Joe Frazier vs Joe Louis

[Ascended]

Yes , but things such as weight, power, and punch resistance are translatable to any era. Louis style, his very low guard, limited head and footwork and stick your face forward mean he would be at odds vs. modern skilled big men that feature greater power and more reach than his typical opponents.

If anything the 4-6 ounce gloves Louis used augmented his power. Modern heavy weights use 12 ounce gloves. There is more padding to them.

Still Louis does have fast hands, and a good offense when his feet are set. That much is clear.

*** If you take his best opponents fought in Schemling, Walcott, Conn, and Charles and Marcinao and Louis is a loser on the given score cards in its totality. Big time. You can't make things up and EVEN the best Joe Louis fans admit that I am right ( IBRO guys, and other historians ) say I'm right. They are not regular posters on this forum by the way. These were the best men Louis fought.


His flaws are on display vs. his tier two opposition. See the Braddock fight, the Farr fight, the B Bear fight, the Galento fight and the Godoy fight. ***


ANY fan here may disagree with the above *** Go ahead and school will be in session.

Do you notice all the same flaws/tech they used from the Louis era and is it any guys Joe fought as advanced as these guys?

[mrbig1]

heâs a black guy btw, not white.

hard to believe.

[Dr. Z]

Do you notice all the same flaws/tech they used from the Louis era and is it any guys Joe fought as advanced as these guys?

Well, Joe Louis did fight Ezzard Charles when he was 36. I think Ez was a great light heavyweight / small cruiser weight ( under 195 lbs ) type of guy and he busted up Louis badly and beat him 13 rounds vs. two 2 on my card.

Nothing is wrong with Charles' skills on film. He gave up both height and reach. And about oh 33 pounds to Louis.

Granted Louis was past his best, but I see not much difference two years before when he fought Walcott who was well ahead on the cards going into 11th. Both guys were 34 here.

Louis won because Walcott got cute as was caught. Not because he was in the lead. I say Louis is not boxer very good on offense and defense type of boxer needed miracle KO's vs Conn and Walcott show that. In the first Walcott fight he was robbed as 2/3 of sports people scoring in the crowd t favored him, and if Conn was only 12 rounds, Conn wins.

Louis fan need to focus on the facts, film, and what real. Yeah -- he was very good at KO'ing over matched small guys or big & slow fighters in his day. But most of his beaten opponents would not be ranked today at heavyweight. And many of these men exposed Louis in a loss.

[mrbig1]

even Louis said it was the bum of the month club. Still the man was 66-3 with 52 KO's. Very few could land big shots on target with speed. smoking Joe once he got going was a handful for anyone under 220 pounds. This is a great match up.

[Ascended]

even Louis said it was the bum of the month club. Still the man was 66-3 with 52 KO's. Very few could land big shots on target with speed. smoking Joe once he got going was a handful for anyone under 220 pounds. This is a great match up.

Anybody as advanced as these guys from the Louis era this was Frazier 3rd match

[them_apples]

Yes , but things such as weight, power, and punch resistance are translatable to any era. Louis style, his very low guard, limited head and footwork and stick your face forward mean he would be at odds vs. modern skilled big men that feature greater power and more reach than his typical opponents.

If anything the 4-6 ounce gloves Louis used augmented his power. Modern heavy weights use 12 ounce gloves. There is more padding to them.

Still Louis does have fast hands, and a good offense when his feet are set. That much is clear.

*** If you take his best opponents fought in Schemling, Walcott, Conn, and Charles and Marcinao and Louis is a loser on the given score cards in its totality. Big time. You can't make things up and EVEN the best Joe Louis fans admit that I am right ( IBRO guys, and other historians ) say I'm right. They are not regular posters on this forum by the way. These were the best men Louis fought.


His flaws are on display vs. his tier two opposition. See the Braddock fight, the Farr fight, the B Bear fight, the Galento fight and the Godoy fight. ***


ANY fan here may disagree with the above *** Go ahead and school will be in session.

You agreeing with Ascended should worry you.

all of what you wrote is untrue, sorry. Non of what you said about Louis is reality.

[Ascended]

You agreeing with Ascended should worry you.

all of what you wrote is untrue, sorry. Non of what you said about Louis is reality.

See, you're a problem. You need cult members to argee with you; he didn't, so I don't know where you see he did, and I don't need anybody to agree with anything. I can see every obsolete technology and flaw of any era. What I say and show is a fact: no one can change video.

[Dr. Z]

You agreeing with Ascended should worry you.

all of what you wrote is untrue, sorry. Non of what you said about Louis is reality.

My opinion has been stated before Ascended joined the board.

Instead of saying you're wrong, how about explaining what I wrote is wrong.

Ready, set, GO.

[Ascended]

My opinion has been stated before Ascended joined the board.

Instead of saying you're wrong, how about explaining what I wrote is wrong.

Ready, set, GO.

Do you notice all the same flaws/tech they used from the Louis era and is it any guys louis fought as advanced as these guys?

[JAB5239]

Well, Joe Louis did fight Ezzard Charles when he was 36. I think Ez was a great light heavyweight / small cruiser weight ( under 195 lbs ) type of guy and he busted up Louis badly and beat him 13 rounds vs. two 2 on my card.

Nothing is wrong with Charles' skills on film. He gave up both height and reach. And about oh 33 pounds to Louis.

Granted Louis was past his best, but I see not much difference two years before when he fought Walcott who was well ahead on the cards going into 11th. Both guys were 34 here.

Louis won because Walcott got cute as was caught. Not because he was in the lead. I say Louis is not boxer very good on offense and defense type of boxer needed miracle KO's vs Conn and Walcott show that. In the first Walcott fight he was robbed as 2/3 of sports people scoring in the crowd t favored him, and if Conn was only 12 rounds, Conn wins.

Louis fan need to focus on the facts, film, and what real. Yeah -- he was very good at KO'ing over matched small guys or big & slow fighters in his day. But most of his beaten opponents would not be ranked today at heavyweight. And many of these men exposed Louis in a loss.

What proof do you have most of the guys Louis beat wouldn't be ranked today? Have you every seen a more technically gifted fighters than Louis? Heavyweights wear 10oz gloves today.