I happen to agree with Humean. Louis is the wrong guy for a footwork advertisement. He was slow of foot and had much difficulty against great footwork. Joe Walcott mangled him their first fight and lost the decision.
I don't know where all this historical revisisionism is coming from. Historical revisionisim is usually good around here where there is so much making up of history. I have watched plenty of Louis. He may have had very deliberate footwork but there was nothing great about it. It was slow motion. It was the same basic footwork you could find in a thousand other fighters. No boxer ever went around wishing for Joe Louis's footwork, and I think this contention that he was some kind of master of footwork is laughable. It was Louis's extreme punching technique that won fights for him. His open-ring footwork was an actual handicap in my opinion. It was basic flatfootedness with excellent leverage. In close he was great.
Did I say his footwork was mediocre? No, it was just basic footwork, nothing special.
I don't know where all this historical revisisionism is coming from. Historical revisionisim is usually good around here where there is so much making up of history. I have watched plenty of Louis. He may have had very deliberate footwork but there was nothing great about it. It was slow motion. It was the same basic footwork you could find in a thousand other fighters. No boxer ever went around wishing for Joe Louis's footwork, and I think this contention that he was some kind of master of footwork is laughable. It was Louis's extreme punching technique that won fights for him. His open-ring footwork was an actual handicap in my opinion. It was basic flatfootedness with excellent leverage. In close he was great.
Did I say his footwork was mediocre? No, it was just basic footwork, nothing special.
Comment