Joe Louis: A Retrospective

[billeau2]

Those of the times called Louis the shuffler and it was not a compliment. The 30's was a weaker time for heavyweight boxing. No less authority than Ring Magazine who loved Joe Louis says so when they ranked the decades.

Sorry-- Louis had slow feet, iffy balance, a low guard ( Most of the time ) , and a stick your face forward type of style, a reason why Schmeling, Walcott, Conn and Charles, the best boxers Louis fought ( Let me know if you disagree with that ) bettered him in a rounds won to rounds lost tally. One knocked him out, another stunned him ( Conn @168 pounds ) another was robbed of a decision win, and was way ahead in a re-match until doing something stupid and getting caught, and the last butchered him. Check the score cards, and you'll see.

I don't think Wilder is skilled period, and should not be compared to Lewis or Wlad, except as a right hand puncher.

No-- I don't think Wlad could take Louis best with his 6 ounce gloves, and the reverse is also true, so it comes down to who lands their best fight. Same with Lennox Lewis.

Regarding Wlad and Lewis, they would beat ALL of Louis title opponents and likely do it without having the tough times Louis did. Maybe Schmeling or Walcott could pull off the upset, but I'd bet against it.

There is anecdotal information of all types for virtually every fighter. the knock of Robinson was he didn't really like to fight. So for Louis to be knocked does not mean anything. Ring magazine is not really an authority. An example of an authority would be a trainer... And most boxing men saw perfection in how Blackburn went about developing Louis.


Yes, the competition was, in similar fashion to many other eras, not a strong era... Neither was the era of Dempsey, Liston, Marciano, Klitsko, etc. As a matter of fact? there were few strong eras in the heavyweight division. So why single out Louis in this regard?

Don't be sorry... every style has strengths and weaknesses. Louis weakness summed up? He had one gear. I guess the fact that he got knocked out so much meant he carried his guard too low...oh wait! He didn't get Kayoed. His balance was perfect...I don't know where you are getting these so called flaws. Stick your face style? Really?

I disagree strongly... What puncher do you know, wins rounds consistently against excellent boxers? And then you proceed to explain away all Louis' wins. You have to understand that, especially in the days of a 15 round fight, the puncher's game was a numbers game... A slice of quantum probability! Louis, like all punchers was trained to know, that if he methodically stalked an opponent, he would get a certain amount of opportunities. His training was to utilize those opportunities and not let his man off the hook. So, for exmple, with Conn, when he got his opportunity, he utilized it.

Wilder is a puncher, regardless of his "skill" level... He is an example of a puncher to the extreme. He was a great example of what I am trying to get you to understand: He fought Ortiz, who is skilled, and waited for his opportunity. It never mattered the rounds he lost.

When you say "regarding Wlad and Lewis" you have to differentiate between the two. To me Lewis fought excellent competition, Wlad fought horrible competition. With that said I believe Wlad is comparable to Louis in terms of competition fought. Lewis fought excellent competition and should not be compared IMO.

[Dr. Z]

There is anecdotal information of all types for virtually every fighter. the knock of Robinson was he didn't really like to fight. So for Louis to be knocked does not mean anything. Ring magazine is not really an authority. An example of an authority would be a trainer... And most boxing men saw perfection in how Blackburn went about developing Louis.


Yes, the competition was, in similar fashion to many other eras, not a strong era... Neither was the era of Dempsey, Liston, Marciano, Klitsko, etc. As a matter of fact? there were few strong eras in the heavyweight division. So why single out Louis in this regard?

Don't be sorry... every style has strengths and weaknesses. Louis weakness summed up? He had one gear. I guess the fact that he got knocked out so much meant he carried his guard too low...oh wait! He didn't get Kayoed. His balance was perfect...I don't know where you are getting these so called flaws. Stick your face style? Really?

I disagree strongly... What puncher do you know, wins rounds consistently against excellent boxers? And then you proceed to explain away all Louis' wins. You have to understand that, especially in the days of a 15 round fight, the puncher's game was a numbers game... A slice of quantum probability! Louis, like all punchers was trained to know, that if he methodically stalked an opponent, he would get a certain amount of opportunities. His training was to utilize those opportunities and not let his man off the hook. So, for exmple, with Conn, when he got his opportunity, he utilized it.

Wilder is a puncher, regardless of his "skill" level... He is an example of a puncher to the extreme. He was a great example of what I am trying to get you to understand: He fought Ortiz, who is skilled, and waited for his opportunity. It never mattered the rounds he lost.

When you say "regarding Wlad and Lewis" you have to differentiate between the two. To me Lewis fought excellent competition, Wlad fought horrible competition. With that said I believe Wlad is comparable to Louis in terms of competition fought. Lewis fought excellent competition and should not be compared IMO.

I disagree strongly... What puncher do you know, wins rounds consistently against excellent boxers?

Liston, Lewis, Bowe and Both Klitschko's come to mind. Louis had issues vs boxers his size and lower. Thanks to a bad defense and slow feet.

Wilder is a puncher, regardless of his "skill" level... He is an example of a puncher to the extreme. He was a great example of what I am trying to get you to understand: He fought Ortiz, who is skilled, and waited for his opportunity. It never mattered the rounds he lost.

Still on Wilder. Okay he fought a 40 something year old Ortiz, and early won the first match. How is that impressive?

His balance was perfect...I don't know where you are getting these so called flaws. Stick your face style? Really?

So perfect Walcott floored him 3 times, and so did guys who would not be in the top 10 day in B Baer, and T Galento. Yes, Louis had slowish feet, a low guard, just okay balance and he stuck hi face forward to much, exposing his chin.

When you say "regarding Wlad and Lewis" you have to differentiate between the two. To me Lewis fought excellent competition, Wlad fought horrible competition.

I don't see it like you do, Lewis fought better but not but the huge amount you say.Lewis also fought much older past their prime greats. Wlad didn't feast on such opponents.

One common opponent. Wlad 1-0 vs Rhaman, Lewis 1-1.

Wlad TKO Mercer, Lewis UD vs Mercer and it was close.

Lewis never fought Sanders, or Brewster. Wlad never fought old Tyson or Holyfield.

My point on Joe Louis are based on film and study, not a fanboys opinion, or a guy coming up with excuses.

PS: Who says Robinson didn't like to fight?

[billeau2]

Liston, Lewis, Bowe and Both Klitschko's come to mind. Louis had issues vs boxers his size and lower. Thanks to a bad defense and slow feet.





Still on Wilder. Okay he fought a 40 something year old Ortiz, and early won the first match. How is that impressive?



So perfect Walcott floored him 3 times, and so did guys who would not be in the top 10 day in B Baer, and T Galento. Yes, Louis had slowish feet, a low guard, just okay balance and he stuck hi face forward to much, exposing his chin.



I don't see it like you do, Lewis fought better but not but the huge amount you say.Lewis also fought much older past their prime greats. Wlad didn't feast on such opponents.

One common opponent. Wlad 1-0 vs Rhaman, Lewis 1-1.

Wlad TKO Mercer, Lewis UD vs Mercer and it was close.

Lewis never fought Sanders, or Brewster. Wlad never fought old Tyson or Holyfield.

My point on Joe Louis are based on film and study, not a fanboys opinion, or a guy coming up with excuses.

PS: Who says Robinson didn't like to fight?

Liston was, in addition to being a fearsome puncher, an excellent boxer with one of the elite jabs. lewis was not a pure puncher by any means. Bowe likewise. Pure puncher... Someone like Tua, Brewster, Lyle, Shavers... What issues? Who beat him? Schmelling, yes! Schmelling was excellent. Klitsko lost to all kinds of opponents, Louis found a way to win against all kinds of opponents.

Ortiz is an excellent fighter. He was beating Wilder in that second fight, and I used that as an example of how a puncher operates. I never said I cared much for Wilder, or that it was impressive. It was what Wilder does, straight from the playbook of a pure puncher: "create opportunities to connect, not worry about winning rounds.

Galento was underated, he was an excellent brawler. Walcott was a great fighter. I still don't get how you equate this as Louis sticking his chin out. He didn't lose those fights either something you keep ignoring.

Lol your arguments are starting to really degrade, no offense. So now Sanders was a real live dog that Lewis should have fought? Lewis also avenged all his lossed unlike Vlad. And Lewis fought many prospects coming up, like a young Shannon Briggs. Lewis fought guys like Ruddock, Morrison, Golota, Tua... all bigger names than anyone Vlad beat.

It was anecdotal about Robinson... Its not the point to prove he said it... The point was made and if it was not true? the point still stands. I think it was Joe Rein that mentioned it to me... it also a fact Robinson loved dancing and wanted to be a dancer, that is common knowledge from friends of his.

No, your opinions are not based on film, many people like myself who watch film do not see Louis that way. Yes, he was slow and methodical with his footwork, but his chin sticking out? lol. Im also not a fanboy. I respect Louis for all he was, but he is not one of my favorite fighters on a fandom level, so stop making assumptions.

Ill make it easy for you, I think we can agree to disagree.

[QueensburyRules]

I'm staying away from your posted in general. Please do skip mine.

- -Skippy logic is it?

Joe had better, more efficient footwork than Ali that assisted him in establishing a storied record never to be approached until Wlad showed up.

Jus da fax, skippy!

[Dr. Z]

Liston was, in addition to being a fearsome puncher, an excellent boxer with one of the elite jabs. lewis was not a pure puncher by any means. Bowe likewise. Pure puncher... Someone like Tua, Brewster, Lyle, Shavers... What issues? Who beat him? Schmelling, yes! Schmelling was excellent. Klitsko lost to all kinds of opponents, Louis found a way to win against all kinds of opponents.

Ortiz is an excellent fighter. He was beating Wilder in that second fight, and I used that as an example of how a puncher operates. I never said I cared much for Wilder, or that it was impressive. It was what Wilder does, straight from the playbook of a pure puncher: "create opportunities to connect, not worry about winning rounds.

Galento was underated, he was an excellent brawler. Walcott was a great fighter. I still don't get how you equate this as Louis sticking his chin out. He didn't lose those fights either something you keep ignoring.

Lol your arguments are starting to really degrade, no offense. So now Sanders was a real live dog that Lewis should have fought? Lewis also avenged all his lossed unlike Vlad. And Lewis fought many prospects coming up, like a young Shannon Briggs. Lewis fought guys like Ruddock, Morrison, Golota, Tua... all bigger names than anyone Vlad beat.

It was anecdotal about Robinson... Its not the point to prove he said it... The point was made and if it was not true? the point still stands. I think it was Joe Rein that mentioned it to me... it also a fact Robinson loved dancing and wanted to be a dancer, that is common knowledge from friends of his.

No, your opinions are not based on film, many people like myself who watch film do not see Louis that way. Yes, he was slow and methodical with his footwork, but his chin sticking out? lol. Im also not a fanboy. I respect Louis for all he was, but he is not one of my favorite fighters on a fandom level, so stop making assumptions.

Ill make it easy for you, I think we can agree to disagree.

Geez. You asked for punchers who can box and I gave you some.

Bowe was more than our puncher. He was skilled on the outside and inside. You must have missed many of his fights. I disagree with you if you say he was not skilled. He was trained by Futch.

No more on Ortiz, please. He was 40, and who did he beat again?

Klitschko ( Vladmir ) lost only to power punchers. Of yeah, he was 39 for Fury, but that really doesn't count. That point should stand.

Now your trying to trumpet Galento? The man was very unskilled ( More so than anything I mentioned ), short, and fat. Yet he floored Louis. Two ton would not be ranked today in the to top 10.

Sure Lewis avenged his to losses, but he didn't offer any re-matches to his tough fights. Mercer ( some felt he deserved a draw ) , Bruno ( Lewis behind until the KO ) and the older Klitschko ) Lewis also beind until the cuts stoppage. Where was the re-match?

Yes-- if you followed boxing in the 1990's Sanders name was in there press to fight Lewis or Tyson. It never happened. Sanders didn't have the right promoter. Joe Louis never fought anyone like Sanders. A big southpaw with fast hands who had KO power.

My opinions are based on film ( when possible ) and facts. I agree with you that Louis was as you say : Yes, he was slow and methodical with his footwork ". He also had a low guard, and if you watch the film, did stick his face forward too often, a real no-no in boxing. I can tell you going to pull on that last statement as he only straw you have. Joe was flied 22 times or so. Watch the films. He did not tuck his chin well, nor did he have a high guard.

[billeau2]

Geez. You asked for punchers who can box and I gave you some.

Bowe was more than our puncher. He was skilled on the outside and inside. You must have missed many of his fights. I disagree with you if you say he was not skilled. He was trained by Futch.

No more on Ortiz, please. He was 40, and who did he beat again?

Klitschko ( Vladmir ) lost only to power punchers. Of yeah, he was 39 for Fury, but that really doesn't count. That point should stand.

Now your trying to trumpet Galento? The man was very unskilled ( More so than anything I mentioned ), short, and fat. Yet he floored Louis. Two ton would not be ranked today in the to top 10.

Sure Lewis avenged his to losses, but he didn't offer any re-matches to his tough fights. Mercer ( some felt he deserved a draw ) , Bruno ( Lewis behind until the KO ) and the older Klitschko ) Lewis also beind until the cuts stoppage. Where was the re-match?

Yes-- if you followed boxing in the 1990's Sanders name was in there press to fight Lewis or Tyson. It never happened. Sanders didn't have the right promoter. Joe Louis never fought anyone like Sanders. A big southpaw with fast hands who had KO power.

My opinions are based on film ( when possible ) and facts. I agree with you that Louis was as you say : Yes, he was slow and methodical with his footwork ". He also had a low guard, and if you watch the film, did stick his face forward too often, a real no-no in boxing. I can tell you going to pull on that last statement as he only straw you have. Joe was flied 22 times or so. Watch the films. He did not tuck his chin well, nor did he have a high guard.

I never commented on Bowe. Yes he was quite skilled. I don't think you understand the distinction I am making... There are degrees of fighters regarding relying on pure punching ability. Lyle, Shavers and Wilder seldom outbox(ed) anyone. Its not a comment on their ability, its a matter of strategy.

Ortiz was used as an example...Do you understand my comments? I mean you seem to think when i am giving you examples, that I am speaking from a perspective of endorsement. You can have a fighter who has lost every fight, who is a good example of a puncher, or boxer, with respect to how they approach strategy in the ring.

Klitsko lost to Brewster, Purity, Sanders and who exactly did he beat that is a great fighter? He lost to Fury and Joshua later, but at an age where heavyweights still can rule the roost.

Galento I did say was skilled. I stand by it. He was very strong, relentless, very hittable for sure, but capable in the ring. We can agree to disagree.

Rematches? lol again degraded argument... Avenging a loss is not the same as granting a rematch. I happen to like Sanders... (RIP), but he was not considered a consistent threat and lost to many fighters like Rahman. You cannot deny he plastered Vlad and Vlad never wanted any of that again... Against a fighter like Louis? We will never know... But fighters like Louis were technically taught to deal with southpaws. Loved Sanders... but he had a lot of flaws to exploit and Louis would have entree to those flaws.

There is NOTHING wrong with a low guard. As a matter of fact, given that Dempsey changed the methods of punching, only a bit back from the Louis era, many fighters still did, as preclassical fighters did... and hold the guard low. This was accompanied by a false center line (putting the head over a back shoulder off line, yet looking to opponent like head is in line), footwork emphasizing distance of 3 feet or more (sword length), and footwork. It is not a foible to carry guard low.

I have heard people talk for years about Louis... I have watched film of Louis and never heard that he had anything but perfect balance, and have never heard he stuck his chin out... Louis is held out as a model of balance and efficiency. So excuse me if I am skeptical of that "last straw." I will look at some footage again, DO YOU HAVE SOME FOOTAGE TO SUGGEST I LOOK AT?

Ill make you a deal: I am open minded. I have in the past been wrong on issues and have no problem admitting such. Can you give me a link to footage where Louis is sticking his head out? It I feel you have a point I will say so, If I do not, I will say so... If we disagree again, lets put the footage up on a thread and ask others to look and comment. is that fair? I am here to learn, and am always ready to do so.

[Dr. Z]

I never commented on Bowe. Yes he was quite skilled. I don't think you understand the distinction I am making... There are degrees of fighters regarding relying on pure punching ability. Lyle, Shavers and Wilder seldom outbox(ed) anyone. Its not a comment on their ability, its a matter of strategy.

Ortiz was used as an example...Do you understand my comments? I mean you seem to think when i am giving you examples, that I am speaking from a perspective of endorsement. You can have a fighter who has lost every fight, who is a good example of a puncher, or boxer, with respect to how they approach strategy in the ring.

Klitsko lost to Brewster, Purity, Sanders and who exactly did he beat that is a great fighter? He lost to Fury and Joshua later, but at an age where heavyweights still can rule the roost.

Galento I did say was skilled. I stand by it. He was very strong, relentless, very hittable for sure, but capable in the ring. We can agree to disagree.

Rematches? lol again degraded argument... Avenging a loss is not the same as granting a rematch. I happen to like Sanders... (RIP), but he was not considered a consistent threat and lost to many fighters like Rahman. You cannot deny he plastered Vlad and Vlad never wanted any of that again... Against a fighter like Louis? We will never know... But fighters like Louis were technically taught to deal with southpaws. Loved Sanders... but he had a lot of flaws to exploit and Louis would have entree to those flaws.

There is NOTHING wrong with a low guard. As a matter of fact, given that Dempsey changed the methods of punching, only a bit back from the Louis era, many fighters still did, as preclassical fighters did... and hold the guard low. This was accompanied by a false center line (putting the head over a back shoulder off line, yet looking to opponent like head is in line), footwork emphasizing distance of 3 feet or more (sword length), and footwork. It is not a foible to carry guard low.

I have heard people talk for years about Louis... I have watched film of Louis and never heard that he had anything but perfect balance, and have never heard he stuck his chin out... Louis is held out as a model of balance and efficiency. So excuse me if I am skeptical of that "last straw." I will look at some footage again, DO YOU HAVE SOME FOOTAGE TO SUGGEST I LOOK AT?

Ill make you a deal: I am open minded. I have in the past been wrong on issues and have no problem admitting such. Can you give me a link to footage where Louis is sticking his head out? It I feel you have a point I will say so, If I do not, I will say so... If we disagree again, lets put the footage up on a thread and ask others to look and comment. is that fair? I am here to learn, and am always ready to do so.

Yes. You have been before and recently. Among the things I think you have wrong are:

Galento was skilled? Are you for real here? Don't inflate him because he floored Louis, please. He's a journeyman type who Bowe would have beaten very early. Just another bum of the month type.

Bowe was a skilled puncher. Agreed?

Lewis was also a skilled puncher. Agreed.

Who cares about Ortiz, he was old and had beaten noone.

As for a low guard, its not recommended. You can get away with it if you have feet like Ali, or a massive reach advantage, which Louis did not.

Wlad, who I can tell you don't respect, offered re-matches. At least to two different fighters. See the Brewster beat down, and a re-match with an early DQ win.

And by the way had Brewster hit Louis he's in trouble, and unlike those who out boxed him in Walcott and Conn Brewster had a heck of a chin. Sanders was too old for a re-match and was beaten by Vitali which killed demand. He also lost via Ko'd in 1 near 40, another reason why there wasn't a re-match. Wlad fought nearly everyone he should have, had no color line, and fought many big men, boxers and punchers. All types, including southpaws.

Louis? Just 2 of his 26 title defenses were vs Black men, and #1 Ring Magazine ranked guys like Jimmy Bivins and Elmer Ray were not given title match.

Wlad did lose to Fury at age 39 and nearly beat Joshua at age 41 If you think these are prime years or other champions can easy be found at this age, you're out there. Given his age, and good performance, the best conclusion here is if he was in his prime as they were, he beats them both.

I'm glad to hear you have footage. Watch the first Schmeling fight. Look at Louis low guard and stance. He was easy to hit and that Right that floored him if you watch the rest of the fight was something Louis could not recover from. Watch one of the later rounds too, when Louis throws and lands a mean low blow, which IMO he needed to. It's never talked about.

Watch the first fight with Godoy, that one was very close, Godoy the better with the surviving footage. You will see a slow footed, mechanical Joe Louis here. Please explain why this master boxer struggles so.

Or watch Louis vs Wlacott 1, he did NOT win that one, and looked horrible in the second fight. Walcott also says he was easy to hit.

Watch how a scared 169 pound Conn figured out Louis was too slow and was up on points until he caught late in round 13, after being stunned by Conn. 12 rounds here and we have a new champion. Louis had about 30 pounds, height, weight and reach on Conn, yet this " master boxer " was behind. Please explain why.

Tommy Farr gave Louis a fight? Where's the re-match?

And as I correctly stated Louis lost the majority of his rounds to Schmeling, Conn, Walcott, and Charles, pretty much the best he fought. You can score them on film, for me.

And since your grilling on Wlad for some reason, how did Louis do vs Charles? Not nearly as good as Wlad vs Fury . He's lucky if he won two rounds and face was a mess vs Charles. Of course vs Marciano, years younger that Wlad was vs Joshua, he did far worse. Wlad almost beat Joshua at age 41 out of the ring for 1.5 years.

[billeau2]

Yes. You have been before and recently. Among the things I think you have wrong are:

Galento was skilled? Are you for real here? Don't inflate him because he floored Louis, please. He's a journeyman type who Bowe would have beaten very early. Just another bum of the month type.

Bowe was a skilled puncher. Agreed?

Lewis was also a skilled puncher. Agreed.

Who cares about Ortiz, he was old and had beaten noone.

As for a low guard, its not recommended. You can get away with it if you have feet like Ali, or a massive reach advantage, which Louis did not.

Wlad, who I can tell you don't respect, offered re-matches. At least to two different fighters. See the Brewster beat down, and a re-match with an early DQ win.

And by the way had Brewster hit Louis he's in trouble, and unlike those who out boxed him in Walcott and Conn Brewster had a heck of a chin. Sanders was too old for a re-match and was beaten by Vitali which killed demand. He also lost via Ko'd in 1 near 40, another reason why there wasn't a re-match. Wlad fought nearly everyone he should have, had no color line, and fought many big men, boxers and punchers. All types, including southpaws.

Louis? Just 2 of his 26 title defenses were vs Black men, and #1 Ring Magazine ranked guys like Jimmy Bivins and Elmer Ray were not given title match.

Wlad did lose to Fury at age 39 and nearly beat Joshua at age 41 If you think these are prime years or other champions can easy be found at this age, you're out there. Given his age, and good performance, the best conclusion here is if he was in his prime as they were, he beats them both.

I'm glad to hear you have footage. Watch the first Schmeling fight. Look at Louis low guard and stance. He was easy to hit and that Right that floored him if you watch the rest of the fight was something Louis could not recover from. Watch one of the later rounds too, when Louis throws and lands a mean low blow, which IMO he needed to. It's never talked about.

Watch the first fight with Godoy, that one was very close, Godoy the better with the surviving footage. You will see a slow footed, mechanical Joe Louis here. Please explain why this master boxer struggles so.

Or watch Louis vs Wlacott 1, he did NOT win that one, and looked horrible in the second fight. Walcott also says he was easy to hit.

Watch how a scared 169 pound Conn figured out Louis was too slow and was up on points until he caught late in round 13, after being stunned by Conn. 12 rounds here and we have a new champion. Louis had about 30 pounds, height, weight and reach on Conn, yet this " master boxer " was behind. Please explain why.

Tommy Farr gave Louis a fight? Where's the re-match?

And as I correctly stated Louis lost the majority of his rounds to Schmeling, Conn, Walcott, and Charles, pretty much the best he fought. You can score them on film, for me.

And since your grilling on Wlad for some reason, how did Louis do vs Charles? Not nearly as good as Wlad vs Fury . He's lucky if he won two rounds and face was a mess vs Charles. Of course vs Marciano, years younger that Wlad was vs Joshua, he did far worse. Wlad almost beat Joshua at age 41 out of the ring for 1.5 years.

Look: Show me Louis as you see his foibles in film, its a simple request. Maybe your on to something. I will work with the first film you mention after Schmelling.

yes Galento was skilled, there are fighters who strive to be underestimated... El matador, smoking cigs, Galento and his wittiscisms, dude was rock solid under his gut... Again we can agree to disagree. Bum of the month club indeed, almost as much as Vlad's bum of the month club... and Louis at least won against all his "bums"!

Bowe has talent, I wouldn't say his talent was squarely on punching... He could do many things in the ring, fight inside, punch, move well for a big man. Ditto for Lewis, actually Bowe could do more things than Lewis, truth be told, but Lewis made the most of what he could do.

We can agree to disagree about Ortiz. Cuban fighters are like kiss up students! they always come to class/the ring prepared with good skills. Ortiz was no exception.

You just made a whole lot of excuses for Vlad... Not buying any of them. We can make excuses for any fighters problems! For example"Well Schmelling took advantage of an error Louis had internalized that had become a habit." Louis fixed it and showed what would have happened that second fight!" Now doesn't that sound silly?

I will look at the film you mention. The Schmelling fight was a bad outing and Louis learned a lesson, he was all out of sorts during that fight.

You going back to making excuses for Louis' wins... Walcot was a hell of a fighter...

You seem a real Vlad fanboy intent on taking any small detail and making it into a reason why Vlad is exceptional and vice versa for Louis. Not buying it my friend. On film? Vlad flinches, nuff said about greatness and film.

[billeau2]

film

Yes. You have been before and recently. Among the things I think you have wrong are:

Galento was skilled? Are you for real here? Don't inflate him because he floored Louis, please. He's a journeyman type who Bowe would have beaten very early. Just another bum of the month type.

Bowe was a skilled puncher. Agreed?

Lewis was also a skilled puncher. Agreed.

Who cares about Ortiz, he was old and had beaten noone.

As for a low guard, its not recommended. You can get away with it if you have feet like Ali, or a massive reach advantage, which Louis did not.

Wlad, who I can tell you don't respect, offered re-matches. At least to two different fighters. See the Brewster beat down, and a re-match with an early DQ win.

And by the way had Brewster hit Louis he's in trouble, and unlike those who out boxed him in Walcott and Conn Brewster had a heck of a chin. Sanders was too old for a re-match and was beaten by Vitali which killed demand. He also lost via Ko'd in 1 near 40, another reason why there wasn't a re-match. Wlad fought nearly everyone he should have, had no color line, and fought many big men, boxers and punchers. All types, including southpaws.

Louis? Just 2 of his 26 title defenses were vs Black men, and #1 Ring Magazine ranked guys like Jimmy Bivins and Elmer Ray were not given title match.

Wlad did lose to Fury at age 39 and nearly beat Joshua at age 41 If you think these are prime years or other champions can easy be found at this age, you're out there. Given his age, and good performance, the best conclusion here is if he was in his prime as they were, he beats them both.

I'm glad to hear you have footage. Watch the first Schmeling fight. Look at Louis low guard and stance. He was easy to hit and that Right that floored him if you watch the rest of the fight was something Louis could not recover from. Watch one of the later rounds too, when Louis throws and lands a mean low blow, which IMO he needed to. It's never talked about.

Watch the first fight with Godoy, that one was very close, Godoy the better with the surviving footage. You will see a slow footed, mechanical Joe Louis here. Please explain why this master boxer struggles so.

Or watch Louis vs Wlacott 1, he did NOT win that one, and looked horrible in the second fight. Walcott also says he was easy to hit.

Watch how a scared 169 pound Conn figured out Louis was too slow and was up on points until he caught late in round 13, after being stunned by Conn. 12 rounds here and we have a new champion. Louis had about 30 pounds, height, weight and reach on Conn, yet this " master boxer " was behind. Please explain why.

Tommy Farr gave Louis a fight? Where's the re-match?

And as I correctly stated Louis lost the majority of his rounds to Schmeling, Conn, Walcott, and Charles, pretty much the best he fought. You can score them on film, for me.

And since your grilling on Wlad for some reason, how did Louis do vs Charles? Not nearly as good as Wlad vs Fury . He's lucky if he won two rounds and face was a mess vs Charles. Of course vs Marciano, years younger that Wlad was vs Joshua, he did far worse. Wlad almost beat Joshua at age 41 out of the ring for 1.5 years.

I just looked at tape. I want to open a thread. My interest is to be constructive here, but frankly, you have to know what you are looking at. Just looking at tape and seeing something that catches your eye is not enough...

Let me respond to you first:

What you are seeing Lewis and Godoy also employing is what is called a false front.



This video gives some inight into the use of this position. Because one is slightly at an angle, film makes it look (when the back is bent) like the head is either in front, or behind. Godoy also employs the same position. It is an example of how skilled guys were in the craft of boxing back then.

[QueensburyRules]

- -Vitali used a low guard to much success.

The Ks and Louis had superior footwork to most heavies. They weren't runners/stinkers.

As to footwork, AJ and Jeffries beat every heavy in history thru 100 meters. Fury would be among the slowest, yet in short distances of the ring he manages quite well, thank you.

Ali vs Louis 100 meters, who U rubes got?