New To Me!

[billeau2]

It might be easy to dismiss him as a hater, but with his knowledge, I'd say his criticisms should have been considered.

Johnson was a technical marvel and his critique is a very real benefit to understanding aspects of the different styles of boxing. One can really see the differences watchng Tunney versus Dempsey because Tunney fights a lot like preclassical Johnson era fighters, while Dempsey uses the modern style which saw its platonic ideal in Louis... Why? Because Louis' style for a puncher is incredibly efficient and effective.

[QueensburyRules]

Wasn't Johnson famously attacked on the streets of NY for bragging that he was right when Louis lost to Schmellng? I think the police had to save him.

- - JJ was flashing the Big Bill$ he won betting on Max. Lucky Harlem was well policed then.

My Bro's father in law was a 10 yr kid then in Austin delivering papers early AM to the Black ******** where he was suddenly accosted by a gang of Black teens looking for whitey to beat up, but since he was just a kid providing a needed service for the Black Community, they let him go.

That was a huge upset for sure that Joe Corrected.

[Marchegiano]

If the subject is Dempsey then those who were alive to witness becomes incredibly important.

I hate to pick on one of our best here but who came up first is who came up first. Sorry bud:

To dovetail on this comment:

There was a time in the early eighties or so where you had trainers alive, some still active, who had seen Dempsey all the way up to Tyson. I believe there might have been one or two that had seen Johnson as well...

Most of them said Dempsey was the best heavy they had ever seen. Some said Louis and a few had Ali.

​

Even the example alludes to the commonality of this stance.



It's almost always present in any Dempsey convo, it will definitely be present in any Dempsey-Marciano convo.



Not found here but don't call it a bias.

[QueensburyRules]

So what do you guys think of Joe Louis' stance? Was it flawed?

- - Louis the prototype of the perfect Boxer/Puncher at Heavy...only the Ks come close...

[Mr Mitts]

I don't know BUT I have heard Johnson was jealous of Louis and that Louis did not want much to do with him... perhaps this being the reason for the bad feelings?

Uh, or how about he was just telling the truth as he saw it? He was probably jealous of Louis's popularity, if anything, not his stance. I personally believe Louis is overrated too.

His trainers and managers were fighting hard for a good image, and that specifically meant staying away from JJ and being his polar opposite, in which they instructed him. He was never to stand over a fallen opponent gloating. He was always to be a good boy and never gain the ire of whites with any action or statement. Joe was a good student. Top 10 heavyweight.

Who do I think probably beats him?

Ali
Marciano
Liston
Tunney
Johnson
Dempsey
Foreman
Holmes

And possibly others too, like Frazier, who I think always gets short shrift around here. Joe KO's the dumb Klits easily enough though, especially so with Vlad, who could never take a punch. Or maybe Sanders punches better than Louis.. Something tells me he doesn't.

[Dr Z]

So what do you guys think of Joe Louis' stance? Was it flawed?

YES. He kept his left hand low, and lacked footwork ( with predictable north - south shuffling ) . He often stuck his face forward. He was very easy to time and hit. But he had TNT in his fists for those who risked attacking him recklessly.

[billeau2]

If the subject is Dempsey then those who were alive to witness becomes incredibly important.

I hate to pick on one of our best here but who came up first is who came up first. Sorry bud:


â

Even the example alludes to the commonality of this stance.



It's almost always present in any Dempsey convo, it will definitely be present in any Dempsey-Marciano convo.



Not found here but don't call it a bias.

I don't see your point Marg. If My observation is special it is because history gave us a window for those who have anecdotal opinions to share... Not because of any consensus of opinion per se. So, if you are "picking" on me it would have to be because I feel this window of opportunity, a historical blue moon, is worth noting. The fact that so many trainers felt Dempsey was the man? Just an interesting aside worth noting...

[billeau2]

Uh, or how about he was just telling the truth as he saw it? He was probably jealous of Louis's popularity, if anything, not his stance. I personally believe Louis is overrated too.

His trainers and managers were fighting hard for a good image, and that specifically meant staying away from JJ and being his polar opposite, in which they instructed him. He was never to stand over a fallen opponent gloating. He was always to be a good boy and never gain the ire of whites with any action or statement. Joe was a good student. Top 10 heavyweight.

Who do I think probably beats him?

Ali
Marciano
Liston
Tunney
Johnson
Dempsey
Foreman
Holmes

And possibly others too, like Frazier, who I think always gets short shrift around here. Joe KO's the dumb Klits easily enough though, especially so with Vlad, who could never take a punch. Or maybe Sanders punches better than Louis.. Something tells me he doesn't.

Not necessarily mutually exclusive Points of view. JJ had an ego, so did Louis. I do not think it is that important not nearly as much as discussing some of the finer points of technical analysis which IMO is important. There is no doubt there were fundamental differences regarding how fighting technique changed. And that is what matters to me.

One big question being: When Dempsey and the post classical emphasis on punching changed the sport, did it make it better? This is one of those tricky ones that is easy to answer and seems a no brainer but alas, levels to the game. I mean emphasizing the punches is an evolution of the sport right? Levels to the game... A lot of the footwork, hitting dynamics and timing developed from bare knuckle and fencing was actually great stuff and much better for combat. Using your feet as defense for one thing, punching straight with structural dynamics and not "swinging your fists" like two sledgehammers, for another. Look at any preclassical fighter in pose and they are balanced properly (as Johnson said) their knee is aligned so the front foot is a virtual site (as Johnson also said), punches are thrown anatomically and physiologically in accord with efficiency and effectiveness.

When gloves got bigger one could no longer punch properly... One had to create more and more speed and mass to generate more power. Instead of hitting points like a martial art, you had to whip the skull around, or crack the head back from below... An original KO was to hit the tip of the chin, drop the person with a shot to the temple, neither of which would work with large mufflers. For the body, originally you dropped a person with a shot to the chest, or cracked the floating ribs, which became a more pronounced and general attack to the ribs and (in both styles) a liver shot.

[billeau2]

YES. He kept his left hand low, and lacked footwork ( with predictable north - south shuffling ) . He often stuck his face forward. He was very easy to time and hit. But he had TNT in his fists for those who risked attacking him recklessly.

Your points are not bad, but when put in context can be explained. You did not protect your head with your guard when encroaching, rather you used a hold over from the Classical form called a "false center line." your head was rsted upon your back shoulder which did two things: It made it look like you could be hit straight on when you actually had another few inches of distance, and by putting the head back it allowed one to use the front chin to protect the jaw. This also invited an opponent in, allowing one to then jab and circle effectively.

Louis' footwork was fine. People seldom ask when Louis ever needed to be faster to catch his man... He had great control of distance using footwork allowing him to accomplish the same thing.

[Willie Pep 229]

I don't see your point Marg. If My observation is special it is because history gave us a window for those who have anecdotal opinions to share... Not because of any consensus of opinion per se. So, if you are "picking" on me it would have to be because I feel this window of opportunity, a historical blue moon, is worth noting. The fact that so many trainers felt Dempsey was the man? Just an interesting aside worth noting...

I think what made Dempsey's legend is the same that made Tyson's legend. Brutal KOs!

His run to the championship was Tyson like. Something like 16 (mostly first or second round) KOs over 18 months.

He followed that up with KOing four of his next five defenses.

People made a really big deal that Gibbons lasted 15 rounds with Dempsey. It was seen as a moral victory just to go the distance with Dempsey. (Probably because Dempsey had not fought in two years July '21 to July '23.)

Doesn't that sound a lot like how we viewed Tyson in the late 80s? A "wow" factor that caught the nation's attention.

Today casual (or even non) fans are still much more likely to recognize Tyson's name than Holyfield's.

Dempsey is legendary because he brought great drama to the game.

The resume guys just can't wrap their heads around the fact that this is prize fighting not a boxing league. Wins will only get you so far in the fight game. You have to bring drama if you want the big bucks; want to be remembered as great.

Winning by points excites the resume guys, drama puts 126K butts in the seats and makes you "great."

Drama is one part of being great, something these guys can't catch on to.

In some ways I think we are saying the same thing. It is the "wow" factor of their contemporaries that made Dempsey and Tyson great. The resume boys always miss that.