a case for Joe Louis beating Muhammad Ali prime for prime

[QueensburyRules]

Na! As big Dempsey a fan as I am I have to disagree. 1967 Ali is too much for Dempsey. Dempsey couldn't chase him down. An Ali UD, in a fight where Ali would figure out how to turn it into a stinker to watch.

Louis on the other hand would find Dempsey difficult to deal with. We can't know for sure because Louis was so aged, but the only fighter who ever pressured Louis as Dempsey would have is Marciano. Dempsey has a solid chin and could weather Louis's right hand long enough to get inside and do damage.

I might bet Dempsey against Louis. Never against Ali ('67).

On the other hand, Ali '74 and the 'rope a dope' Dempsey wins that fight by TKO in five rounds.

You had to be effective moving backwards to beat Dempsey. Trade with him, or even just stand in front of him, you die.

- - Club Footed Chuvalo never had a moment's trouble pounding on Ali breadbasket. Like he mentioned after taking the first fight, short notice a week or so after he had just fought, Ali had to go to the hospital in Canada, whereas George went out dancing with his wife...

[billeau2]

Yes, this is indeed a joke!

Yeah, characterizing large chunks of information with general statements rarely holds up under scrutiny. I see the changes in boxing as the direct result of the sport adapting itself to different environments. Usually we can tell a lot about the athletes when we look at the environment they are competing within. For example, if you Bundana had a milkshake shack with one machine and a few freezers, and I decide to give you a check with unlimited funds to expand... Surely if a customer were to say: "Wow! these shakes are so much better! what happened?" There would be no mystery to the so called, evolution of your shop. Football (American) got really elite when colleges saw it as a money maker. At that point innovative individuals, like the inventors of nautilus machines, etc, entered the picture and made football players, faster, stronger, meaner and probably smarter to boot... The point here: Its not because of any generality, like "all sports evolve" that made football what it is today, there are specific reasons.

With boxing, when Dempsey first brought the focus of the sport on the science of punching, it was a revelation. Smart fighters and great punchers existed for sure, but there was not a mass understanding of punching dynamics, this is despite the fact that trainers had spoken of punching power and such at least since the mid 1800's. With a focus on punching the natural inclination to square up followed suit. Prior to the age of Dempsey to Louis fencing dynamics were at the crux of distance, timing and strategy in boxing. Boxing came into its own... the use of the hands, as opposed to the focus on protecting the hands, suddenly held sway.

naturally gloves got bigger, lines of attack were foreshortened to include movements from the waist, placement of the head, the use of the shoulders, etc. By the time Louis came along as a hellanistic Platonic archetype... Michelangelo the puncher, rounds had already been shortened, gloves made to protect the hand better (this was/is the reason for gloves! not to protect the face of opponent), neutral corners, etc.

Since that time boxing has made a contest shorter. Punchers no longer have 15 rounds to work, giving an obvious advantage to the boxer over the great punchers... The amatuer training, which is based on scoring punches in bunches, hitting with the main glove area, does not emphasize complex footwork, or movement from the waist. The contests are won standing upright (it is a foul to take away targets from opponent) and landing more punches. So what we tend to see today are fighters who use a modified two step because more complex techniques like cutting the ring off, distorting distance, etc all take time. It just so happens that a lot of the boxing pipeline comes through the amatuers these days.

Despite these developments there are still many fighters who train with more complete technical understanding... the conflict between amatuer training and the pros has ALWAYS been a part of boxing! trainers were talking about it in the 1800's. Certain amamtuer styles work very well and are more complete than others as well... The Cuban stylists for example. But fighters adapt to the situation they find themselves in. There are great fighters today as there have always been. It is worth noting that fighters like Tony Bellew, James Toney and Hopkins, among others, have kept the old ways alive. There will always be fighters who do so. Likewise there are fighters who have taken amatuer methods and made them exemplory, like Loma and Usyk. Boxing will always have weak and strong periods, often per different divisions. So... no there are no generalities that can describe the absolute nature of all fighters in this, or any, day and age.

[them_apples]

Yes, this is indeed a joke!

anyone with a massive wide stance and doing padwork with the trainer doing half the work. Is a joke.
so many of them train like that.


Like why is gervonta davis stance so wide? your toes of one foot should be touching the heal of your next foot.
Why does Devin Haney have such a wide stance?

These guys look ridiculous

[Willie Pep 229]

Yeah, characterizing large chunks of information with general statements rarely holds up under scrutiny. I see the changes in boxing as the direct result of the sport adapting itself to different environments. Usually we can tell a lot about the athletes when we look at the environment they are competing within. For example, if you Bundana had a milkshake shack with one machine and a few freezers, and I decide to give you a check with unlimited funds to expand... Surely if a customer were to say: "Wow! these shakes are so much better! what happened?" There would be no mystery to the so called, evolution of your shop. Football (American) got really elite when colleges saw it as a money maker. At that point innovative individuals, like the inventors of nautilus machines, etc, entered the picture and made football players, faster, stronger, meaner and probably smarter to boot... The point here: Its not because of any generality, like "all sports evolve" that made football what it is today, there are specific reasons.

With boxing, when Dempsey first brought the focus of the sport on the science of punching, it was a revelation. Smart fighters and great punchers existed for sure, but there was not a mass understanding of punching dynamics, this is despite the fact that trainers had spoken of punching power and such at least since the mid 1800's. With a focus on punching the natural inclination to square up followed suit. Prior to the age of Dempsey to Louis fencing dynamics were at the crux of distance, timing and strategy in boxing. Boxing came into its own... the use of the hands, as opposed to the focus on protecting the hands, suddenly held sway.

naturally gloves got bigger, lines of attack were foreshortened to include movements from the waist, placement of the head, the use of the shoulders, etc. By the time Louis came along as a hellanistic Platonic archetype... Michelangelo the puncher, rounds had already been shortened, gloves made to protect the hand better (this was/is the reason for gloves! not to protect the face of opponent), neutral corners, etc.

Since that time boxing has made a contest shorter. Punchers no longer have 15 rounds to work, giving an obvious advantage to the boxer over the great punchers... The amatuer training, which is based on scoring punches in bunches, hitting with the main glove area, does not emphasize complex footwork, or movement from the waist. The contests are won standing upright (it is a foul to take away targets from opponent) and landing more punches. So what we tend to see today are fighters who use a modified two step because more complex techniques like cutting the ring off, distorting distance, etc all take time. It just so happens that a lot of the boxing pipeline comes through the amatuers these days.

Despite these developments there are still many fighters who train with more complete technical understanding... the conflict between amatuer training and the pros has ALWAYS been a part of boxing! trainers were talking about it in the 1800's. Certain amamtuer styles work very well and are more complete than others as well... The Cuban stylists for example. But fighters adapt to the situation they find themselves in. There are great fighters today as there have always been. It is worth noting that fighters like Tony Bellew, James Toney and Hopkins, among others, have kept the old ways alive. There will always be fighters who do so. Likewise there are fighters who have taken amatuer methods and made them exemplory, like Loma and Usyk. Boxing will always have weak and strong periods, often per different divisions. So... no there are no generalities that can describe the absolute nature of all fighters in this, or any, day and age.

I have a keen interest in the origin of American football.

College football didn't see football as a money maker. College football, American football, came into existance as a college/fraternity money maker.

Professional football didn't get legs under it until 1921-1924. College football, as it is played today, had it's first full season in 1880.

It started as club ball (fraternities), 1870-1880, at the upscale schools, and only became a varsity sport over a decade later when the universities realized it wasn't going away and best to regulate it.

In the beginning teams individually contracted their schedules with each other, with specified admission profit splits. Teams (fraternities) who failed to meet contracts had to pay forfiet money.

From its very conception, team presidents emphasized creating rules that would open up the game, increase the scoring, and excite the crowd.

These efforts, this emphasis, appears at the very beginning and has never been veered from, by either college or professional football.

In what is often cited as the first college football game in 1869, the famous Princeton-Rutgers game, began with a 'square table' conference, where the rules would be laid out.

Participants at that table discussion included the two teams, the press, and selected students, whose opinion was sought for entertainment value. Literally, they were entertainment minded on day one.

Each game of football (ball down) played, had to have its rules tweaked until it was finally standardized in 1880. ***

For almost 140 years now baseball and football have traversed totaly opposite paths. Baseball argued, for over ten years the 'designated hitter rule,' and then only half of Baseball embraced it anyway. Lol

Football changes its rules every season, always with entrainment value (second only to safety) as the driving force for each change.

Anerican football was created at the Ivory League schools by rich kids. Kids who spoke proudly to the Gilded Age newspapers about how they were building their product, and constantly measured (bragged about) their own success by citing attendance figures.

Walter Camp, sometimes called the father of American football, played for six and half seasons at Yale, until be blew out his ACL. It was club ball and the schools were not invovled; academic standing meant nothing. You had to be in the fraternity.

*** If you're interested the basic rules for that 1869 game were:

25 men on each side. 15 players, on each side played the ball, while ten players per side were restricted to separate ten square-yard zones.

You could run after, block, tackle, grab the ball, bat the ball, to gain possession of the ball.

Once a player gained possession the others had to 'give him room,' whence he then had to advance the ball down field with his foot only.

A kick over a horizontal bar was a goal. No vertical posts for a few decades.

Of the four variations played today: Soccer (Association Rules), Rugby (Rugby Boys School Rules); Austrialian Football, and American/Canadian Football. The Australians play the game (ball down) closest to its original rules.

P.S. One last digression I promise. I ran across a New York Times article (circa 1883) that denoted the beginning of 'designated blocking' by making it legal. An amazing article to read, and knd of funny.

Cornell was playing Dartmouth. On the first play from scrimmage a Dartmouth player singled out a Cornell player and knocked him to the ground. The Cornell player jumped to his feet and yelled foul. They were a good ten yards away from the scrum when he hit him.

At the time, one was expected to play the ball not the man. Dartmouth's behavior was considered unsportsmanlike. After some arguing . . .

. . . on the next play, same event, both benches cleared and Cornell walked off the field in protest.

An emergency meeting was called, headed by Yale's Walter Camp and it was decided that designated blocking made the game more sophisticated and the committee held that 'designated blocking' wasn't unsportsmanlike, and was good for the game. Every other team now had to play catch-up to Dartmouth. A process that repeats itself with every innovation.

American football has taken that desire for innovation and sophistication to becoming the most complicated sport world wide.

College football was started by rich, smart kids.

The first legal forward pass was still 26 years away.

[Bundana]

anyone with a massive wide stance and doing padwork with the trainer doing half the work. Is a joke.
so many of them train like that.


Like why is gervonta davis stance so wide? your toes of one foot should be touching the heal of your next foot.
Why does Devin Haney have such a wide stance?

These guys look ridiculous

Of course they look ridiculous - to you! Because the only reason you're here, is to denigrade modern boxing/boxers. Nothing today is good enough, in your opinion.

Your claim that "boxers today have absolutely terrible footwork, stances so wide they lose balance and can't throw proper punches".... Isn't that just a slightly different version of your original claim, that modern boxers lack the old-time skills to set an opponent up for the KO? Does this mean, that you have run out of reasons why the moderns suck so much - so you now have to re-write your old nonsense?

Also, despite numerous requests, you have yet to explain, how you conclude, that most modern boxers have glass jaws! Think you'll ever reveal your thoughts about this absurd claim?

[them_apples]

Of course they look ridiculous - to you! Because the only reason you're here, is to denigrade modern boxing/boxers. Nothing today is good enough, in your opinion.

Your claim that "boxers today have absolutely terrible footwork, stances so wide they lose balance and can't throw proper punches".... Isn't that just a slightly different version of your original claim, that modern boxers lack the old-time skills to set an opponent up for the KO? Does this mean, that you have run out of reasons why the moderns suck so much - so you now have to re-write your old nonsense?

Also, despite numerous requests, you have yet to explain, how you conclude, that most modern boxers have glass jaws! Think you'll ever reveal your thoughts about this absurd claim?

i already explained to you the glass jaw idea. The problem is you don’t understand.

the system of boxing filtered out all the glass jawed fighters early. Boxers were expected to fight and hurt their oponents. THIS IS WHY. Don’t ask again

[Bundana]

i already explained to you the glass jaw idea. The problem is you donât understand.

the system of boxing filtered out all the glass jawed fighters early. Boxers were expected to fight and hurt their oponents. THIS IS WHY. Donât ask again

What has this got to do with your claim, that most modern boxers have glass jaws? Nothing - as such an idea of course is outrageously silly!

[them_apples]

What has this got to do with your claim, that most modern boxers have glass jaws? Nothing - as such an idea of course is outrageously silly!

what part don’t you understand?

basketball players didn’t start growing, no all the tall people went to basketball because being tall is beneficial.

If you can’t understand the point I am making then I don’t know what else to say.

[Bundana]

what part donât you understand?

basketball players didnât start growing, no all the tall people went to basketball because being tall is beneficial.

If you canât understand the point I am making then I donât know what else to say.

You are not making any sensible point. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever, that most modern boxers have glass jaws!

Just as there is no justification for saying that:
... modern boxers have lost the ability to set an opponent up for the KO.
... modern boxers gas after 4 rounds.
... modern boxers quit without putting up a fight more frequently than the old-timers.
... Bivol and Canelo don't even know how to fight.
... Lennox Lewis used amateur style punches.
... most new school fighters fight like amateurs.
... on tape it seems as though the old-timers are better chinned.
... if we're comparing the greatest hearts of 2015 to 1940, the old-timers win.
... avoiding conflict in a boxing match is accepted now.
... many boxers today are unwilling to exchange and hurt their opponents.
... if you took the best boxers from each era, the old-timers would have better chins.
... etc.,etc.

[them_apples]

You are not making any sensible point. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever, that most modern boxers have glass jaws!

Just as there is no justification for saying that:
... modern boxers have lost the ability to set an opponent up for the KO.
... modern boxers gas after 4 rounds.
... modern boxers quit without putting up a fight more frequently than the old-timers.
... Bivol and Canelo don't even know how to fight.
... Lennox Lewis used amateur style punches.
... most new school fighters fight like amateurs.
... on tape it seems as though the old-timers are better chinned.
... if we're comparing the greatest hearts of 2015 to 1940, the old-timers win.
... avoiding conflict in a boxing match is accepted now.
... many boxers today are unwilling to exchange and hurt their opponents.
... if you took the best boxers from each era, the old-timers would have better chins.
... etc.,etc.

not realistic to be able to prove it in such a way that its scientific. 99.9 percent of this forum is opinions, from those educated on boxing for the most part.

Everything I say or point out you refuse to acknowledge or even see. I could explain to you all these things and probably have 100 times. For some reason you never listen though. Your list is not what I say, its out of context. Every single one of those I gave a good explanation for. So its ridiculous to keep bringing it up.

I told you WHY I see them as having glass chins 50 times. These factors made boxing an environment that doesn't allow someone with a glass chin to survive. it was too dangerous

- fighters are private contractors and openly duck and protect themselves (this is why we see so many undefeated records).
- Fights are stopped sooner, and often with no marks on the fighters faces - they simply wont fight back. Just the other day Ryan Garcia quit on live TV, instantly got up a second later.
- back in the day, you were EXPECTED to fight, we all know this. They came to hurt eachother.
- amateur boxing changed in the 90's, most pros today have already had 200+ ammy fights and cannot ever stop fighting like that (Amir Khan for example).

The petronelli brothers said if they found out a fighter has a glass jaw they tell him to quit boxing right away.


Some of these are easy too answer though, for example Canelo, who sucks wind and takes breaks constantly. He looked exhausted against Bivol. He's carrying way too much mass. he is a 154 lb fighter. Theres a perfect example of proof right there.