The reason Joe Louis should be studied above all fighters

[billeau2]

Yes.

Keeping your guard low, hardly moving your feet, and sticking your face forward style of boxing is a recipe for ... disaster.

Boxers in the gym, especially heavyweights should try it. I mean someone should try it ... if you don't like them.

The skinny 200-205 pounders are kicking @ss and taking names in the gym, at heavyweight. We'll maybe some did 50+ years ago.

The aren't around anymore in modern times. Like the dinosaur they are extinct.

Like Usyk? Like Wilder? Like Byrd? Extinct like that? Of the three men vying for top heavyweight billing, ONE of them is a giant heavyweight.

You mistake economy of motion with sluggard footwork. A common mistake made when evaluating (IRONY ALERT) Perhaps the TWO best finishers in heavyweight history (Liston and Louis)... So slow lol. Lewis won because with his footwork and all he knew he would catch his man in 15 rounds.

So basically all those quick footed fighters could not finish an opponent like the "slow" deliberate guys, one of whom did not even cut the ring! (Liston).

[Dr. Z]

Keeping your guard low, hardly moving your feet, and sticking your face forward style of boxing is a recipe for ... disaster.

Boxers in the gym, especially heavyweights should try it. I mean someone should try it ... if you don't like them.

The skinny 200-205 pounders are kicking @ss and taking names in the gym, at heavyweight. We'll maybe some did 50+ years ago.

The aren't around anymore in modern times. Like the dinosaur they are extinct.

QUOTE=billeau2;n32028158]

Like Usyk? Like Wilder? Like Byrd? Extinct like that? Of the three men vying for top heavyweight billing, ONE of them is a giant heavyweight.

You mistake economy of motion with sluggard footwork. A common mistake made when evaluating (IRONY ALERT) Perhaps the TWO best finishers in heavyweight history (Liston and Louis)... So slow lol. Lewis won because with his footwork and all he knew he would catch his man in 15 rounds.

So basically all those quick footed fighters could not finish an opponent like the "slow" deliberate guys, one of whom did not even cut the ring! (Liston). [/QUOTE]




Come on Bill!

Usyk is a moving South paw. He is nothing like Joe Louis!

Byrd is a defensive fighter and a southpaw. He is nothing like Joe Louis either!


And their guards are higher.


Wilder is 6'7" tall. And he is sloppy.

You compare these three to shuffling Joe Louis?! Two do not fit and the other is about 6" in height and reach taller / longer.

I am going to pretend I did not read your reply.

[billeau2]

QUOTE=billeau2;n32028158]

Like Usyk? Like Wilder? Like Byrd? Extinct like that? Of the three men vying for top heavyweight billing, ONE of them is a giant heavyweight.

You mistake economy of motion with sluggard footwork. A common mistake made when evaluating (IRONY ALERT) Perhaps the TWO best finishers in heavyweight history (Liston and Louis)... So slow lol. Lewis won because with his footwork and all he knew he would catch his man in 15 rounds.

So basically all those quick footed fighters could not finish an opponent like the "slow" deliberate guys, one of whom did not even cut the ring! (Liston).

Come on Bill!

Usyk is a moving South paw. He is nothing like Joe Louis!

Byrd is a defensive fighter and a southpaw. He is nothing like Joe Louis either!


And their guards are higher.


Wilder is 6'7" tall. And he is sloppy.

You compare these three to shuffling Joe Louis?! Two do not fit and the other is about 6" in height and reach taller / longer.

I am going to pretend I did not read your reply.
[/QUOTE]

Size... You seem to think bigger is better. I am merely pointing out that correlations between size and ability have not formed a new trend... It may yet, but as of this point in boxing history, SOME of the best heavyweights are big, others are smaller.

And Usk and Byrd are not near the finishers of men who you call "shufflers." that should be important to think about.

[Dr. Z]

Come on Bill!

Usyk is a moving South paw. He is nothing like Joe Louis!

Byrd is a defensive fighter and a southpaw. He is nothing like Joe Louis either!


And their guards are higher.


Wilder is 6'7" tall. And he is sloppy.

You compare these three to shuffling Joe Louis?! Two do not fit and the other is about 6" in height and reach taller / longer.

I am going to pretend I did not read your reply.

Size... You seem to think bigger is better. I am merely pointing out that correlations between size and ability have not formed a new trend... It may yet, but as of this point in boxing history, SOME of the best heavyweights are big, others are smaller.

And Usk and Byrd are not near the finishers of men who you call "shufflers." that should be important to think about. [/QUOTE]

Yes, but we are talking defense, movement, and guard. Usyk and Byrd are far better the Louis here. No comparison.

There has not been a heavyweight champ Louis size in 30+ years. In his prime he was 195- 205 LBS.

[billeau2]

Size... You seem to think bigger is better. I am merely pointing out that correlations between size and ability have not formed a new trend... It may yet, but as of this point in boxing history, SOME of the best heavyweights are big, others are smaller.

And Usk and Byrd are not near the finishers of men who you call "shufflers." that should be important to think about.

Yes, but we are talking defense, movement, and guard. Usyk and Byrd are far better the Louis here. No comparison.

There has not been a heavyweight champ Louis size in 30+ years. In his prime he was 195- 205 LBS. [/QUOTE]

Better? I don't really approach the subject from that angle so much as a comparison. I don't know who is better. And is it better that fighters are heavier? That is up for debate as well.

[Rockin']

And is it better that fighters are heavier?

I enjoyed being faster than those big guys. Walk around them popping jabs in to their mugs. It keeps them occupied.

A jab-right hand, as they lunge forward and you're taking a side. Pop-pop-pop!

But that sheet'll move you when they land.

The funny thing about getting hit by them, while their shots have more power, they just have no snap in the shots.

Atleast that's what I experienced with the guys that I worked with.................Rockin'

[billeau2]

I enjoyed being faster than those big guys. Walk around them popping jabs in to their mugs. It keeps them occupied.

A jab-right hand, as they lunge forward and you're taking a side. Pop-pop-pop!

But that sheet'll move you when they land.

The funny thing about getting hit by them, while their shots have more power, they just have no snap in the shots.

Atleast that's what I experienced with the guys that I worked with.................Rockin'

explosive power is kind of a Holy Grail for hitting. Tyson had it... Ricardo Mayorga, of all people had it. Of course other great fighters did as well... It is a real benefit! I always tried to teach people to explode into a reverse punch. Heavy hands are also great... But explosive power is like a gun shot! when it comes together at least.

And the jab? It is STILL, even with all the respect that it gets, undervalued. Fighters need to have a way to hit with the power hand, but the truth is, one can win a fight on a good jab alone! It is like these great Italian restaurants when I was a kid in NYC... The bread was fresh baked, and butter... as a young person you could easily make a meal of that bread and butter! The jab, really good bread...Important things, and all one needs in many situations, with nothing lacking.

How one works off the jab is just another set of skills. True story. I was once told by a competing karate instructor, years ago when I was coming up, that I needed to use my reverse punch. I told this to my teacher and he laughed at me. He gave me the signal "Your going to struggle with this and figure it out for yourself!" It took me years but I realized something. In a tournament you could try to sneak in a reverse punch but when fighting full contact, you just exposed yourself too much... I began to see that in real fighting, to use the reverse punch you had to do what my instructor used to do: grab the other guy's Gi and pull him into position. I watched Sensei rip new, heavyweight Gi tops! And nobody taught one that you have to grab a person first... But experience taught you quick!

So when we try to hit with the power hand? It is something that takes a lot of understanding. Getting plugged at a safe speed, in a sparring environment is not the same as getting tagged, countered in a situation where the stakes are higher. As far as I can tell, this is why a lot of great fighters will use a jab exclusively, until they either are forced to stop, or the person is open enough to use more techniques.

[Slugfester]

Here is what I do: having studied martial arts for over 40 years, and as a hobby, looking at boxing film as a source of good information along with great conversation... If you have a framework in place, an understanding of WHY certain things were done, and then understand the principles behind making those things succesful, down to distance, timing, the guard used, etc. Then the tape makes more sense and as we get better tape, we can see things more clearly.

Let me give an example, that can be looked at in the abstract: It has become fashionable for martial artists to critique techniques they have no understanding of... Dismissing these techniques means not adapting them or understanding their value. One technique is a Japanese technique where I thrust to your belly with a knife, you stop the blade, shift over and disarm. So: immediate reaction is "people do not stab like that!" "The guy will just draw the knife back!" Well... When this technique was done, it was done against an opponent who is trying to cut through you. Originally you were both in armour as well, the cut was to the belly under the armour plate, or to catch the seams and cut through them on the side... The thing is, EVERYTHING depends on where your weight is when you catch the arm in an X. If you are back past the knife weilders center, you would be protected by hand plates, but would not be succesful, if yu are equal balance, you better shift in quick, and what you want is to crash into him with your weight and bring the knife back past his center of balance...

Now, dismissing this technique as "not working" is a fallicy. Adapting the technique to different environments is progressive... But it is easier for martial artists to say "ohh those Samurai, they did not know how people fight in modern society" which is a load of crap lol.

Lewis fought the way he did to maximize his chances to land his punches. He was not always steller in doing so, but his technique, his form, his muscle memory was such that any bookie could count Louis would get some cracks at the apple in a fight, and these cracks would usually mean something.

Good information which I think does not negate my premise. If the camera does not pick something up, then there is nothing in that spot to restore. You can make whatever is already there look better, but you will not be able to restore details that were never recorded, at any fps.. Colorization itself helps bring out more detail, all of which is false detail, however. For instance, there is no information on the black & white film which tells the color of the guy's coat at ringside, to my knowledge. It still makes clarity better. Higher fps does provide more detail, such as the 60 fps that sporting events are filmed at so slowed motion is available. If they filmed something at 30 fps and then tried slow motion, it would look like an old fight again, jerky.

The only thing I am talking about here is a simple if/then proposition: If a detail was not picked up by the camera, then there is nowhere to find it on the original film. I do not stand on all my statements with equal weight because intuitive science and logic is highly risky. If someone can show where I am wrong, I would appreciate that, because then I would learn something without having to rummage and read for three days.

[Willie Pep 229]

Good information which I think does not negate my premise. If the camera does not pick something up, then there is nothing in that spot to restore. You can make whatever is already there look better, but you will not be able to restore details that were never recorded, at any fps.. Colorization itself helps bring out more detail, all of which is false detail, however. For instance, there is no information on the black & white film which tells the color of the guy's coat at ringside, to my knowledge. It still makes clarity better. Higher fps does provide more detail, such as the 60 fps that sporting events are filmed at so slowed motion is available. If they filmed something at 30 fps and then tried slow motion, it would look like an old fight again, jerky.

The only thing I am talking about here is a simple if/then proposition: If a detail was not picked up by the camera, then there is nowhere to find it on the original film. I do not stand on all my statements with equal weight because intuitive science and logic is highly risky. If someone can show where I am wrong, I would appreciate that, because then I would learn something without having to rummage and read for three days.

In future will AI be able to predict, recreate and then adjust the movement necessarily, so the created imagines can fill the gaps?

[Slugfester]

Probably. In a way it is already done. Your television refreshes its picture 120 times per second. But no camera rolls that fast, so at some point (immediately) there is no next image available to insert, so a generated image is inserted. So for a camera operating at 60 fps, every other frame is an inserted one for the full run time. I find that amazing.