Joe Louis: A Retrospective

[billeau2]

- -Don't regard turning a fight into a track meet good defense.

Yu stoopid. Did you watch the Young Foreman fight?

[QueensburyRules]

Yu stoopid. Did you watch the Young Foreman fight?

- -Y U Chinese fireworks a dud?

Decade long fizzle?

[billeau2]

- -Y U Chinese fireworks a dud?

Decade long fizzle?

Young versus Foreman, did yu watch? Masterful performance.

[Dr. Z]

Theres never been a time with big skilled big guys. who?

Foreman and ali were 6 ft 3 - 6 ft 4 at best.

Wlad, Fury, Joshua and Wilder are not big skilled big guys. They arent very good and all have glass chins.

Lennox lewis is the best "big" guy in terms of height, but he struggled and even lost to guys who were 6 ft 1.

So i don't know how you came up with this idea that Louis wouldn't slaughter them all. Buddy Baer at least was tough, I couldnt see Joshua taking anything from Louis. And buddy Baer was even bigger than Joshua.

You are mistaking HD footage with old film reels, Louis is technically superior than all of these "big guys".

Buddy Baer and Abe Simon did not have the skills of Joshua, Wlad, Lewis, Fury or Ali. My point is Louis never fought a skilled big guy stands tall.

I agree Louis was technically superior to the big guys, who could not box in his time.

[ShoulderRoll]

Buddy Baer and Abe Simon did not have the skills of Joshua, Wlad, Lewis, Fury or Ali. My point is Louis never fought a skilled big guy stands tall.

I agree Louis was technically superior to the big guys, who could not box in his time.

By the same token Joshua, Wlad, Lewis, and Fury never fought anyone with the skills of Joe Louis. There have been no guys who can fight like him in the current era.

[Dr. Z]

By the same token Joshua, Wlad, Lewis, and Fury never fought anyone with the skills of Joe Louis. There have been no guys who can fight like him in the current era.

Oh yes they have. Louis was a plodding boxer, with a 76" reach and fast hands with a good jab, hook,
and right hand. I find Louis good on offense, when he gets in range, and blow average on defense.

If you are honest, he lost more rounds than he won vs Schmeling, Conn, Walcott and Charles....easily.

He would be out jabbed today by everyone you mentioned. Outside of Fury, he'll find their right hand just as hard, and get real, they don't use the 6 ounce gloves that Louis did for a reason.

Comparing the big men of the 1940's to the big men of today is something a fan who really doesn't know much about boxing would do. Different levels, easily.

[billeau2]

Oh yes they have. Louis was a plodding boxer, with a 76" reach and fast hands with a good jab, hook,
and right hand. I find Louis good on offense, when he gets in range, and blow average on defense.

If you are honest, he lost more rounds than he won vs Schmeling, Conn, Walcott and Charles....easily.

He would be out jabbed today by everyone you mentioned. Outside of Fury, he'll find their right hand just as hard, and get real, they don't use the 6 ounce gloves that Louis did for a reason.

Comparing the big men of the 1940's to the big men of today is something a fan who really doesn't know much about boxing would do. Different levels, easily.

What? Plodder? No... He was a puncher who, together with Blackburn realized a puncher will get a certain amount of opportunities during a 15 round fight. Louis' strategy was to maximize those opportunities, efficiently applying pressure without chasing his opponent around. People like you fail to realize how incredible it is that a "puncher" was able to win as consistently as Louis did. Most punchers eventually get "conned" as in Billy conn. an inferior boxer just has to avoid, even the greatest puncher to win... The odds go to the boxer.

And what puncher cares about rounds? Wilder lost most rounds to Ortiz, twice... and beat him convincingly. The reason has nothing to do with winning rounds.

Louis could slip a jab... and the punches change certain dynamics for everyone. Some people (I don't) think Canera moved well. The big men today, as Shoulder Roll has implied, would have their own problems dealing with a fighter who was prepared to go fifteen rounds, at a high activity rate, who could exploit bad defensive habits... And who got hit by guys who also hit very hard and got up.

Klitsko lost to Sanders... A hard hitter. How would he take a Louis punch? Lewis moved better, but your more or less saying, he would not be hit by Louis, who managed to stalk opponents, and find a way to connect for how many title fights?

Louis is venerated for a reason... His jab, by the way, was not exceptional and did not need to be.

[QueensburyRules]

Comparing the big men of the 1940's to the big men of today is something a fan who really doesn't know much about boxing would do. Different levels, easily.

- -Yet that is what you have done.

Stay away from knives. You might eviscerate yourself by accident.

[Dr. Z]

- -Yet that is what you have done.

Stay away from knives. You might eviscerate yourself by accident.

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

[Dr. Z]

What? Plodder? No... He was a puncher who, together with Blackburn realized a puncher will get a certain amount of opportunities during a 15 round fight. Louis' strategy was to maximize those opportunities, efficiently applying pressure without chasing his opponent around. People like you fail to realize how incredible it is that a "puncher" was able to win as consistently as Louis did. Most punchers eventually get "conned" as in Billy conn. an inferior boxer just has to avoid, even the greatest puncher to win... The odds go to the boxer.

And what puncher cares about rounds? Wilder lost most rounds to Ortiz, twice... and beat him convincingly. The reason has nothing to do with winning rounds.

Louis could slip a jab... and the punches change certain dynamics for everyone. Some people (I don't) think Canera moved well. The big men today, as Shoulder Roll has implied, would have their own problems dealing with a fighter who was prepared to go fifteen rounds, at a high activity rate, who could exploit bad defensive habits... And who got hit by guys who also hit very hard and got up.

Klitsko lost to Sanders... A hard hitter. How would he take a Louis punch? Lewis moved better, but your more or less saying, he would not be hit by Louis, who managed to stalk opponents, and find a way to connect for how many title fights?

Louis is venerated for a reason... His jab, by the way, was not exceptional and did not need to be.

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 ****** 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.