Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Joseph Louis Barrow

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    - -John L was a supreme destroyer, the first under MQ rules and not too shabby in his few bareknucks either.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
      - -John L was a supreme destroyer, the first under MQ rules and not too shabby in his few bareknucks either.
      Exactly. And as a natural talent he was superior to Louis.

      Your boy Langford developed quite a reputation, too.

      I'm not sure if Billeau was speaking strictly of Heavyweights or all weight classes. But he is patently wrong.

      But he writes more for entertainment than purposes of historical accuracy, so I always give him a pass.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by Rusty Tromboni View Post
        Have you ever considered peddling Snake Oil? Or create your own religion?

        Your ability to defy the facts to spin a yarn is absolutely remarkable.
        Be glad to consider such measures when you consider listening to a post without trying to force your perverted views, based on considerably overestimating your ability to understand Boxing and why certain fighters are viewed as they are.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by Rusty Tromboni View Post
          - -People tend to rate their eras better than older eras.
          Not here they don't. At BoxingScene George Dixon batters Tyson Fury.

          Louis definitely beats any version of pre-exile Ali right up until the eve of his exile - at that point Ali had shed a lot of bad habits, and finally had the size to hold up to Louis' power. And he definitely batters Post-Congo Ali.

          But the guy of the early 70's is gonna be too much for Louis. Even if Louis packs on extra weight to accommodate for Ali's size advantage, he can't handle that guy. It's was Frazier's pressure and activity that defeated Ali, not his power and pristine punching technique.[/QUOTE]

          - -The Ali size advantage is minuscule at best and no advantage in the real world.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
            Be glad to consider such measures when you consider listening to a post without trying to force your perverted views, based on considerably overestimating your ability to understand Boxing and why certain fighters are viewed as they are.
            I'm iconoclastic. I can understand why that's heartbreaking for folks who want this to be a temple for worshipping their heroes.

            But you made a post where not a single assertion can be supported by fact.

            You've done this other times. Sorry if it hurts you're feelings, but I come here to speak the truth.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post

              - -The Ali size advantage is minuscule at best and no advantage in the real world.
              Ali at his absolute lightest weighed the same as Joe at his peak.

              Ali outmuscled men as big or bigger than Louis: Liston, Frazier, Bonavena, Chuvalo, Foreman, Bugner, Norton. He didn't impose his size or rely on his strength as big men typically do, but that's because his speed, reflexes and conditioning were his clearest path to victory.


              Ali was taller, rangier, and heavier than Joe, while also being quicker of foot and a busier puncher.

              I'd love to hear why you believe his size advantage would be inconsequential, though.

              Comment


              • #57
                [MENTION][/MENTION]
                Originally posted by Rusty Tromboni View Post
                Ali at his absolute lightest weighed the same as Joe at his peak.

                Ali outmuscled men as big or bigger than Louis: Liston, Frazier, Bonavena, Chuvalo, Foreman, Bugner, Norton. He didn't impose his size or rely on his strength as big men typically do, but that's because his speed, reflexes and conditioning were his clearest path to victory.


                Ali was taller, rangier, and heavier than Joe, while also being quicker of foot and a busier puncher.

                I'd love to hear why you believe his size advantage would be inconsequential, though.
                - -U picking at U dingleberries quite unbecoming.

                https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/M...Donnie_Fleeman

                Ali was 188 vs Alex Miteff in 1961.

                Joe never got as tubby as Ali, but by his end he'd worked into the 220s.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by Rusty Tromboni View Post
                  I'm iconoclastic. I can understand why that's heartbreaking for folks who want this to be a temple for worshipping their heroes.

                  But you made a post where not a single assertion can be supported by fact.

                  You've done this other times. Sorry if it hurts you're feelings, but I come here to speak the truth.
                  You again perverted reality. Don't worry about my feelings lol. I made a point about the perception of two famous fighters. If you knew so much you would see that it is self evident that Dempsey wrote a famous book about punching. You would know about how Louis was trained...

                  These are all self evident Rusty. Whats your argument? there is nothng to argue. You just do not like these two fighters lol. My dog is attacking me... needs me to be downstairs for breakfast so gotta run!

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by Rusty Tromboni View Post
                    Ali at his absolute lightest weighed the same as Joe at his peak.

                    Ali outmuscled men as big or bigger than Louis: Liston, Frazier, Bonavena, Chuvalo, Foreman, Bugner, Norton. He didn't impose his size or rely on his strength as big men typically do, but that's because his speed, reflexes and conditioning were his clearest path to victory.


                    Ali was taller, rangier, and heavier than Joe, while also being quicker of foot and a busier puncher.

                    I'd love to hear why you believe his size advantage would be inconsequential, though.
                    QueenB called you on your "iconoclasm" isn't that what you call false information? No Rusty...your understanding of size is off.

                    On the other hand your second point? its kind of self evident and Ali was in no way a puncher compared to Louis. Ali was like Musashi: When he was on a boat and needed length to beat one of the best swordsmen in Japan? he picked up a boat oar...Ali used a jab because it was the closest thing to his opponent and he could catch them real fast with it... He did not have to think about "punches" to speak of.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by butterfly1964 View Post
                      ali lost his title to the u.s. govt the first time, not in the ring. ali was older when fighting spinks than louis was at his last title defense, and louis supposedly got some gift wins at the end. almost all of ali's losses were because of the layoff.
                      - -Buttafly, Buttafly, how I miss thee so

                      But then came ol' black Joe

                      Who consolidated the titles that Ali graciously relinquished to The Ring

                      Whom ol' black Joe rang up for ye aulde Ding-Ding a Ling.

                      And dat be dat and jus da facts!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP