Louis vs Galento HD upscaled

[Ivich]

Once again this is just a basic opinion thrown at Galento since the footage is so bad. This is the first footage thats good enough to show the man was actually pretty sneaky and a dangerous fighter, though not a smart fighter

Galento's feet look like they are mired in cement.

[them_apples]

He is sneaky for Joe Louis, a fighter who had trouble switching tactics and thinking in the ring. Jack Blackburn did the thinking for Louis. My opinion on Galento is he was a short and fat heavyweight with a limited reach. He could hit hard though. When you look at his boxing ability, he is a little dirty, he doesn't set up his offense with jab, or throw textbook punches. No feinting nor is he deceptive with his hands. You are right, Galento isn't a smart fighter.

You really don’t see Louis’ talent?

[Dr. Z]

You really donât see Louisâ talent?

I see it all. His talent, his style, and he flaws. IMO he is greatly over rated as a boxer. In fact he has a negative rounds won to rounds lost ratio on the score card vs his best opponents all of which were under 200 pounds in Schmeling, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano. Louis was the bigger man. Those were his best opponents. Don't you agree?

Galento was not among his best opponents. And I say in some fights Louis was lucky on the cards and needed 15 Round fights, not 12 rounds fights to win.

[Willie Pep 229]

I see it all. His talent, his style, and he flaws. IMO he is greatly over rated as a boxer. In fact he has a negative rounds won to rounds lost ratio on the score card vs his best opponents all of which were under 200 pounds in Schmeling, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano. Louis was the bigger man. Th8ose were his best opponents. Don't you agree?

Galento was not among his best opponents. And I say in some fights Louis was lucky on the cards and needed 15 Round fights, not 12 rounds fights to win.

You see a 15 round fighter as being an inferior fighter to a 12 round fighter?

First time I have heard that argument made.

[them_apples]

I see it all. His talent, his style, and he flaws. IMO he is greatly over rated as a boxer. In fact he has a negative rounds won to rounds lost ratio on the score card vs his best opponents all of which were under 200 pounds in Schmeling, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano. Louis was the bigger man. Those were his best opponents. Don't you agree?

Galento was not among his best opponents. And I say in some fights Louis was lucky on the cards and needed 15 Round fights, not 12 rounds fights to win.

If its true about the amount of rounds he lost then it does show a bit he was always looking for a knockout over anything.

as for the weight of his opponents, I think little of that. You have to be a good fighter at the end of the day. Spinks beat Cooney, Usyk beat Joshua, Moorer beat Holyfield etc.

if a fighter can get light enough without starving to fight in a lower weight class, then do it - but many of these guys who were 200 lbs were simply similarly sized heavyweights carrying less mass on their frames. Louis oponents ranged from 185 lbs to 260, and heights from 5 ft 8 to 6 ft 7. Size means next to nothing in this analysis.

[them_apples]

I see it all. His talent, his style, and he flaws. IMO he is greatly over rated as a boxer. In fact he has a negative rounds won to rounds lost ratio on the score card vs his best opponents all of which were under 200 pounds in Schmeling, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano. Louis was the bigger man. Those were his best opponents. Don't you agree?

Galento was not among his best opponents. And I say in some fights Louis was lucky on the cards and needed 15 Round fights, not 12 rounds fights to win.

A lot of Louis’ oponents were game though. You can tell they really tried to beat him. Who is Louis overrated against? On top of this, all of his oponents fought eachother. Another sign of great competition.

[Dr. Z]

If its true about the amount of rounds he lost then it does show a bit he was always looking for a knockout over anything.

as for the weight of his opponents, I think little of that. You have to be a good fighter at the end of the day. Spinks beat Cooney, Usyk beat Joshua, Moorer beat Holyfield etc.

if a fighter can get light enough without starving to fight in a lower weight class, then do it - but many of these guys who were 200 lbs were simply similarly sized heavyweights carrying less mass on their frames. Louis oponents ranged from 185 lbs to 260, and heights from 5 ft 8 to 6 ft 7. Size means next to nothing in this analysis.

Yes but is true that he lost many rounds to a men who weighed in at super middle weight and cruiser weights. At least they would have been that today. A good modern day skilled heavyweight is about 6'5" + , 240+ pounds, with an 80" reach. Small men do not match up. I am not talking about bum of the most guys.

Today's big men are like three weight classes above there Joe Louis opponents that bettered him or out scored points him on the cards until his power came late and his chiny opponents were knocked out. Today the big men aren't just big, they are skiiled.

That is the history or it.

[Dr. Z]

You see a 15 round fighter as being an inferior fighter to a 12 round fighter?

First time I have heard that argument made.

No, I prefer 15 rounds fights. But If Louis fought under modern rules:

1 ) he looses at least two fights he won over 15 if they were changed into 12 round contests. ( Walcott and Conn )

2 ) the glove size changes to 12 ounces. The 6 - 8 ounces gloves he used are puncher gloves and increase the power of the punches

Think about it...

[Ivich]

No, I prefer 15 rounds fights. But If Louis fought under modern rules:

1 ) he looses at least two fights he won over 15 if they were changed into 12 round contests. ( Walcott and Conn )

2 ) the glove size changes to 12 ounces. The 6 - 8 ounces gloves he used are puncher gloves and increase the power of the punches

Think about it...

When I on the Classic Forum stated that over 20 rounds Johnson would have beaten Willard,as the referee confirmed.You replied but Willard would have started faster if he knew it was a only a 20rds fight!
Now you have totally reversed your previous statement ,by denying the possibility that Louis knowing he had only 12 rds to win in would not
have put more urgency into his attack!

Lets look at other fights in which your idol Jim Jeffries was involved. According to your "revised opinion"lol
Jim Corbett would have won the decision over Jeffries in their first fight if it had been over 20rds, and Sharkey would probably have gotten the decision over Jeffries in their 2nd fight if it had been reduced to 20rds as well!

Unlike Jeffries, Louis fought modern sized heavyweights and ko'd them

You cannot have your cake and eat it too ! Only Bob Dylan can do that! LOL

[Ivich]

I see it all. His talent, his style, and he flaws. IMO he is greatly over rated as a boxer. In fact he has a negative rounds won to rounds lost ratio on the score card vs his best opponents all of which were under 200 pounds in Schmeling, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano. Louis was the bigger man. Those were his best opponents. Don't you agree?

Galento was not among his best opponents. And I say in some fights Louis was lucky on the cards and needed 15 Round fights, not 12 rounds fights to win.

Louis was past his prime for Walcott, and well over the hill for both Charles and Marciano.Everyone not pushing an agenda recognizes this.
Galento was coming off of 11 straight ko wins and was the number 1 contender,should Louis have avoided him?