BoxRec

Who achieved more between these two champions, each beloved in their homelands?

Joe Louis, World's Heavyweight champion for a record twelve years, with an unequalled twenty-five title defenses, & a record of 61-3-0.

Julio Cesar Chavez, multi-divisional champion, encompassing tenures at JLW, LW, & JWW. A gqecord of 106-5-2.

Forget who you think the better fighter was. Who achieved more?

Wow, I'd love an explanation if that zero changes next to JCC.

Louis, just too much weight in a lot of those wins, it's closer than a lot of people would like to believe though, Chavez is getting badly underrated by a lot of people nowadays despite his outright dominance over a lot of very good fighters that he single-handedly prevented from becoming great, which incidentally Louis did a bit as well. People get too caught up in name brands. Mountain Dew is a name brand but Izze shits all over it.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:People get too caught up in name brands.

I totally agree, and Chavez is one of the bigger name brands in Boxing history. There is no doubt that he beat a ton of very good fighters, as many as anybody. But for whatever reason, he could never beat a great one. He has quite a lofty standing for falling short there.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:People get too caught up in name brands.

I totally agree, and Chavez is one of the bigger name brands in Boxing history. There is no doubt that he beat a ton of very good fighters, as many as anybody. But for whatever reason, he could never beat a great one. He has quite a lofty standing for falling short there.

You could make the same argument about a number of fighters. Marvin Hagler beat mostly that caliber of opposition save Tommy Hearns, but because he beat a media darling he gets 1000x the credit as he did beating a Mugabi. The fact that people primarily know of Hopkins, Pacquiao, and Mayweather simply because they beat De La Hoya is fornicating pathetic. Oscar is not nearly the best win on any of their ledgers.

But Hagler did beat Thomas Hearns and Mayweather did beat castillo, Pac has MAB, Erik & JMM. I'm not trying to run him down, contrary to popular belief. Julio was definitely an all time great. But you see him in all time top 20's and 30's and he just doesn't belong there. Joe Louis does.

Edit: That's not to say Julio isn't comparable to the guys you mentioned. I rate him below all of them, but an argument can be made. I have Louis clearly above everyone you mentioned. Even Tommy.

Whoever the man in street says........................in Culiacan

Joe Louis was the most accomplished of the two. JCC was a tremendous great fighter, no doubt, but after the Meldrick Taylor fight, he did not beat a fighter of great caliber. Like if he did not want to risk his winning streak. Louis fought at the highest level from start to finish.

joe louis had a very nice punching style but his opposition was horrible. jc takes the nod

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Wow, I'd love an explanation if that zero changes next to JCC.

The voting has turned out pretty competitive.

Joe Louis.

Dominating the division for over a decade, that is greater than winning a few titles here and there (no disrespect to Chavez).

tennessee wrote:joe louis had a very nice punching style but his opposition was horrible. jc takes the nod

I wouldn't say "horrible". Back when Joe was fighting, there were some pretty good fighters floating around back then. The likes of: Schmeling, Max Baer, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano and Jersey Joe Walcott.

And below them there were other fine fighters who would show tdoays boys a trick or to, such as Joey Maxim and Jimmy Bivins.

elmersalsa wrote:Joe Louis was the most accomplished of the two. JCC was a tremendous great fighter, no doubt

I would like to interject here. Some people are merging things together here.
Rating a fighter on his ability and rating him on his accomplishments are two very different things.
This thread is looking at accomplishments so lets stick with that.

Crease wrote:Joe Louis.

Dominating the division for over a decade

And touching upon my above quote. I would really like to see the Klitchsko brothers attempt the "Beat a Bum" campaign that Joe Louis originated.

The reason I say this is because watching their fights it sometimes look just routine for them and usually the win by a significant margin.

And so, to truly test them (and earn loads more cash than what they would fighting once/twice/thrice a year)...
Next year, why doesn't one of the brother fight every month. For example;
January: Wlad defends his titles
February: Vitlil defends his title
March: Wlad defends his titles
April: Vitali defends his title

And try and see if they can keep that going for a full year, now there's a proper challenge for them, and plus, they get a month off in between, Joe Louis never had that.

Even the few guys who could be classed as 'bums' in terms of Louis's title defenses were guys with true knockout power and decent skillset (Roper, Paycheck) They were definitely better than some guys who've gotten title shots in recent years. But Baer, Schmeling, Walcott, Nove, Farr, Pastor, Godoy, Sharkey, Mann, Braddock, Ettore, Conn . . .that's a helluva resume.

dempseyfire wrote:Even the few guys who could be classed as 'bums' in terms of Louis's title defenses were guys with true knockout power and decent skillset (Roper, Paycheck) They were definitely better than guys. But Baer, Schmeling, Walcott, Nove, Farr, Pastor, Godoy, Sharkey, Mann, Braddock, Ettore, Conn . . .that's a helluva resume.

It is indeed mate. Very few records could stand up to Joe Louis boxing career.

And todays Heavyweights records are a shadow compared to the likes of Louis, Ali, Frazier, Marciano etc...

tennessee wrote:joe louis had a very nice punching style but his opposition was horrible. jc takes the nod

It was certainly no worse than Chavez's opposition. In fact, I'd probably give the edge to Louis.

Think I'll have to go with Chavez here. For his longevity, quality of opposition and domination. Before thinking about it too much I'd have said Joe without much question but after a bit of consideration.............

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Wow, I'd love an explanation if that zero changes next to JCC.

The voting has turned out pretty competitive.

I can't say I'm surprised. People are entitled to be wrong.

dempseyfire wrote:Even the few guys who could be classed as 'bums' in terms of Louis's title defenses were guys with true knockout power and decent skillset (Roper, Paycheck) They were definitely better than guys. But Baer, Schmeling, Walcott, Nove, Farr, Pastor, Godoy, Sharkey, Mann, Braddock, Ettore, Conn . . .that's a helluva resume.

Agreed. Bum of the Month was more an indication of how Louis made most opponents look than a fair assessment of the abilities of his opponents.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I can't say I'm surprised. People are entitled to be wrong.

This is like asking which is wetter......water or dust?

All respect to both fighters here.

Joe Louis for sure

A little tricky because they are in vastly different weight classes, but I would have to go with Louis.

However, Chavez is in the ballpark. The weight classes that he fought in were pretty deep at the time that he fought. He beat a lot of good fighters.
Camacho, Taylor, Rosario, Lopez, Haugen, Alli, Mayweather, Rosario, Ramirez,Randall, La Porte, Lockridge, Castillo. Probably leaving someone good out. That is probably a better victim's list than 90% of the fighters in the Hall of Fame.