Balance: Napoles & Louis

First topic message reminder :

Another Wylie video here:

http://www.thefightcity.com/practical-precision-jose-napoles-joe-louis/

Understand your first para. Confused by your second.

I've not talked about Young in the context of Ali. I've compared Foreman's struggles with Young.

As for your comment about Norton being a Top 20 heavy, fine, but so is Conn (or close) according to a list recently posted on here. So why is struggling with Top20 Norton's style more excusable than struggling with Top20 Conn's style?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I have the highest regard for Louis... He's number 2 at heavy...

Fact is he beat sloppy seconds.

He struggled with a limited 170 pounder who wasn't a Jones jr.

Had a dodgy chin.

Was more or less a Cruiser..

Like Johnson a heavy of his era...

When you have to hear guff like "He takes the center of the ring against Foreman,owns him with the jab and then knocks him stiff.."

It's laughable..

Great heavy of his ERA.

Trussman..........one of the greatest gobshite's of any era.

Jimmy young as with Lyle is considered one of the best heavies never to win the title......

Louis was prime when he fought the super-middle.........Not sure Georgey was ......But it's debatable..

Young beat Lyle, Foreman and lost a split to Norton....

You should know all this If you are arguing..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Jimmy young as with Lyle is considered one of the best heavies never to win the title......

Louis was prime when he fought the super-middle.........Not sure Georgey was ......But it's debatable..

Young beat Lyle, Foreman and lost a split to Norton....

You should know all this If you are arguing..

How was George not prime? He'd just slapped ATG Fraizer around the ring 9 months earlier??

Why is past always better in boxing?

Every other sport moves on but too many people read opinions of old farts who are too biased to give any credit to modern athletes.

Suppose it happens in all sports to a degree but it is serious in boxing.

Mayweather would need to stay undefeated for another 20 years and maybe win titles up to heavyweight for some on here to rate him top 50.

Until Messi & Ronaldo arrived, it was unquestioned that Maradona & Pele were the two greatest footballers ever.

How is boxing any different to that?

Sorry gents I moved it to another thread

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:My problem is that he got a Boxing lesson off a guy who just circled the ring and punched straight all night........and also the fact he got hurt and badly staggered by a 170 pounder.....

As for the Foreman stuff well........Foreman is a top 5 heavy..Norton is a top 20 heavy....and Ali was an old man when Young nearly beat him....Young also beat some quality heavies...

That argument is turd..

I watched the fight again last night just to make sure. There's absolutely no way on God's earth that Louis was given a boxing lesson - or was schooled.

Louis - possibly as a result of draining himself to get under 200 lbs (officially at least) - was sloppy and sluggish but Conn performed something akin to a high wire act. It was a close fight for 8 rounds. Conn - who really let fly in there - had a great spell in rounds 9 to 12 but was tiring. Louis stepped it up (under orders from the corner) in the 13th and broke Conn down (who most certainly didn't get careless while gunning for a kayo).

This is the type of guff that rankles.

Rowley wrote:Think the issue with this whole debate is it is predicated on a false position, that being that Louis is wildly undervalued, rated or appreciated on here. Obviously a bit presumptuous to assume I speak for the board when I say this but suspect he is pretty much universally accepted as the second best heavyweight ever and in most people’s list of the top 20 greatest fighters of all time, irrespective of weight. Cant help but feel there is many a fighter who would delight in being similarly undervalued.

I think the issue is that Louis is a nailed on top ten all timer. Top 20 isn't good enough Rowley - especially when a certain board pin up is lauded above him after a career of picking and choosing short-enders while turning down his biggest rival.

Louis is not nailed on, that's your problem, everything is black and white.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Louis is not nailed on, that's your problem, everything is black and white.

As someone stated earlier - any authority on the sport has him nailed on. These boards are an anomaly.

Louis is the greatest champion who ever lived.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Understand your first para. Confused by your second.

I've not talked about Young in the context of Ali.  I've compared Foreman's struggles with Young.  

As for your comment about Norton being a Top 20 heavy, fine, but so is Conn (or close) according to a list recently posted on here.  So why is struggling with Top20 Norton's style more excusable than struggling with Top20 Conn's style?

What list would that be then Toppy, i've never seen Conn come anywhere near the top 20 nor should he.

Conn top 20.....

Gimme strength..

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Louis is not nailed on, that's your problem, everything is black and white.

As someone stated earlier - any authority on the sport has him nailed on. These boards are an anomaly.

Louis is the greatest champion who ever lived.

I did some scouring of other forums last night and on none of them is their a consensus that he's top ten and is a vocal minority on every single forum that doesn't rate him as a god.

He doesn't appear in Tracy Callis' top ten and Nat Fleischer had him as low as 6 in his Heavyweight rankings but I presume they're not authorities on the sport, it's naive to think anybody has a god given right to be top ten.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Conn top 20.....

Gimme strength..

It's a brain you need Scarecrow.

hazharrison wrote:

I think the issue is that Louis is a nailed on top ten all timer..

I feel the same about Bob Fitzsimmons. Boxing News had him at 67.

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

I think the issue is that Louis is a nailed on top ten all timer..

I feel the same about Bob Fitzsimmons. Boxing News had him at 67.

Forget Bob where did BN have Louis????

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

I think the issue is that Louis is a nailed on top ten all timer..

I feel the same about Bob Fitzsimmons. Boxing News had him at 67.

Fitz is in my top 10..............Louis top 15.....

No Hagler in the top 20 though......and Johnson isn't at 7...

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I have the highest regard for Louis... He's number 2 at heavy...

Fact is he beat sloppy seconds.

He struggled with a limited 170 pounder who wasn't a Jones jr.

Had a dodgy chin.

Was more or less a Cruiser..

Like Johnson a heavy of his era...

When you have to hear guff like "He takes the center of the ring against Foreman,owns him with the jab and then knocks him stiff.."

It's laughable..

Great heavy of his ERA.

Trussman..........one of the greatest gobshite's of any era.

Top 30 on the past is better thread....Please !!

I see Boxing News have Floyd at No.41 in their ATG list.

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

I think the issue is that Louis is a nailed on top ten all timer..

I feel the same about Bob Fitzsimmons. Boxing News had him at 67.

Ezzard Charles is about as nailed on a top ten as there is in my opinion, one of only three fighters alongside Greb and Armstrong who has a reasonable argument to be rated above Robinson but he often finds himself as low as 30 odd. Back in 2002 the ring magazine had him below Marciano and Monzon, the latter is my favourite foreign boxer but there is no argument for him being above Charles. This is a guy who beat Moore, Bivins and Burley with something to spare on more than one occassion, had numerous defences of the Heavyweight title despite being past his best and above his best weight.

I'd like to know who else HAS to be in the top ten.

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

I think the issue is that Louis is a nailed on top ten all timer..

I feel the same about Bob Fitzsimmons. Boxing News had him at 67.

Precisely, lets forget Jones's lesser achievement, how can the only man to be the fully fledged world champion at Middleweight, Heavyweight and Light Heavyweight having beaten five hall of famers not be nailed on? That's right because it's opinion and not fact.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

I think the issue is that Louis is a nailed on top ten all timer..

I feel the same about Bob Fitzsimmons. Boxing News had him at 67.

Precisely, lets forget Jones's lesser achievement, how can the only man to be the fully fledged world champion at Middleweight, Heavyweight and Light Heavyweight having beaten five hall of famers not be nailed on? That's right because it's opinion and not fact.

Depends on criteria. Most arguments on here are as a result of posters using differing measuring sticks. Some think Jones, Jofre, Sanchez etc. LOOK like the best fighters ever (on tape), which is fine and is just an opinion.

Measuring them on their achievements is another matter entirely. That's a more viable, less opinion-based criteria. It's a rare thing indeed for someone to possess sufficient knowledge to actually be able to measure every fighter who ever put on gloves - hence the reason such stock is placed on listings conducted by a pool of respected authorities on the sport.

And argue all you want about 606 being that (it isn't) but Louis is almost always a nailed on top ten all-time great.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

I think the issue is that Louis is a nailed on top ten all timer..

I feel the same about Bob Fitzsimmons. Boxing News had him at 67.

Ezzard Charles is about as nailed on a top ten as there is in my opinion, one of only three fighters alongside Greb and Armstrong who has a reasonable argument to be rated above Robinson but he often finds himself as low as 30 odd. Back in 2002 the ring magazine had him below Marciano and Monzon, the latter is my favourite foreign boxer but there is no argument for him being above Charles. This is a guy who beat Moore, Bivins and Burley with something to spare on more than one occassion, had numerous defences of the Heavyweight title despite being past his best and above his best weight.

I'd like to know who else HAS to be in the top ten.

Charles wasn't a fan favourite and his style was never a crowd pleaser. Probably effects his ranking with the type of commentators who like aggressive fighters.

I couldn't give a toss about as Adam put it brilliantly on another thread what a bunch of dewy eyed nostalgic old men think. There can't be many man alive on this planet if any who watched every Bob Fitzsimmons fight and the current boxers at which point they too do not possess sufficient knowledge.

Does that mean my opinion matters more than Daves on Heavy metal because i've written a lot about in national publications. I'm not self serving enough to consider myself an authority on live performances for instance, i'm not old enough to have seen Black Sabbath perform in there heyday so cannot possibly compare them to Metallica who I did see during their heyday.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I couldn't give a toss about as Adam put it brilliantly on another thread what a bunch of dewy eyed nostalgic old men think. There can't be many man alive on this planet if any who watched every Bob Fitzsimmons fight and the current boxers at which point they too do not possess sufficient knowledge.

Does that mean my opinion matters more than Daves on Heavy metal because i've written a lot about in national publications. I'm not self serving enough to consider myself an authority on live performances for instance, i'm not old enough to have seen Black Sabbath perform in there heyday so cannot possibly compare them to Metallica who I did see during their heyday.

You've written in national publications but don't know "there" from "their"?

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

I think the issue is that Louis is a nailed on top ten all timer..

I feel the same about Bob Fitzsimmons. Boxing News had him at 67.

Ezzard Charles is about as nailed on a top ten as there is in my opinion, one of only three fighters alongside Greb and Armstrong who has a reasonable argument to be rated above Robinson but he often finds himself as low as 30 odd. Back in 2002 the ring magazine had him below Marciano and Monzon, the latter is my favourite foreign boxer but there is no argument for him being above Charles. This is a guy who beat Moore, Bivins and Burley with something to spare on more than one occassion, had numerous defences of the Heavyweight title despite being past his best and above his best weight.

I'd like to know who else HAS to be in the top ten.

Charles wasn't a fan favourite and his style was never a crowd pleaser.  Probably effects his ranking with the type of commentators who like aggressive fighters.

What you actually mean is he was a brilliant black boxer who was ignored by the white champions of the time and why being a crowd pleaser should be a criteria I do not know. He like Gene Tunney also committed a cardinal sin of beating a legend.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I couldn't give a toss about as Adam put it brilliantly on another thread what a bunch of dewy eyed nostalgic old men think. There can't be many man alive on this planet if any who watched every Bob Fitzsimmons fight and the current boxers at which point they too do not possess sufficient knowledge.

Does that mean my opinion matters more than Daves on Heavy metal because i've written a lot about in national publications. I'm not self serving enough to consider myself an authority on live performances for instance, i'm not old enough to have seen Black Sabbath perform in there heyday so cannot possibly compare them to Metallica who I did see during their heyday.

You've written in national publications but don't know "there" from "their"?

It's called proof reading Haz, on a forum I don't bother but I would love to be an authority on boxing who didn't know that Ingemar Johansson alongside Lewis and Marciano beat every man he ever faced, that's the level I aspire to be at.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

I think the issue is that Louis is a nailed on top ten all timer..

I feel the same about Bob Fitzsimmons. Boxing News had him at 67.

Ezzard Charles is about as nailed on a top ten as there is in my opinion, one of only three fighters alongside Greb and Armstrong who has a reasonable argument to be rated above Robinson but he often finds himself as low as 30 odd. Back in 2002 the ring magazine had him below Marciano and Monzon, the latter is my favourite foreign boxer but there is no argument for him being above Charles. This is a guy who beat Moore, Bivins and Burley with something to spare on more than one occassion, had numerous defences of the Heavyweight title despite being past his best and above his best weight.

I'd like to know who else HAS to be in the top ten.

Charles wasn't a fan favourite and his style was never a crowd pleaser.  Probably effects his ranking with the type of commentators who like aggressive fighters.

What you actually mean is he was a brilliant black boxer who was ignored by the white champions of the time and why being a crowd pleaser should be a criteria I do not know. He like Gene Tunney also committed a cardinal sin of beating a legend.

Watch some of the Charles videos and listen to the fans booing. The first fight with Jersey Joe being an example. Charles style could look messy, check out the Bivens 4 video.

I could watch him looking superb against Marshall dropping him with a beautiful left hook to the body but no go ahead and pick two Heavyweight fights when he was no longer at his mercurial best. The unfortunate reality is that there's not a great deal of footage of him at his best so he gets unfairly labelled because of his more visible post Baroudi Heavyweight exploits. It's akin to ignoring Durans lightweight career and judging him on his career above 154lbs.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I could watch him looking superb against Marshall dropping him with a beautiful left hook to the body but no go ahead and pick two Heavyweight fights when he was no longer at his mercurial best. The unfortunate reality is that there's not a great deal of footage of him at his best so he gets unfairly labelled because of his more visible post Baroudi Heavyweight exploits. It's akin to ignoring Durans lightweight career and judging him on his career above 154lbs.

The point being discussed is the fans didn't warm to Charles style. And this was before he fought Louis.  Read up on it.

My point was his lack of excitement probably hurts his ranking with some people.  Rigondeaux is a special fighter but can be like watching paint dry.

You're talking about fans who would have been comparing him to the dynamic Joe Louis, Charles, Moore and the BMR were largely overlooked because weren't Louis. You had two differing figureheads during that era, the quiet unassuming but brilliant Louis and the brash Robinson, it's hard for anybody to gain any level of popularity when you're not them.

I would say your Charles and Rigondeaux comparison works to a degree but Ezzard was nowhere near as cautious. At the moment we have the brash Mayweather and the dynamic Pacquiao, if you're neither of those things you're not going to struggle to grow a fanbase.

Had Charles got his rightful shot at the middleweight title to start with then we can only assume that there would be a fair bit more video to judge him properly. During his earlier career he was a hugely popular fighter in Pittsburgh and Cinncinati, he didn't have many opportunities to shine in New York however.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I couldn't give a toss about as Adam put it brilliantly on another thread what a bunch of dewy eyed nostalgic old men think. There can't be many man alive on this planet if any who watched every Bob Fitzsimmons fight and the current boxers at which point they too do not possess sufficient knowledge.

Does that mean my opinion matters more than Daves on Heavy metal because i've written a lot about in national publications. I'm not self serving enough to consider myself an authority on live performances for instance, i'm not old enough to have seen Black Sabbath perform in there heyday so cannot possibly compare them to Metallica who I did see during their heyday.

You've written in national publications but don't know "there" from "their"?

It's called proof reading Haz, on a forum I don't bother but I would love to be an authority on boxing who didn't know that Ingemar Johansson alongside Lewis and Marciano beat every man he ever faced, that's the level I aspire to be at.

Yeah, you really showed him....

Yeah and you're really showing me...

Hilarious. An absolute arch spoofer armed to the teeth with hastilly googled stats believing hes the dog Love sacks of boxing.

It like the taxi man who thinks he should be prime minister or the barman who should manage the English football team.

catchweight wrote:Hilarious. An absolute arch spoofer armed to the teeth with hastilly googled stats believing hes the dog Love sacks of boxing.

It like the taxi man who thinks he should be prime minister or the barman who should manage the English football team.

Then there's you, what do you contribute aside from pessimism?

Im not too concerned with my contributions because I am not desperate to be thought of as a boxing buff with a "respected opinion". I treat this place for what it is - pub chat. I actually get the get the biggest kicks from watching the likes of you David Brent around the place trying to be taken ever so seriously in a subject he is as a far from an expert as could be.

catchweight wrote:Hilarious. An absolute arch spoofer armed to the teeth with hastilly googled stats believing hes the dog Love sacks of boxing.

It like the taxi man who thinks he should be prime minister or the barman who should manage the English football team.

Are you suggesting that there aren't any taxi drivers who would make better prime minister's and barmen who'd make better England football managers than we have?

catchweight wrote:Im not too concerned with my contributions because I am not desperate to be thought of as a boxing buff with a "respected opinion". I treat this place for what it is - pub chat. I actually get the get the biggest kicks from watching the likes of you David Brent around the place trying to be taken ever so seriously in a subject he is as a far from an expert as could be.

Ha! Brilliant.

milkyboy wrote:

catchweight wrote:Hilarious. An absolute arch spoofer armed to the teeth with hastilly googled stats believing hes the dog Love sacks of boxing.

It like the taxi man who thinks he should be prime minister or the barman who should manage the English football team.

Are you suggesting that there aren't any taxi drivers who would make better prime minister's and barmen who'd make better England football managers than we have?

All of them probably

So, 5 pages in. Anyone want to discuss the fine technique of jose napoles? A Cuban so good, the Mexicans adopted him?

No? Didn't think so.

milkyboy wrote:So, 5 pages in. Anyone want to discuss the fine technique of jose napoles? A Cuban so good, the Mexicans adopted him?

No?  Didn't think so.

Another underrated fighter! One of the very best welters of all time. He'd have been murder for someone like Hearns.

He was a cracking fighter. Maybe under-rated by the yanks for not being a yank, and by the Brits for losing to Stracey. I was a youngster but still remember the shock of that one. If you take away the cuts losses in fights he would almost certainly have won, he had a ridiculous run until the monzon defeat, where he gave age, weight and reach away to an all time great. Top fighter.

It does to take skill to lose to a turkey like Stracey..

Old age is a terrible thing truss, as we both know only too well

Top five Welterweight of all time for me and Cuba's greatest ever regardless of weight, edging out Gavilan on both counts. Brilliant boxer slick enough to have been sponsored by BP but at the same time with a nasty streak in him. Almost always on the front foot yet still hard to hit with a worthwhile punch as the first Cokes fight which I mentiond earlier shows.

Was actually looking really good against Monzon before the eye started giving out, which he claimed was caused by a thumb by Monzon and then made worse with the head. Despite giving away reach, weight (he weight inside the Light-Middle limit, reflecting the fact that he wasn't even big at Welter), height etc he had it out with Carlos and boxed aggressively with plenty of success.

Mind you, it wasn't uncommon for Monzon to look ponderous and very hittable in the early rounds (even in the first Benvenuti fight, which ended up being arguably his best ever performance) and I'm sure that his strength and power would have overwhelmed Napoles eventually in any case - but Napoles stood up to some seriously heavy punishment before being pulled out. Great, great fighter.

88Chris05 wrote:Top five Welterweight of all time for me and Cuba's greatest ever regardless of weight, edging out Gavilan on both counts. Brilliant boxer slick enough to have been sponsored by BP but at the same time with a nasty streak in him. Almost always on the front foot yet still hard to hit with a worthwhile punch as the first Cokes fight which I mentiond earlier shows.

Was actually looking really good against Monzon before the eye started giving out, which he claimed was caused by a thumb by Monzon and then made worse with the head. Despite giving away reach, weight (he weight inside the Light-Middle limit, reflecting the fact that he wasn't even big at Welter), height etc he had it out with Carlos and boxed aggressively with plenty of success.

Mind you, it wasn't uncommon for Monzon to look ponderous and very hittable in the early rounds (even in the first Benvenuti fight, which ended up being arguably his best ever performance) and I'm sure that his strength and power would have overwhelmed Napoles eventually in any case - but Napoles stood up to some seriously heavy punishment before being pulled out. Great, great fighter.

That's true enough. If we ever do a top 10 'it wasn't pretty but they got the job done' (truss are you reading?), monzon would feature pretty highly.

Strongback wrote:I see Boxing News have Floyd at No.41 in their ATG list.

Three years ago Buddy...................But let's have a laugh anyway....

Floyd Mayweather...41

Manny...................42

Lennox Lewis.....35

Thomas Hearns...30

Rocky Marciano....21

Jack Dempsey.......20

Jack Johnson.........12

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Understand your first para. Confused by your second.

I've not talked about Young in the context of Ali.  I've compared Foreman's struggles with Young.  

As for your comment about Norton being a Top 20 heavy, fine, but so is Conn (or close) according to a list recently posted on here.  So why is struggling with Top20 Norton's style more excusable than struggling with Top20 Conn's style?

What list would that be then Toppy, i've never seen Conn come anywhere near the top 20 nor should he.

Think Strongy posted in. Matt McGrains or something. Could well be mistaken, hands up if so.

... he was posting top 20 light heavies i think toppy... think thats where the confusion lies