BoxRec

What would had happen if Joe Louis had fought in the 60's or 70's? Against Liston, Williams, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle, Holmes. Even the ring magazine gave Tunney and Dempsey a 7 in quality of opposition because they failed to fight the best black fighter of their time. Harry Wills.

Wasn't Joe working in Vegas for one of the Casinos at the time? I think he would have been a bit old to continue his tour that late in the game.
And why does color make a difference again? I keep forgetting.

yeah are u saying white fighters cant fight????


tell that to jack dempsey, gene tunney, rocky marcino, etc.


as for joe louis' "white" challengers. he faced some good ones


buddy baer 6'7 250lbs - rated 66th greatest puncher in RINGS top 100 punchers. so that goes to show you he could hit. he was pretty coordinated and mobile for such a big man and defintely could bang with his right hand. i could see him being a contender in any era.

tony galento 5'9 233lbs- this man may have looked like a fat drunk, but this man was as tough and mean as they come. he could aslo hit very hard, especiialy with the left hook. he was very strong and would just come after you trying to knock your head off. he was no bum. he was also in the RINGS TOP 100 GREATEST PUNCHERS.

tommy farr- one of the better british heavyweights. he was a good boxer and was tough, with a solid chin, and was tough defensively. he gave joe louis a great and close fight over 15 rounds. he held victories over some top contenders and he also was the british champion for years.

arturo godoy- from chille i believe. he was a good fighter. i think charley goldman trained him?? he was a crowder and got really low and he gave louis a tough fight in there first fight.

abe simon 6'4 245lbs - he was a big heavyweight, and also coordinated for his size. he packed some power, but had a long reach and decent boxing skills. he was defintely no chicken dinner.

i could go on and on but u get the point



and to answer ur question, i think joe loius would win in any other era.

Hey somebody is out there taking on different names and throwing controversial bones like this out to the crowd.

You gotta get up pretty early in the afternoon to sneak this stuff past Old BoxBuzz......I recognize fonts very well and this font smells like some other bad fish that have been recently swimming in these waters.

Time to flush the pipes with chlorine.

james j braddock, john sullivan, max baer, jerry quarry, max schmelling, jack dempsey, jack sharkey, corbett, jeffries, none of these fighters are worth mentioning as good fighters? their white.

i agree.. Rubio MHS.. you are a waste of life scumbag.

In Louis's time the majority of top HWs were white . . .there were more white HWs then black HWs, unlike 40 years later.

Only Godfrey and possibly Ray (who Walcott beat to get his shot at Joe) deserved a shot at Joe and b/c of fixed fights, racism etc. didn't get it.

It's funny . . .watching Sam Peter against Klitschko, I thought of Galento, who was basically a white version of Peter. Wild, very good chin, unbelievable power but lacking in skills. Both were also overweight, and I think Galento even being the less asthetically-pleasing fighter had the better stamina. Peter is probably physically stronger.

Okay the only real point for deabte here is that Dempsey is criticised for not fighting black fighters, and rightfully so, as were many of the old time white fighters. As champion Joe didn't fight any black fighters either until right up until the end of his reign. The accusation against Dempsey is fair enough (though he did fight black fighters on his way up and did sign to meet Wills it was more of a promotional management decision). can the same accusation be made against Joe?

I don't think Joe is overrated at all. He's one of the greatest ever HWs. He beats most all-time greats and loses to a few but it's all based on personal opinion, styles and how they match up and not becasue Joe wasn't good enough.

Of Louis 25 title challengers, 20 of them were ranked in the top 10 by Ring Magazine. Before Louis won the title from Braddock, he'd already beaten 10 opponents who were in top 10 rated by The Ring.

By the time he retired, 33 of Louis' total 71 opponents during his career were top 10 rated, his record being 30-3 against them, 2 of those losses coming within his last 10 fights (the comeback).

What's all this nonsense of Louis fighting weak opponents? Show me another heavyweight outside of Muhammad Ali that can match Louis in terms of opposition.

-KOKid-

-KOKid- wrote:Of Louis 25 title challengers, 20 of them were ranked in the top 10 by Ring Magazine. Before Louis won the title from Braddock, he'd already beaten 10 opponents who were in top 10 rated by The Ring.

By the time he retired, 33 of Louis' total 71 opponents during his career were top 10 rated, his record being 30-3 against them, 2 of those losses coming within his last 10 fights (the comeback).

What's all this nonsense of Louis fighting weak opponents? Show me another heavyweight outside of Muhammad Ali that can match Louis in terms of opposition.

-KOKid-

You are absolutely correct. I think people believe that Louis's opponents were weak because of the term "bum of the month". There were a few bums in the list, but most were very good fighters and were simply made to look like bums by Louis.

-KOKid- wrote:Of Louis 25 title challengers, 20 of them were ranked in the top 10 by Ring Magazine. Before Louis won the title from Braddock, he'd already beaten 10 opponents who were in top 10 rated by The Ring.

By the time he retired, 33 of Louis' total 71 opponents during his career were top 10 rated, his record being 30-3 against them, 2 of those losses coming within his last 10 fights (the comeback).

What's all this nonsense of Louis fighting weak opponents? Show me another heavyweight outside of Muhammad Ali that can match Louis in terms of opposition.

-KOKid-

Larry Holmes!...

I'm a big fan of Joe Louis but I must say that I do think he is a bit overrated. Some people do seem blind to the flaws that Louis had as a fighter and to suggest that some of the other heavyweight champions might have been able to beat him seems to be a bit of a taboo subject for some. Having said that though, to call Louis a fraud is just plain stupid... he was undeniably a great champion but I personally don't consider him 'the greatest'.

silkov wrote:... he was undeniably a great champion but I personally don't consider him 'the greatest'.

There was only one "Greatest". And he had flaws also.

Ezzard wrote:Okay the only real point for deabte here is that Dempsey is criticised for not fighting black fighters, and rightfully so, as were many of the old time white fighters. As champion Joe didn't fight any black fighters either until right up until the end of his reign. The accusation against Dempsey is fair enough (though he did fight black fighters on his way up and did sign to meet Wills it was more of a promotional management decision). can the same accusation be made against Joe?

I don't think Joe is overrated at all. He's one of the greatest ever HWs. He beats most all-time greats and loses to a few but it's all based on personal opinion, styles and how they match up and not becasue Joe wasn't good enough.

He fought John Henry Lewis in the middle of his title reign . .

Well Louis didn't fight Jimmy Bivins when Bivins was at his peak... and its interesting that Jimmy had the style and spped which Louis usually struggled with.

I asked a simular question about 18 months ago.

Here is the link if anyone wants to read it.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17279

Joe Louis certainly wasn't overrated. He wasn't perfect, but no one else was either. I have him only behind Ali, and it would be ridiculaus not to consider him in the top 10.
As for ducking black fighters, well there were a few that were probably as worthy as some of the whites he fought. However, none would have given him much of a challenge either. Certainly none really stood out.

Jimmy Bivins never beat a heavyweight remotely close to Louis' level. Louis did beat bivins later when he was 37 and Bivins was only 31. This was his last victory of his career, only 2 months before his last fight with Marciano.

No way Louis would have lost to Elmer Ray, Tiger Jack Fox or any other fighter of that period either.

Ambling Alp wrote:Joe Louis certainly wasn't overrated. He wasn't perfect, but no one else was either. I have him only behind Ali, and it would be ridiculaus not to consider him in the top 10.
As for ducking black fighters, well there were a few that were probably as worthy as some of the whites he fought. However, none would have given him much of a challenge either. Certainly none really stood out.

Jimmy Bivins never beat a heavyweight remotely close to Louis' level. Louis did beat bivins later when he was 37 and Bivins was only 31. This was his last victory of his career, only 2 months before his last fight with Marciano.

No way Louis would have lost to Elmer Ray, Tiger Jack Fox or any other fighter of that period either.

I think Bivins (who koed Walcott in his prime) would have been a good test for Louis in his prime... Bivins was well past his best when he finally fought Joe. Elmar RAy and Tiger Fox would both have been good matches for Louis also.

silkov wrote:I think Bivins (who koed Walcott in his prime) would have been a good test for Louis in his prime... Bivins was well past his best when he finally fought Joe. Elmar RAy and Tiger Fox would both have been good matches for Louis also.

Good matches maybe, but they all would have lost to the bomber.

silkov wrote

I think Bivins (who koed Walcott in his prime)

no he didnt. they fought ONCE and walcott won . in fact walcott knocked down and decisioned a prime bivins in 1946. ur confusing walcott with someone else.



silkov, joe louis would have fought jimmy bivins but LOUIS WENT TO WAR and was inactive for 4 YEARS. those were bivins best years and joe would have certianly fought him during that 4 year period.



i mean louis had a legite exuse for not fighting bivins at his peak. louis was at war. i mean he had a better exuse then holmes not fighting page, dokes, thomas, or coatzee.
fact is, it shouldnt be counted against them. loius would have taken apart bivins, and holmes would have torn up thomas, coatezee, page.

Yeah, but Bivins was rated number 1 contender in '42 and Louis fought twice in '42 against Abe Simon and Buddy Baer both of whom he had already fought and beaten and both were rated below Bivins at the time.
I'm not really having a dig at Joe but I do think that his management saw Jimmy as a risky fight whom there wasn't much to be gained by fighting.

Brockton, I'm not sure you can criticize Holmes for not fighting certain guys because it seems like the 1980s were very disorganized as far as heavyweights go with no clear distinction between the elites and other fighters. How do you determine who you should fight when nearly all the heavyweights are very inconsistant and lose all the time?

i was not critizizing holmes. i wa simply defending louis and making a point. fact is, silkov makes a good point. perhaps louis should have fought bivins in 42. BUT, louis was inactive for 4 years. i have no doubt during those 4 years, louis most likely would have fought bivins. cause those 4 years leave a gap hole in critizing louis opponents. i could simply say he would have fought them during those 4 years. I ALSO BELIEVE LOUIS KNOCKED OUT ELMER RAY IN AN EXHIBIITON MATCH.

not to mention even a 37 yeare old shot past his prime louis was able to outbox a 31 year old bivins easily.

Here are some of Joe Louis' notable wins during his reign:

UD 15 Tommy Farr
KO 3 Nathan Mann
KO 1 Max Schmeling
KO 1 John Henry Lewis
TKO 4 Tony Galento
KO 11 Bob Pastor
SD 15 Arturo Godoy
TKO 8 Arturo Godoy
TKO 6 Al McCoy
TKO 13 Abe Simon
DQ 7 Buddy Baer
KO 13 Billy Conn
TKO 6 Lou Nova
TKO 6 Abe Simon
KO 8 Billy Conn
KO 1 Tami Mauriello
SD 15 Jersey Joe Walcott
KO 11 Jersey Joe Walcott

Now I'm sorry for anyone who thinks this is a list of bums because you are obviously delusional.

I will say that Ezzard Charles probably deserved a title shot as early as 1946 when he defeated Archie Moore for the first time.

It's also one of the greatest outrages in boxing history than Jimmy Bivins was never given a heavyweight title shot.

Elmer Ray should have received a title shot as well.

Except for Charles, Bivins, and Ray, there isn't a black fighter I can think of who really deserved a shot against Louis during his reign.

Can we stop once in for all with the bum of the month talk. Louis fought for the most part very deserving opposition with only a few exceptions.

I don't think any of the guys Louis fought were bums. It was just the ease Louis was able to defeat any fighter before him. All were suitable contenders, Louis was just too damn good.