Who had better skills, Toney or Joe Louis?

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by janitor

There are times when the criticisms of Louis for strugling in winning efforts can seem a little crass. In Jmes Toneys case we are making excuses for outright losses instead of fights where he looked bad but found a way to win. Why wasn't he able to turn these fights round late if his ring IQ was so great?

Jack Blackburn died shortly after the second Abe Simon fight, so he obviouslu wasn't much help to Louis in the rematches with Conn and Walcott.

I think that you are underestimating Louis's IQ inside and outside of the ring here. He did have a bit of a one track mind and had trouble changing his fight plan, but lets not run away with this idea that he was a pupet on Blackburns hand who couldnt function without him.

Janitor we are talking pure skill here not overall ability. Toney was lazy as fuck but had great skills. Louis was 1 of boxings best athletes and Toney 1 of the laziest worst conditioned. You have to focus on the technique rather than the overall ability

Toney did pretty well at adapting to Nunn while losing the early round to break him down and score a late KO. He adapted to Jirov, McCallum amongst others

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by janitor

Louis would have never let himself get into that shape.

It is all about ring IQ.

The fact you think that's 'ring IQ' is worrying, the question stands, you're confusing 'Ring IQ' with 'Discipline'

[janitor]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Janitor we are talking pure skill here not overall ability. Toney was lazy as fuck but had great skills. Louis was 1 of boxings best athletes and Toney 1 of the laziest worst conditioned. You have to focus on the technique rather than the overall ability

Toney did pretty well at adapting to Nunn while losing the early round to break him down and score a late KO. He adapted to Jirov, McCallum amongst others

I would dispute the idea that Louis was merely a fighter with great athleticism. Indeed, I honestly think that some trainers could have developed him into a rather ordinary heavyweight of the era.

Louis set a benchmark for finishing technique that has never really been surpassed in his weight class.

[lora]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Some will tell you that Louis's jab is the greatest in HW history. I think that is way, way over-egging the thing, but I don't think you could say it was any worse than Toney's in all seriousness (unless you insist on looking at the pre-adjusted version, which you seem intent on doing!), I'm satisfied it is not as good myself. Also, Toney underused his horribly. An aspect of skill is deployment.

As for ring IQ's, I don't think either was astonishing. I would go for Louis if I had to, his mental discipline was absolutely extraordinary - possibly unparalleled in the whole of history, certainly not overhauled in my opinion.

I'd say Joe's jab was only occasionally impressive as a real damaging weapon or pointscorer the Baer fight in particular.Similar sort of category as Arguello, Arbachakov etc educated and versatile- a potentially formidable weapont but not really using it as well as it could be, certainly not on the level of Napoles, Monzon, Buchanan and others for that efectively deployed variety.

Too trusting in his powershots to get the most out of it i'd say.relegated too often to a range finder for long chunks of fights.


Toney of course was guilty of this to an even greater extent

[janitor]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

The fact you think that's 'ring IQ' is worrying, the question stands, you're confusing 'Ring IQ' with 'Discipline'

I am not confusing anything.

I just find it curious that some of Toneys errors of judgment are so far overlooked.

Although it is not literaly ring IQ, just maybe it is another side of the same coin?

[Swarmer]

I'm going to ignore the PP back and forth about ring iq; it isnt producing anything of value.

Let me just say this: Louis has the best combination punching of his division, period. Combine that with accurate, pinpoint finishing ability, feints, elbow and shoulder blocking, a wide variety of deadly and practiced punches, and solid counterpunching ability and you have a more skilled and complete package than JT... But that's just me i guess. kinda astounded at the poll.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by janitor

I would dispute the idea that Louis was merely a fighter with great athleticism. Indeed, I honestly think that some trainers could have developed him into a rather ordinary heavyweight of the era.

Louis set a benchmark for finishing technique that has never really been surpassed in his weight class.

Louis had very good technique, you can't really be a great of his level without pretty damn good technique in most areas. But athleticism/conditioning completed the deal for him, if Toney worked as hard he would have completed greatness on another level

I missed of using technique to develop power - Louis was great at this too, much better than Toney

[he grant]

Talk about Toney getting overrated? The thread is absurd. Louis was a full level above him at his best pound for pound ... head to head Joe would have torn his head off ...

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Louis had very good technique, you can't really be a great of his level without pretty damn good technique in most areas. But athleticism/conditioning completed the deal for him, if Toney worked as hard he would have completed greatness on another level

Toney working as hard as Louis is a fascinating posibility. Hard to say how far it would have got him.

He likley never beats Jones for example.

It would probably have got him a heavyweight belt or even two.

Even so, it would always have been hard to compare him to Louis.

I missed of using technique to develop power - Louis was great at this too, much better than Toney

I am sure that you would be a fine boxing trainer, with your can do atitude on issues like power and reflexes.

I still think that these atributes can only be developed within certain predetermined walls.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

I have never rated Louis's jab, for 1 thing its slower than its other punches because he doesn't throw it properly, the better defensive fighters continually slip it

The two best defensive fighters that Louis faced were Conn and Walcott. Let's look at Conn first.

Conn actually did not slip Louis's jab particularly well. He took it away from him, tactically, but Louis actually did well with this punch even in the stretches of the fights that he loses. You can see Louis land tentative jabs even in this video, put together to highlight how well Conn did.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMrpJGndqg0[/ame]

0:08
0:14
1:06
1:28

Throughout. He doesn't land it well here, but that's because Conn is keeping him off-balance throughout with the same tactics that he uses to keep the rest of Louis's offence under control. I think the jab was maybe the most regular scoring punch for Louis in this fight, and Conn slipping the jab is actually not that common, though he does parry a few.

Basically, in the worst fight he had for offensive fluency, he scored with it throughout.


Now Walcott:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gB09VEEZvM[/ame]

2:37
2:42
2:44
3:15
3:35
3:39


3:15 is a good example - Walcott takes this jab out of the way because he is trying to slip it. OR, the footage misleads and he slips it by a hairs breadth. Hard to be sure. But Wlacott learned his lesson early in this fight. He ends up going away from the Louis jab (4:49, 4:51, landed) rather than trying to slip it, rellying upon his superior footspeed to neutralise the jab. This is the crux of the Louis jab as an isolated tool. It was speedy, accurate, and, yes "thrown properly" (come on...). If you were in range, you'd it tended to land. Louis's other limitations meant that he sometimes had to use the punch in different ways, which was what he absolutely perfected in one of the rarest skills of all, which we'll get to.

he often leaves it out too often leaving him there to be countered Schmelling took advantage of this and Johnson noted it prior to that loss.

You're a good guy. I like you. But this era is not your era of expertise and you've missed something pretty fundamental here.

This is intentional.

When I say Louis was a better counter-puncher than Toney, I absolutely meant it. When I said he was better at countering the space, this is what I meant. Louis, as perhaps the most concise puncher in all of boxing history has one job - walk his man onto his punches. How do you persuade your opponent to do that when you are known to be such a destructive puncher? You have to find ways to bait your opponent in in such a way as you're able to counter him. Louis often poked out slow, short jabs in order to bait his opponent in.

The fighter who came closest to taking advantage of this "weakness", after Schmeling, was in my opinion Nathan Mann. The Mann fight is a study in Louis. Louis has a weak first round. He scores with some good jabs, and paws randomly with others. Mann, really really cautious in the first minute, starts to become more and more aggressive. He starts to counter the Louis jab and actually lands some pretty good punches against Joe, in a similar, if cruder way than Schmeling did, taking advantage of that low left hand. But the low left hand is bait, bait in the space Louis wants Mann to recklessly inhabit. Very few fighters obtain this level of skill in this area. Only Hopkins and Juan Manuel Marquez are even comparable in this era, and they really weren't as good to my eyes, although Marquez was just as committed.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLRi8v7OG7E[/ame]

Anyway, watching this fight from the beginning is a grand idea. You can see Mann becoming more and more aggressive in contrast to the beginning of round one. If you want to see this point illustrated though, whip on to 4:15. Louis tosses out a jab that's nothing and Mann comes boiling in, totally out of control. Louis doesn't make him pay, but his opponents caution is neutralised (not least by his own success, admittedly).

You can see more lazy jabs bringing Mann on at 4:30 and compared the "snapped" jab at 4:53 with the lazy one at 4:56 that brings Mann onto the two-part combo that results in the first KD and the beginning of the end.


He also used slow, lazy jabs as flat out feints. Watch here at 4:52 as Louis tosses out a shitty lazy jab slightly wide to open up his man for what is actually an out-and-out lead right over the top:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R78hdxpRfws[/ame]

As a pathology, this is far more savage, complex, and skilled than anything Toney brings to the table. Louis's jab is not amongst the very best at HW, it doesn't have the variety or reach to compare with the very best, but as a tool, it's in the very second clutch. And yeah, better than Toney's.

Why couldn't Louis double/trebble the jab to control faster opponents if it was so good?

Why bother when you are the best combination puncher in the history of boxing? Louis had a tendancy to land power-punches behind his jab. Jab is a tool. Incidently, this is also part of the reason I rate Lopez so highly with the jab.

Why can't he step in with it to create more range?

As we've seen, Louis had far darker ways of creating range.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

How competitive would Louis be in this kind of shape

I guess he'd beat Samuel Peter

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by lora

I'd say Joe's jab was only occasionally impressive as a real damaging weapon or pointscorer the Baer fight in particular.Similar sort of category as Arguello, Arbachakov etc educated and versatile- a potentially formidable weapont but not really using it as well as it could be, certainly not on the level of Napoles, Monzon, Buchanan and others for that efectively deployed variety.

Too trusting in his powershots to get the most out of it i'd say.relegated too often to a range finder for long chunks of fights.


Toney of course was guilty of this to an even greater extent

Agree with all of that.

[Swarmer]

thank you mcgrain, for typing out what i am physically unable to do(fractured wrist). you nailed the basis of louis' drawing and counterpunching.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I guess he'd beat Samuel Peter

Looking like that with the clear lack of training and terrible diet? An old Louis did outbox Marciano for periods so maybe, but I'm of the view Louis couldn't fight lazy quite aswell and I think being able to fight lazy shows a depth of skills.

I think I'm going to have to spend some time visiting your last post as its a detailed 1 deserving of attention and I really should get some work done, so I will probably reply to it tomorrow

[BUMPY KNUCKLES]

Man Joe Louis isnt even near JT on this , i understand that Joe Louis was one of the greatest heavys of all time ive seen some of his stuff not a great deal as im not an old age pensioner but ... James Toney is probably the best defensive fighter EVER , his footwork wasnt too good but other than that his '' skills '' are on par with the best ever , see Iran Barkley vs James Toney and you will realise the man is skilled beyond belief