Printable View
But what is your boxing background? What do you know about it, about how to throw punches, footwork,etc...? Because Joe Louis throws perfect punches, every one of them, and his footwork/balance is impeccable. That seems to be the opinion of most boxing people, from Eddie Futch to Freddie Roach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
I'm wondering if Max power and powerpuncher aren't actually the same person with some kind of low grade Schizophrenia:D I like the idea very much.
Did you seriously say Louis had rudimentary boxing skills? Please log off and never post on here again.
Now I am no pro or coach my friends, but Futch and Roach are trainers and have a vested interest in making claims like that. The facts are, they like us have access to video footage of Louis and to word of mouth.
I'd rather believe in my own 2 eyes because I can SEE that Louis's style of fighting with his total package would not be nearly as competitive today as it was in his day.
Louis was the most skilled of his time, I'll give you that!
Tell me then powerpuncher, I would like to know how, in what way, that you suppose Joe Louis has better balance and footwork and better punching technique than modern fighters?
Because they and their coaches have access to the same footage and material of Louis as you do and what you are implying is that they are all and have been stupid and ignorant for nearly the last century to implement and build upon Louis's skills and refine them as in every other sport.
Have fun watching your black and white footage of Joe Louis beating bums of the month while I enjoy colour HBO with the soothing anecdotes of my mate Larry Merchant enjoying such classics as Bowe vs Holyfield.
@Master I am not claiming Haye is greater than Louis, his achievements come nowhere near of course, in this regard Louis is #1. And bring Louis to modern times, give him modern training and diet then sure he would be a force but as they are/were, h2h, Louis loses big!
However all is not as it seems. The "heavyweight division" of Louis's time is the "cruiser AND the heavyweight" divisions of today combined. NOW when you compare the records of the 2 fighters you will see that David Haye's resume is out of the world good!
Haye has a better resume than Louis. :vd: In the words of Roger Mayweather: "You don't know shit about boxing".Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
I have just pulled up Joe Louis resume to reassure myself I am not mistaken... And wasn't.
Ok VG_Addict, what opponents of Louis are of better quality than Haye's COMBINED record of cruiser and heavy? Is it 193lb Schmelling who can barely support his bodyweight on his stick legs or the acromegalic Carnera who is just a small version of Valuev with even LESS boxing skills??? OR perhaps it is that emporer penguin Galento who I'm not sure would even be ALLOWED to box with David Haye. You know the guy who drank a gallon of whiskey before each bout and almost had Louis knocked out.
Yeah Haye would be sweatin them guys!! lol
You mean besides Jersey Joe Walcott?
Look I know Walcott is a skilful boxer and all that. But his performance even against his olden days opponents was not exactly the stuff champions are made of. He is like Carl Williams of the 80's, good fighter but a borderline bum with regards to record. Not a challenge for a modern HW! He LOST almost 25% of his fights!
you caught us. me and my other half just like to get on here and debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
ill answer your question since you asked. back then, there were 4 times more boxers than there are now. they also fought more often. their opponents were hungrier (both literally and figuratively) because back then, people could fight on the circuit and fought to make ends meet. they were literally fighting for their livlihood. so yes, people have tapes of joe louis but it doesnt mean that they worked harder or had the same skill level. thats like saying that people can watch tapes of magic johnson in this day and age so obviously any decent basketball player would be able to beat him. it just makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
just so you know, im not nearly as extreme as many people are about the older fighters being heads and shoulders above the fighters these days. i understand that there are fighters now that would be champion in other eras. but i feel like you fall into the trap of thinking that people in the old days obviously werent as strong, athletic, or smart as people now. if you want to, read or watch old training tapes and you will see that they are doing the same things. training for boxing hasnt changed as much as you think. maybe a few little things but nothing huge.
i remember my wrestling coach telling us that wrestling has been around for so long that there is nothing new that we could do that hasnt already been done. there are no more new moves to be invented. if you watch old boxing, you will realize that there really hasnt been anything new invented since about the 20's or maybe 30's.
And I will answer your response in kind... WRONG! Back then there were far less boxers because pro boxing was an American backyard sport with half the world forbidden to fight and only a handful of free world Europeans in overseas circulation. Today boxing is only on a percentage decline in the US but because the population is larger, participation there is about the same. Now though boxing is a global sport and it's popularity has grown abroad both as a percentage and in total. Boxers were hungrier for a paycheck because they were poor and weaker from lack of nutrition, they fought more often which weakened them, they did not recover properly and it injured their performance as completely proven by modern advances (see Evander Holyfield speech on the subject and I will elaborate the multitude of reasons why down the track).
Now if we have enough evidence on film to make such bold claims about his skill level then we have enough evidence to LEARN from what we have as well. If Joe Louis did something well and it was effective then it HAS been witnessed and interpreted into every modern fighters training to date where it would be of assistance and those that are deemed NOT so effective today are not taught. You see when a pro fighter prepares to fight another today they "study film of their opponent" in order to learn their habits, strengths and weaknesses and develop a plan and work on the skills necessary to overcome them. So if it works for them there it obviously works for coaches watching Louis!
The only thing here I agree with is that in the subjective sense, Louis and his oppoents lived in tougher times and it was not their fault they had to bust their asses for a quid, it was the times. They were tougher in that way but not in their performance.
Boxing training has changed by the same degree as the training has changed in every other sport. It is still recognisable as the same training that is true. We still have sparring, shadow boxing, double end and heavy bag, calisthenics etc. But there have been huge advancements since Louis time.
The focus mitt is the biggest one. The focus mitt allows one to develop the skills without the fear of being hit as in sparring. Sparring remains the most effective and of course necessary way to put it all together under real conditions but the mitt is the method which drills the skills and combinations in with timing and accuracy better than any other method.
The speed ball has been proven completely obsolete and improves no aspect of performance whatsoever.
I could go on! Sparring is more important than actual fighting for boxing ability and recovery from fights and phasing in training scedules produce superior fighters.
And finally there have been plenty of things developed in boxing since then... But that's another story!
Of course that is a bit much to swallow but honestly I have been debating boxing since years! I have seen the tide turn slowly but only in boxing, no other sport, is there such resistance to the blooming obvious!
Haye KO1 Louis! :yep
I do think this era is kinda shit on to much not great but i think it does fine with any era before the 60's. Louis fought bartenders and lost to a old past his prime Max he could not even learn to get out the way of a right hand really. Rocky's era did not even have a pulse just bunch bums and fighters who's best days were way the fuck behind them also had mob on his side. The 1980's were pretty weak as well but i think they would fair a tad better but not by much they had Tyson and Holmes who could do well but that is about it. So Really you got the 1970's who had good comp and the 90's which the more i look at the more i think it was better then the 70's really. I just think they don't like the heavyweight champs because they are brothers this shit has never happened in heavyweight boxing before also does not help that they are educated and not american really kinda derails it for a lot of the fans that have had this belt on lock for so long. Now we don't have it anymore and when your country has had the champ for so long going to take a awhile for you to warm up to Europe having it look how long it to for us to like Lewis it was after he retired.
Thank the stars there is some real insight on this board. Your comment is well thought out.
I don't think much of the 70's. I think Muhammad and Foreman are the 2 standouts and of the 80's Holmes and Tyson as you said. They would all be competitive (as Holmes and Foreman in fact were). The 90's is the true golden era imo. I would be very surprised if there was ever an era full of so much depth and excitement ever again!!
Pre 60's is pretty much as you said it. Mostly punch bag bums who could barely box!
i am right that there were more boxers back in the 30's and on. i think that you are talking about the 20's and before when boxing was illegal in many states. by the 30's, fights were being held all the time. boxing was huge during that time period. there werent as many big sports as there are now and more people went into boxing because they could and they needed to make some money.
and again, yes boxers learn from older fighters, but that doesnt mean that they are better. with that logic, every passing year the boxers should just get better which isnt happening. i guarantee you that in 50 years, boxers wont be any better than they are now. there may be slight rules changes, but overall, it will come down to skill level, athletic ability, and game plan.
my main problem with your arguments is that you cant really accept an expert opinion or even a primary source. as you said, you cant trust historians, trainers, or fighters opinions. even though these people have been studying the sport for years, you think for some reason that you just know more than them. that they are only talking from a nostalgic point of view and not a realistic one. also, like you said, you cant even trust a fighter when they give a first hand account on an opponent. you think that they are lying about their perspective. thats like me saying that atoms dont exist. i may have learned about them a little bit and have seen pictures, but those scientists are just nostalgic and it doesnt really make sense to me so i just wont believe them. although all science is theory technically, all the evidence points out that its true. same in this case of boxing. although there is a small chance you could be right, all the evidence points that joe louis would KO haye easily.