The reason Joe Louis should be studied above all fighters

[Bundana]

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.

you are so far off the mark I only wish you knew. Genuinely.in your mind you deem Louisâ defense worse because his hands are lower. But because blackburn knows more about boxing than you, and taught him to fight like that - then its obviously got purpose to it yeah?

Louis is very technically proficient. His stance requires a lower âÂÂguardâ because the best punches are thrown from a low slung guard. The shoulders can dangle free and remain relaxed, poised to strike. These dumb new fighters with high guards donâÂÂt realize how tight that makes your arms and saps your power and speed. Louis rear hand parrys shots and is held right in front of his face. This stance allows for a very hard and snappy jab. This was fundamental stuff developed a long time ago. You can see gene tunney keeping those slow slung shoulders relaxed as well. Then on top of this Louis has been taught how to ride punches, a lost art. But the most brilliant part of all: Louis stance. He cuts and hard angle and puts more weight in his rear leg leaning ever so slightly back, tucks his chin behind his shoulder. As long as he keeps that angle facing his oponent he is extremely hard to hit based on the angle leaving no areas of the body to hit, and the hidden far slung stance with his parrying hand in front of his face. By pivoting on his back foot he can easily keep this angle facing his oponent. This is why Louis, could so easily stalk oponents who would find themselves backing up, without having to do anything Louis is defending himself just based on his stance. Ali demonstrates it to Roy Jones, and Jones said âÂÂhe stands in such a way that there isnâÂÂt anything to hitâÂÂ.

his punch technique is perfect because its based on leverage.

his Balance is perfect, he is always in position to punch

his bodyâÂÂs balance is perfect as well, with a thicker set of legs and a light muscular upperbody.

All his punches have been carefully curated in front of a mirror to have no tell. A lost art. You can call him stiff and robotic (mostly because of the film) he is actually a poker bodied individual who has mastered the art of subtlety.

his jab has perfect design to it, fired with a low relaxed shoulder allowing for a high velocity explosion, straight as an arrow, thrown strictly from the shoulder without any body movement whatsoever and turned over in the shoulder only at the very end (keeping the shot as straight as possible).

the list of things Louis does well is astronomical I will have to stop somewhere

you canâÂÂt say this isnâÂÂt well thought out boxing by someone who spent their entire life studying pugilism. A guy roger mayweather says was the greatest trainer of all time.[/QUOTE]


Wow, so many words, in an attempt to sound clever. Lost art this, lost art that, dumb new fighters... Jesus!

[Ivich]

Originally posted by Dr. Z View Post
you are so far off the mark I only wish you knew. Genuinely.in your mind you deem Louisâ defense worse because his hands are lower. But because blackburn knows more about boxing than you, and taught him to fight like that - then its obviously got purpose to it yeah?

The flaws on Louis defense are there to see. Come on. I see Louis has slow and predictable shuffling feet, a low guard, and a sack your face forward type if stance. It there on film. Did Blackburn teach Louis this? Or was is just how Louis was?

Louis is lucky most of his completion was not very good, and had great power and offensive skills .


Louis fought but two back men for his 26 title defenses, zero eastern european guys, and had trouble with international talent in his title matches did he not? Asking you.

Boxing heavyweight boxing has been dominated by these groups since the 1960's. And Louis had trouble with them. Hmmm...


But Louis sure clobbered most of his bum of the month guys. Expect two of them knock him down. ( Tony Galento and Buddy Bear ) And Jimmy Braddock knocked Louis down. Talking facts and defense.

You lie about me and ignore the facts. What a ****** man you are. Look up bum if the most guys, you will see the name I am talking about. Buddy Bear who lost 7 times. Prior to facing Louis, Bubby Baer lost five times! Scarasm. DUH.


What about #1 ring magazine ranked, heavyweight Betttina. Oh that's right, Louis did not fight any southpaws either. What about fighting him in 1943, 1942, or 1941? Nope. I said never.

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1944

As selected by The Ring magazine in the February 1945 issue.

*Title frozen for the duration of World War II

Joe Louis*, Champion Melio Bettina Tami Mauriello Curtis Sheppard Joe Baksi Lee Oma Lee Q Murray Jack London Elmer Ray Al Hart

[/QUOTE]
You are saying Galento the number 1 contender and Baer the number 6 contender were bums.Do you know just how ridiculous that comment is?
Louis did not fight the number 4 ranked Bettina in1941 instead he fought the number 1 contender Conn
who beat Bettina! In your opinion , should he have ducked Conn and fought Bettina instead? lol
Louis did not fight Bettina in1944 because a little thing called WW2 was on ,and Louis was in the Army and his title was frozen . You MORON! lol
Please point out the lies I said about you in my earlier posts?

[Slugfester]

- - AI gonna be watching our micro movements that nobody can see, esp in the toilet so when AI has their annual picnic, potty humor will be flying thru the air.

I had no idea you **********d in micro movements. You sound like a worried man. If you dig a cellar deep enough, they may not be able to pick up your minuscule strokes.

[Dr. Z]

You lie about me and ignore the facts. What a ****** man you are. Look up bum if the most guys, you will see the name I am talking about. Buddy Bear who lost 7 times. Prior to facing Louis, Bubby Baer lost five times! Scarasm. DUH.


What about #1 ring magazine ranked, heavyweight Betttina. Oh that's right, Louis did not fight any southpaws either. What about fighting him in 1943, 1942, or 1941? Nope. I said never.

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1944

As selected by The Ring magazine in the February 1945 issue.

*Title frozen for the duration of World War II

Joe Louis*, Champion Melio Bettina Tami Mauriello Curtis Sheppard Joe Baksi Lee Oma Lee Q Murray Jack London Elmer Ray Al Hart

You are saying Galento the number 1 contender and Baer the number 6 contender were bums.Do you know just how ridiculous that comment is?
Louis did not fight the number 4 ranked Bettina in1941 instead he fought the number 1 contender Conn
who beat Bettina! In your opinion , should he have ducked Conn and fought Bettina instead? lol
Louis did not fight Bettina in1944 because a little thing called WW2 was on ,and Louis was in the Army and his title was frozen . You MORON! lol
Please point out the lies I said about you in my earlier posts?[/QUOTE]

No fool, Louis for B Bear and Galeno much earlier. He could have fought Bettina after the war was over or before he joined the army but didn't. He was a southpaw and IMO Louis avoided them.

As I said, B Baer lost 7 times. Prior to facing Louis, Buddy Baer lost five times! He was ranked #6. Okay, someone had to be. Meanwhile Bettina was ranked #1. Have you ever seen him fight?

Bettina fought black contenders Joe Louis did not for his title shots. Sheppard,Fox and Bivins did not get title shots. Neither did Melio Bettina. You said so may lies. Pointing them out mean nothing to you. You either ignore my replies or say things I have not said.

[Ivich]

You are saying Galento the number 1 contender and Baer the number 6 contender were bums.Do you know just how ridiculous that comment is?
Louis did not fight the number 4 ranked Bettina in1941 instead he fought the number 1 contender Conn
who beat Bettina! In your opinion , should he have ducked Conn and fought Bettina instead? lol
Louis did not fight Bettina in1944 because a little thing called WW2 was on ,and Louis was in the Army and his title was frozen . You MORON! lol
Please point out the lies I said about you in my earlier posts?

[/QUOTE]

"No fool, Louis for B Bear and Galeno much earlier. He could have fought Bettina after the war was over or before he joined the army but didn't. He was a southpaw and IMO Louis avoided them.

As I said, B Baer lost 7 times. Prior to facing Louis, Buddy Baer lost five times! He was ranked #6. Okay, someone had to be. Meanwhile Bettina was ranked #1. Have you ever seen him fight?

Bettina fought black contenders Joe Louis did not for his title shots. Sheppard,Fox and Bivins did not get title shots. Neither did Melio Bettina. You said so may lies. Pointing them out mean nothing to you. You either ignore my replies or say things I have not said.DR Z QUOTE.



Bettina lost to Al McCoy in1940 Louis stopped McCoy that same year! Bettina dropped out of the ranking at the end of 1944 Louis resumed his career with an exhibition in1944 in. defending his title against the number 1 contender Conn in1946 ,Conn had beaten Bettina TWICE!
Should Louis have ducked his number 1 contender and instead fought the unraked Bettina whom Conn had twice beaten?
Bettina lost to Conn x2 . Conn was kod by Louis x2.
Bettina lost to McCoy.McCoy was kod by Louis.
Bettina lost 9 of 10 rds to Bivins .Louis ,when well past his best beat Bivins.
Sheppard was only ranked in1943 and 1944.
Louis had his title frozen then because he was in the Army,and he was going around the world boxing exhibitions for the Allies .
No, Louis didn't fight Sheppard,but he did fight and beat
Walcott x 2
Musto
Bivins
All of whom beat Sheppard . lol !

What did Bettina accomplish in his career?
He won the vacant NY State version of the Lhvy title which on the 3 rd of Feb1939.
He lost that version to Conn on the 13th of July the same year.
So he held a splintered version of the title with no successful defences for 5 months!
He lost to 3 men who held the Lhvy title.Conn, Lesnevich who kod him inside 1 minute of the first round ,flooring him 3 times ,and he lost to Christoforidis.

Bettina couldnt beat a light heavyweight champion,how was he going to beat Joe Louis?

Bettina beat 3 ranked heavyweights
Barlund 1939
Burman 1941
Sheppard1944


Barlund lost to;
Simms stopped in 1 rd by Louis.
Conn stopped Barlund,Conn was stopped by Louis x2

. Nova twice beat Barlund once by ko, Nova was ko'd by Louis.

Barlund was 3 times stopped by Mauriello who couldnt last a round with Louis.

Barlund was stopped by Roper whom Louis ko'd.
Barlund lost to Mann twice,Louis kod Mann.
Barlund lost to Dorazio ,whom Louis ko'd
Barlund lost to Simon ,whom Louis twice ko'd



Louis ko'd Burman in 5 rds in July 1941 5 months before Bettina took a decision off of Burman

Sheppard was only ranked in43 & 44 years in which Louis' title was frozen .due to him being in the service.

Not going to post any of the lies I said about you? Why am I not surprised !

You're making no sense at all with your hate posts, you're just confirming what a cabbage you are!

[them_apples]

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.

With typical basic non ai upscaling a double is created or a ghost image (extremely primitive ai). Real Ai will be using data from 100s of sources and making sense of them with very complex filtering and pattern searching.

maybe you or someone else said it, but accurate predictive upscaling will be available

[Bundana]

With typical basic non ai upscaling a double is created or a ghost image (extremely primitive ai). Real Ai will be using data from 100s of sources and making sense of them with very complex filtering and pattern searching.

maybe you or someone else said it, but accurate predictive upscaling will be available

This double thing Slugfester is talking about I can understand - but will real AI be able to do more than something similar to that? Surely AI won't be able to predict, what will happen in a 15 (for example) sec period, if such a segment is missing from a film - or will it?? Even with all of Louis' fight films, it seems unlikely (to me, anyway) that pattern searching will make AI able to "restore" more than a second or two (at most!) of damaged/missing footage.

Someone please educate me if I'm wrong about this!

[Slugfester]

This double thing Slugfester is talking about I can understand - but will real AI be able to do more than something similar to that? Surely AI won't be able to predict, what will happen in a 15 (for example) sec period, if such a segment is missing from a film - or will it?? Even with all of Louis' fight films, it seems unlikely (to me, anyway) that pattern searching will make AI able to "restore" more than a second or two (at most!) of damaged/missing footage.

Someone please educate me if I'm wrong about this!

Conventional AI will only be able to give you the best betting line. It will never be able to say so-and-so will be knocked down in the 4th, etc. It will also be able to say, "Yes, that was a foul." No, that was not a knockdown," etc., etc., etc..

Once AI is paired with quantum com*****g, I expect a lot more. This duo will be able to monitor the boxers' nerve centers and record pain on a scale probably logarithmic. For instance, it seems very probable to me that on the whole to receive a punch registering 10 on a linear scale, hurts and debilitates more than two times as much as a punch registering 5. Such relationships will be determined later. But the machine will measure directly and keep statistics. It will know exactly the physiological difference between receiving a punch of 5 and a punch of 10, which we have very little idea of. It knows the exact force and can pinpoint the precise location of that force, all while reading the mental and physiological effects of the punch on the participant. With all these tools, it can also read whether a fight should be stopped much more reliably than a human referee. Expect disputes here, simply because the machine will make stoppages based on parameters the spectators cannot see. But the machine does, and detects the early onset of a brain bleed, and so forth.

Another thing the pairing could possibly do is render present sports betting obsolete. If everyone has access to AI they will all bet the same way unless underdog status is enhanced realistically. When everyone knows the truth, crooks are out of business, unless they enhance their payoffs. The machine will state precisely, "X has a 38.31% chance of winning." That is what the bettor wants to know, the real chances, not how everyone else is betting.

I do not know the answers to film upgrading yet. It is hard to find the methods and easy to find services that do it for you.

[Bundana]

Conventional AI will only be able to give you the best betting line. It will never be able to say so-and-so will be knocked down in the 4th, etc. It will also be able to say, "Yes, that was a foul." No, that was not a knockdown," etc., etc., etc..

Once AI is paired with quantum com*****g, I expect a lot more. This duo will be able to monitor the boxers' nerve centers and record pain on a scale probably logarithmic. For instance, it seems very probable to me that on the whole to receive a punch registering 10 on a linear scale, hurts and debilitates more than two times as much as a punch registering 5. Such relationships will be determined later. But the machine will measure directly and keep statistics. It will know exactly the physiological difference between receiving a punch of 5 and a punch of 10, which we have very little idea of. It knows the exact force and can pinpoint the precise location of that force, all while reading the mental and physiological effects of the punch on the participant. With all these tools, it can also read whether a fight should be stopped much more reliably than a human referee. Expect disputes here, simply because the machine will make stoppages based on parameters the spectators cannot see. But the machine does, and detects the early onset of a brain bleed, and so forth.

Another thing the pairing could possibly do is render present sports betting obsolete. If everyone has access to AI they will all bet the same way unless underdog status is enhanced realistically. When everyone knows the truth, crooks are out of business, unless they enhance their payoffs. The machine will state precisely, "X has a 38.31% chance of winning." That is what the bettor wants to know, the real chances, not how everyone else is betting.

I do not know the answers to film upgrading yet. It is hard to find the methods and easy to find services that do it for you.

This is very interesting!

But if (many years into the future, I suppose?) the pairing up of AI and quantum com*****g results in some machine being able to monitor a boxer's nerve center, detecting the boxer's pain and maybe even the early onset of a brain bleed... does that not require some kind of implant in the boxer's brain, that sends information to the AI machine? I mean, without such a thing, how would a machine be able to meassure "the mental and physiological effects of the punch on the participant". Seems very unlikely to me, that even watching thousands of hours of fight footage would help a machine to "look into a boxer's brain", so to speak - unless some implant is involved!

Again, I could be totally wrong!


Oh yeah, another thing... how in heaven's name will a machine, no matter how clever, be able to predict the outcome of a boxing match any better than you and I? No matter how many hours of fight footage you feed into it... how would it be able to predict a big upset? Would such a machine have been able to "see" Braddock beat Baer? Or Douglas beatTyson? How about Joyce, who never before had a serious injury, being stopped by a closed eye against the big Chinese guy? How can even the cleverest machine see these things coming?

[Slugfester]

This is very interesting!

But if (many years into the future, I suppose?) the pairing up of AI and quantum com*****g results in some machine being able to monitor a boxer's nerve center, detecting the boxer's pain and maybe even the early onset of a brain bleed... does that not require some kind of implant in the boxer's brain, that sends information to the AI machine? I mean, without such a thing, how would a machine be able to meassure "the mental and physiological effects of the punch on the participant". Seems very unlikely to me, that even watching thousands of hours of fight footage would help a machine to "look into a boxer's brain", so to speak - unless some implant is involved!

Again, I could be totally wrong!

Everything is a guess and speculation in this field right now. I assume the connections will be remote by that time. My idea used to be a helmet with sensors, but time has eclipsed that notion. There will be better ways.

Old boxing films and silent movies looked sped up to 1920's audiences too. The reason is simpler than I thought--they were recorded at 16-18 frames per second but projected in the movie houses at 24 fps, so about 1.5 seconds of action was shown in 1 second. Why they recorded them at that speed has reasons in economics and technology. The silver halide on the films was prohibitively expensive at the time. So much so that directors would instruct actors to move faster than normal, which does not apply to boxing. Why someone did not just make a 16 fps projector is something of a mystery to me right now. Maybe they expected the industry to change so fast all their work would soon be outdated. "Flicks," had been sped up at the projector in the first place I believe to enhance fluidity of motion with a sacrifice to speed of action, which of course sped the actual motion up. Another reason for speeding up was possibly to reduce "flick," time. Apparently that is how movies earned the nickname flicks.

Restorers first paint off any dust or other matter with a gentle solution. They repair tears or missing pieces with clear tape or film cement. Ready to scan, modern equipment can now scan the tape with what is labeled as infinite resolution.

Like you say, when a piece is missing, it had better not get too big, because the larger the piece the larger the predictive error has to be. It would take tiny piece by piece interpolations where you then add that predicted piece to the whole, then do new calculations for a new prediction on the next tiny piece. I don't trust that. But on a small piece I probably would. No machine or man could interpolate that Sugar Ray Leonard suddenly threw both hands in the air above his head and did a shuffle, if that piece were missing. I don't think they will ever be able to. But never say never.