BoxRec

1935-38 is the period when Louis came fully focused into the ring and when live didn't distract him too much from boxing. He also had his best wins in this period: Schmeling, Baer, Uzcudun, Carnera, Sharkey. In the early 1940s, Louis fought and lived too much and trained too little, and post WWII Louis was a shadow of his former self (beware of the 1950s Louis).

Views

totally disagree. 1938-42 louis was by far the prime louis. by 1942 louis was a MAN, he was stronger more experienced as well as at 27 years old retaining all his physical gifts. he was also bigger at 207lb.

louis preformance in buddy baer II in 1942 was his 2nd best preformance ever


1935-36 louis was young inexperienced and green and still light under 200lb



louis beat baer, carnera, uzcuden when he was still inexperienced and green.

1946-48 louis was still a great fighter despite being past his prime. ill take the 1946-48 louis over the likes of evander holyfield and others.

46-48 louis = early-mid 1970s muhammad ali

This is an interesting question. I would agree that for the most part Louis was slightly better better from 1935-1938 than in the early 1940's.
Some his best performances, (Carnera,Baer, 2nd Schmeling fight) were in these years.
However, he did have the first Schmeling fight in 1936.
He didn't have a good fight against Conn in 1941, but in the end he did pull out the victory. Likewise he wasd knocked down by Galento in 1940 and Buddy Baer in 1941, but he did came back to win.

After Louis came back from the war he wasn't the same fighter. He was slower and didn't have the timing that he used to have. He wasn't nearly the same fighter after being off for 4 years. Look at the fights he had from 1946-1948. Though he did knockout Mauriello easily, he wasn't impressive in the rematch Conn, did knockout Mauriello easily, looked mediocre against Walcott in the first fight (when he got a dubious decison), and didn't look that good against Walcott in the rematch until he knocked out Walcott.
For the most part, Louis from 1946-1948 wasn't remotely close to Ali, atleast until after Ali's 3rd fight with Frazier 1975.

Ambling Alp wrote:This is an interesting question. I would agree that for the most part Louis was slightly better better from 1935-1938 than in the early 1940's.
Some his best performances, (Carnera,Baer, 2nd Schmeling fight) were in these years.
However, he did have the first Schmeling fight in 1936.
He didn't have a good fight against Conn in 1941, but in the end he did pull out the victory. Likewise he wasd knocked down by Galento in 1940 and Buddy Baer in 1941, but he did came back to win.

After Louis came back from the war he wasn't the same fighter. He was slower and didn't have the timing that he used to have. He wasn't nearly the same fighter after being off for 4 years. Look at the fights he had from 1946-1948. Though he did knockout Mauriello easily, he wasn't impressive in the rematch Conn, did knockout Mauriello easily, looked mediocre against Walcott in the first fight (when he got a dubious decison), and didn't look that good against Walcott in the rematch until he knocked out Walcott.
For the most part, Louis from 1946-1948 wasn't remotely close to Ali, atleast until after Ali's 3rd fight with Frazier 1975.

I tend to agree with you here. While the early 40s Louis certainly had lost nothing of the ability of the late 30s Louis and was possibly even stronger, he wasn't as focused and often didn't use his ability to the full potential. He also fought too often and, as a consequence, lost sharpness. The Galento-Godoy-Conn Louis wasn't as sharp as the Schmeling-Baer-Carnera Louis.

I would also agree that the post WWII Louis was one quality level below the pre WWII Louis - still a formidable fighter, but slowed down considerably. The parallels with Ali that Brockton refers to are striking. In this context, I remember that within the 1970s Brockton ranked Ali only as the #4 heavyweight, behind Holmes, Foreman, Frazier (while he has him #1 in the 1960s). I would agree that this is where the post WWII-Louis also belongs.

I think too much is made of Louis' age against Walcott... Walcott would always have given Louis a hard fight because of his speed and movement... look at Louis fights with Farr and Conn....

silkov wrote:I think too much is made of Louis' age against Walcott... Walcott would always have given Louis a hard fight because of his speed and movement... look at Louis fights with Farr and Conn....

Louis was rusty after WWII. I don't think the 1938 Louis would have had much trouble with Walcott. Prime Louis had better speed and movement than Walcott.

louis prime was unquestionably 1938-42 IMO


35-36 louis was green, young and inexerpeinced




pundit,

u overate baer and carnera.





buddy baer was a better giant than carnera, louis destroyed him in 1 round in 1942 in prob his peak preformance outside of schmeling II

pundit wrote:

silkov wrote:I think too much is made of Louis' age against Walcott... Walcott would always have given Louis a hard fight because of his speed and movement... look at Louis fights with Farr and Conn....

Louis was rusty after WWII. I don't think the 1938 Louis would have had much trouble with Walcott. Prime Louis had better speed and movement than Walcott.

Louis had good balance but he never had great footspeed which is why boxers with speed and movement troubled him... Louis was a stalker rather than someone who used movement.... I think the Walcott of 47 would still trouble a peak pre ww2 Louis....

silkov wrote:

pundit wrote:

silkov wrote:I think too much is made of Louis' age against Walcott... Walcott would always have given Louis a hard fight because of his speed and movement... look at Louis fights with Farr and Conn....

Louis was rusty after WWII. I don't think the 1938 Louis would have had much trouble with Walcott. Prime Louis had better speed and movement than Walcott.

Louis had good balance but he never had great footspeed which is why boxers with speed and movement troubled him... Louis was a stalker rather than someone who used movement.... I think the Walcott of 47 would still trouble a peak pre ww2 Louis....

Okay, let’s talk about that one. Everybody keeps saying that Louis had trouble with boxers who used speed and movement, but pre-WWII besides Conn, what fast boxers troubled Louis? He had trouble with Farr and Godoy, but I wouldn’t call either a fast boxer. Of course, Godoy definitely used a great deal of movement, but I don’t think his bobbing and weaving is what people are referring to when they say Louis had trouble with movers.

Pastor pretty much ran from Louis and lost every round so I wouldn’t say Louis was particularly troubled in that fight. He was trashed by Schmeling, but that was a bit before his prime, and Schemling didn’t exactly use speed and movement. So exactly what fighter -- pre WWII -- besides Conn gave Louis problems by using speed and movement? And is there any fighter who didn't have trouble with talented fighters who used speed and movement?

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:

pundit wrote: Louis was rusty after WWII. I don't think the 1938 Louis would have had much trouble with Walcott. Prime Louis had better speed and movement than Walcott.

Louis had good balance but he never had great footspeed which is why boxers with speed and movement troubled him... Louis was a stalker rather than someone who used movement.... I think the Walcott of 47 would still trouble a peak pre ww2 Louis....

Okay, let’s talk about that one. Everybody keeps saying that Louis had trouble with boxers who used speed and movement, but pre-WWII besides Conn, what fast boxers troubled Louis? He had trouble with Farr and Godoy, but I wouldn’t call either a fast boxer. Of course, Godoy definitely used a great deal of movement, but I don’t think his bobbing and weaving is what people are referring to when they say Louis had trouble with movers.

Pastor pretty much ran from Louis and lost every round so I wouldn’t say Louis was particularly troubled in that fight. He was trashed by Schmeling, but that was a bit before his prime, and Schemling didn’t exactly use speed and movement. So exactly what fighter -- pre WWII -- besides Conn gave Louis problems by using speed and movement? And is there any fighter who didn't have trouble with talented fighters who used speed and movement?

Well they were pretty much the only fast boxer types that Louis fought and who could stand up to his punch. John Henry Lewis was a good boxer but was half blind by the time he fought Joe. People always seem to take affence when stuff like this is said about Louis, but I'm not saying that anyone with a jab would beat Louis I'm saying that the way to beat a prime Louis would be to use movement and boxing skills... anyone who knows Louis career knows that he had a weakness to fast clever thinking boxers, its hardly a secret... the Likes of Ali, Holmes and Johnson had these skills... they also had the toughnesss and strength to take Louis power... and yes most other fighters would have been troubled by the same qualities which I think would have beaten Louis which is why Ali, Holmes and Johnson make up my top 3 all time heavyweight list...

silkov wrote:Well they were pretty much the only fast boxer types that Louis fought and who could stand up to his punch. John Henry Lewis was a good boxer but was half blind by the time he fought Joe. People always seem to take affence when stuff like this is said about Louis, but I'm not saying that anyone with a jab would beat Louis I'm saying that the way to beat a prime Louis would be to use movement and boxing skills... anyone who knows Louis career knows that he had a weakness to fast clever thinking boxers, its hardly a secret... the Likes of Ali, Holmes and Johnson had these skills... they also had the toughnesss and strength to take Louis power... and yes most other fighters would have been troubled by the same qualities which I think would have beaten Louis which is why Ali, Holmes and Johnson make up my top 3 all time heavyweight list...

So you see my point then? I’m not taking offense at your statement, just wondering where it came from. But this statement -- “anyone who knows Louis career knows that he had a weakness to fast clever thinking boxers, its hardly a secret” just doesn’t seem to be based on any real fact. Yes, Ali and Holmes would have troubled him. And they would have troubled every other HW in history, including EACH OTHER!. But besides Conn, I just haven’t seen any real justification for Louis being singled out. In fact, I think the evidence in his career points to more of a weakness with punchers and swarmers, since he was dropped a few times and the trouble had with Farr and Godoy.

I also rank slick boxers higher as well. That’s why I catch so much grief on this forum when I don’t put Liston or Foreman in my all time top 10. They were great fighters, and both are in my top 20, but IMO they both don’t fare too well when matching them up with really slick boxers. Of course, as we both noted, not many fighters do matchup well with fast, slick boxers.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Well they were pretty much the only fast boxer types that Louis fought and who could stand up to his punch. John Henry Lewis was a good boxer but was half blind by the time he fought Joe. People always seem to take affence when stuff like this is said about Louis, but I'm not saying that anyone with a jab would beat Louis I'm saying that the way to beat a prime Louis would be to use movement and boxing skills... anyone who knows Louis career knows that he had a weakness to fast clever thinking boxers, its hardly a secret... the Likes of Ali, Holmes and Johnson had these skills... they also had the toughnesss and strength to take Louis power... and yes most other fighters would have been troubled by the same qualities which I think would have beaten Louis which is why Ali, Holmes and Johnson make up my top 3 all time heavyweight list...

So you see my point then? I’m not taking offense at your statement, just wondering where it came from. But this statement -- “anyone who knows Louis career knows that he had a weakness to fast clever thinking boxers, its hardly a secret” just doesn’t seem to be based on any real fact. Yes, Ali and Holmes would have troubled him. And they would have troubled every other HW in history, including EACH OTHER!. But besides Conn, I just haven’t seen any real justification for Louis being singled out. In fact, I think the evidence in his career points to more of a weakness with punchers and swarmers, since he was dropped a few times and the trouble had with Farr and Godoy.

I also rank slick boxers higher as well. That’s why I catch so much grief on this forum when I don’t put Liston or Foreman in my all time top 10. They were great fighters, and both are in my top 20, but IMO they both don’t fare too well when matching them up with really slick boxers. Of course, as we both noted, not many fighters do matchup well with fast, slick boxers.

I think what troubled Louis about Farr was his speed... though he wasnt a jab and mover as such he was pretty fast and awkward to hit. Both Liston and Foreman had comparative footspeed to Louis... they were stalkers in the ring and so with that style are always going to be more vulnerble to fighters that are moving around and not letting them plant their feet. Fighters with the power of Liston and Foreman may well have troubled Louis I could see Foreman and Liston having a shot at stopping Louis... though Louis was the better all round boxer....

Just dropping this in for what it’s worth. I have a book from the early 50s were Peter Wilson, who said Louis was the best heavyweight he ever saw, discussed Louis’ trouble with faster heavyweights.

“His weaknesses as far as I have been able to discover them, are only three. He can be made to look bad, but not bad enough to be beaten, by a man who is very fast on his feet and forces Louis to chase him the whole time.

He is vulnerable to attach on his cheekbones. I have seen him staggered by punches which landed too high to rattle a fighter with really tough face. The corollary to this, and his third weakness, is that when he has been floored he does not take advantage of a long count but bounces to his feet while there is still rubber in his leg and whirling in his brain.”

silkov wrote:Both Liston and Foreman had comparative footspeed to Louis...

I'll have to disagree with that. From my perspective Louis had much better footspeed than either Liston or Foreman. While none were exactly fleet of foot, I think Louis was not just a little quicker on his feet, but had much more educated footwork. In my opinion.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Both Liston and Foreman had comparative footspeed to Louis...

I'll have to disagree with that. From my perspective Louis had much better footspeed than either Liston or Foreman. While none were exactly fleet of foot, I think Louis was not just a little quicker on his feet, but had much more educated footwork. In my opinion.

I sign off on this one.

pundit u rate joe louis the greatest hw of all time and u dont even know when his prime is.


1935-36??? i didnt know a 21 year old green fighter with only 2 years of pro experience is suddenly in his prime


the 23-27 year old joe louis was the prime joe louis. THIS JOE LOUIS WAS ACTUALLY A FULL GROWN MAN. he had much better ring smarts, much more experience and he was better physically.


the peak joe louis was 1938-42. this is unquestionable amongst even the biggest joe louis fans. even monte cox would agree with me, hes a joe louis nuthugger.

pundit wrote:1935-38 is the period when Louis came fully focused into the ring and when live didn't distract him too much from boxing. He also had his best wins in this period: Schmeling, Baer, Uzcudun, Carnera, Sharkey. In the early 1940s, Louis fought and lived too much and trained too little, and post WWII Louis was a shadow of his former self (beware of the 1950s Louis).

Views

I looked at Boxrec Annual Ratings and the Top 10 Annual Bouts:

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/B ... eavyweight

- Louis defeated his hightest rated opponent Billly Conn in 1941.

-- 1934 1523.5
-- 1935 1704.7
-- 1936 1580.1
-- 1937 1608.8
-- 1938 1706.4
-- 1939 1774.9
-- 1940 1536.3
-- 1941 1873.7
-- 1942 1582.0
-- 1946 1740.4
-- 1947 1698.4
-- 1948 1622.3
-- 1950 1859.3
-- 1951 1794.1


1934-12-14 1667.7 1523.5 W KO Joe Louis vs. Lee Ramage

1935-06-25 1976.6 1704.7 W TKO Joe Louis vs. Primo Carnera
1935-08-07 2035.4 1662.4 W TKO Joe Louis vs. King Levinsky
1935-03-29 1858.6 1617.3 W UD Joe Louis vs. Natie Brown
1935-09-24 2051.5 1608.7 W KO Joe Louis vs. Max Baer
1935-01-04 1737.6 1596.1 W PTS Joe Louis vs. Patsy Perroni
1935-04-12 1907.5 1531.4 W KO Joe Louis vs. Roy Lazer

1936-06-19 2027.6 1580.1 L KO Joe Louis vs. Max Schmeling
1936-01-17 2062.7 1504.5 W KO Joe Louis vs. Charley Retzlaff

1937-08-30 1953.9 1608.8 W UD Joe Louis vs. Tommy Farr
1937-01-29 1872.6 1599.0 W UD Joe Louis vs. Bob Pastor
1937-06-22 1879.1 1509.7 W KO Joe Louis vs. Jim Braddock

1938-02-23 1880.6 1706.4 W KO Joe Louis vs. Nathan Mann
1938-06-22 1912.4 1675.6 W KO Joe Louis vs. Max Schmeling

1939-09-20 2003.9 1774.9 W KO Joe Louis vs. Bob Pastor
1939-06-28 1969.2 1744.0 W TKO Joe Louis vs. Tony Galento
1939-01-25 1921.6 1714.6 W KO Joe Louis vs. John Henry Lewis
1939-04-17 1962.4 1546.7 W KO Joe Louis vs. Jack Roper

1940-03-29 1937.5 1536.3 W TKO Joe Louis vs. Johnny Paychek

1941-06-18 1873.7 1932.0 L KO Billy Conn vs. Joe Louis
1941-09-29 1968.8 1688.8 W TKO Joe Louis vs. Lou Nova
1941-01-31 1901.0 1575.4 W KO Joe Louis vs. Red Burman

1942-01-09 1977.4 1582.0 W KO Joe Louis vs. Buddy Baer

1946-09-18 1755.5 1740.4 W KO Joe Louis vs. Tami Mauriello
1946-06-19 1557.9 1715.3 L KO Billy Conn vs. Joe Louis

1947-12-05 1767.9 1698.4 W SD Joe Louis vs. Jersey Joe Walcott

1948-06-25 1774.7 1622.3 W KO Joe Louis vs. Jersey Joe Walcott

1950-09-27 1711.7 1859.3 L UD Joe Louis vs. Ezzard Charles
1950-11-29 1623.7 1557.1 W UD Joe Louis vs. Cesar Silverio Brion

1951-10-26 1878.5 1794.1 L KO Joe Louis vs. Rocky Marciano