BoxRec

Ambling Alp wrote:

The Great John L wrote:Wow, it's hard to even comment on some of these posts. For those questioning Louis's chin, please consider his fighting style and defensive capabilities. While Joe was nearly a flawless offensive fighter, his defense was pretty ordinary, and he was almost constantly moving forward. Think about the physics of a fighter moving into another fighter and what that means, and you might have a slightly different opinion.

Louis didn't have Chuvalo's chin, but it was certainly better than some are saying in this thread. And the post comparing him to all of the other HW champs was pretty sad.

Specifically, which heavyweight champions that I listed as having a better chin than Louis would you disagree with?

Would be nice for dempseyfire and raylaw to specifically name them as well.

Sorry Alp, but the excersize is rather a waste of time and your summary is disappointing in it's simplicity.

Ambling Alp wrote:It is humourous to to hear that Louis is nitpicked on this forum. We hear anti-Ali crap here virtually everyday. However, when someone makes a fairly obvious observation about Louis; chin people freak out.

For the umpteenth time, we are comparing Louis to other heavyweight champions; therefore you have to actually look at the other heavyweight champions. Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

The Great John L wrote:Wow, it's hard to even comment on some of these posts. For those questioning Louis's chin, please consider his fighting style and defensive capabilities. While Joe was nearly a flawless offensive fighter, his defense was pretty ordinary, and he was almost constantly moving forward. Think about the physics of a fighter moving into another fighter and what that means, and you might have a slightly different opinion.

Louis didn't have Chuvalo's chin, but it was certainly better than some are saying in this thread. And the post comparing him to all of the other HW champs was pretty sad.

Specifically, which heavyweight champions that I listed as having a better chin than Louis would you disagree with?

Would be nice for dempseyfire and raylaw to specifically name them as well.

Thanks, but I don't do lists - too speculative.

Saying that Louis had one of the best chins ofall the heavyweight champions without even looking at the other champions is a lot more speculative.

I find it very disappointing that John L, Raylaw and dempseyfire won't actually say who Louis has a better or worse chin than, but have no doubt that he had one of the best chins. We are just supposed to take this opinion of Louis on blind faith.

If you have some disagreements with some of the 17 of the other 34 heavyweight champions that I listed as having a better chin than Louis, fine. (Thought there are some champions I didn't list as having a better chin that I'm sure some people would say did have a better chin.)

But atleast have the guts to say specifically who did or didn't.

Ambling Alp wrote:Saying that Louis had one of the best chins ofall the heavyweight champions without even looking at the other champions is a lot more speculative.

I find it very disappointing that John L, Raylaw and dempseyfire won't actually say who Louis has a better or worse chin than, but have no doubt that he had one of the best chins. We are just supposed to take this opinion of Louis on blind faith.

If you have some disagreements with some of the 17 of the other 34 heavyweight champions that I listed as having a better chin than Louis, fine. (Thought there are some champions I didn't list as having a better chin that I'm sure some people would say did have a better chin.)

But atleast have the guts to say specifically who did or didn't.

Sorry to disappoint you. Life is full of disappointments. I'm sure you will get over this one.

Oh, and BTW, when did I say "Louis had one of the best chins ofall the heavyweight champions?" I wrote:

"I don't know and I don't care if Louis' chin was better than Ali's. Probably not. Ali was double-tough by any definition. But by the same token, I don't think Louis' chin was average compared to any group of fighters, and I don't think it was a disgrace for Louis to be knocked down by a hitter like Tony Galento."

I also said that he had "better than average whiskers."

How did you manage to morph that into "one of the best chins of all the heavyweight champions?"

Ambling Alp wrote:Saying that Louis had one of the best chins ofall the heavyweight champions without even looking at the other champions is a lot more speculative.

I find it very disappointing that John L, Raylaw and dempseyfire won't actually say who Louis has a better or worse chin than, but have no doubt that he had one of the best chins. We are just supposed to take this opinion of Louis on blind faith.

If you have some disagreements with some of the 17 of the other 34 heavyweight champions that I listed as having a better chin than Louis, fine. (Thought there are some champions I didn't list as having a better chin that I'm sure some people would say did have a better chin.)

But atleast have the guts to say specifically who did or didn't.

The abllity to take a punch is not something that can be ranked categorically like home runs in baseball. HW champs, per usual, have had very good chins. The likes of Marciano, Dempsey, Holmes, Johnson, Liston, Ali all had excellent chins. Perhaps Ali had the best of all of them.
Joe Louis, having only be KO'd at 21 and 38 years old (vs two great punchers) in 68 fights vs many talented and hard-hitting fighters, belongs in the above group. Yes he was knocked down more than many other champs, mainly due to balance/squaring up than anything else, but besides the two losses he always got right back up and was never in serious trouble. That to me signifies a very good chin. End of story.

Balance? Wow, he must have had bad balance to down that many times.
It must have been bad balance when the hard hitting Billy Conn hurt him.
Sorry, I thought I could get real person answers from you guys, not politician-like answers.

Ambling Alp wrote:Balance? Wow, he must have had bad balance to down that many times.
It must have been bad balance when the hard hitting Billy Conn hurt him.
Sorry, I thought I could get real person answers from you guys, not politician-like answers.

And it must have been balance when Doug Jones staggered Ali

Whatever man, Louis always got right back up and was perfectly fine and clear-headed. Period. Louis never held on for 2 minutes of a round like Ali did vs Frazier, Foreman etc. Your twisting of history doesn't change anything. Adios.

Well, again, Clay was 21 against Jones, Louis was 27 years old and had been Heavyweight champion for four years when he fought Conn. Unfortunate that people miss this point, but it is not the same thing. You want us to ignore Louis' KO to Schmeling, and for the most part I think we have, but then you go right back to Clay in '63 without blinking an eye. No one denies that Clay at 21 did not have an all time great's chin, neither should he have had one, he was still basically a kid. That's not the version of him who we're talking about, which you are perfectly aware of. You're merely distracting from the issue that you clearly do not want to address; that Louis, in his prime, was wobbled by one of the smallest and weakest punchers ever to challenge for the Heavyweight title. Conn hurt him, and no amount of casuistry changes that, or the fact that Conn was a Light Heavyweight with little power for even that weight class, facing a mature Louis in his prime. And that's a point in itself, when it comes to Louis, in his prime, we're not just talking about him being hurt by Heavyweights, what we would today consider to be Cruiserweights as well as this one Light Heavyweight in Conn enter the picture as well. Compare that to Ali letting Bob Foster hit him square on the chin, Foster being a much bigger Light Heavyweight puncher than Conn. It sounds absurd to even use Bob Foster as an argument for the quality of a Heavyweight's chin, and yet that's what we're reduced to because some here are actually trying to argue that there's nothing particularly odd about a Heavyweight champion in his prime being hurt by Billy Conn, who had 12 KO's in his career and who was fighting under the Light Heavyweight limit in his first meeting with Louis. Sorry, but when someone like Conn hurts a Heavyweight champion it should raise a bit of an eyebrow. As for Ali holding on for "two minutes a round" against Frazier and Foreman, well, hyperbole aside, the punches he took from Frazier and to a lesser extent Foreman put Louis' chin to shame. Frazier and Foreman were better fighters than anyone Louis met, and contrary to what some might say, they hit at least as hard as the great Two Ton; I'm sure of that. That, I think, is the end of story on that discussion.

But as for the balance issue, yeah, to echo alp, Louis was off balance a lot when his opponents hit him square on the chin. Odd how that happened. Walcott's punches right on his jaw were not so much what sent him down. And when Farr and Galento and Conn had him stunned, it was also balance.

He was only KO'd twice in his career; maybe that's because his opposition wasn't exactly the best. Besides, Dempsey was only KO'd once and that was a fix, Marciano was never KO'd, Liston was only legitimately put down for the count once in old age, Ali was stopped once at 38, Foreman was KO'd once and that was more like fatigue, Holmes was stopped once at 38, Holyfield was never KO'd, he was TKO'd a couple of times when he had Hepatitis and later when he was old. So, again, being KO'd twice is not an indicator of having a bad chin, but when you again compare him to the best Heavyweight championship chins he does fall a bit short. Louis' chin was certainly above the Patterson's and the Moorer's, but he wasn't on that highest level; his chin was, well, average for a HW champ. Lennox Lewis was only KO'd twice too, once on a TKO, I don't see anyone defending his chin on that basis. Louis at 35 might not have survived that shot from Rahman either, dare I say it. I know Lewis was a young 35, but Louis hadn't fought in too many Manila's either.

I Feel Fine wrote:Well, again, Clay was 21 against Jones, Louis was 27 years old and had been Heavyweight champion for four years when he fought Conn. Unfortunate that people miss this point, but it is not the same thing. You want us to ignore Louis' KO to Schmeling, and for the most part I think we have, but then you go right back to Clay in '63 without blinking an eye. No one denies that Clay at 21 did not have an all time great's chin, neither should he have had one, he was still basically a kid. That's not the version of him who we're talking about, which you are perfectly aware of. You're merely distracting from the issue that you clearly do not want to address; that Louis, in his prime, was wobbled by one of the smallest and weakest punchers ever to challenge for the Heavyweight title. Conn hurt him, and no amount of casuistry changes that, or the fact that Conn was a Light Heavyweight with little power for even that weight class, facing a mature Louis in his prime. And that's a point in itself, when it comes to Louis, in his prime, we're not just talking about him being hurt by Heavyweights, what we would today consider to be Cruiserweights as well as this one Light Heavyweight in Conn enter the picture as well. Compare that to Ali letting Bob Foster hit him square on the chin, Foster being a much bigger Light Heavyweight puncher than Conn. It sounds absurd to even use Bob Foster as an argument for the quality of a Heavyweight's chin, and yet that's what we're reduced to because some here are actually trying to argue that there's nothing particularly odd about a Heavyweight champion in his prime being hurt by Billy Conn, who had 12 KO's in his career and who was fighting under the Light Heavyweight limit in his first meeting with Louis. Sorry, but when someone like Conn hurts a Heavyweight champion it should raise a bit of an eyebrow. As for Ali holding on for "two minutes a round" against Frazier and Foreman, well, hyperbole aside, the punches he took from Frazier and to a lesser extent Foreman put Louis' chin to shame. Frazier and Foreman were better fighters than anyone Louis met, and contrary to what some might say, they hit at least as hard as the great Two Ton; I'm sure of that. That, I think, is the end of story on that discussion.

But as for the balance issue, yeah, to echo alp, Louis was off balance a lot when his opponents hit him square on the chin. Odd how that happened. Walcott's punches right on his jaw were not so much what sent him down. And when Farr and Galento and Conn had him stunned, it was also balance.

He was only KO'd twice in his career; maybe that's because he fought such subpar opposition. Besides, Dempsey was only KO'd once and that was a fix, Marciano was never KO'd, Liston was only legitimately KO'd once in old age, Ali was never KO'd, Foreman once and that was more like fatigue, Holmes once and that was at 38, Holyfield only once and he had Hepatitis. Again, for a Heavyweight champion, Louis' chin was certainly above the Patterson's and the Moorer's, but he wasn't on that highest level; his chin was, well, average for a HW champ. Lennox Lewis was only straight KO'd once, and once on a TKO, I don't see anyone defending his chin on that basis. Louis at 35 might not have survived that shot from Rahman either, dare I say it. I know Lewis was a young 35, but Louis hadn't fought in too many Manila's either.

Ali let Foster hit him square on the jaw. I don't recall ever reading that before. Can you give us the source of that information?

Source? I've seen the match, I didn't read it off some BS website. Watch the fights pal, try youtube if its on there.

While you're at it, I'm surprised that you haven't requested a source from dempseyfire for his statement that Louis' knockdowns were mainly the result of balance. You would likely find that source in the fiction section of your local library.

I Feel Fine wrote:Source? I've seen the match, I didn't read it off some BS website. Watch the fights pal, try youtube if its on there.

While you're at it, I'm surprised that you haven't requested a source from dempseyfire for his statement that Louis' knockdowns were mainly the result of balance. You would likely find that source in the fiction section of your local library.

Actually, I saw the Ali-Foster closed circuit television broadcast on November 1972. Since then, I've seen it a couple of times on tape. I don't recall Ali "letting Bob Foster hit him square on the chin" at any time in the fight. Can you direct me to the round? If I can find a copy of it, I'll look again.

I do recall reading somewhere that Ali told physicians at the Mayo Clinic that Foster had him out on his feet at some point in the fight, and might have knocked him out if only Foster had followed up. (I'm paraphrasing and going by memory, but I think that was the gist of his statement.)

Whatever. Anyway, I thought it would be worth looking at some of the other heavyweight champions. (Even though it's just crazy to even think other champions even though we are comparing Louis' chin to them.)

Sullivan-Knocked out once in his career, after a 3 year layoff. Seldom hurt or knocked down in other fights.

Jeffries- Knocked out once, after a 5 year layoff. Never officially knocked down and seldom hurt in other fights.
Johnson-Never knocked out from the ages of 23 to 37. Seldom knocked down or hurt.

Tunney-Never stopped. Knocked down only once in his career, by Dempsey.

Baer-Except for the fight against Louis, only stopped late in his career by Nova and after a lot of punishment.

Braddock-Only stopped by Louis, and that was after a long layoff.

Marciano-Never stopped, only knocked down twice. Seldom hurt.

Liston- Only stopped by Ali and late in his career against Martin.

Ali-Enough said.

Frazier- Except for the Foreman fights, was only decked three times, all early in his career.

Foreman-Only stopped once in his long career. Only knocked down 4 times.

Holmes- Only stopped once, and that was against Tyson after a long layoff at the age of 38.

Tyson-Stopped a few times, but after a lot of punishment.

Bowe-Never stopped in his career. Knocked down once by Holyfield and by Golota in the foul plagued fights.

Lewis-Stopped twice, one controversially.

Holyfield- Only stopped once anywhere near his prime.

Ambling Alp wrote:Whatever. Anyway, I thought it would be worth looking at some of the other heavyweight champions. (Even though it's just crazy to even think other champions even though we are comparing Louis' chin to them.)

Sullivan-Knocked out once in his career, after a 3 year layoff. Seldom hurt or knocked down in other fights.

Jeffries- Knocked out once, after a 5 year layoff. Never officially knocked down and seldom hurt in other fights.
Johnson-Never knocked out from the ages of 23 to 37. Seldom knocked down or hurt.

Tunney-Never stopped. Knocked down only once in his career, by Dempsey.

Baer-Except for the fight against Louis, only stopped late in his career by Nova and after a lot of punishment.

Braddock-Only stopped by Louis, and that was after a long layoff.

Marciano-Never stopped, only knocked down twice. Seldom hurt.

Liston- Only stopped by Ali and late in his career against Martin.

Ali-Enough said.

Frazier- Except for the Foreman fights, was only decked three times, all early in his career.

Foreman-Only stopped once in his long career. Only knocked down 4 times.

Holmes- Only stopped once, and that was against Tyson after a long layoff at the age of 38.

Tyson-Stopped a few times, but after a lot of punishment.

Bowe-Never stopped in his career. Knocked down once by Holyfield and by Golota in the foul plagued fights.

Lewis-Stopped twice, one controversially.

Holyfield- Only stopped once anywhere near his prime.

You make this too easy Alp:

Sullivan: We know so little to base comparison I won't even go there

Jefferies: If you're going to bitch about the size of Louis's opponents, jeez louis look at the guys Jim fought.

Tunney: How many HWs did he face again?

Braddock: Same question

Baer: Stopped twice, after taking a severe amount of punishment . . sounds like . . Joe Louis!

Marciano: Didn't face near the number of big punchers as Louis, decked by old Light HWs and Louis left-overs.

Liston: I'll take Schmeling and Marciano over Ali and Martin (himself a 'cruiserweight' as you love to point out) as punchers anyday

Frazier: INCLUDING the Foreman fights, how many KDs?

Foreman: Strong chin

Holmes: Similar looking to Louis chin-wise, except was facing tomato cans in his early 20s while Louis was fighting the likes of Schmeling and Baer. Put the 1972 Holmes in with a Schmeling level fighter and he's not surviving either.

Tyson: "a few times?" . . .Try 5. And two were journeyman.

Bowe: Who did he face?

Holyfield: Strong chin

Lewis: One shot KO losses to journeyman/fringe contenders.

Among HW champs I'd put Ali, Holyfield and probably George in the upper-tier (perhaps Jefferies/Marciano are there too but we don't have the clear evidence via their opponents), with Louis being right in the same ballfield as the other names you mentioned. Louis fought more top contenders than any of the others save Ali and still was stopped less than many of the others. Also, a bad 'chin' constitutes a nerve issue when you lose you legs after getting hit on the jaw or temple. If you've boxed, you know that you can get knocked down being caught off-balance by a counter but with your legs still fine, especially if you're squared up to your opponent.. Louis got up from ALL of his KDs in his winning fights clear-headed and with steady legs. A poor chin would've had him wobbly and forced to hold b/c his legs would have been unsteady. Either he had a very good chin or he had the recuperative powers of a Jedi Knight.

You don't want to count Sullivan, fine.

Jeffries didn't fight anyone? What in the world are you talking about? Try Fitzsimmons twice, Ruhlin twice, Sharkey twice, Choynski. Didn't get dropped one time in all of those fights. He showed beyond reasonable doubt that he had a great chin.

Tunney and Braddock had many fights against heavyweights. Look it up. Not to mention that Tunney fought Jack somebody or another twice. Braddock went 15 with Baer and lasted 8 rounds against Louis even though he he hadn't fought in two years.

Baer-Wasn't knocked down or hurt nearly as much as Louis.

Marciano-Yes Marciano got knocked down by Walcott and Moore. Were those "balance shots'? or can that excuse only be used for Louis?
Marciano was never knocked down in his other 47 fights.

You said Liston: I'll take Schmeling and Marciano over Ali and Martin (himself a 'cruiserweight' as you love to point out) as punchers anyday

I have never said anything like that. What are you talking about?

Liston-Please. How many times was he decked or hurt in his whole career? Had an iron chin.

Frazier-Was knocked down 8 times by Foreman. If he he didn't have a good chin, it would have 2 because he wouldn't have been able to continue. Do I really have to point out examples where Frazier showed he had a good chin?

Holmes-Once again, get real. Holmes was knocked down and hurt a lot less than Louis.

Tyson -I said a few and you say try 5? I'm sorry I thought 5 was a few. Tyson's chin stood up to Ruddock, and several other good punchers. You really going to count the last couple? He has probably the worst chin of anyone on this list, but it was pretty good. I detest Tyson as much as anyone, but come on, he had a good chin.

Bowe-No I guess Bowe never fought anyone as good as Tony Galento. I thought you may have seen the 3 fights with Holyfield. He took some good shots in all of those fights. I know that no one else he fought was as good as those live bodies from the 1940's but if Bowe didn't have a good chin it would have been exposed.

Lewis- Yes he got got knocked out by a hellacious shot by Rahman. The other by McCall he got up and from and got a premature stoppage. He was never knocked down in any of his other fights. Have you seen the Mercer fight? He got hit with plenty of bombs. You don't fight Mercer, Tyson, Holyfield,Bruno, Morrison, Ruddock, not go down once and not have a good chin.

-I have not "bitched about the size of Louis opponents". I mentioned that Billy Conn was 174 when he fought Louis, and had him hurt. Conn at the same weight wasn't even a big puncher against heavyweights.

-Louis wasn't "off balance" in those knockdowns. Except for the Walcott fights they are all easily on film for people to see. Thats nonsense.
Getting knocked down by Braddock who was a big puncher, and who hadn't fought in two years is embarrassing for a great fighter. Of course this happens to everyone. It just happened to Louis more often than these other guys. there is a reason for this; his chin wasn't as good.

You really seem bent out of shape about this. Ali fans have to hear negatvie fans on this forum on a daily basis, most of whcih is total crap. However, we point out something about Louis' chin (which has been pointed in many books) and you go nuts.

Sometimes to have to wake up to reality. Joe Louis didn't have anywhere near the chin of Larry Holmes. I don't go around saying Ali was one of the hardest punchers of all time even though I like him. I don't because he wasn't.

Ambling Alp wrote:You don't want to count Sullivan, fine.

Jeffries didn't fight anyone? What in the world are you talking about? Try Fitzsimmons twice, Ruhlin twice, Sharkey twice, Choynski. Didn't get dropped one time in all of those fights. He showed beyond reasonable doubt that he had a great chin.

Tunney and Braddock had many fights against heavyweights. Look it up. Not to mention that Tunney fought Jack somebody or another twice. Braddock went 15 with Baer and lasted 8 rounds against Louis even though he he hadn't fought in two years.

Baer-Wasn't knocked down or hurt nearly as much as Louis.

Marciano-Yes Marciano got knocked down by Walcott and Moore. Were those "balance shots'? or can that excuse only be used for Louis?
Marciano was never knocked down in his other 47 fights.

You said Liston: I'll take Schmeling and Marciano over Ali and Martin (himself a 'cruiserweight' as you love to point out) as punchers anyday

I have never said anything like that. What are you talking about?

Liston-Please. How many times was he decked or hurt in his whole career? Had an iron chin.

Frazier-Was knocked down 8 times by Foreman. If he he didn't have a good chin, it would have 2 because he wouldn't have been able to continue. Do I really have to point out examples where Frazier showed he had a good chin?

Holmes-Once again, get real. Holmes was knocked down and hurt a lot less than Louis.

Tyson -I said a few and you say try 5? I'm sorry I thought 5 was a few. Tyson's chin stood up to Ruddock, and several other good punchers. You really going to count the last couple? He has probably the worst chin of anyone on this list, but it was pretty good. I detest Tyson as much as anyone, but come on, he had a good chin.

Bowe-No I guess Bowe never fought anyone as good as Tony Galento. I thought you may have seen the 3 fights with Holyfield. He took some good shots in all of those fights. I know that no one else he fought was as good as those live bodies from the 1940's but if Bowe didn't have a good chin it would have been exposed.

Lewis- Yes he got got knocked out by a hellacious shot by Rahman. The other by McCall he got up and from and got a premature stoppage. He was never knocked down in any of his other fights. Have you seen the Mercer fight? He got hit with plenty of bombs. You don't fight Mercer, Tyson, Holyfield,Bruno, Morrison, Ruddock, not go down once and not have a good chin.

-I have not "bitched about the size of Louis opponents". I mentioned that Billy Conn was 174 when he fought Louis, and had him hurt. Conn at the same weight wasn't even a big puncher against heavyweights.

-Louis wasn't "off balance" in those knockdowns. Except for the Walcott fights they are all easily on film for people to see. Thats nonsense.
Getting knocked down by Braddock who was a big puncher, and who hadn't fought in two years is embarrassing for a great fighter. Of course this happens to everyone. It just happened to Louis more often than these other guys. there is a reason for this; his chin wasn't as good.

You really seem bent out of shape about this. Ali fans have to hear negatvie fans on this forum on a daily basis, most of whcih is total crap. However, we point out something about Louis' chin (which has been pointed in many books) and you go nuts.

Sometimes to have to wake up to reality. Joe Louis didn't have anywhere near the chin of Larry Holmes. I don't go around saying Ali was one of the hardest punchers of all time even though I like him. I don't because he wasn't.

Now you're simply ignoring my points.

How big were the likes of Choynski, Fitz, Sharkey??? I mentioned their size, since you and IFF kept bringing up Conn and the fact that Louis fought many 'cruiserweights' . . Jefferies was fighting a good number of light HWs and Middleweights.

Holmes was hurt a lot less? Hmmm, hurt by Shavers, Snipes, Witherspoon, Weaver, Williams, Spinks etc. You are just making things up now.

Liston was decked by little Marty Marshall. I think getting dropped by Braddock is far less embarassing.

Again, Bowe fought Holyfield, not a big HW puncher. And that's it. Unless you want to start espousing the talents of Jorge Luis Gonzales.

This is stupid. If Louis's chin was so bad, why was he able to get up from his KDs clear-headed? Why wasn't he knocked out more? Simply getting knocked down several times in 68 fights (more fights than everyone on your list minus Holmes,Baer, and Braddock/Tunney who fought the wide majority of their careers at 175) does not merit a declaration of a bad chin. My input in this thread is over.

Ambling Alp wrote:I find it very disappointing that John L, Raylaw and dempseyfire won't actually say who Louis has a better or worse chin than, but have no doubt that he had one of the best chins.

I said no such thing.

The point about Conn is this: He was not a hard puncher at all. He scored a grand total of 15 knockouts in 77 fights. Since he wasn't a hard a puncher at lower weight classes, and didn't even bulk up against Louis, it stands to reason that he wasn't a hard puncher against Louis. And Louis was legitimately hurt by Conn.

It's not the size of Louis opponents that I have been talking about. It's their ability or (generally speaking) their lack of it.

Sharkey, Choynski and especially Fitzsimmons had tremendous power, and knocked out leading heavyweights. All were much harder punchers than Billy Conn. (Not to mention Jeffries other fights.
None could knockdown or hurt Jeffries. Conn was able to hurt Louis. This is a strong indication that Jeffries had a better chin than Louis.

I guess we have a different definition of "hurt". I don't think Holmes was hurt against Spinks or Williams, and not seriously against Witherspoon. Yes he was hurt (once) by Earnie Shavers, probably the hardest puncher ever. Holmes won both fights against Shavers.

I want to addres an earlier comment you made: "Holmes: Similar looking to Louis chin-wise, except was facing tomato cans in his early 20s while Louis was fighting the likes of Schmeling and Baer. Put the 1972 Holmes in with a Schmeling level fighter and he's not surviving either."

Very decieving. Holmes was still an amatuer in 1972. Louis already had 23 fights when he fought Schmeling the first time. Give Holmes the same amount of experience, and he would have surivived.

Liston was very inexperienced when he fought Marshall. Louis wasn't when he fought Braddock. Braddock wasn't a hard puncher at all. He had 26 knockouts in 86 fights. He had 1 Ko in his previous 8 fights. He hadn't had a fight in two years when he fought Louis.
It's more embarrassing for a experienced fighter (in this case Louis) than an inexperienced fighter (in this case Liston) to be dropped a mediocre puncher.

Yes Louis got up from that kncokdown and went on to win the fight. Obviously if he had a glass jaw he wouldn't have. However, he was certainly hurt, though not for long. Same thing with Galneto and Buddy Baer. They weren't "flash knockdowns" or "balance knockdowns." He wasn't in la la land, but they were legitimate.

No Holyfield wasn't the biggest puncher ever, but certainly could punch. (He certainly hit a lot harder than Braddock or Conn) In his prime, he threw a lot of punches and was a very accurrate puncher. Bowe took a lot of good shots in those fights. He had to have had a pretty good chin to stand up to that. No I don't think Jorge Gonzalez was very good. Of course had he fought in the 1940's we would be hearing how tough he was.

We have not been saying Louis had a bad chin. We have been saying over and over that he didn't an above average chin for a heavyweight champion. Guess what, there are several heavyweight champions who didn't get knocked down much, hurt much, or knocked out much.
Several other heavyweight champions could have fought Louis' opponents and not been knocked out by schmeling or hurt by Conn, or knocked down as much. Of course the average heavyweight would have stopped several times. That isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about several other heavyweight champions.

This isn't even mentioning guys like Dempsey,Charles,Sharkey who you could make a case for having a better chin than Louis.

There are other things to consider than the sheer number of fights that you have. Braddock and Tunney certainly proved in the fights that they had at heavyweight that they could take a great shot.

Much of this has to do with how good we think Louis competition was, which we have discussed previously on other threads. . You think it was great, I certainly don't; particularly his opponents between the 2nd Schmeling fight and the Walcott fights. I those most heavyweight champions would have rolled over these guys; and many wouldn't have been kncokded down or hurt once. You obviously think it was a good era. I think it was one of the weakest times in heavyweight boxing. I think there much greater talent in most eras before and after this period.

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I find it very disappointing that John L, Raylaw and dempseyfire won't actually say who Louis has a better or worse chin than, but have no doubt that he had one of the best chins.

I said no such thing.

It seemed to me that you were supporting the arguement that Louis had a better than average chin for a heavyweight champion. I mentioned the heavyweight champions that I thought had a better, worse and about the same chin as Louis. You were critical of the list but weren't specific. I took this to mean that you disagreed with several of the fighters I listed as having better chins than Louis.

Please clarify your position.

Ambling Alp wrote:Ok, to fairly judge Louis' chin against other heavyweight champions, lets do them all:

Sullivan- Better chin than Louis
Corbett-Even
Fitz-Louis had better chin
Jeffries-Better chin than Louis
Hart-Even
Burns-Even
Johnson-Better chin than Louis
Willard-Even
Dempsey-Even
Tunney-Better chin than Louis
Schmeling-Even (Though Louis wasn't as bad when hurt.)
Sharkey-Even
Carnera-Louis had better chin
Baer-Better chin than Louis
Braddock-Better chin than Louis
Charles-Even
Walcott-Even
Marciano-Better chin than Louis
Patterson-Louis had better chin
Johansson-Louis had better chin
Liston-Better chin than Louis
Ali-Better chin than Louis
Frazier-Better chin than Louis
Foreman-Better chin than Louis
Leon Spinks -Louis had better chin
Norton-Even
Holmes-Better chin than Louis
Michael Spinks-Louis had better chin
Tyson-Better chin than Louis
Douglas-Even
Holyfield-Better chin than Louis
Bowe-Better chin than Louis
Lewis-Better chin than Louis
Moorer-Louis had better chin

That 17 champions with better chin, 7 worse, 10 about even.
Even if you give Louis the benefit of the doubt over all of the
"evens", it's 17-17. I'm sure you can bendover backwards and give him the edge over a couple more guys, but certainly there are several champions who had better chins.

Compare Louis to the average "Joe" who steps in the ring, than Louis has a great chin.
However, to say that Louis had an average chin for a heavyweight champion is pretty accurrate.

I had a quick go and had it 17-10 to Joe with 7 even.

Louis took a hell of a beating from Schmeling before he KO'd. The next time he was knocked out was by Marciano one of the best punchers the game's ever known.

I take the point that Louis got dropped often but he was almost always up and ready to go. A great finisher might have been able to have done the job but none of them did.

Ambling Alp wrote:The point about Conn is this: He was not a hard puncher at all. He scored a grand total of 15 knockouts in 77 fights. Since he wasn't a hard a puncher at lower weight classes, and didn't even bulk up against Louis, it stands to reason that he wasn't a hard puncher against Louis. And Louis was legitimately hurt by Conn.

It's not the size of Louis opponents that I have been talking about. It's their ability or (generally speaking) their lack of it.

Sharkey, Choynski and especially Fitzsimmons had tremendous power, and knocked out leading heavyweights. All were much harder punchers than Billy Conn. (Not to mention Jeffries other fights.
None could knockdown or hurt Jeffries. Conn was able to hurt Louis. This is a strong indication that Jeffries had a better chin than Louis.

I guess we have a different definition of "hurt". I don't think Holmes was hurt against Spinks or Williams, and not seriously against Witherspoon. Yes he was hurt (once) by Earnie Shavers, probably the hardest puncher ever. Holmes won both fights against Shavers.

I want to addres an earlier comment you made: "Holmes: Similar looking to Louis chin-wise, except was facing tomato cans in his early 20s while Louis was fighting the likes of Schmeling and Baer. Put the 1972 Holmes in with a Schmeling level fighter and he's not surviving either."

Very decieving. Holmes was still an amatuer in 1972. Louis already had 23 fights when he fought Schmeling the first time. Give Holmes the same amount of experience, and he would have surivived.

Liston was very inexperienced when he fought Marshall. Louis wasn't when he fought Braddock. Braddock wasn't a hard puncher at all. He had 26 knockouts in 86 fights. He had 1 Ko in his previous 8 fights. He hadn't had a fight in two years when he fought Louis.
It's more embarrassing for a experienced fighter (in this case Louis) than an inexperienced fighter (in this case Liston) to be dropped a mediocre puncher.

Yes Louis got up from that kncokdown and went on to win the fight. Obviously if he had a glass jaw he wouldn't have. However, he was certainly hurt, though not for long. Same thing with Galneto and Buddy Baer. They weren't "flash knockdowns" or "balance knockdowns." He wasn't in la la land, but they were legitimate.

No Holyfield wasn't the biggest puncher ever, but certainly could punch. (He certainly hit a lot harder than Braddock or Conn) In his prime, he threw a lot of punches and was a very accurrate puncher. Bowe took a lot of good shots in those fights. He had to have had a pretty good chin to stand up to that. No I don't think Jorge Gonzalez was very good. Of course had he fought in the 1940's we would be hearing how tough he was.

We have not been saying Louis had a bad chin. We have been saying over and over that he didn't an above average chin for a heavyweight champion. Guess what, there are several heavyweight champions who didn't get knocked down much, hurt much, or knocked out much.
Several other heavyweight champions could have fought Louis' opponents and not been knocked out by schmeling or hurt by Conn, or knocked down as much. Of course the average heavyweight would have stopped several times. That isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about several other heavyweight champions.

This isn't even mentioning guys like Dempsey,Charles,Sharkey who you could make a case for having a better chin than Louis.

There are other things to consider than the sheer number of fights that you have. Braddock and Tunney certainly proved in the fights that they had at heavyweight that they could take a great shot.

Much of this has to do with how good we think Louis competition was, which we have discussed previously on other threads. . You think it was great, I certainly don't; particularly his opponents between the 2nd Schmeling fight and the Walcott fights. I those most heavyweight champions would have rolled over these guys; and many wouldn't have been kncokded down or hurt once. You obviously think it was a good era. I think it was one of the weakest times in heavyweight boxing. I think there much greater talent in most eras before and after this period.

Your 'baseball stat' analysis of boxing is completly off the mark.

KO percentage says something but also very little. Braddock fought a helluva lot more durable men than the likes of Riddick Bowe and Vitali Klitschko. Braddock WAS a hard puncher. And Conn,while no knockout guy, could bang when he dug his feet in (which he didn't do often). His KO percentage also gets better when you look at his career at light HW onwards, as much of his career was fought at lightweight up to middleweight before he fully developed, and it would've been better if he was facing guys that Bob Foster feasted on instead of Melip Bettina, Fred Aposteli, and Gus Lesnevich. To be one of only two men to stop Bob Pastor means you have some kick in your punches. Louis was hurt by Conn by combinations very late in a fight while he was already tired. That happens in boxing. To write off a career of standing up to many big punchers by one instance is so stupid, it's not even funny. Yes, he was knocked down, but they were FLASH knockdowns.

Louis was in 'la la land' after the KDs by Braddock, Baer and Galento? Based on what? You and IFF simply make things up.

Bowe was actually knocked down and put in 'la la land' by Holyfield, FYI.

Yes, you and IFF do write off HWs from the 30s and 40s, even though compared to the 80s and 90s you had a much deeper pool of talent, with fighters fighting more and gaining more experience, more gyms, more trainers, and a much tougher road to get to the top. That's your perogative but it biases and distorts your entire argument.

I know that Ko % doesn't mean everything. Obviously if you don't fight tough competition, you can pad your KO %. (Though you use it yourself when arguing for Galento.) However if you can't knockout lightheavyweights, you aren't going to be able to knockout or even hurt heavyweights with great chins.

You automatically assume that fighters from the 1930's and 1940's are more durable so that colors your arguements. Some guys were, some were not. There is very little basis for saying that Conn fought more durable fighters than Foster for example. Can you seriosuly imagine Conn knocking out Tiger or knocking cold.


I specifially said that Louis wasn't knocked into lala land in the Galento,Baer, and Braddock fights. But they sure as heck weren't "flash knockdowns". He was hurt (though not for long) and dropped.
Yes, Bowe did get badly hurt in the 3rd Holyfield fight. He also managed to hang on and win. He took a lot of great shots in the first two fights against Holyfield. Getting dropped once in 3 toe to toe fights against a prime Holyfield is and indication of a good chin, not a bad one.

I can't speak for I Feel Fine, but I don't write off heavyweights form the 1930's. And I don't think the 1980's was great era for heavyweights. I would say they are about even; both clearly better than the 1940's.

The 1990's was much, much better than the 1940's. Look at what your Top 10 would be if you combined the two eras.
Louis would be the champion (most of the time) then you would have:
Holyfield,Lewis,Tyson, and Bowe as the Top 4 contenders. Not including Charles and Walcott at the end of the decade, no heavyweight besides Louis even remotely approaches them.

Moorer, Mercer, Ruddock, old Foreman were also clearly better. (Of couse you can pick one or two of their fights and rip them, and then conviently block out the bad performances of the 1940's heavyweights).

Yes you can play the game of ripping these guys for their weakness, ignoring their strengths, and then glossing over the numerous weaknesses of the 1940's heavyweights and say how "durable" they were.

However, if you look at the strengths and weaknesses of the heavyweights from both eras, it's not even close.

And I'm just favoring more modern fighters over fighters from long ago. I really don't care when a fighter was active. There are great,good, mediocre, bad fighters in every era. However, in some eras, the heavyweights were great but other weight classes weren't. Some decades the heavweights weren't great but the other weight classes were great.

For heavyweights, the 1910-1919 decade was much better than the 1940's. The 1900-1909 decade, the 1920's, and 1930's were also better.

Ambling Alp wrote:I know that Ko % doesn't mean everything. Obviously if you don't fight tough competition, you can pad your KO %. (Though you use it yourself when arguing for Galento.) However if you can't knockout lightheavyweights, you aren't going to be able to knockout or even hurt heavyweights with great chins.

You automatically assume that fighters from the 1930's and 1940's are more durable so that colors your arguements. Some guys were, some were not. There is very little basis for saying that Conn fought more durable fighters than Foster for example. Can you seriosuly imagine Conn knocking out Tiger or knocking cold.


I specifially said that Louis wasn't knocked into lala land in the Galento,Baer, and Braddock fights. But they sure as heck weren't "flash knockdowns". He was hurt (though not for long) and dropped.
Yes, Bowe did get badly hurt in the 3rd Holyfield fight. He also managed to hang on and win. He took a lot of great shots in the first two fights against Holyfield. Getting dropped once in 3 toe to toe fights against a prime Holyfield is and indication of a good chin, not a bad one.

I can't speak for I Feel Fine, but I don't write off heavyweights form the 1930's. And I don't think the 1980's was great era for heavyweights. I would say they are about even; both clearly better than the 1940's.

The 1990's was much, much better than the 1940's. Look at what your Top 10 would be if you combined the two eras.
Louis would be the champion (most of the time) then you would have:
Holyfield,Lewis,Tyson, and Bowe as the Top 4 contenders. Not including Charles and Walcott at the end of the decade, no heavyweight besides Louis even remotely approaches them.

Moorer, Mercer, Ruddock, old Foreman were also clearly better. (Of couse you can pick one or two of their fights and rip them, and then conviently block out the bad performances of the 1940's heavyweights).

Yes you can play the game of ripping these guys for their weakness, ignoring their strengths, and then glossing over the numerous weaknesses of the 1940's heavyweights and say how "durable" they were.

However, if you look at the strengths and weaknesses of the heavyweights from both eras, it's not even close.

And I'm just favoring more modern fighters over fighters from long ago. I really don't care when a fighter was active. There are great,good, mediocre, bad fighters in every era. However, in some eras, the heavyweights were great but other weight classes weren't. Some decades the heavweights weren't great but the other weight classes were great.

For heavyweights, the 1910-1919 decade was much better than the 1940's. The 1900-1909 decade, the 1920's, and 1930's were also better.

Ha, well that's pretty funny. 'Mercer, old Foreman, Ruddock' were 'clearly better' than the top fighters of the 40s? I'd comfortably favor, COMFORTABLY favor, the likes of Bob Pastor, Tommy Farr, Lou Nova, Turkey Thompson, Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray etc. over that group, as well as having very good chances of beating the post-prison Tyson and Bowe.

The durability equation goes to simple mathematics. Fighting more fights, vs a bigger group of people, naturally the top guys will be more durable than someone who sugarcoats their way to a fancy record and then gets into a title elimination bout. Back then, you didn't have guys with the time or money promoting 'maybe' prospects by feeding them tomato cans and putting them to 30-0. No-one cared about undefeated records. This also led to better fighters, as you don't improve your skills feasting on nobodies for 20-30 fights. This doesn't mean 'everyone' was more durable or 'everyone' was better, but comparing eras, the 1930-40s clearly come out on top.

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.

Ambling Alp wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I find it very disappointing that John L, Raylaw and dempseyfire won't actually say who Louis has a better or worse chin than, but have no doubt that he had one of the best chins.

I said no such thing.

It seemed to me that you were supporting the arguement that Louis had a better than average chin for a heavyweight champion. I mentioned the heavyweight champions that I thought had a better, worse and about the same chin as Louis. You were critical of the list but weren't specific. I took this to mean that you disagreed with several of the fighters I listed as having better chins than Louis.

Please clarify your position.

He had an excellent chin. I don’t think he had “one of the best chins”. I was quite clear in my earlier comment.

And I think you’re still completely ignoring styles

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.