Why do people still put Joe Louis as the best HW with his outdated and poor mechanics?

[billeau2]

Why did he fight that way?

Because he seldom lost. Louis had plenty of head movement he used it properly, to make the opponent miss and set up counters. His footwork was deliberate, not slow. Louis fought when a puncher had 15 rounds to hit his targets, not 12 rounds and giant gloves. The proof is in the pudding, his performance against Conn showed that patience and deliberation pays off.

Louis was biomechanically efficient. Compare his movement dynamics to Caleb Plant, who is a talented modern fighter but moves too much and gasses out. A ring is a square that can cut down all linear movements with proper positioning. Guys like Louis and Foreman cut the ring, guys like Liston used timing and distancing off the main line... Point being, Louis moved to cut the movement of his opponent with a proper angle. This approach does not depend so much on foot speed off the line.

[billeau2]

No, it doesn't change the rules of history.

While the changes in the NFL are more dramatic, no doubt, what are you going to do: evaluate each sport and then decide which can, and which can not be compared? E.g. basketball, hockey, tennis, golf, baseball, soccer, track, Etc.

What could you posdibly do except have an opinion?

Nothing more than a line in the sand, based on your opinion.

You don't get to ***** the rules of historical study.

These posts are Fantasy Fights, not history.

P.S. Besides how many times am I suspose to listen to these child like bate posts and stay quiet. Personally I think you should stop giving this nonsense credibility by replying to it.

RE BOLDFACE: OK, so it looks like we got it wrong.

Ahh but the rules of history are they Linear=progress? You can look at a perfectly crafted Egyptian vase, from granite, from a time much older than a similar copy of the same vase from the middle kingdom that is inferior in every respect. People have been hitting each other a lot longer than any sport that may have attracted a sudden surge of money and attention like football, or baseball.

[Willie Pep 229]

Ahh but the rules of history are they Linear=progress? You can look at a perfectly crafted Egyptian vase, from granite, from a time much older than a similar copy of the same vase from the middle kingdom that is inferior in every respect. People have been hitting each other a lot longer than any sport that may have attracted a sudden surge of money and attention like football, or baseball.

Interesting point - unfortunately I have no clue what I was originally replying to - Lol Sorry!

[them_apples]

Because he seldom lost. Louis had plenty of head movement he used it properly, to make the opponent miss and set up counters. His footwork was deliberate, not slow. Louis fought when a puncher had 15 rounds to hit his targets, not 12 rounds and giant gloves. The proof is in the pudding, his performance against Conn showed that patience and deliberation pays off.

Louis was biomechanically efficient. Compare his movement dynamics to Caleb Plant, who is a talented modern fighter but moves too much and gasses out. A ring is a square that can cut down all linear movements with proper positioning. Guys like Louis and Foreman cut the ring, guys like Liston used timing and distancing off the main line... Point being, Louis moved to cut the movement of his opponent with a proper angle. This approach does not depend so much on foot speed off the line.

you can explain it to people, but they don’t get it. They use their limited uneducated eye test to come to conclusions, most of it comes from the poor quality of the film.

[shawnkemp804]

Poor level of opponents? Do tell. Because by my country off the top of my head he fought 6 hall of famers going 6-2, and 8 heavyweight champions going 8-3 and 2 lightheavyweight champions going.2-0. Besides Ali, he fought the highest rated contenders per average during his career. Learn some boxing g troll alt and get back to me.

The Hall of Fame is opinion based no factual based little kid. You frequently see people in the Hall of Fame who are there just because they were popular in their era or for other reasons.

Joe Louis beat Billy Conn, A blown up natural 160 pound fighter, Jim Braddock a guy who started his career weighing 160 pounds and had a career record of 47 wins and 24 loses. nothing special, Ezzard Charles was a natural 160 pound fighter, Jersey Joe Walcott had 49 wins and 20 losses, Joe Louis also struggled and loss to Charles and should of lost against Walcott. Either way The opponents that Louis fought with the exception of Max Baer, Buddy Baer, Primo Carnera, and Abe Simon were small little cruiser weight or less level guys. Both Baer brothers, Carnera, and Simon were horribly unskilled as well.

So my point is a fact. Louis faced a combination or small guys, or just flat out unskilled guys for pretty much his whole career. You could put any half way decent modern style heavyweight against the same fighters Joe Louis faced and they would be undefeated. Michael Grant, Tommy Morrison, David Tua, ect would of smashed every fighter Joe Louis faced.

So Joe Louis was good at fighting low level guys in his era but that doesn't make Joe Louis a all time great.

[Willie Pep 229]

The Hall of Fame is opinion based no factual based little kid. You frequently see people in the Hall of Fame who are there just because they were popular in their era or for other reasons.

Joe Louis beat Billy Conn, A blown up natural 160 pound fighter, Jim Braddock a guy who started his career weighing 160 pounds and had a career record of 47 wins and 24 loses. nothing special, Ezzard Charles was a natural 160 pound fighter, Jersey Joe Walcott had 49 wins and 20 losses, Joe Louis also struggled and loss to Charles and should of lost against Walcott. Either way The opponents that Louis fought with the exception of Max Baer, Buddy Baer, Primo Carnera, and Abe Simon were small little cruiser weight or less level guys. Both Baer brothers, Carnera, and Simon were horribly unskilled as well.

So my point is a fact. Louis faced a combination or small guys, or just flat out unskilled guys for pretty much his whole career. You could put any half way decent modern style heavyweight against the same fighters Joe Louis faced and they would be undefeated. Michael Grant, Tommy Morrison, David Tua, ect would of smashed every fighter Joe Louis faced.

So Joe Louis was good at fighting low level guys in his era but that doesn't make Joe Louis a all time great.

Of course it is!

Ever bother to look up the definition of the word 'fame?

A fighter known, overnight, across America as The Cinderella Man is famous!

It is the Hall of Fame, not the hall of statistics.

Have you ever considered that the world may be passing you by; that we are, all, already way ahead of you?

Do you actually think that anyone on this forum has not hear those Louis remarks a hundred times? Do you have ANYTHING that isn't cliché troll?

P.S. Please before you go away promise, when bashing the old timers, you will at least one time use the phrase "weakest era ever."

I'll be sorely disappointed if a complete cliché like you missed the best one.

[Ascended]

The Hall of Fame is opinion based no factual based little kid. You frequently see people in the Hall of Fame who are there just because they were popular in their era or for other reasons.

Joe Louis beat Billy Conn, A blown up natural 160 pound fighter, Jim Braddock a guy who started his career weighing 160 pounds and had a career record of 47 wins and 24 loses. nothing special, Ezzard Charles was a natural 160 pound fighter, Jersey Joe Walcott had 49 wins and 20 losses, Joe Louis also struggled and loss to Charles and should of lost against Walcott. Either way The opponents that Louis fought with the exception of Max Baer, Buddy Baer, Primo Carnera, and Abe Simon were small little cruiser weight or less level guys. Both Baer brothers, Carnera, and Simon were horribly unskilled as well.

So my point is a fact. Louis faced a combination or small guys, or just flat out unskilled guys for pretty much his whole career. You could put any half way decent modern style heavyweight against the same fighters Joe Louis faced and they would be undefeated. Michael Grant, Tommy Morrison, David Tua, ect would of smashed every fighter Joe Louis faced.

So Joe Louis was good at fighting low level guys in his era but that doesn't make Joe Louis a all time great.

These people are crazy that whole era joe fought in were trash compared to the average 70s-90s, they won't even show anybody fighting like that in 70s-90s,cause nobody made pro fighting like that

[DooGee#33]

There Re plenty of old schoolers with relevant mechanics today. Walcott still looks great, as does Ezzard Charles

How did Walcott look laying on the canvas after getting put there by Louis? Was he modern enough?

[Slugfester]

Two "like," (and alike) cliques going at it tooth and nail, both wrong at times, neither wrong all the time.

The Hall Of Fame is dog meat, I don't care who touts it. It is no measure to be used here or most anyplace in a discussion, unless the HOF is what is being discussed.

As far as who-beats-who, Louis would would mop the canvas with the average top tenner today, fighting in his own era especially. It is comical to think someone like Helen (a gatekeeper today) would beat Louis, in any era. Louis would beat Poor Joshua half to death with his accuracy. Louis indeed could hold a minor heavyweight championship today, for a while.

He could not beat Fury or Wilder in any era. Even Wilder with his low skill level, is very likely to KO Louis pronto. Uh, if Galento can knock Louis down in his prime, then so can Wilder. Marciano, Dempsey, Louis and Usyk would all have good chances against an oaf like W Klitscho.

I would bet there isn't a single Louis tout-boy here who would bet on Louis against Wilder or Fury, despite anything they say or claim, at +400-100 odds. I would bet on those bettors rather than the fight. More of a cinch.

Louis dominated his poor era. But if I gave him credit for that, I would have to give Klitscho the same credit. Fortunately, I realize domination is bullshit too, because it depends on who you are dominating. I look mostly at the fighter himself.

Louis is a greater fighter than any oaf mentioned, including Wilder and Fury. That does not mean he could beat them. He was an actual cruiser weight after all. The even smaller Marciano might have the best shot of any of the cruiser weights (next to Usyk, who has already somewhat proven it), because if he lasts, he may very well wear an oaf down, especially if an oaf has laughed and underestimated his comparative midgetry.

[QueensburyRules]

Two "like," (and alike) cliques going at it tooth and nail, both wrong at times, neither wrong all the time.

The Hall Of Fame is dog meat, I don't care who touts it. It is no measure to be used here or most anyplace in a discussion, unless the HOF is what is being discussed.

As far as who-beats-who, Louis would would mop the canvas with the average top tenner today, fighting in his own era especially. It is comical to think someone like Helen (a gatekeeper today) would beat Louis, in any era. Louis would beat Poor Joshua half to death with his accuracy. Louis indeed could hold a minor heavyweight championship today, for a while.

He could not beat Fury or Wilder in any era. Even Wilder with his low skill level, is very likely to KO Louis pronto. Uh, if Galento can knock Louis down in his prime, then so can Wilder. Marciano, Dempsey, Louis and Usyk would all have good chances against an oaf like W Klitscho.

I would bet there isn't a single Louis tout-boy here who would bet on Louis against Wilder or Fury, despite anything they say or claim, at +400-100 odds. I would bet on those bettors rather than the fight. More of a cinch.

Louis dominated his poor era. But if I gave him credit for that, I would have to give Klitscho the same credit. Fortunately, I realize domination is bullshit too, because it depends on who you are dominating. I look mostly at the fighter himself.

Louis is a greater fighter than any oaf mentioned, including Wilder and Fury. That does not mean he could beat them. He was an actual cruiser weight after all. The even smaller Marciano might have the best shot of any of the cruiser weights (next to Usyk, who has already somewhat proven it), because if he lasts, he may very well wear an oaf down, especially if an oaf has laughed and underestimated his comparative midgetry.

- - Festus turning up his nose at dog meat...

Deyonce ALERT...BATTEN THE HATCHES!!!