What years would you designate as peak for the following?

[Jaybee From The Castle]

Tyson - Spinks - cut it any damn way you like, a KO1 of a 31-0 guy is impressive.

[Ambling Alp]

I think IFF is talking about boxing fans, not the general public as far as Louis is concerned.
On most boxing circles and certainly on this forum Louis gets almost as much positive attention as the guy who beat Patterson, Liston, Frazier and Foreman. He gets about 1/10 of the criticism. Rarely does Louis get criticism that is total BS.

To me this is sort of like have a baseball forum where Babe Ruth is ripped everyday and Wille Mays and Ty Cobb almost always gets a free pass.

As for "Larry Holmes the Early Years" , really what fights before he won the title would you show? Who did he fight that is worth mentioning except Shavers?
In fairness to Holmes, you could say that about a lot of fighters.

As for Norton, I thought he fought one of the best fights of his career against Holmes. Perhaps at first he was a little overconfident and gave away too many of the early rounds, but he came on strong. That fight was a war.
I do think that the punishment that Norton took in the Holmes accelerated his decline. He was as mentioned 34, and that kind of fight for a fighter that old takes a toll on you. It emptied his tank, so to speak.

I always considered his prime as 1973-1978. (Perhaps 1972, it's hard to say since he didn't fight anyone notable that early.) He lost 4 fights but they were all to great competition. His fight for the title in 1976 was not one of his best fights. The title was there for the taking, and he let it get close enough that he didn't the decision. He fights like his capable of and wins without doubt.
Bobick and Quarry were already mentioned as a couple of his best performances, but I always thought that his 1977 fight with Jimmy Young is underrated. It was a decision that could have gone the other way, but Norton performed great. That fight was surprisingly good. Of course Norton also looked good in several wins over fringe contenders.

ESPN has shown Ali's fights with Hunsaker, Banks, Johnson, Miteff, Daniels. Not exactly a murderor's row (on par or inferior to Houpe, Tiger Williams, Bobick, Shavers).

Louis doesn't get discussed overall nearly as much as Ali on boxing forums either, due to the reasons I stated. I hear his opposition constantly get written off as "bums" because they ignorantly take the 'bum of the month' statement completly out of context and know little of his opponents. I don't see him getting some sort of free pass at all.

Granberry is a nutjob, his views don't represent some sizable minority of posters. Most posters talk of Ali in positive terms.

I don't think if they showed Holmes early fights they would get as high ratings. However, you would think it would do better than say a "classic fight" from 7 years ago with say Angel Manfredy or Jorge Paez which they show sometimes. I do wonder if some of Holmes early fights simply aren't availabe on film. The 1st Shavers fight should; I remember watching it on Network TV. It wasn't as exciting as the rematch.

As for Joe Louis not being as discussed as much on this forum, that is probably true. However, would you want him discussed the same way as the Louisville Lip? ie Louis was overrated, shouldn't have got this decision, got knocked down in this fight etc.

As far as the one "nutjob" you also have consider comments from several different posters:
-One poster who claims to be a huge fan, said Norton won the second fight before he ever saw it.

-Our resident boxing "coach" usually only pops up when the Lip's name is mentioned and utters some nonsense such as he only won round in the 2nd Norton fight or his competition wasn't that good.

-Another poster actually claimed that he shouldn't have got the decison in the 2nd Spinks fight.

-Someone else has criticized him for his 1976 title defenses. (4 defenses, one against the #1 contender, another against the #2 contender.) After all, he didn't fight Foreman in 1976, so what if Foreman didn't fight at all in 1975 and didn't deserve a shot.

-And of course the poster who has started umpteen negative posts which includes gems like:
he got special privilges in getting a "shot" against the #1 contender Jerry Quarry after more than a 3 year layoff.
-He was lucky that Frazier couldn't have continued in the 3rd fight because otherwise he would have been knocked out,
-inane comments the computer "fight" with Marciano
-And of course the recent assanine comments on the thread recently that had to be locked.

I think that there a probably more people that are at least fairly reasonably regarding him, but there are a some that feel the need to rip him constantly.

The strange thing is, his detractors on this forum bring him up far more than his supporters. Most threads that mentions the name of one of his opponents, the word "overrated" or even the name of a heavyweight will eventually be twisted into something against him.

If someone wants to say that he didn't look good in the 1st Norton fight, or that for the most part he was lethargic against Lyle, thats fair game. (Though it sould be taken into consideration that you can find a few negative things about every great fighter.) However, almost everything else is BS.
If you take into the consideration the stage of his career and the quality of the opponent, (which should be done for everyone) there simply isn't much to legitimately criticize.
He was one of the greatest fighters of all time, and he fought almost everyone worth mentioning that was around in his era.
When you compare the positive comments to the negative, he doesn't come off near as well as he should for a fighter as great as he was.

[dempseyfire]

I think IFF is talking about boxing fans, not the general public as far as Louis is concerned.
On most boxing circles and certainly on this forum Louis gets almost as much positive attention as the guy who beat Patterson, Liston, Frazier and Foreman. He gets about 1/10 of the criticism. Rarely does Louis get criticism that is total BS.

To me this is sort of like have a baseball forum where Babe Ruth is ripped everyday and Wille Mays and Ty Cobb almost always gets a free pass.

As for "Larry Holmes the Early Years" , really what fights before he won the title would you show? Who did he fight that is worth mentioning except Shavers?
In fairness to Holmes, you could say that about a lot of fighters.

As for Norton, I thought he fought one of the best fights of his career against Holmes. Perhaps at first he was a little overconfident and gave away too many of the early rounds, but he came on strong. That fight was a war.
I do think that the punishment that Norton took in the Holmes accelerated his decline. He was as mentioned 34, and that kind of fight for a fighter that old takes a toll on you. It emptied his tank, so to speak.

I always considered his prime as 1973-1978. (Perhaps 1972, it's hard to say since he didn't fight anyone notable that early.) He lost 4 fights but they were all to great competition. His fight for the title in 1976 was not one of his best fights. The title was there for the taking, and he let it get close enough that he didn't the decision. He fights like his capable of and wins without doubt.
Bobick and Quarry were already mentioned as a couple of his best performances, but I always thought that his 1977 fight with Jimmy Young is underrated. It was a decision that could have gone the other way, but Norton performed great. That fight was surprisingly good. Of course Norton also looked good in several wins over fringe contenders.

ESPN has shown Ali's fights with Hunsaker, Banks, Johnson, Miteff, Daniels. Not exactly a murderor's row (on par or inferior to Houpe, Tiger Williams, Bobick, Shavers).

Louis doesn't get discussed overall nearly as much as Ali on boxing forums either, due to the reasons I stated. I hear his opposition constantly get written off as "bums" because they ignorantly take the 'bum of the month' statement completly out of context and know little of his opponents. I don't see him getting some sort of free pass at all.

Granberry is a nutjob, his views don't represent some sizable minority of posters. Most posters talk of Ali in positive terms.

I don't think if they showed Holmes early fights they would get as high ratings. However, you would think it would do better than say a "classic fight" from 7 years ago with say Angel Manfredy or Jorge Paez which they show sometimes. I do wonder if some of Holmes early fights simply aren't availabe on film. The 1st Shavers fight should; I remember watching it on Network TV. It wasn't as exciting as the rematch.

As for Joe Louis not being as discussed as much on this forum, that is probably true. However, would you want him discussed the same way as the Louisville Lip? ie Louis was overrated, shouldn't have got this decision, got knocked down in this fight etc.

As far as the one "nutjob" you also have consider comments from several different posters:
-One poster who claims to be a huge fan, said Norton won the second fight before he ever saw it.

-Our resident boxing "coach" usually only pops up when the Lip's name is mentioned and utters some nonsense such as he only won round in the 2nd Norton fight or his competition wasn't that good.

-Another poster actually claimed that he shouldn't have got the decison in the 2nd Spinks fight.

-Someone else has criticized him for his 1976 title defenses. (4 defenses, one against the #1 contender, another against the #2 contender.) After all, he didn't fight Foreman in 1976, so what if Foreman didn't fight at all in 1975 and didn't deserve a shot.

-And of course the poster who has started umpteen negative posts which includes gems like:
he got special privilges in getting a "shot" against the #1 contender Jerry Quarry after more than a 3 year layoff.
-He was lucky that Frazier couldn't have continued in the 3rd fight because otherwise he would have been knocked out,
-inane comments the computer "fight" with Marciano
-And of course the recent assanine comments on the thread recently that had to be locked.

I think that there a probably more people that are at least fairly reasonably regarding him, but there are a some that feel the need to rip him constantly.

The strange thing is, his detractors on this forum bring him up far more than his supporters. Most threads that mentions the name of one of his opponents, the word "overrated" or even the name of a heavyweight will eventually be twisted into something against him.

If someone wants to say that he didn't look good in the 1st Norton fight, or that for the most part he was lethargic against Lyle, thats fair game. (Though it sould be taken into consideration that you can find a few negative things about every great fighter.) However, almost everything else is BS.
If you take into the consideration the stage of his career and the quality of the opponent, (which should be done for everyone) there simply isn't much to legitimately criticize.
He was one of the greatest fighters of all time, and he fought almost everyone worth mentioning that was around in his era.
When you compare the positive comments to the negative, he doesn't come off near as well as he should for a fighter as great as he was.

A few nutjobs then.

[I Feel Fine]

IFF, if you think Louis is even near the same league of Ali in terms of popularity and notoriety, you've been sleeping under a rock. Yes, among us few real boxing people, he's very well known. But to casual fans/the general public, Ali is 100 times more popular than Louis. Number 1, he came during the era of TV . .many more opportunities to show himself to the world. He also carried with him a flashy/charismatic personality, along with his anti-war/political stance in the late 1960s, which overtime have made him a cultural icon along the same lines of John Lennon,Marilyn Monroe etc. He's THAT well-known. Louis was a loved figure to folks who are in their 70s, 80s and beyond. They aren't influencing the popular venacular or (beyond a couple) frequenting online boxing forums.

That given, Ali has had many more books, documentaries, exposes, movies etc. made about him than ANY other boxer in history. With all of that wealth of information, people will discuss his greatest feats more (how many times have they shown Rumble in the Jungle on ESPN channels . . .a million?) as well as (and not nearly as much overall) his defeats/bad nights. This is basic common sense. I'll drink my own piss the day ESPN decides to do a show showing footage of Holmes' pre-Norton fights called "Holmes, the Early Years" . . .no-one besides the die-hards gives a crap.

What a ridiculous response. Where do I begin.

Joe Louis, at the time he was champion, was not one of the biggest icons in sports history? He was not a mainstream figure? He was not a world figure?

Boxing fans don't know who he is? Take a poll of "Who is the best Heavyweight champion" and at least 40% will say Louis. But no one knows who he is?

Joe Louis, among serious boxing fans, does not have a similar standing in terms of boxing history? People in boxing media have no opinion about Louis?

There has never been a documentary about Joe Louis? HBO did not make on just earlier this year? ESPN never shows any of Louis' fights? That's news to me, I have most of Louis' title fights on tape, among other notable and not notable fights of his, and I got them all from ESPN Classic.*

Basically, being that you are a Louis fan, and one who does not like anything negative to be said of Louis, you're playing an absurd and self serving game, suggesting that with Ali's fame that a great deal of scrutiny must follow, but someone like Louis who historically and even to a degree now, particularly among boxing fans, has a very similar standing should not get any scrutiny. Nonsense. Its also an arbitrary and absurd notion to begin with, that by this rule of yours, an Ali loss or knock down or controversial decision should mean more than a Louis loss or knock down or controversial decision, just because Ali has more fans. I recall on current scene, in a thread about controversial decisions, you mentioned Ali-Norton III as one, but failed to mention Louis-Walcott I. I guess that is your model or your idea of how this rule should be applied in every day boxing conversations, lets mention everything Ali did wrong and continue praising Louis without having to give him the same standard of scrutiny. Great rule you got there.

That also ignores that Ali has always had a lot of critics in the first place, while Louis has not. The idea that we need to add an extra layer of scrutiny to Ali, and not to Louis, is simply an abdication of objectivity.

As for Holmes, you're pretty much repeating my very point. Ali in his early professional career received a lot of attention. Holmes didn't, hence Holmes isn't going to receive scrutiny for his early years where he was developing and growing. He didn't go from some amateur losing to Duane Bobick to a pro beating Shavers and Norton over night, there was certainly a growing experience that may or may not have included some difficult experiences in the ring as he was coming up. Those experiences are not known about by most fans. Clay, on the other hand, was well known coming off the Olympics, and so his early pro fights are known to people, and so even though he was in his own years of development, his early fights are open to scrutiny. That's why his knock down against Banks will come up in conversations, while Holmes' knock down to Isaacs will not. Hence Larry gets a pass for those years, as all fighters should, but Clay does not. And its not just Ali, a lot of fighters get scrutiny for their early years, including Louis, but fighters like Holmes do not.

*I do chuckle at all the whining that goes on about ESPN Classic. Boxing fans can be real babies sometimes. If all they showed were De La Hoya fights, I would simply, I dunno... change the channel?

[Goodnight, Irene]

Who here has seen Louis-Walcott I in it's entirety? I have heard the fight does not exist in it's complete format?

[I Feel Fine]

I've seen clips of every round, not the full fight. Does it matter? Everyone had Walcott winning, Louis even walked out of the ring.

Still, I have not said anything that is untrue about either of these fighters, and I challenge you to say where I have.

You unfortunately haven't taken advantage of this yet, but this invitation still stands, dempsey.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I think it matters to some extent, IFF. Why shouldn't it? I am skeptical anyone here has actually seen this fight in it's entirety, so I'd hardly say that is a moot point.

Not to say it wasn't a robbery (by all reasonable accounts, it was), but it shouldn't get as much attention as, say, a fight like Ali-Young or Ali-Norton III, where everyone can judge the film for themselves, agree? Disagree?

[I Feel Fine]

I agree in theory. But then, in theory, Louis might lose credit for some of his other fights that we might not have on film in full. His first fight with Godoy was apparently close, most had Louis winning, but I've never seen the full fight; only select rounds. For all we know Godoy won every second of the fight that isn't available on film. I doubt it, but its the same idea. That, of course, assumes that these fights don't exist on film in full in the first place, which is something I don't know.

Even then, if someone saw the full Louis-Walcott fight, and decided Louis deserved the win, they would still be in the minority since most who saw it then had Walcott winning. Its not as if no one had Ali winning the Young and third Norton fights, either, but they're a minority.

Also, when the fighter walks out of the ring before the decision is announced, you kind of get the idea.

But, even if the fight doesn't exist in full, which, again, I don't know; at least the majority of it is available. You can't judge a fight that way but you can at least get an idea of what happened.

I think what happened with all three fights is you had a respected champion fighting an opponent who was a little too cautious, and so the champion got the decision. Walcott and Young back peddaled, and Norton didn't press Ali enough in certain rounds, and so the champions got the decisions. It happens all the time in boxing. The judges even had Clay-Liston about even at the time of the stoppage, probably because Clay back peddaled and Liston was the champion and the aggressor.

Plus, I think we know that judges are idiots. Harold Lederman was a judge in Ali-Norton III; more often than not he doesn't seem to know what he's doing/saying. He probably had Berbick beating Tyson at the time of the knockout. I dislike him, but I tend to agree with Merchant's scorecards more than I do with Lederman's.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Good post.