1973 George Foreman vs 1942 Joe Louis

[joe smith]

Does the Brown Bomber get bombed? Or can he keep George off him like Ali did? Who wins this matchup? Both in their prime.

The size difference would be to big.

In his prime Foreman weighed usually 230 pounds (16.4 stone) where as Joe Louis used weighed about 200 pounds (14.2 stone)

How does a cruiserweight beat Foreman ? Too small, too light, not fast enough. But even with a weight disadvantage, I would not be surprised if Louis was able to pick his shots and take apart the wide-swinging Foreman with pin-point accurate counter punches.

But let's say they had to weigh roughly the same ?

Joe Louis ALL DAY.

Fighters in Joe Louis era's had to deal with much harder living conditions. It was rare that fighters became rich and pampered so early in their careers. Their hunger to win was real. Back in the day fighters used to fight on the streets, the docks, anywhere there was events that held those fights.

PROPER HARD BASTARDS

They had no drugs to save them from death whatsoever. They didn`t even have penicillin untill 1943. People of the times if they survived infancy they were strong babies. and to make it to their teen-age years they had to be very strong of body and durability. The amount of illnesses that could kill one at the time was real, people died from the common measles, chicken-pox, scarlet fever, flues of all types.

You name it and it was there to kill you.

​My video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought. In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on foreman or people he fought?

he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs. guys in the 70s-'90s

so why say Joe all day if foreman weighted the same?, when the issue isn't weight it's the movements

The video clearly shows his whole era were novice like compared in angles/tech/fluidity/timing/defense and they fought really dumb to a lot of times standing right in front of the opposition and waiting for them to counter or to hit them, i specifically chose no names to show even those guys were way more advanced than the whole louis era

https://youtu.be/a27vtfAuSyI?si=3auld8tUUiYmttu3

[Spicoli]

Little bit of a head scratcher there but maybe I'm just having a slow day . And welcome to the forum Joe..

but are you saying Foreman was a better technical fighter with better timing and fluidity than Louis. To go from Foreman vs ex footballer Jimmy Ellis to Joe Frazier is a bit interesting.

[joe smith]

Little bit of a head scratcher there but maybe I'm just having a slow day . And welcome to the forum Joe..

but are you saying Foreman was a better technical fighter with better timing and fluidity than Louis. To go from Foreman vs ex footballer Jimmy Ellis to Joe Frazier is a bit interesting.

​My video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought. In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on foreman or people he fought?

he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs. guys in the 70s-'90s

The video clearly shows his whole era louis fought in were novice like compared in angles/tech/fluidity/timing/defense they fought really dumb to alot of times standing right in front of the opposition and waiting for them to counter or to hit them, i specifically chose no names to show even those guys were way more advanced than the whole louis era

https://youtu.be/a27vtfAuSyI?si=3auld8tUUiYmttu3

So no I'm not saying anything video proves me right

[Spicoli]

Little bit of a head scratcher there but maybe I'm just having a slow day . And welcome to the forum Joe..

but are you saying Foreman was a better technical fighter with better timing and fluidity than Louis. To go from Foreman vs ex footballer Jimmy Ellis to Joe Frazier is a bit interesting.

​My video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought. In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on foreman or people he fought?

he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs. guys in the 70s-'90s

The video clearly shows his whole era louis fought in were novice like compared in angles/tech/fluidity/timing/defense they fought really dumb to alot of times standing right in front of the opposition and waiting for them to counter or to hit them, i specifically chose no names to show even those guys were way more advanced than the whole louis era

https://youtu.be/a27vtfAuSyI?si=3auld8tUUiYmttu3

So no I'm not saying anything video proves me right

Ok just checking, think we've read that about 10 times or so . Just so we're clear Foreman was in no way a better boxer than Joe Louis. Up until today that could go without saying though

[Denilson3.0]

The video clearly shows his whole era were novice like compared in angles/tech/fluidity/timing/defense

What you saw in the video as Joe Louis's weaknesses were actually his greatest attributes that is :

1. Patience
2. Economy Of Movement

You’re making the mistake of seeing economy of motion with sluggard footwork.

In boxing - Not all skills are pretty.

Boxing is the ultimate sport of repetition.

The more one practises the better one becomes. Boxers in the past "practised" until it was "instinctive". That's the key difference, fighters from the past did not "think" about what to do, they reacted instinctively to any offensive or defensive opportunities.

The old timers had moves that were so well ingrained through continuous fighting. There's no better way to internalise these things - that's why boxing has gone way downhill skill-wise.

I mean would Deontay Wilder have been a champ in the Joe Louis era ? Nope.

If you look into today's boxing it's astonishing how some boxers win fights just with ONE thing.

The horrible USA amateur boxing program shows that. They haven't won a gold at the Olympics since Andre Ward in 2004.

Fury just went life and death with a guy who has never boxed before. I mean if it was just about strength and punching power AJ should have easily beat Usyk - No ? Even the Klitschkos (Vitali and Wlad) looked amateurish at times. Jack Johnson would have taken Klitschko to school and made him look like the advanced amateur that he was.

Would FMJ been able to have been 50-0 if he had an Archie Moore schedule? No.

Also please leave this "modern training and conditioning" shit at the door.

Training in boxing hasn’t really changed too much over the last 100 years.

1. Jogging
2. Jumping Rope
3. Lifting Weights
4. Bag Work
5. Sparring
6. And Even Rowing Machines

All those have been around since the late 19th century. Except for that of steroids of course. There has been barely any advancement in training methods since the Joe Louis era.

they fought really dumb to alot of times standing right in front of the opposition and waiting for them to counter or to hit them, i specifically chose no names to show even those guys were way more advanced than the whole louis era

Not dumb at all.

1. A lot fighters back then were not scared to get hit and those moves require you to get hit in sparring to perfect them.
   
   Old fighters like Louis were very comfortable under fire; they didn’t turtle or freak out and weren’t worried about a touch points system. Bk in the day they had a “If it doesn't hurt, it doesn’t matter” way of thinking.
   
   
2. Louis knew that fighters inexperienced would always throw at the head when they thought they saw a target.
   
   So fighters like Louis put his head there on purpose to get the boxers to throw, make them miss and lose balance so he could counter him with an effective placed shot.

Also you gotta remember these were 15 round fights bk then and the footwork of the "Brown Bomber" was engineered for a lengthy fight, but he still could spring forward with explosiveness, and kept his defence "tight" while doing so. His style was a far more polished professional style than the top "amateur style" fighters of today.

And Louis only needed one invite, and the fight's over.

To me Joe Louis was THE perfect example of a fighter who never wasted a punch... and he hardly ever threw a punch that didn't land and never was there a pitty pat punch thrown.. every punch was meant to do damage and they all did.

Also you post the Billy Conn - Joe Louis fight (and the trouble he gave Louis) as if you're saying Billy Conn was ordinary. Conn was considered a great fighter and when greats fighters fight each other sh*t happens.

The mental pressure Louis is putting on Conn, where Conn knows that he ALWAYS has to be on his bike, can’t stand his ground and Louis is just THERE. That wears you out mentally and physically.

And it has to be stated that Louis did end up KO-ing Billy Conn and he rematched him and KO-ed him again.

My video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought.

Mike Tyson was a great fighter - Right ?

But no HW of this era moves like Mike Tyson, that style is dead.

No HWs use the peek-a-boo guard, upper body sways, dips, bows, etc. But just as it's wrong to call Tyson's style a failed style just coz it’s no longer in fashion. The same is true of the Joe Louis style and movement of boxing

Bernard Hopkins and James Toney are good examples of guys who fought in a Joe Louis, slower more methodical style.

And guess what ? Bill Miller used to teach Toney by watching old fight films of Louis. Guys like Mayweather and Toney were taught by old school trainers.

A superior athlete with good speed is enough to beat most fighters but against Hopkins, somebody who OUT THINKS you, they could be more physically gifted but Hopkins could still beat them even though he was 10 or 15 years older.

Hopkins -Trinidad is a good example - this fight was really a clinic - Hopkins knew everything that Trinidad did and he hit Trinidad everywhere even when he was taking his head down... he knew exactly and anticipated where his head would be.

I know I'm going off on a tangent here but boxing, above anything else, is a game of mental energy.

It's the ability to out-think the other guy. It's brains over brawn and athleticism every time at the elite level. The ability to feint the other guy out of position, the ability to make him do what you want him to do.

The old masters like Louis would use their mental energy and experience to out think you. That is what boxing is all about. If you were a counter-puncher they would make you lead. If you were aggressive they would make you back up. They knew where to hit you, the solar plexus, and the liver, behind the ear. The old masters, for the most part, because of their great skill and experience could out-think and out-fight today's relatively inactive boxers.

In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on foreman or people he fought?

Joe Louis is the only HW to earn a debut year top ten ranking from The Ring Magazine.

Joe in his debut, against a solid winning record journeyman in his prime, knocked him out of the ring in the lap of the commish in the first round.

But Joe Louis is really polarising for some reason.

I think bk to what George Foreman perceptively said:

"Boxing is sort of like jazz, the better it is, the less people can appreciate it".

And I want to show you something else about Louis




Look at Joe Louis head size in comparison to Ali ? Fist size ? Thickness ?

And this was Joe Louis as a middle aged man.

In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on foreman or people he fought?

Yes. Louis would outbox and counterpunch Foreman to death. If Ron Lyle could have Foreman stumbling around like the local drunk from one shot then so could have Louis.

The Foreman Vs Frazier match up wasn't a fight.

It was an athletic contest. Who hits harder. Who has more quick twitch muscles

You're not in a fight until you are faced with resistance until you have something to overcome (Shout out to Teddy Atlas for that line) Yes Foreman ran over guys in his prime but when he faced Ali in "The Rumble In The Jungle"

Now Foreman was in a fight. Now Foreman’s power, strength and physicality was not enough. Now he was facing a guy in Ali who was not gonna cooperate.

My point is Foreman would be in a fight against Joe Louis.

So you can jerk off to Foreman and Frazier all day but as a come-forward, action fighter Frazier was made to eat power shots. Frazier didn't fight moving backwards or moving side to side. He just went straight into Foreman. His style would never beat Foreman

Frazier energizer-bunny hopping and erratic upper body movement was GREAT against accurate fast snipers like Ali, but did not really cut it against Big George.

[Denilson3.0]

so why say Joe all day if foreman weighted the same?

It’s just my opinion Kimo-sabbe

Louis's moves were direct and purposeful and allowed him to be a very dangerous opponent.

I have always maintained that Joe Louis' efficiency set the standard for a heavyweight puncher. It's the way he was always set up to punch and...you can see that he is already setting up the second, third punch before he is even completing the first punch.

When I watch guys like Louis I almost feel as though cutting the ring down is unnecessary. When you watch this level of expertise Louis displays he is always ready to throw a punch, he never even needs to move into position to go on offence, he was always on offence.

when the issue isn't weight it's the movements.

The problem is you are more impressed by footspeed than hand speed.

Some guys have faster foot speed but slower hand speed, like Ricky Hatton or maybe AJ. Some guys have slower footspeed but faster hand speed like say Andy Ruiz.

You fail to recognize other aspects of the sport.

You talk about “movements” but today head movement is strictly categorised as a defensive move back in the day it was always used for clever baiting.

he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs. guys in the 70s-'90s

Athletic ability alone doesn’t determine a great fighter. So yes to the untrained eye, old timers will look like a novice to some because they don't look as athletic

The thing is boxing requires a massive amount of mental strength which always leaves a huge X factor

Zab Judah looked great. Very athletic. Passed the eye test to the max. As he rose in the rankings he was seen as one of the best fighters of modern times, But against Kostya Tzyu, he backed straight up with his hands down as Tyzu kept firing at him and he was badly hurt and stopped. This is a mistake the old masters would not make but would certainly take advantage of.

Also consider then that there were a lot more fighters back in the early part of the century than there are today. It is simply beyond dispute that top level fighters nowadays have much easier careers than fighters of 50 years ago. And the path to becoming a 'world champion' is so different that the two can't even be compared.

Anyway I'm looking forward to the Joe Frazier Vs Eddie Hearn fight.



I know this is a long post but it's the only way I could get my point across.