have but I don't think he would've been at the top of the tree in the 60/70s.

Agree that he would have struggled with Liston and Foreman. I just think that he would have had a slightly better than even chance. Obviously, we will never know for sure. Just think that we have to looks at the strengths and weakness of everyone. Louis did beat bigger guys as I have said before. No, they clearly weren't as good as Foreman and Liston. That is kind of my point. It's not about the weight that matters. Never has been.

btw-Liston and Louis are actually closer in size that people realize. Their weights varied, but most of time we are talking about 10 pounds. and Louis was a little taller.

It what you do that counts. The scales and the tape measures don't win fights. Time and time again, we have the seem the smaller guy win and yet people keep going on about weight.

Louis would stand no chance against Quarry because his boxing is...primitive?? Crafty Quarry??

Jaywheel wrote: ↑24 Mar 2025, 11:13 Louis would stand no chance against Quarry because his boxing is...primitive?? Crafty Quarry??

Yes, it was primitive for Quarry's time. I can't see Joe Louis beating him nor any of the top heavyweights of the 60s and 70s era.

Joe Louis was great IN HIS TIME! FOR HIS TIME!

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 Mar 2025, 16:09

Controversial wrote: ↑23 Mar 2025, 09:46 Louis wasn't the biggest and fought a lot of opponents who would've been LHWs or CWs today. I think something like 52 of his 69 fights his oppenents was 200lb or under. Of course he was a great HW but his footwork slow and I think he would struggle when he fought the naturally bigger and stronger opponents like Liston, Foreman etc. Yes Louis beat a few big guys but let's not kid ourselves that they were anything special.

Love this line of reasoning:

It's important to beat big guys to prove yourself.
Then when you beat really big guys, it doesn't count because they were not anything special.

That makes no logical sense.

There have only been two really big heavyweights that have been special. Lennox Lewis and for a shorter period of time, Riddick Bowe. Ever. in the history of the sport. That's it.

Louis had slow footwork? Well somehow or another, he was able to get to all those fast guys under 200 pounds. It stands to reason that he would be able to get to Liston and Foreman.
How fast was George Foreman and Sonny Liston's footwork?

We can pick apart Louis' weaknesses. We can cherry-pick an opponent that he should have beaten easier. However, we also have to look at all of his strengths. and we maybe most of all, we have to look at the weaknesses and bad performances of everyone that we are comparing him too; whether it's another great fighter like Foreman or Liston or someone nowhere near Louis like Williams, Shavers or Quarry.

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.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 Mar 2025, 21:12 Agree that he would have struggled with Liston and Foreman. I just think that he would have had a slightly better than even chance. Obviously, we will never know for sure. Just think that we have to looks at the strengths and weakness of everyone. Louis did beat bigger guys as I have said before. No, they clearly weren't as good as Foreman and Liston. That is kind of my point. It's not about the weight that matters. Never has been.

btw-Liston and Louis are actually closer in size that people realize. Their weights varied, but most of time we are talking about 10 pounds. and Louis was a little taller.

It what you do that counts. The scales and the tape measures don't win fights. Time and time again, we have the seem the smaller guy win and yet people keep going on about weight.

I was more referring to the size of Louis' opponents. He fought a lot of small guys (173-200), many would not be HWs today. Today we have Bivol who is the best LHW around, he's around 6'0" and walks into the ring around 190-195lb. These are the size of a lot of Louis opponents and back in the day Bivol would likely be a world class HW but I can't see him being a top HW today or in the 60/70s. So my point was Louis was a great HW but he also benefitted from fighting naturally smaller guys.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 Mar 2025, 11:20 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.

havent you heard, cleveland williams 25 knockdowns dont count

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑24 Mar 2025, 20:38 havent you heard, cleveland williams 25 knockdowns dont count

but wasn't he half an inch taller than Louis?

Inches IN HIS TIME!!!!

hhaehre wrote: ↑24 Mar 2025, 20:35

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 Mar 2025, 11:20 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.

hhaehre wrote: ↑24 Mar 2025, 20:51

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑24 Mar 2025, 20:38 havent you heard, cleveland williams 25 knockdowns dont count

but wasn't he half an inch taller than Louis?

By looking at his fight films, Big Cat Williams looked at least 6'3". I could say easily 6'4".

Controversial wrote: ↑24 Mar 2025, 13:21

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 Mar 2025, 21:12 Agree that he would have struggled with Liston and Foreman. I just think that he would have had a slightly better than even chance. Obviously, we will never know for sure. Just think that we have to looks at the strengths and weakness of everyone. Louis did beat bigger guys as I have said before. No, they clearly weren't as good as Foreman and Liston. That is kind of my point. It's not about the weight that matters. Never has been.

btw-Liston and Louis are actually closer in size that people realize. Their weights varied, but most of time we are talking about 10 pounds. and Louis was a little taller.

It what you do that counts. The scales and the tape measures don't win fights. Time and time again, we have the seem the smaller guy win and yet people keep going on about weight.

I was more referring to the size of Louis' opponents. He fought a lot of small guys (173-200), many would not be HWs today. Today we have Bivol who is the best LHW around, he's around 6'0" and walks into the ring around 190-195lb. These are the size of a lot of Louis opponents and back in the day Bivol would likely be a world class HW but I can't see him being a top HW today or in the 60/70s. So my point was Louis was a great HW but he also benefitted from fighting naturally smaller guys.

Outside of elmer, is there anyone that disagrees that we know from the fights that Louis did have against opponents over the magical 200- pound mark that he would have at the very least been one of the top heavyweights at any given time in boxing history?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑25 Mar 2025, 19:08

Controversial wrote: ↑24 Mar 2025, 13:21

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 Mar 2025, 21:12 Agree that he would have struggled with Liston and Foreman. I just think that he would have had a slightly better than even chance. Obviously, we will never know for sure. Just think that we have to looks at the strengths and weakness of everyone. Louis did beat bigger guys as I have said before. No, they clearly weren't as good as Foreman and Liston. That is kind of my point. It's not about the weight that matters. Never has been.

btw-Liston and Louis are actually closer in size that people realize. Their weights varied, but most of time we are talking about 10 pounds. and Louis was a little taller.

It what you do that counts. The scales and the tape measures don't win fights. Time and time again, we have the seem the smaller guy win and yet people keep going on about weight.

I was more referring to the size of Louis' opponents. He fought a lot of small guys (173-200), many would not be HWs today. Today we have Bivol who is the best LHW around, he's around 6'0" and walks into the ring around 190-195lb. These are the size of a lot of Louis opponents and back in the day Bivol would likely be a world class HW but I can't see him being a top HW today or in the 60/70s. So my point was Louis was a great HW but he also benefitted from fighting naturally smaller guys.

Outside of elmer, is there anyone that disagrees that we know from the fights that Louis did have against opponents over the magical 200- pound mark that he would have at the very least been one of the top heavyweights at any given time in boxing history?

I only used the 200lb mark as it the limit for the CW division. I wouldn't bet against him no but I still feel his lack of size would be more of a disadvantage than it was when he boxed. Would you say Bivol stood a good chance of being a world class HW in Louis time?

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.