Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Joe Louis: A Retrospective

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
    - -Don't regard turning a fight into a track meet good defense.
    Yu stoopid. Did you watch the Young Foreman fight?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
      Yu stoopid. Did you watch the Young Foreman fight?
      - -Y U Chinese fireworks a dud?

      Decade long fizzle?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
        - -Y U Chinese fireworks a dud?

        Decade long fizzle?
        Young versus Foreman, did yu watch? Masterful performance.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by them_apples View Post
          Theres never been a time with big skilled big guys. who?

          Foreman and ali were 6 ft 3 - 6 ft 4 at best.

          Wlad, Fury, Joshua and Wilder are not big skilled big guys. They arent very good and all have glass chins.

          Lennox lewis is the best "big" guy in terms of height, but he struggled and even lost to guys who were 6 ft 1.

          So i don't know how you came up with this idea that Louis wouldn't slaughter them all. Buddy Baer at least was tough, I couldnt see Joshua taking anything from Louis. And buddy Baer was even bigger than Joshua.

          You are mistaking HD footage with old film reels, Louis is technically superior than all of these "big guys".

          Buddy Baer and Abe Simon did not have the skills of Joshua, Wlad, Lewis, Fury or Ali. My point is Louis never fought a skilled big guy stands tall.

          I agree Louis was technically superior to the big guys, who could not box in his time.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Dr. Z View Post
            Buddy Baer and Abe Simon did not have the skills of Joshua, Wlad, Lewis, Fury or Ali. My point is Louis never fought a skilled big guy stands tall.

            I agree Louis was technically superior to the big guys, who could not box in his time.
            By the same token Joshua, Wlad, Lewis, and Fury never fought anyone with the skills of Joe Louis. There have been no guys who can fight like him in the current era.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post
              By the same token Joshua, Wlad, Lewis, and Fury never fought anyone with the skills of Joe Louis. There have been no guys who can fight like him in the current era.
              Oh yes they have. Louis was a plodding boxer, with a 76" reach and fast hands with a good jab, hook,
              and right hand. I find Louis good on offense, when he gets in range, and blow average on defense.

              If you are honest, he lost more rounds than he won vs Schmeling, Conn, Walcott and Charles....easily.

              He would be out jabbed today by everyone you mentioned. Outside of Fury, he'll find their right hand just as hard, and get real, they don't use the 6 ounce gloves that Louis did for a reason.

              Comparing the big men of the 1940's to the big men of today is something a fan who really doesn't know much about boxing would do. Different levels, easily.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Dr. Z View Post
                Oh yes they have. Louis was a plodding boxer, with a 76" reach and fast hands with a good jab, hook,
                and right hand. I find Louis good on offense, when he gets in range, and blow average on defense.

                If you are honest, he lost more rounds than he won vs Schmeling, Conn, Walcott and Charles....easily.

                He would be out jabbed today by everyone you mentioned. Outside of Fury, he'll find their right hand just as hard, and get real, they don't use the 6 ounce gloves that Louis did for a reason.

                Comparing the big men of the 1940's to the big men of today is something a fan who really doesn't know much about boxing would do. Different levels, easily.
                What? Plodder? No... He was a puncher who, together with Blackburn realized a puncher will get a certain amount of opportunities during a 15 round fight. Louis' strategy was to maximize those opportunities, efficiently applying pressure without chasing his opponent around. People like you fail to realize how incredible it is that a "puncher" was able to win as consistently as Louis did. Most punchers eventually get "conned" as in Billy conn. an inferior boxer just has to avoid, even the greatest puncher to win... The odds go to the boxer.

                And what puncher cares about rounds? Wilder lost most rounds to Ortiz, twice... and beat him convincingly. The reason has nothing to do with winning rounds.

                Louis could slip a jab... and the punches change certain dynamics for everyone. Some people (I don't) think Canera moved well. The big men today, as Shoulder Roll has implied, would have their own problems dealing with a fighter who was prepared to go fifteen rounds, at a high activity rate, who could exploit bad defensive habits... And who got hit by guys who also hit very hard and got up.

                Klitsko lost to Sanders... A hard hitter. How would he take a Louis punch? Lewis moved better, but your more or less saying, he would not be hit by Louis, who managed to stalk opponents, and find a way to connect for how many title fights?

                Louis is venerated for a reason... His jab, by the way, was not exceptional and did not need to be.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Dr. Z View Post
                  Comparing the big men of the 1940's to the big men of today is something a fan who really doesn't know much about boxing would do. Different levels, easily.
                  - -Yet that is what you have done.

                  Stay away from knives. You might eviscerate yourself by accident.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
                    - -Yet that is what you have done.

                    Stay away from knives. You might eviscerate yourself by accident.
                    I'm staying away from your posted in general. Please do skip mine.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
                      What? Plodder? No... He was a puncher who, together with Blackburn realized a puncher will get a certain amount of opportunities during a 15 round fight. Louis' strategy was to maximize those opportunities, efficiently applying pressure without chasing his opponent around. People like you fail to realize how incredible it is that a "puncher" was able to win as consistently as Louis did. Most punchers eventually get "conned" as in Billy conn. an inferior boxer just has to avoid, even the greatest puncher to win... The odds go to the boxer.

                      And what puncher cares about rounds? Wilder lost most rounds to Ortiz, twice... and beat him convincingly. The reason has nothing to do with winning rounds.

                      Louis could slip a jab... and the punches change certain dynamics for everyone. Some people (I don't) think Canera moved well. The big men today, as Shoulder Roll has implied, would have their own problems dealing with a fighter who was prepared to go fifteen rounds, at a high activity rate, who could exploit bad defensive habits... And who got hit by guys who also hit very hard and got up.

                      Klitsko lost to Sanders... A hard hitter. How would he take a Louis punch? Lewis moved better, but your more or less saying, he would not be hit by Louis, who managed to stalk opponents, and find a way to connect for how many title fights?

                      Louis is venerated for a reason... His jab, by the way, was not exceptional and did not need to be.
                      Those of the times called Louis the shuffler and it was not a compliment. The 30's was a weaker time for heavyweight boxing. No less authority than Ring Magazine who loved Joe Louis says so when they ranked the decades.

                      Sorry-- Louis had slow feet, iffy balance, a low guard ( Most of the time ) , and a stick your face forward type of style, a reason why Schmeling, Walcott, Conn and Charles, the best boxers Louis fought ( Let me know if you disagree with that ) bettered him in a rounds won to rounds lost tally. One knocked him out, another stunned him ( Conn @168 pounds ) another was robbed of a decision win, and was way ahead in a re-match until doing something stupid and getting caught, and the last butchered him. Check the score cards, and you'll see.

                      I don't think Wilder is skilled period, and should not be compared to Lewis or Wlad, except as a right hand puncher.

                      No-- I don't think Wlad could take Louis best with his 6 ounce gloves, and the reverse is also true, so it comes down to who lands their best fight. Same with Lennox Lewis.

                      Regarding Wlad and Lewis, they would beat ALL of Louis title opponents and likely do it without having the tough times Louis did. Maybe Schmeling or Walcott could pull off the upset, but I'd bet against it.
                      Last edited by Dr. Z; 01-20-2021, 09:43 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Dr. Z View Post
                        Those of the times called Louis the shuffler and it was not a compliment. The 30's was a weaker time for heavyweight boxing. No less authority than Ring Magazine who loved Joe Louis says so when they ranked the decades.

                        Sorry-- Louis had slow feet, iffy balance, a low guard ( Most of the time ) , and a stick your face forward type of style, a reason why Schmeling, Walcott, Conn and Charles, the best boxers Louis fought ( Let me know if you disagree with that ) bettered him in a rounds won to rounds lost tally. One knocked him out, another stunned him ( Conn @168 pounds ) another was robbed of a decision win, and was way ahead in a re-match until doing something stupid and getting caught, and the last butchered him. Check the score cards, and you'll see.

                        I don't think Wilder is skilled period, and should not be compared to Lewis or Wlad, except as a right hand puncher.

                        No-- I don't think Wlad could take Louis best with his 6 ounce gloves, and the reverse is also true, so it comes down to who lands their best fight. Same with Lennox Lewis.

                        Regarding Wlad and Lewis, they would beat ALL of Louis title opponents and likely do it without having the tough times Louis did. Maybe Schmeling or Walcott could pull off the upset, but I'd bet against it.
                        There is anecdotal information of all types for virtually every fighter. the knock of Robinson was he didn't really like to fight. So for Louis to be knocked does not mean anything. Ring magazine is not really an authority. An example of an authority would be a trainer... And most boxing men saw perfection in how Blackburn went about developing Louis.


                        Yes, the competition was, in similar fashion to many other eras, not a strong era... Neither was the era of Dempsey, Liston, Marciano, Klitsko, etc. As a matter of fact? there were few strong eras in the heavyweight division. So why single out Louis in this regard?

                        Don't be sorry... every style has strengths and weaknesses. Louis weakness summed up? He had one gear. I guess the fact that he got knocked out so much meant he carried his guard too low...oh wait! He didn't get Kayoed. His balance was perfect...I don't know where you are getting these so called flaws. Stick your face style? Really?

                        I disagree strongly... What puncher do you know, wins rounds consistently against excellent boxers? And then you proceed to explain away all Louis' wins. You have to understand that, especially in the days of a 15 round fight, the puncher's game was a numbers game... A slice of quantum probability! Louis, like all punchers was trained to know, that if he methodically stalked an opponent, he would get a certain amount of opportunities. His training was to utilize those opportunities and not let his man off the hook. So, for exmple, with Conn, when he got his opportunity, he utilized it.

                        Wilder is a puncher, regardless of his "skill" level... He is an example of a puncher to the extreme. He was a great example of what I am trying to get you to understand: He fought Ortiz, who is skilled, and waited for his opportunity. It never mattered the rounds he lost.

                        When you say "regarding Wlad and Lewis" you have to differentiate between the two. To me Lewis fought excellent competition, Wlad fought horrible competition. With that said I believe Wlad is comparable to Louis in terms of competition fought. Lewis fought excellent competition and should not be compared IMO.
                        Last edited by billeau2; 01-20-2021, 02:26 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
                          There is anecdotal information of all types for virtually every fighter. the knock of Robinson was he didn't really like to fight. So for Louis to be knocked does not mean anything. Ring magazine is not really an authority. An example of an authority would be a trainer... And most boxing men saw perfection in how Blackburn went about developing Louis.


                          Yes, the competition was, in similar fashion to many other eras, not a strong era... Neither was the era of Dempsey, Liston, Marciano, Klitsko, etc. As a matter of fact? there were few strong eras in the heavyweight division. So why single out Louis in this regard?

                          Don't be sorry... every style has strengths and weaknesses. Louis weakness summed up? He had one gear. I guess the fact that he got knocked out so much meant he carried his guard too low...oh wait! He didn't get Kayoed. His balance was perfect...I don't know where you are getting these so called flaws. Stick your face style? Really?

                          I disagree strongly... What puncher do you know, wins rounds consistently against excellent boxers? And then you proceed to explain away all Louis' wins. You have to understand that, especially in the days of a 15 round fight, the puncher's game was a numbers game... A slice of quantum probability! Louis, like all punchers was trained to know, that if he methodically stalked an opponent, he would get a certain amount of opportunities. His training was to utilize those opportunities and not let his man off the hook. So, for exmple, with Conn, when he got his opportunity, he utilized it.

                          Wilder is a puncher, regardless of his "skill" level... He is an example of a puncher to the extreme. He was a great example of what I am trying to get you to understand: He fought Ortiz, who is skilled, and waited for his opportunity. It never mattered the rounds he lost.

                          When you say "regarding Wlad and Lewis" you have to differentiate between the two. To me Lewis fought excellent competition, Wlad fought horrible competition. With that said I believe Wlad is comparable to Louis in terms of competition fought. Lewis fought excellent competition and should not be compared IMO.

                          I disagree strongly... What puncher do you know, wins rounds consistently against excellent boxers?
                          Liston, Lewis, Bowe and Both Klitschko's come to mind. Louis had issues vs boxers his size and lower. Thanks to a bad defense and slow feet.



                          Wilder is a puncher, regardless of his "skill" level... He is an example of a puncher to the extreme. He was a great example of what I am trying to get you to understand: He fought Ortiz, who is skilled, and waited for his opportunity. It never mattered the rounds he lost.
                          Still on Wilder. Okay he fought a 40 something year old Ortiz, and early won the first match. How is that impressive?

                          His balance was perfect...I don't know where you are getting these so called flaws. Stick your face style? Really?
                          So perfect Walcott floored him 3 times, and so did guys who would not be in the top 10 day in B Baer, and T Galento. Yes, Louis had slowish feet, a low guard, just okay balance and he stuck hi face forward to much, exposing his chin.

                          When you say "regarding Wlad and Lewis" you have to differentiate between the two. To me Lewis fought excellent competition, Wlad fought horrible competition.
                          I don't see it like you do, Lewis fought better but not but the huge amount you say.Lewis also fought much older past their prime greats. Wlad didn't feast on such opponents.

                          One common opponent. Wlad 1-0 vs Rhaman, Lewis 1-1.

                          Wlad TKO Mercer, Lewis UD vs Mercer and it was close.

                          Lewis never fought Sanders, or Brewster. Wlad never fought old Tyson or Holyfield.

                          My point on Joe Louis are based on film and study, not a fanboys opinion, or a guy coming up with excuses.

                          PS: Who says Robinson didn't like to fight?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Dr. Z View Post
                            Liston, Lewis, Bowe and Both Klitschko's come to mind. Louis had issues vs boxers his size and lower. Thanks to a bad defense and slow feet.





                            Still on Wilder. Okay he fought a 40 something year old Ortiz, and early won the first match. How is that impressive?



                            So perfect Walcott floored him 3 times, and so did guys who would not be in the top 10 day in B Baer, and T Galento. Yes, Louis had slowish feet, a low guard, just okay balance and he stuck hi face forward to much, exposing his chin.



                            I don't see it like you do, Lewis fought better but not but the huge amount you say.Lewis also fought much older past their prime greats. Wlad didn't feast on such opponents.

                            One common opponent. Wlad 1-0 vs Rhaman, Lewis 1-1.

                            Wlad TKO Mercer, Lewis UD vs Mercer and it was close.

                            Lewis never fought Sanders, or Brewster. Wlad never fought old Tyson or Holyfield.

                            My point on Joe Louis are based on film and study, not a fanboys opinion, or a guy coming up with excuses.

                            PS: Who says Robinson didn't like to fight?
                            Liston was, in addition to being a fearsome puncher, an excellent boxer with one of the elite jabs. lewis was not a pure puncher by any means. Bowe likewise. Pure puncher... Someone like Tua, Brewster, Lyle, Shavers... What issues? Who beat him? Schmelling, yes! Schmelling was excellent. Klitsko lost to all kinds of opponents, Louis found a way to win against all kinds of opponents.

                            Ortiz is an excellent fighter. He was beating Wilder in that second fight, and I used that as an example of how a puncher operates. I never said I cared much for Wilder, or that it was impressive. It was what Wilder does, straight from the playbook of a pure puncher: "create opportunities to connect, not worry about winning rounds.

                            Galento was underated, he was an excellent brawler. Walcott was a great fighter. I still don't get how you equate this as Louis sticking his chin out. He didn't lose those fights either something you keep ignoring.

                            Lol your arguments are starting to really degrade, no offense. So now Sanders was a real live dog that Lewis should have fought? Lewis also avenged all his lossed unlike Vlad. And Lewis fought many prospects coming up, like a young Shannon Briggs. Lewis fought guys like Ruddock, Morrison, Golota, Tua... all bigger names than anyone Vlad beat.

                            It was anecdotal about Robinson... Its not the point to prove he said it... The point was made and if it was not true? the point still stands. I think it was Joe Rein that mentioned it to me... it also a fact Robinson loved dancing and wanted to be a dancer, that is common knowledge from friends of his.

                            No, your opinions are not based on film, many people like myself who watch film do not see Louis that way. Yes, he was slow and methodical with his footwork, but his chin sticking out? lol. Im also not a fanboy. I respect Louis for all he was, but he is not one of my favorite fighters on a fandom level, so stop making assumptions.

                            Ill make it easy for you, I think we can agree to disagree.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Dr. Z View Post
                              I'm staying away from your posted in general. Please do skip mine.
                              - -Skippy logic is it?

                              Joe had better, more efficient footwork than Ali that assisted him in establishing a storied record never to be approached until Wlad showed up.

                              Jus da fax, skippy!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
                                Liston was, in addition to being a fearsome puncher, an excellent boxer with one of the elite jabs. lewis was not a pure puncher by any means. Bowe likewise. Pure puncher... Someone like Tua, Brewster, Lyle, Shavers... What issues? Who beat him? Schmelling, yes! Schmelling was excellent. Klitsko lost to all kinds of opponents, Louis found a way to win against all kinds of opponents.

                                Ortiz is an excellent fighter. He was beating Wilder in that second fight, and I used that as an example of how a puncher operates. I never said I cared much for Wilder, or that it was impressive. It was what Wilder does, straight from the playbook of a pure puncher: "create opportunities to connect, not worry about winning rounds.

                                Galento was underated, he was an excellent brawler. Walcott was a great fighter. I still don't get how you equate this as Louis sticking his chin out. He didn't lose those fights either something you keep ignoring.

                                Lol your arguments are starting to really degrade, no offense. So now Sanders was a real live dog that Lewis should have fought? Lewis also avenged all his lossed unlike Vlad. And Lewis fought many prospects coming up, like a young Shannon Briggs. Lewis fought guys like Ruddock, Morrison, Golota, Tua... all bigger names than anyone Vlad beat.

                                It was anecdotal about Robinson... Its not the point to prove he said it... The point was made and if it was not true? the point still stands. I think it was Joe Rein that mentioned it to me... it also a fact Robinson loved dancing and wanted to be a dancer, that is common knowledge from friends of his.

                                No, your opinions are not based on film, many people like myself who watch film do not see Louis that way. Yes, he was slow and methodical with his footwork, but his chin sticking out? lol. Im also not a fanboy. I respect Louis for all he was, but he is not one of my favorite fighters on a fandom level, so stop making assumptions.

                                Ill make it easy for you, I think we can agree to disagree.

                                Geez. You asked for punchers who can box and I gave you some.

                                Bowe was more than our puncher. He was skilled on the outside and inside. You must have missed many of his fights. I disagree with you if you say he was not skilled. He was trained by Futch.

                                No more on Ortiz, please. He was 40, and who did he beat again?

                                Klitschko ( Vladmir ) lost only to power punchers. Of yeah, he was 39 for Fury, but that really doesn't count. That point should stand.

                                Now your trying to trumpet Galento? The man was very unskilled ( More so than anything I mentioned ), short, and fat. Yet he floored Louis. Two ton would not be ranked today in the to top 10.

                                Sure Lewis avenged his to losses, but he didn't offer any re-matches to his tough fights. Mercer ( some felt he deserved a draw ) , Bruno ( Lewis behind until the KO ) and the older Klitschko ) Lewis also beind until the cuts stoppage. Where was the re-match?

                                Yes-- if you followed boxing in the 1990's Sanders name was in there press to fight Lewis or Tyson. It never happened. Sanders didn't have the right promoter. Joe Louis never fought anyone like Sanders. A big southpaw with fast hands who had KO power.

                                My opinions are based on film ( when possible ) and facts. I agree with you that Louis was as you say : Yes, he was slow and methodical with his footwork ". He also had a low guard, and if you watch the film, did stick his face forward too often, a real no-no in boxing. I can tell you going to pull on that last statement as he only straw you have. Joe was flied 22 times or so. Watch the films. He did not tuck his chin well, nor did he have a high guard.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X
                                TOP