BoxRec

on most lists its either ali and louis at 1 or 2.

i would like to know anyone who doesnt rate joe louis in the top 2, who do u have over him and why dont u think hes a top 2 heavyweight?

silkov, i noticed u rated louis at 4th and larry holmes at 3rd so why do u think larry holmes should be rated above him??

i rate joe louis at # 1

..if anyone doesn't rate joe louis one or two, it tells you more about the person doing the rating than it does about joe louis.

I rate Louis #1. So I can't say I don't rate him top 2... I wonder who doesn't... and why they wouldn't rate him top 2... Maybe there's some people that might rate Jack Johnson and Ali above him making him 3.. at least that's arguable. I have top 3 heavyweights... 1. Joe Louis. 2. Jack Johnson. 3. Muhammad Ali.

Have to admit that currently I'd rate Joe 3rd behind Ali and Johnson. Hope this doesn't make me an outcast on the board.

He achieved more than Johnson but I think he'd lose to him.

I don't think Joe would KO either of these two becasue both were so difficult to hit. I see both of them decisioning Joe.

I think these top 3 are a cut above th other heavyweights and I place the three of them in a league of their own.

Well, like I said at least that's arguable. There's nothing wrong with your opinions. I don't agree with them but I respect them. At least you're not saying Ruiz and Tua are above Joe Louis.

I rank him 4th marginally behind Ali, Johnson and Dempsey.

I think it comes to personal preference of styles. The beauty of a young Ali, the defensive skills of Johnson and the raw savagery of Dempsey are all traits I greatly admire.

Seasoned Veteran wrote:I rank him 4th marginally behind Ali, Johnson and Dempsey.

I think it comes to personal preference of styles. The beauty of a young Ali, the defensive skills of Johnson and the raw savagery of Dempsey are all traits I greatly admire.

That's a bit questionable but still understandable. I'd say at least have Louis in top 5.. and if you don't.. then well, somethings wrong with you. Just joking. But yeah, maybe the person who made the thread didn't think of people's "preference of styles" which is very true. I wouldn't be suprised if someone had him less than top 5. But if you don't have him in your top 10.. then someone doesn't know much about boxing...

Currently, i've louis in number 3.
Behind Ali and Rocky Marciano

Jaclem wrote:..if anyone doesn't rate joe louis one or two, it tells you more about the person doing the rating than it does about joe louis.

Why the hostility mate?.... what happened to freedome of choice?. Perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do........
I'll rate Louis where I like and think he should be.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:on most lists its either ali and louis at 1 or 2.

i would like to know anyone who doesnt rate joe louis in the top 2, who do u have over him and why dont u think hes a top 2 heavyweight?

silkov, i noticed u rated louis at 4th and larry holmes at 3rd so why do u think larry holmes should be rated above him??

i rate joe louis at # 1

I rate Joe behind Ali, Johnson and Holmes becuase I think all three had the skills and mobilty and also the guile to outbox Louis. Everyone knows that Louis always had trouble with movers and Ali, Johnson and Holmes were the cleverist and most mobile champs we have seen.
So that is why I rate Louis 4th behind them.
Even diehard Louis fans like Jaclem would have to admit that these three had the styles to beat Louis, unless he is totally blinded by 'loyalty'.
Also as champs Ali, Johnson and Holmes dominated the division in a manner rivalled only by Louis and both Holmes and Ali fought considerably better opposition to Louis as well.

silkov wrote:...and both Holmes and Ali fought considerably better opposition to Louis as well.

That statement should draw a fair amount of fire. While some of Joe's opponents truly were "bums of the month", some of them were actually quite dangerous opponents. And certainly Ali and Holmes had more than their fair share of questionable opponents as well.

>>>..if anyone doesn't rate joe louis one or two, it tells you more about the person doing the rating than it does about joe louis.<<<

I agree, although top three would be a good argument, although I list Louis at 2.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:...and both Holmes and Ali fought considerably better opposition to Louis as well.

That statement should draw a fair amount of fire. While some of Joe's opponents truly were "bums of the month", some of them were actually quite dangerous opponents. And certainly Ali and Holmes had more than their fair share of questionable opponents as well.

Holmes and Ali didn't fight half as many 'bums' as Louis... if you compare them closely I think you'd see that Joes competition was some way below both Ali's and Holmes.

barry wrote:>>>..if anyone doesn't rate joe louis one or two, it tells you more about the person doing the rating than it does about joe louis.<<<

I agree, although top three would be a good argument, although I list Louis at 2.

I don't see why Louis HAS to be rated in the top 2 or 3. Its foolish to say that Holmes Doesn't merit a high rating and he had the exact style to beat Louis. That and his 21 defences against very good opposition is enough for me to put him ahead of Louis. I think Holmes is very underrated and its about time people spoke up for him. To just accept Louis as automatically the 1st or 2nd best of all time is to ignore the facts imo. He was a great champion but Holmes was a great champion too as were Ali and Johnson.... and all three had the styles to beat Louis.
I'd also favour Liston and Foreman to beat Louis but rate Louis higher overall because of his career accomplishments.
Perhaps my not rating Louis at 1 or 2 automatically shows I have a mind of my own.

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:...and both Holmes and Ali fought considerably better opposition to Louis as well.

That statement should draw a fair amount of fire. While some of Joe's opponents truly were "bums of the month", some of them were actually quite dangerous opponents. And certainly Ali and Holmes had more than their fair share of questionable opponents as well.

Holmes and Ali didn't fight half as many 'bums' as Louis... if you compare them closely I think you'd see that Joes competition was some way below both Ali's and Holmes.

This could be discussed all day because it's simply opinion. But I grew up in the Ali era, and watched many of his fights including seeing him fight live and in person. I also consider him the best HW ever, but his resume doesn't really rank any better than Louis's. Let's see, Spinks, Wepner, Coopman, Evangalista, Lubbers, Dunn, Blin... certainly no bums in that list. Of course, Louis also fought some questionable ones as well, but there are a lot of "second tier" fighters on both Ali's and Holmes record.

Joe was a fanastic fighter and I have him in the upper echelon of greats. His pre-championship days were awesome. He carved up the division in a similar fashion to Dempsey and Tyson. Unlike those two he also had a fantastic championship reign. I think a lot depends upon your age and who was champ when you were young because we always remember those times fondly.

Louis also did a lot to help race relations in the sport and he deserves a lot of credit for doing that. Today we might not consider it right for Joe to have to be so polite but having read a few biographies of the man it wasn't really an act. Joe was a great human being.

I rate Joe as one of the greatest HWs ever and have no problem with anyone ranking him number 1.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote: That statement should draw a fair amount of fire. While some of Joe's opponents truly were "bums of the month", some of them were actually quite dangerous opponents. And certainly Ali and Holmes had more than their fair share of questionable opponents as well.

Holmes and Ali didn't fight half as many 'bums' as Louis... if you compare them closely I think you'd see that Joes competition was some way below both Ali's and Holmes.

This could be discussed all day because it's simply opinion. But I grew up in the Ali era, and watched many of his fights including seeing him fight live and in person. I also consider him the best HW ever, but his resume doesn't really rank any better than Louis's. Let's see, Spinks, Wepner, Coopman, Evangalista, Lubbers, Dunn, Blin... certainly no bums in that list. Of course, Louis also fought some questionable ones as well, but there are a lot of "second tier" fighters on both Ali's and Holmes record.

How about Frazier, Liston, Bonavena, Patterson, young, Mildenburguer, Chuvalo, Quarry, Foreman, Lyle, Norton, Shavers?... all these fighters and quite a few others Ali fought would have given Louis a hard time and I think the quality of Alis opposition outweighes that of Louis by some way. Ali's opponents were generally bigger but also faster and more powerful than the best that Louis faced. Many of Louis opponents were little more than blown up light-heavyweights. I think the majority of boxing fans would agree that the heavyweights of the late 60s to early 80s were the most talented that have been seen in the division by some way.
Only opinions ofcourse but to just pick out the Blins and Dunns that Ali fought as an example of his opposition is a little silly I'd say.

Im with vagabundo on this. If Joe Louis aint in your top five, get some films, do some viewing, get some books do some reading, get some folks do some talkin.

If he aint moved into your top five after that...... get some dirt and do some shovelin cuz your already dead from the neck up.

But thats just my opinion ya understand. No hostility, just information sharin.

Ezzard wrote:Joe was a fanastic fighter and I have him in the upper echelon of greats. His pre-championship days were awesome. He carved up the division in a similar fashion to Dempsey and Tyson. Unlike those two he also had a fantastic championship reign. I think a lot depends upon your age and who was champ when you were young because we always remember those times fondly.

Louis also did a lot to help race relations in the sport and he deserves a lot of credit for doing that. Today we might not consider it right for Joe to have to be so polite but having read a few biographies of the man it wasn't really an act. Joe was a great human being.

I rate Joe as one of the greatest HWs ever and have no problem with anyone ranking him number 1.

Lets not sit on the fence now!... ......Louis is going up and down like a rubber ball at the moment..... 8)

BoxBuzz wrote:Im with vagabundo on this. If Joe Louis aint in your top five, get some films, do some viewing, get some books do some reading, get some folks do some talkin.

If he aint moved into your top five after that...... get some dirt and do some shovelin cuz your already dead from the neck up.

But thats just my opinion ya understand. No hostility, just information sharin.

He's in my top 5.... I just rate him a tad below Ali, Johnson and Holmes for the reasons I've already said. There isn't much to choose between them all and its not that I don't think Louis was great. For me Ali, Johnson, Holmes and Louis are all at a higher level than the other champions.... at 5th I would probably put either Foreman or Liston.

silkov wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:on most lists its either ali and louis at 1 or 2.

i would like to know anyone who doesnt rate joe louis in the top 2, who do u have over him and why dont u think hes a top 2 heavyweight?

silkov, i noticed u rated louis at 4th and larry holmes at 3rd so why do u think larry holmes should be rated above him??

i rate joe louis at # 1

I rate Joe behind Ali, Johnson and Holmes becuase I think all three had the skills and mobilty and also the guile to outbox Louis. Everyone knows that Louis always had trouble with movers and Ali, Johnson and Holmes were the cleverist and most mobile champs we have seen.
So that is why I rate Louis 4th behind them.
Even diehard Louis fans like Jaclem would have to admit that these three had the styles to beat Louis, unless he is totally blinded by 'loyalty'.
Also as champs Ali, Johnson and Holmes dominated the division in a manner rivalled only by Louis and both Holmes and Ali fought considerably better opposition to Louis as well.

To say that Brockton is "blinded by loyalty" by you is definitely a case of the "pot calling the kettle black". Ali and Louis engaged more opponents than did Holmes, who would jab and move away. That's where his mobility lay. And I'd say the heavy weights of the 80's were pretty mediocre. If Holmes TRULY DOMINATED that division then, why did he not have ALL 3 belts on his waist?

silkov wrote:Only opinions ofcourse but to just pick out the Blins and Dunns that Ali fought as an example of his opposition is a little silly I'd say.

Your earlier comment was that Ali and Holmes didn't fight "half as many bums" as Louis fought. I was simply responding to this comment by listing the fighters that Ali fought that many people might consider "bums". My response was very appropriate and in no way "silly" given the context in which it was given. As I said, I consider Ali the best HW ever, and the era in which he performed during his "second career" may have had the best group of HW's active at any given time. And Ali fought and beat most of them. But that didn't really have any bearing on addressing your "bum" comment.

Ezzard wrote:Joe was a fanastic fighter and I have him in the upper echelon of greats. His pre-championship days were awesome. He carved up the division in a similar fashion to Dempsey and Tyson. Unlike those two he also had a fantastic championship reign. I think a lot depends upon your age and who was champ when you were young because we always remember those times fondly.

Louis also did a lot to help race relations in the sport and he deserves a lot of credit for doing that. Today we might not consider it right for Joe to have to be so polite but having read a few biographies of the man it wasn't really an act. Joe was a great human being.

I rate Joe as one of the greatest HWs ever and have no problem with anyone ranking him number 1.

He probably would never have got a title shot had he not behaved in a certain way publicly. But he also was picked up by the right people who were able to get him to the title so he didn't become another Harry Wills.

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote: Holmes and Ali didn't fight half as many 'bums' as Louis... if you compare them closely I think you'd see that Joes competition was some way below both Ali's and Holmes.

This could be discussed all day because it's simply opinion. But I grew up in the Ali era, and watched many of his fights including seeing him fight live and in person. I also consider him the best HW ever, but his resume doesn't really rank any better than Louis's. Let's see, Spinks, Wepner, Coopman, Evangalista, Lubbers, Dunn, Blin... certainly no bums in that list. Of course, Louis also fought some questionable ones as well, but there are a lot of "second tier" fighters on both Ali's and Holmes record.

How about Frazier, Liston, Bonavena, Patterson, young, Mildenburguer, Chuvalo, Quarry, Foreman, Lyle, Norton, Shavers?... all these fighters and quite a few others Ali fought would have given Louis a hard time and I think the quality of Alis opposition outweighes that of Louis by some way. Ali's opponents were generally bigger but also faster and more powerful than the best that Louis faced. Many of Louis opponents were little more than blown up light-heavyweights. I think the majority of boxing fans would agree that the heavyweights of the late 60s to early 80s were the most talented that have been seen in the division by some way.
Only opinions ofcourse but to just pick out the Blins and Dunns that Ali fought as an example of his opposition is a little silly I'd say.

.....and in this post, Silkov listed some of the tough opponents that ALi fought, but forgot to list his boy's Larry's tough opponents. I'd list: Shavers, Norton, Evangelista, Weaver, Mercer (who was tough but should have been able to beat an aging Holmes), and Snipes ( who Larry did not give a rematch to). The rest of Holmes opponents were, IMO, B-class heavy wts.

wlvrne wrote:

silkov wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:on most lists its either ali and louis at 1 or 2.

i would like to know anyone who doesnt rate joe louis in the top 2, who do u have over him and why dont u think hes a top 2 heavyweight?

silkov, i noticed u rated louis at 4th and larry holmes at 3rd so why do u think larry holmes should be rated above him??

i rate joe louis at # 1

I rate Joe behind Ali, Johnson and Holmes becuase I think all three had the skills and mobilty and also the guile to outbox Louis. Everyone knows that Louis always had trouble with movers and Ali, Johnson and Holmes were the cleverist and most mobile champs we have seen.
So that is why I rate Louis 4th behind them.
Even diehard Louis fans like Jaclem would have to admit that these three had the styles to beat Louis, unless he is totally blinded by 'loyalty'.
Also as champs Ali, Johnson and Holmes dominated the division in a manner rivalled only by Louis and both Holmes and Ali fought considerably better opposition to Louis as well.

To say that Brockton is "blinded by loyalty" by you is definitely a case of the "pot calling the kettle black". Ali and Louis engaged more opponents than did Holmes, who would jab and move away. That's where his mobility lay. And I'd say the heavy weights of the 80's were pretty mediocre. If Holmes TRULY DOMINATED that division then, why did he not have ALL 3 belts on his waist?

I was talking about Jaclem if you'd care to read what I wrote properly.
I've had this argument with you already about the heavies of the 80s being mediocre :x or not, lets just agree to disagree ok mate!...
As to Holmes not wearing all three belts... firstly there were only two belts up to about '84ish... Holmes won the WBC and a bit later Weaver won the WBA and Holmes had already beaten him and was widely regarded as the number one. Also promotional politics would not allow Holmes to fight for the other belt as both the promoters and tv people realised they could make more money with more titles. This was the reason really why these 'titles' first started springing up strongly in the 70s as King and Co began seeing dollar signs attatched to the letters WBA and WBC.
Holmes became the first IBF champion I think after he fell out with King and lost WBC recognition as champ... but he was still regarded as champion right up to being beaten to Mike Spinks.
Holmes ducked no one during his prime and fought all the best of his era so there should be no doubt that he was the genuine champion as much as Louis and Ali etc.