Joe Louis: Why does the majority of this forum not have him as a top 10 ATG ?

[Rodney]

Always surprised when 606v2 compile their p4p ATG lists and Louis ranks well below Ali and rarely features in the top 10. It isn't a common trend most forums and historians have Louis as a shoo in. The UK seem to have a love in with Mayweather who gets vastly overrated and gets placed as a top 10 ATG.
The naked eye proves Joe Louis as a near perfect technician for a boxer , Freddie Roach recently described him as the best text book fighter ever witnessed.

Louis fought in a period where the number of fighters registered was an all time high. Louis does have the longest title reign of any champion in any weight class. Louis lost once 18 months after his professional debut and twice when he was an empty shell. It must be noted that all these losses were against fighters who won the lineal title independantly of their fight with Louis. In between the Schmeling loss and the Charles loss you have a 15 year period where Louis's only questionable decision is a close split decision win over future champion Jersey Joe Walcott at the tail end of his career. In that period he defended his title a record number of times against the Rings no 1 contender.

Surely as a pioneer of boxing, the footage we have and the remarkable record , Louis is a top 10 ATG.

Cheers Rodders

[hazharrison]

Louis is generally rated top ten all-time -- as you state there are a few on here who have an agenda against him (some denigrate Joe's opposition in a bid to boost Mayweather's standing -- convaluted stuff).

[TRUSSMAN66]

Because he never beat anybody out of the top draw.......

[TRUSSMAN66]

At least 28/35 on my top 10 list thread have agendas against him by the way.

[hazharrison]

Because he never beat anybody out of the top draw.......

Who did he miss?

[TRUSSMAN66]

Liston, Foreman, Frazier, Quarry, Lyle, Shavers........

are all better than anything Louis beat..........and he didn't get trashed off a Schmelling type.......

Joke how anyone can have this guy higher than Ali.........

[Boxtthis]

Because of his record. He didn't really beat that many top, top guys. Simple as that.

[hazharrison]

Louis beat everyone in his era, good, underrrated fighters. Reigned longer than any champion in history, tecnically superb, one of the greatest punchers of all time, avenged the only loss (in his prime) spectacularly.

[TRUSSMAN66]

Schmelling was in his era..

Conn weighed 170 pounds..........

Mayweather has reigned 16 years at the top..........But just chuck Manny at him.......

It's the only thing you can do...........

Technically superb boxers get trashed off Schmelling and decked off Braddock, Galento and God knows who else........

Bum of the month.........Lost to the best fighters he fought!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

Lost to the best fighters he fought!!!!!!!!!!

Manny might be the best fighter Floyd ever fights but you're suggesting he ducks him because he might lose!! To make things worse you're suggesting Floyd ducks a guys who's already been decisively hammered and is arguably some way past his peakk> Strange one!

Surely that's the test of a great fighter, getting in with the best guys possible! A couple of years too late or not....the Manny fight is still possible and will undoubtedly end all the arguments because for me, Floyd takes Manny to the cleaners and I'd have no hesitation in facing him if I was Floyd.

Really find it strange that you'd advocate giving Manny a miss in favour of the likes of Khan and Garcia.

[Hammersmith harrier]

There is no reasonable explanation for having any heavyweight in the top 10 other than Ali, their records just don't stack up well to the lower weight guys.

You look at Robinson you see a lot of quality going from beating Angott in a non title bout to beating Gavilan to beating LaMotta and Graziano to embarrassing Maxim before succumbing to the heat. I give him a bit of heat for possibly ducking Burley but he's no god he's need to be subjected to the same criteria as anybody else. Even taking that into account he went from beating the lightweight champion to being on the verge of beating the light heavyweight champion. His numbers are mind boggling and to think it could have been so much better were it not for boxing politics and the heat.

Then there's Fitzsimmons, from middleweight to heavyweight and then down to the newly formed light heavyweight when on the wrong side of 40. From Dempsey to Corbett to Gardner and O'Brien.

Duran, Ali, Leonard *2, Greb, Armstrong all have consistent quality on their records. Look at Truss' favourite Duran, featherweight champion Marcel at 130lbs to middleweight champion Castro at 168lbs with a 27 year gap. For the life of me I can't see what Louis has on his record to compare with these men, he's a great heavyweight for sure but that doesn't translate to overall greatness for me.

And Haz you can't be using the eyeball test to increase Louis' standing something you said wasn't a consideration, so him being technically brilliant and a great puncher must be insignificant.

[TRUSSMAN66]

Lost to the best fighters he fought!!!!!!!!!!

Manny might be the best fighter Floyd ever fights but you're suggesting he ducks him because he might lose!! To make things worse you're suggesting Floyd ducks a guys who's already been decisively hammered and is arguably some way past his peakk> Strange one!

Surely that's the test of a great fighter, getting in with the best guys possible! A couple of years too late or not....the Manny fight is still possible and will undoubtedly end all the arguments because for me, Floyd takes Manny to the cleaners and I'd have no hesitation in facing him if I was Floyd.

Really find it strange that you'd advocate giving Manny a miss in favour of the likes of Khan and Garcia.

Never said he ducks him because he might lose............

Suggesting he has nothing to gain from fighting him now and it doesn't enhance his legacy..

If that's the test of a great fighter I guess you have Haye higher than Mayweather..

[Strongback]

One guy with an agenda i.e. Trussman5, or whatever his name is now, has poisoned this board against Louis. This is because he has Ali as his No.1 fighter of all time. Truss' tactic has always been to run down any fighter who is rated in the same bracket as his favorites. Truss' heavily repeated childish rhetoric should be seen as the facile propaganda of a flaccid overweight man.


There is a wealth of information and footage on Louis. His ability and how perfectly he fought, given he appeared all the way back in the 1930's, if fairly astounding by any standards.

[Rowley]

I have no real issue with anyone having Louis in the top ten but by the very nature of the top ten there can only ever be ten guys in it and so competition for places is going to be pretty fierce. I personally have about five or six guys who I am happy to include and whose position seems fairly safe to me but then there are a mountain of guys who can occupy the remainder of the places. An argument absolutely can be made for Louis but I could just as readily ask of why Gans, Tunney or Benny Leonard or the countless others in the chasing pack do not feature.

[TRUSSMAN66]

One guy with an agenda i.e. Trussman5, or whatever his name is now, has poisoned this board against Louis.  This is because he has Ali as his No.1 fighter of all time.  Truss' tactic has always been to run down any fighter who is rated in the same bracket as his favorites.  Truss' heavily repeated childish rhetoric should be seen as the facile propaganda of a flaccid overweight man.


There is a wealth of information and footage on Louis.  His ability and how perfectly he fought, given he appeared all the way back in the 1930's, if fairly astounding by any standards.

It's been trussman66 for three years........A Slow learner..and a complete idiot..

[Guest]

Never said he ducks him because he might lose............

Fact is Floyd vs Manny is an 80-20 fight...........Floyd should win but Manny's freak-once-in-a-lifetime power does mean that should he get lucky Floyd's legacy goes out of the window!!

Er, you're clearly saying that Manny has the ability to cause an upset which harms Floyd's legacy. Yes, you also say it serves no purpose but you do say that there's the "what if.." factor and that Floyd should avoid him to secure his legacy. I think it's the other way round and he needs to clear that business up or it will dog him for the rest of his life...not that he'll care.

[TRUSSMAN66]

I had it as a 80-20 fight..........Every fighter has a chance at causing an upset.......

I rate Bradley's chances higher..

[Strongback]

One guy with an agenda i.e. Trussman5, or whatever his name is now, has poisoned this board against Louis.  This is because he has Ali as his No.1 fighter of all time.  Truss' tactic has always been to run down any fighter who is rated in the same bracket as his favorites.  Truss' heavily repeated childish rhetoric should be seen as the facile propaganda of a flaccid overweight man.


There is a wealth of information and footage on Louis.  His ability and how perfectly he fought, given he appeared all the way back in the 1930's, if fairly astounding by any standards.

It's been trussman66 for three years........A Slow learner..and a complete idiot..

How many name changes has it been now?

[TRUSSMAN66]

I'm not interested........in arguing with a twonk ....................

"Mayweather never had a defining fight so he's not top 10" ......"Mayweather never beat a top fighter"

"I have Louis and Ali top 6"

[Guest]

I had it as a 80-20 fight..........Every fighter has a chance at causing an upset.......

I rate Bradley's chances higher..

In which case you're an idiot

[TRUSSMAN66]

maybe........

[Strongback]

I'm not interested........in arguing with a twonk ....................

"Mayweather never had a defining fight so he's not top 10" ......"Mayweather never beat a top fighter"

"I have Louis and Ali top 6"

Mayweather is never going to be Top 10 because he cherry picked his opponents and refused the Manny fight.


Louis fought every No.1 contender in his reign bar one who was only a contender for a couple of weeks.


A post prime Louis beating a prime Jersey Joe in the 2nd fight by fantastic knockout is a better win than anything on Mayweathers record. Floyd only has one Top 20 divisional champ on his record in Oscar and that old man was winning the fight before he gassed and Mayweather took over.

[TRUSSMAN66]

I'm not in the mood for you...

Braddock, Baer............are obviously better than JMM, Oscar etc..............

i'll take a cherry picker over the crud Louis beat..

[Hammersmith harrier]

Hernandez, Corralles and Chavez are all top 20 at super featherweight as was Mosley at welterweight and probably even Gatti at light welterweight. Walcott himself is right on the cusp of the top 20 at heavyweight, not as though he's guaranteed it.

[TRUSSMAN66]

Walcott was 1-1 with Louis also........Louis even admitted he lost the first..........and was losing the second......before the pay off......

however you're right I suppose he did beat Walcott twice..

As strongy holds Castillo over Floyd......let's do the same.

[Mad for Chelsea]

the trouble with the top 10 is just that, it's a top 10, and as such competition for places is extremely fierce. Also HWs are generally slightly underrated in p4p lists, due to the fact they can't compete in several divisions (IMO), and as such can only face other great fighters if these are also HWs.

Simply put, Louis's wins just don't have the stand-out quality necessary for him to make the cut for me. It's unfortunate, but there you go. Otherwise you could also make a half-decent case for someone like Wlad who has after all pretty much beaten everyone else half-decent around (with the exception of Vitali...).

[Rodney]

I agree with that Jeff, however if Louis isn't top 10 then Ali can't be much higher than him , no problem with Ali ranking higher if so it must' be a slither.

Truss we'll leave you out of this debate, you've obviously have an agenda against Louis.

Cheers Rodders

[Boxtthis]

I'm looking at Louis' record and I honestly can't see what people are arguing for. He has no real standout wins that wouldn't look ordinary on someone like Ali's list. I mean, who is there? Max Baer? Max Schmeling (who also KO'd him)? A close fight with a small Billy Conn? Life and death with a small JJW? Beaten by a LHW Ezzard Charles?

I must not know enough about the other names on his record. I really must be missing something. For me, Ali, Tyson, Holmes would never have lost to those guys in a million years and would've destroyed any one of the best victories. I still have Louis as the no.2 HW of all time because of his dominance, longevity, and obvious skillset, but he's a mile behind Ali and is simply blown away by the sheer level of competition over the lower weights.

I don't have any agenda against Louis at all, but I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why he's sometimes so highly placed. Genuinely interested to hear with Louis supporters have to say about this to change my mind.

[Strongback]

Walcott was 1-1 with Louis also........Louis even admitted he lost the first..........and was losing the second......before the pay off......

however you're right I suppose he did beat Walcott twice..

As strongy holds Castillo over Floyd......let's do the same.

All I talked about was the 2nd Louis fight. I have no problem saying Walcott was hard done by in the first fight and should have won.

Louis came back from the 1st fight in the way a champion should. A prime Walcott with his shuffling quickness and elusiveness was a handful for the aging Louis but he stuck to his task and when he drew Walcott into some toe to toe exchanges he ended the fight by emphatic knockout. This was the last great fight for Louis before he retired the first time after 61 fights, a lot for a heavyweight. Only one loss as a fledgling pre title pro to Schmelling in 61 fights. He should have stayed retired but the IRS don't care about boxers records.

Mayweather didn't look that great in the 2nd Castillo fight and it was close.

[Strongback]

I'm looking at Louis' record and I honestly can't see what people are arguing for. He has no real standout wins that wouldn't look ordinary on someone like Ali's list. I mean, who is there? Max Baer? Max Schmeling (who also KO'd him)? A close fight with a small Billy Conn? Life and death with a small JJW? Beaten by a LHW Ezzard Charles?

I must not know enough about the other names on his record. I really must be missing something. For me, Ali, Tyson, Holmes would never have lost to those guys in a million years and would've destroyed any one of the best victories. I still have Louis as the no.2 HW of all time because of his dominance, longevity, and obvious skillset, but he's a mile behind Ali and is simply blown away by the sheer level of competition over the lower weights.

I don't have any agenda against Louis at all, but I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why he's sometimes so highly placed. Genuinely interested to hear with Louis supporters have to say about this to change my mind.

Ali fought a lot of dross in-between the big fights. He also came at a time when there were many great heavyweights to test himself against.


In terms of Holmes and Tyson neither have resumes any better than Louis'. Louis was a better fighter technically than Tyson or Holmes. He also had far greater power and punching ability. It's not for no reason many consider Louis the greatest puncher of all time including The Ring.

[hazharrison]

Hernandez, Corralles and Chavez are all top 20 at super featherweight as was Mosley at welterweight and probably even Gatti at light welterweight. Walcott himself is right on the cusp of the top 20 at heavyweight, not as though he's guaranteed it.

Jesus Chavez? Rubbish. Here's a listing from Cliff Rold:

http://www.boxingscene.com/-top-20-junior-lightweights-all-time--18873

Mosley and Gatti wouldn't make those top 20s either.

[hazharrison]

I'm looking at Louis' record and I honestly can't see what people are arguing for. He has no real standout wins that wouldn't look ordinary on someone like Ali's list. I mean, who is there? Max Baer? Max Schmeling (who also KO'd him)? A close fight with a small Billy Conn? Life and death with a small JJW? Beaten by a LHW Ezzard Charles?

I must not know enough about the other names on his record. I really must be missing something. For me, Ali, Tyson, Holmes would never have lost to those guys in a million years and would've destroyed any one of the best victories. I still have Louis as the no.2 HW of all time because of his dominance, longevity, and obvious skillset, but he's a mile behind Ali and is simply blown away by the sheer level of competition over the lower weights.

I don't have any agenda against Louis at all, but I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why he's sometimes so highly placed. Genuinely interested to hear with Louis supporters have to say about this to change my mind.

The names you quote -- they're all quality fighters. I don't understand why they're being run down.

Tyson lost to Buster Douglas. Ali has any number of controversial decisions on his record (Jones, Norton, Young).

Ali rightfully ranks above him due to quality of competition but Louis isn't that far behind -- it's those two and the rest.

[hazharrison]

Walcott was 1-1 with Louis also........Louis even admitted he lost the first..........and was losing the second......before the pay off......

however you're right I suppose he did beat Walcott twice..

As strongy holds Castillo over Floyd......let's do the same.

More rubbish. Opinion at ringside for the first Walcott-Louis fight was split. Yet, despite being a tad past his best, Louis addressed that second time around.

Same old nonsense without foundation. You must sit with a load of cue cards on your keyboard.

[Boxtthis]

I'm looking at Louis' record and I honestly can't see what people are arguing for. He has no real standout wins that wouldn't look ordinary on someone like Ali's list. I mean, who is there? Max Baer? Max Schmeling (who also KO'd him)? A close fight with a small Billy Conn? Life and death with a small JJW? Beaten by a LHW Ezzard Charles?

I must not know enough about the other names on his record. I really must be missing something. For me, Ali, Tyson, Holmes would never have lost to those guys in a million years and would've destroyed any one of the best victories. I still have Louis as the no.2 HW of all time because of his dominance, longevity, and obvious skillset, but he's a mile behind Ali and is simply blown away by the sheer level of competition over the lower weights.

I don't have any agenda against Louis at all, but I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why he's sometimes so highly placed. Genuinely interested to hear with Louis supporters have to say about this to change my mind.

The names you quote -- they're all quality fighters. I don't understand why they're being run down.

Tyson lost to Buster Douglas. Ali has any number of controversial decisions on his record (Jones, Norton, Young).

Ali rightfully ranks above him due to quality of competition but Louis isn't that far behind -- it's those two and the rest.

Yes, they're quality names. And, they most likely put Louis in a comfortable 2nd place in the HW ATG list. That's completely fair enough. But, are those names really anything like the level of quality that many of the rest of the P4P greats have? I suggest not. None of them are truly top-tier - or, at least, if they are (for example, Charles) then they were coming up in weight. Ezzard Charles is one of the greatest, but he'd be fighting at LHW if he were around these days. There's not one solid HW/complete bad ass of a victory in there. I value Ali's wins over Frazier, Liston and Foreman as astronomically better.

[Strongback]

Hernandez, Corralles and Chavez are all top 20 at super featherweight as was Mosley at welterweight and probably even Gatti at light welterweight. Walcott himself is right on the cusp of the top 20 at heavyweight, not as though he's guaranteed it.

Jesus Chavez? Rubbish. Here's a listing from Cliff Rold:

http://www.boxingscene.com/-top-20-junior-lightweights-all-time--18873

Mosley and Gatti wouldn't make those top 20s either.

I have Hammer on my Foe list so just saw this as Haz quoted it.

Hammer is blatantly trolling with this type of post. His claim had no foundation or basis. He's at this kind of wind-up all the time which is why I confined him to my Foe bin a few weeks ago.


He's the only person I have ever put on a Foe list in all my time on the Internet which goes back to 1995.

He's also obviously an alias. One of two well known posters, I fairly sure of that. Could actually have multiple aliases. I stopped caring who he was when I binned him.

[hazharrison]

What's a foe list?

[hazharrison]

I'm looking at Louis' record and I honestly can't see what people are arguing for. He has no real standout wins that wouldn't look ordinary on someone like Ali's list. I mean, who is there? Max Baer? Max Schmeling (who also KO'd him)? A close fight with a small Billy Conn? Life and death with a small JJW? Beaten by a LHW Ezzard Charles?

I must not know enough about the other names on his record. I really must be missing something. For me, Ali, Tyson, Holmes would never have lost to those guys in a million years and would've destroyed any one of the best victories. I still have Louis as the no.2 HW of all time because of his dominance, longevity, and obvious skillset, but he's a mile behind Ali and is simply blown away by the sheer level of competition over the lower weights.

I don't have any agenda against Louis at all, but I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why he's sometimes so highly placed. Genuinely interested to hear with Louis supporters have to say about this to change my mind.

The names you quote -- they're all quality fighters. I don't understand why they're being run down.

Tyson lost to Buster Douglas. Ali has any number of controversial decisions on his record (Jones, Norton, Young).

Ali rightfully ranks above him due to quality of competition but Louis isn't that far behind -- it's those two and the rest.

Yes, they're quality names. And, they most likely put Louis in a comfortable 2nd place in the HW ATG list. That's completely fair enough. But, are those names really anything like the level of quality that many of the rest of the P4P greats have? I suggest not. None of them are truly top-tier - or, at least, if they are (for example, Charles) then they were coming up in weight. Ezzard Charles is one of the greatest, but he'd be fighting at LHW if he were around these days. There's not one solid HW/complete bad ass of a victory in there. I value Ali's wins over Frazier, Liston and Foreman as astronomically better.

I agree fully, however, I also feel that Scmeling, Baer, Walcott, Conn etc. have been largely underrated on these boards (mainly by a small pack of Mayweather fans who feel they can advance Floyd's claims by denigrating Joe's opposition -- if he fought average competition then why can't Floyd be top ten, too?).

[Strongback]

What's a foe list?

If you put someone on your foe list you don't see their posts. You have an option to unhide an individual post in a thread if you want to.


If you go to your home page where the friends area is you can also add a poster as a foe. You can alternatively click on their username within a thread and add them to your foe list that way.

[Hammersmith harrier]

Mosley is without a shadow of a doubt inside the top 20 at welterweight, there is no questioning of that at all, he is more nailed on than JJW at heavyweight. Walcott was a very patchy fighter much of that was down to managerial problems but how many times have we heard that excuse before.

I am past caring about the endless lists you post on here Haz, I have my own mind and like to base my opinions on what I know. I don't need a historian to back me up to ascertain that Ali is head and shoulders above everybody at Heavyweight. Bert Sugar could say what he likes on the matter but watching Ali fight and watching who he beat i'm comfortable saying he's in a different stratosphere to Louis. That is no slight on Louis he's a clear number two but Ali was just that damn good.

There's one common theme in all the lists you post they don't give modern fighters any credit at all, lets look at Roy Jones; Middleweight to Heavyweight with one contentious DQ loss on the way then just like Charles his form dips dramatically. Now this rightfully doesn't effect the standing of Ezzard but low and behold Jones is ripped to shreds for it. The old timers duck a fighter it's overlooked, a modern fighter does it and it's the worst crime a boxer can commit.

The sport has changed, we're not going to get a Sam Langford type any more who fights his rivals 20 odd times, we're not going to get top level operators who fight 200/300 times in a career. The politics of the sport has evolved but some fans haven't, you can't say anything against Louis or Robinson because a writer says they're brilliant. I'll tell you what Haz Archie Moore knows a darn sight more about boxing than any of your historians, he may not have been able to reel off fact after fact but he was the one fighting these greats.

[Rowley]

I'll tell you what Haz Archie Moore knows a darn sight more about boxing than any of your historians, he may not have been able to reel off fact after fact but he was the one fighting these greats.

I agree, have I ever mentioned who he said was the best he ever faced?

[Hammersmith harrier]

Wouldn't be the most avoided man in boxing history would it Rowley, i'd love to see his fight with Moore, just to see how well the newspaper reports painted the picture.

[TopHat24/7]

Because of his record. He didn't really beat that many top, top guys. Simple as that.

Like Mayweather, except longer title reign, longer 'at the top' and more title defences (I think, not checked, probs close) who many (30 out of 35, apparently) have as a top 10 shoe-in.

[TRUSSMAN66]

Archie didn't rate Louis.......said Johnson would beat him.......

But he's not an expert like Bernstein..

[TopHat24/7]

Schmelling was in his era..

Conn weighed 170 pounds..........

Mayweather has reigned 16 years at the top..........But just chuck Manny at him.......

It's the only thing you can do...........

Technically superb boxers get trashed off Schmelling and decked off Braddock, Galento and God knows who else........

Bum of the month.........Lost to the best fighters he fought!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you keep coming out with this totally spurious statistic?

As has been pointed out numerous times:

1) 16 years ago he was fighting Angelo Nunez (14-11-3) and Felipe Garcia (14-18-1), so wasn't even top of his division let alone boxing as a whole;
2) He won his first world title 15 years ago, but since when does winning just one of a multitude of titles elevate a fighter to 'at the top'??;
3) He wasn't in any big fights until Castillo, which was 11 years ago, at which point he may have been edging into Top10 p4p but certainly wasn't considered 'at the top' of the p4p lists;
4) He wasn't a p4p superstar until ODLH which was 6 years ago;
5) You keep conveniently excusing/ignoring his extended (2 yr) absence from the sport, even without all the other points these 2 years have to be docked as he inextricably wasn't 'at the top' as he wasn't even active.

I genuinely don't think you could come up with a more fallacious 'statistic'.

[TRUSSMAN66]

Mate like you once said you don't know much about boxing..

Stop trying to turn the subject to Mayweather because he's the one guy you know a little bit about..and you think you can draw me into a slanging match..

I've more than explained myself..

[Hammersmith harrier]

He was the p4p number two back in 1999 Toppy while Hernandez was the number one at super featherweight when he beat him so i'd say he's been at the for a 14 period with an extended period of leave. Always think it's better to say he's unbeaten in 25 world title fights personally but the 16 years thing isn't a million miles from the truth.

[TRUSSMAN66]

Won his first title 16 years ago.......

World champion is a world champion..........Isn't he Froch fans ??

[Hammersmith harrier]

15 years ago Truss...

[TRUSSMAN66]

I'm still 39..........What's in a year or two..

[TopHat24/7]

Mate like you once said you don't know much about boxing..

Stop trying to turn the subject to Mayweather because he's the one guy you know a little bit about..and you think you can draw me into a slanging match..

I've more than explained myself..

1) You brought Mayweather into this??; and
2) As you so eagerly like to say all the time - nothing you've said rebuts any of the points I've raised.

You basically full of crap and get wound up that someone with such limited knowledge as myself in comparison can expose you so easily.

[Sponsored content]