BoxRec

15 rounds, heavyweight

Holyfield was clearly superior with speed and reflexes, while he also was tougher. Louis would be outboxed and possibly stopped.

The great Joe Louis was a marvel. He weathers whatever Holyfield can muster to rally back with an explosive 13th Rd ko. All those short heavy punches doing damage kind of like Chavez x Taylor.While it appeared Holyfield was busy,he was but he was also taking those Joe Louis blows that were breaking him down.

Holyfield would out-box and out-punch Louis through the early rounds, but Louis would rally to jab away at Holyfield from long range and landing big combinations before Louis takes a decision or stop Holyfield in the 14th round.

Holyfield by TKO in 8

scorpio83 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2022, 12:04 Holyfield would out-box and out-punch Louis through the early rounds, but Louis would rally to jab away at Holyfield from long range and landing big combinations before Louis takes a decision or stop Holyfield in the 14th round.

About how I see it. Both were very accurate punchers. However, Louis was better defensively, and of course had more power. Would probably have been a very good fight. Holyfield would have a chance, but more often than not Louis would win this.

Louis by UD. Real spirited fight.

joe louis showed great heart in coming back from being hurt seconds into his fight with tony galento, and from later being dropped in that fight. holy was of course always a warrior too

great fun fight

Much as I love Joe Louis, I think in a one-off shootout Holyfield just has too much for him. In a series Louis wins, because he only got better and better in returns. He could look like crap the first go around and then look like an absolute destroyer in the rematch. Holyfield never did quite have that quality of getting better in return matches--- one can make a strong argument that his opponents got worse rather than Evander getting better.

Holyfield looked better in the 2nd Bowe fight than the first.
Looked better in the 2nd Moorer fight than the first.
Looked better in the 2nd Lewis fight than the first.

Why when joe is Matched he is picked over people he clearly never would land on holy or people holy fought why give joe a chance when he has none people are odd

Holyfield wasn't hard to hit and Louis was very accurate. Louis would have little trouble landing.

See how these crazy idiots act holy and people he fought moved way better then the joe era
Joe struggled to hit moving targets so how does joe land he was stiff and slow he never would land

Its easy to see holy would be way to advanced for him joe has no chance here

985802 wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 06:55 See how these crazy idiots act holy and people he fought moved way better then the joe era
Joe struggled to hit moving targets so how does joe land he was stiff and slow he never would land

Its easy to see holy would be way to advanced for him joe has no chance here

I get what you mean about the difference in footwork, but the top fighters of the Joe Louis era
were incredibly elusive (with the ability to ride, slip, parry, etc., in ways we often don't see anymore) --
likely even harder to hit cleanly than top fighters today.

I still think Holyfield vs. Louis is very competitive, but his loss to James Toney, a throwback/legacy of the Ezzard Charles
school -- plus Louis' greatness, argues for a Louis victory.

Cutman Scabbers wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 16:38

985802 wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 06:55 See how these crazy idiots act holy and people he fought moved way better then the joe era
Joe struggled to hit moving targets so how does joe land he was stiff and slow he never would land

Its easy to see holy would be way to advanced for him joe has no chance here

I get what you mean about the difference in footwork, but the top fighters of the Joe Louis era
were incredibly elusive (with the ability to ride, slip, parry, etc., in ways we often don't see anymore) --
likely even harder to hit cleanly than top fighters today.

I still think Holyfield vs. Louis is very competitive, but his loss to James Toney, a throwback/legacy of the Ezzard Charles
school -- plus Louis' greatness, argues for a Louis victory.

it doesn't matter what anybody thinks it matters what's on video

not just footwork im talking on every advance holy has in upperbody movement joe wouldnt be able to land holy wouldnt just stand there like the people Joe was used to

have you not seen holy why are you making this a tough match when it wouldn't be holy is just to great at movement for him

its nobody joe fought who was moving that he hit often so your comparisons makes no sense

like do you people watch matches joe fought in 30s holy was in 80s-90s they had way better movement and skill a mid carder would destroy that era it's easy to see this

holy was great at picking shots and landing combos while using great angles and good footwork

how does joe land on a man like that when joe was stiff slow and only could hit a person alot when they stood still mostly see how it doesnt make sense your making him something he wasnt on video which means your delusional or maybe never seen holy

985802 wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 17:47

Cutman Scabbers wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 16:38

985802 wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 06:55 See how these crazy idiots act holy and people he fought moved way better then the joe era
Joe struggled to hit moving targets so how does joe land he was stiff and slow he never would land

Its easy to see holy would be way to advanced for him joe has no chance here

I get what you mean about the difference in footwork, but the top fighters of the Joe Louis era
were incredibly elusive (with the ability to ride, slip, parry, etc., in ways we often don't see anymore) --
likely even harder to hit cleanly than top fighters today.

I still think Holyfield vs. Louis is very competitive, but his loss to James Toney, a throwback/legacy of the Ezzard Charles
school -- plus Louis' greatness, argues for a Louis victory.

it doesn't matter what anybody thinks it matters what's on video

not just footwork im talking on every advance holy has in upperbody movement joe wouldnt be able to land holy wouldnt just stand there like the people Joe was used to

have you not seen holy why are you making this a tough match when it wouldn't be holy is just to great at movement for him

its nobody joe fought who was moving that he hit often so your comparisons makes no sense

like do you people watch matches joe fought in 30s holy was in 80s-90s they had way better movement and skill a mid carder would destroy that era it's easy to see this

holy was great at picking shots and landing combos while using great angles and good footwork

how does joe land on a man like that when joe was stiff slow and only could hit a person alot when they stood still mostly see how it doesnt make sense your making him something he wasnt on video which means your delusional or maybe never seen holy

I find this post all very amusing.

There are lots of folk out there who rate Joe Louis the greatest heavy ever and yet you seem a little aggrieved of the idea he should share the same space as the very beatable (at HW) Holyfield, its all a bit odd.

Surely you’re not taking it verbatim its Louis of this particular date vs Holyfield of that particular date? And surely you’ve not overlooked the demographics of the time they both lived in.

Runners of the 90’s perform better times than those of the 40’s, golfers of the 90’s outperform those of the 40’s, as would snooker players as would cyclists as would skiers as would any insert random sport. But if they all lived in the same era, with the same access to training facilities, the same nutritional offerings, sport phycologists, medicinal advancements etc etc. MMA is in its infancy in relation to boxing, yet Royce Gracie is already starting to be considered bettered by all of the modern crop. It makes no sense, the modern crop have 20 or so years of advancements on the guy that started the ball rolling, they are just the beneficiary of how good he was.

Based on talent I’d give the nod to Louis by split decision over the uber game Holyfield.

clivelawrence wrote: ↑06 Apr 2022, 06:39

985802 wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 17:47

Cutman Scabbers wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 16:38

I get what you mean about the difference in footwork, but the top fighters of the Joe Louis era
were incredibly elusive (with the ability to ride, slip, parry, etc., in ways we often don't see anymore) --
likely even harder to hit cleanly than top fighters today.

I still think Holyfield vs. Louis is very competitive, but his loss to James Toney, a throwback/legacy of the Ezzard Charles
school -- plus Louis' greatness, argues for a Louis victory.

it doesn't matter what anybody thinks it matters what's on video

not just footwork im talking on every advance holy has in upperbody movement joe wouldnt be able to land holy wouldnt just stand there like the people Joe was used to

have you not seen holy why are you making this a tough match when it wouldn't be holy is just to great at movement for him

its nobody joe fought who was moving that he hit often so your comparisons makes no sense

like do you people watch matches joe fought in 30s holy was in 80s-90s they had way better movement and skill a mid carder would destroy that era it's easy to see this

holy was great at picking shots and landing combos while using great angles and good footwork

how does joe land on a man like that when joe was stiff slow and only could hit a person alot when they stood still mostly see how it doesnt make sense your making him something he wasnt on video which means your delusional or maybe never seen holy

I find this post all very amusing.

There are lots of folk out there who rate Joe Louis the greatest heavy ever and yet you seem a little aggrieved of the idea he should share the same space as the very beatable (at HW) Holyfield, its all a bit odd.

Surely you’re not taking it verbatim its Louis of this particular date vs Holyfield of that particular date? And surely you’ve not overlooked the demographics of the time they both lived in.

Runners of the 90’s perform better times than those of the 40’s, golfers of the 90’s outperform those of the 40’s, as would snooker players as would cyclists as would skiers as would any insert random sport. But if they all lived in the same era, with the same access to training facilities, the same nutritional offerings, sport phycologists, medicinal advancements etc etc. MMA is in its infancy in relation to boxing, yet Royce Gracie is already starting to be considered bettered by all of the modern crop. It makes no sense, the modern crop have 20 or so years of advancements on the guy that started the ball rolling, they are just the beneficiary of how good he was.

Based on talent I’d give the nod to Louis by split decision over the uber game Holyfield.

clivelawrence wrote: ↑06 Apr 2022, 06:39

985802 wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 17:47

Cutman Scabbers wrote: ↑05 Apr 2022, 16:38

I get what you mean about the difference in footwork, but the top fighters of the Joe Louis era
were incredibly elusive (with the ability to ride, slip, parry, etc., in ways we often don't see anymore) --
likely even harder to hit cleanly than top fighters today.

I still think Holyfield vs. Louis is very competitive, but his loss to James Toney, a throwback/legacy of the Ezzard Charles
school -- plus Louis' greatness, argues for a Louis victory.

it doesn't matter what anybody thinks it matters what's on video

not just footwork im talking on every advance holy has in upperbody movement joe wouldnt be able to land holy wouldnt just stand there like the people Joe was used to

have you not seen holy why are you making this a tough match when it wouldn't be holy is just to great at movement for him

its nobody joe fought who was moving that he hit often so your comparisons makes no sense

like do you people watch matches joe fought in 30s holy was in 80s-90s they had way better movement and skill a mid carder would destroy that era it's easy to see this

holy was great at picking shots and landing combos while using great angles and good footwork

how does joe land on a man like that when joe was stiff slow and only could hit a person alot when they stood still mostly see how it doesnt make sense your making him something he wasnt on video which means your delusional or maybe never seen holy

I find this post all very amusing.

There are lots of folk out there who rate Joe Louis the greatest heavy ever and yet you seem a little aggrieved of the idea he should share the same space as the very beatable (at HW) Holyfield, its all a bit odd.

Surely you’re not taking it verbatim its Louis of this particular date vs Holyfield of that particular date? And surely you’ve not overlooked the demographics of the time they both lived in.

Runners of the 90’s perform better times than those of the 40’s, golfers of the 90’s outperform those of the 40’s, as would snooker players as would cyclists as would skiers as would any insert random sport. But if they all lived in the same era, with the same access to training facilities, the same nutritional offerings, sport phycologists, medicinal advancements etc etc. MMA is in its infancy in relation to boxing, yet Royce Gracie is already starting to be considered bettered by all of the modern crop. It makes no sense, the modern crop have 20 or so years of advancements on the guy that started the ball rolling, they are just the beneficiary of how good he was.

Based on talent I’d give the nod to Louis by split decision over the uber game Holyfield.

Yea like I said you can give joe a chance from thoughts made up of how he was but on video we have proof of how he really fought and that one had no chance like I said so your words mean nothing your delusional

Voting for a man who never would land real odd

I find it odd to that joe had never fought anybody as advanced with movement who joe beat and the movers he did fight like Billy he struggled and only landed mostly when bill stood still that should be enough to tell you deluted people he wouldnt last with holy its so obvious

And those people who say Joe is the best are crazy the man is way outdated to mutiple people from 70s-90s so that shows thats a lie and joe fought trash

Like would you use your eyes he struggled with bill and holy moves way better then him anybody with a brain and good vision and see holy would be to much for joe

Now you did say if joe had access which means you know he was outdated like I said im not giving him any advances in tech and movement im taking him like he was and like holy was and its a easy win for holy like I said

Why do you people do that say if they had access thats saying right there you know the man was outdated so why not just say the advanced person wins

And where did you get holy was beatable when he never was beat by anybody as stiff and outdated as joe

A fat , old George Foreman landed quite a bit against a prime Holyfield. It stands to reason that a prime Joe Louis would be able to land on Holyfield.
Holyfield was a great fighter but nobody ever accused of him of being hard to hit.
Louis seldom had trouble landing against his opponents. Not sure where this is coming from.

As for athletes being better; well you also have to take into consideration equipment. In golf, the clubs in the 1990s to now are much better than they were in the 1940s. You could argue that scores should be lower now than they are.

In track, they didn't have the shoes they do now. They didn't even have starting blocks. Jessie Owens would be the best today with those advantages.
We always have to remember that things didn't magically get better right when we became fans.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Apr 2022, 11:09 A fat , old George Foreman landed quite a bit against a prime Holyfield. It stands to reason that a prime Joe Louis would be able to land on Holyfield.
Holyfield was a great fighter but nobody ever accused of him of being hard to hit.
Louis seldom had trouble landing against his opponents. Not sure where this is coming from.

As for athletes being better; well you also have to take into consideration equipment. In golf, the clubs in the 1990s to now are much better than they were in the 1940s. You could argue that scores should be lower now than they are.

In track, they didn't have the shoes they do now. They didn't even have starting blocks. Jessie Owens would be the best today with those advantages.
We always have to remember that things didn't magically get better right when we became fans.

Well you left something out george didn't fight the same as when he was young he was more advanced so it stands to reason for joe to do the same he would need to advance to next time try watching before your comparing

A young george would had got koed by that holy way to open no defense wasting punches

Joe loses the way he fought he wouldnt land cause he woundnt never get close and holy never would just stand there he would counter dodge combo repeat

Joe struggled to hit moving targets this is a obvious mismatch so stop trolling anybody can see with good eyes joe loses

And you already implied joe loses when you said golf was way better in 90s then 40s so I know you can see that how they fought in Joe's time was way less advanced stiff and slow

Which one is it you think you seen joe had the advances in tech and movement like the eras holy fought in or he doesn't and is outdated the same way you said golf was back then compared to 90s

scorpio83 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2022, 12:04 Holyfield would out-box and out-punch Louis through the early rounds, but Louis would rally to jab away at Holyfield from long range and landing big combinations before Louis takes a decision or stop Holyfield in the 14th round.

The man said how holy was so great which he was he was the best all around fighter in hw history your crazy joe has no chance you need to watch holy more and people he fought and joe less idiot

People who voted for joe are crazy the man was way to outdated in movement he would never land its obvious he loses and fast

Joe Louis was probably the most destructive inside fighter in Heavyweight history, those hooks of his were meat-grinders...

Holyfield may have the spirit and the skill to pose him problems and the sports-science dietitians... But that only goes so far and I predict a late KO for The Brown Bomber!!!!

Crease wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022, 11:06 Joe Louis was probably the most destructive inside fighter in Heavyweight history, those hooks of his were meat-grinders...

Holyfield may have the spirit and the skill to pose him problems and the sports-science dietitians... But that only goes so far and I predict a late KO for The Brown Bomber!!!!

Yea and joe was only that good with people who stood there how would he ko a man who doesn't and who is way more advanced in tech and skill then anybody joe fought the answer is holy doesn't show those same traits so joe is way mismatched here

And joe isn't top 10 best inside fighter where did you get he would be that good from when the people he fought was trash on a skill and movement level that doesn't mean joe would do that good as if he was in 70s-90s cause he wouldn't cause of being outdated so you need to stop watching that time only and watch the years I named

Its been vids we had for years showing how trash and way less skilled his time was yet you people act like it wasn't stop it its crazy stop making the era better then vid shows just stop

Stop repeating other crazy idiots who are stuck and just be real or just don't comment if your going to say this idiotic stuff

985802 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022, 12:22And joe isn't top 10 best inside fighter where did you get he would be that good from when the people he fought was trash on a skill and movement level that doesn't mean joe would do that good as if he was in 70s-90s cause he wouldn't cause of being outdated so you need to stop watching that time only and watch the years I named

Joe Louis was one of the best finishers of all time, he never let his opponent of the hook. You really need to watch more of him, the guy was so destructive on the inside, accurate power punching, deceptively quick footwork, brilliant combinations...

Your argument regarding the evolution of the sport would indicate that today's fighters must be better than those of the 70s, because the logic of your train of thought tells us that if the 70s fighters are infinitely better than the 40s, then today's boys must be better than the 70s...

Crease wrote: ↑20 Apr 2022, 02:37

985802 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022, 12:22And joe isn't top 10 best inside fighter where did you get he would be that good from when the people he fought was trash on a skill and movement level that doesn't mean joe would do that good as if he was in 70s-90s cause he wouldn't cause of being outdated so you need to stop watching that time only and watch the years I named

Joe Louis was one of the best finishers of all time, he never let his opponent of the hook. You really need to watch more of him, the guy was so destructive on the inside, accurate power punching, deceptively quick footwork, brilliant combinations...
Your argument regarding the evolution of the sport would indicate that today's fighters must be better than those of the 70s, because the logic of your train of thought tells us that if the 70s fighters are infinitely better than the 40s, then today's boys must be better than the 70s...

I seen him that quote doesn't work with me when I said how the people he fought was trash and I never said today I specifically said 70s-90s which anybody with good eyes can see they were way more advanced then Joe's era and why did you just not add anybody to compare to its cause you know what I said is right

I told you joe was like that with people who stood there so why are you saying what he did when it wasn't agiasnt people that had good movement while moving or who were tech skilled stop making that man better then vid shows your crazy

I told you to watch how they moved in the years I named I dont have to go back and watch more of Joe's era when its outdated compared like why would you even tell me that cause that makes no sense like you people really are stupid

Like its no debate here its facts by vid that bowe would destroy him its obvious he was way to big combined with being skilled and hit way to hard which joe never fought that combo or anything close to it so stop the stupid and blind act

Like if you don't have any sense or facts to tell its better to not comment why dont I check out joe a outdated era with bad tech and stiff slow fighters that's so idiotic to say really like you really are a idiot

And it is fighters from this time that move better then joes era to like Anthony andy and fury they all move way better and aren't stiff or slow and way more tech so your a idiot like I said