Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

[mr. magoo]

I just want to say that I appreciate the fine points coming from both Amsterdam and Cross trainer. I wish more fantasy matchup debates could go like this more often, with authors posting footage and then analizing it.

Nice job guys

[Amsterdam]

On the other hand, Tyson's stance is as deep and rooted as Dempsey's, which you consider to be too deep. Louis seemed to be able to position himself from his narrower, more mobile stance to get quite a bit of leverage, as for instance in 1:25 (the counter left hook) of this clip:

Tyson's technique comes from Dempsey-theory, yes. But it's done in a whole different way than Dempsey and we can bring up any video as evidence.

Yes, he does as you say, but he's leaning too much with jab every single time, rather than straightly stepping behind it effectively and the jab is still not well timed against an open who is totally open with no guard, whomever Louis was fighting there.

You've just said, though, that the rules had not changed. He threw more than enough punches to be considered a "high workrate" fighter today.

But was immensely slow and carrying these flaws from all area's.

As to the footwork, what specifically do you not like about it? What do you mean when you say he was not in perfect position to throw his punches? Which punches, and in what way? Could you give me a couple more examples aside from his lunging against Galento?

I'm going to have to look at some video for specific examples that you can watch, give me a bit for that one so I can get a few adequate ones, examples that modern guys would not do.

The footwork in general is very flat footed, sometimes even ridiculous staight.

Throwing punches before finding range--this would have more to do with one's ability to judge distance than the technique one uses, would it not?

It is and I am saying his judgement of distance is nothing in comparison to say Ali for example, light years behind him. Ali's speed of foot and lightning jab would have landed in combination with Ali's other offensive assetts on that opponent Louis was against and it would have produced an immediatley KO.

Much of Louis' punches are pushing at times, not snapping, another problem.

[China_hand_Joe]

Inverse P4P speed should be taken into account here, Wlad was larger than these guys being mentioned here and not much less mobile -fullstop-

[cross_trainer]

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Yes, Wlad's a flawed fighter, he can get away with that, but look at the clear differences in the movement and look at it unbiased.

I am--at the moment we're talking technical aspects, are we not?

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Put Galento in with Wlad, as even Austin is an amazingly skilled fighter in comparison to Galento, whom has no skill at all.

As I said earlier, Marciano managed to befuddle Moore, Charles, and Walcott in the ring, even though all of them look far better on film than he does. I think there's something similar going on with Galento, and it's not really dentable with your (admittedly competent and very precise) logic. I'm not refusing out of stubborness, but because I've seen other examples of fighters like Galento who manage to win despite terrible technique.

Let's leave our rolly-poly friend behind for a moment and focus on Louis.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

His jab is well timed though, against a wide guy, albeit one who still has some form, he also landed a left hook, which was a bit lazy, but still much more precise than anything Louis had thrown.

What do you mean by "well timed"? Are you referring to the natural ability to see a punch coming and counter, and judge distance? If so, these are more physical abilities than they are technical skills.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Look at Wlad's head movement and guard also to supplement his superior movement speed and his well schooled footwork*.

Could you be more precise than just *footwork? What is it about his *footwork that is more precise? Could you elaborate?

It's a bit like me saying that Louis beats Wlad because of his superior *ability. It's a nebulous term except when you put meat behind it.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Needless to say, Galento gets a right landed on him immediatley, a lead right and gets put out.

The idea of using a hypothetical matchup as proof does not seem sensible under the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Now take Louis' slower, sloppier and lazier jab and picture that Wlad right hand going over it as he is easily in position immediatley to do so.

Louis's jab is crisper than Wlad's, though. Wlad's appears faster because it travels a shorter distance, because he hangs it out further (a fault). Unlike Louis's, Wlad's jab hangs much longer in limbo, and does not even have a distinct beginning and ending. He often holds it straight out, little different from Corbett in this respect, and a vast majority of his landed jabs are taps with very little leverage on them. Louis hangs his out a bit too long at times (as Schmeling saw), but he dutifully returned it to a high guard after throwing it post-Schmeling, something that Wlad still does not do.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

There is some of the evolution right there as example, I am being very fair and very unbiased.

And I am trying to be likewise. Sometimes, different perspectives can produce conflict even in the most objective arguments.

[Amsterdam]

Getting back to this point--this is part of what I'm referring to. You're often glossing over modern fighters' flaws because they worked against other modern fighters, and instead highlighting what WAS modern or orthodox about them.

I'm not, I called Wlad Klitschko's flaws well, I am not even a Klitschko fan to the least there.

I did highlight some, please go looking for it in one of these posts. Granted, I will admit flat out that even though I have boxed amatuer, that I lack the truly extensive technicality knowledge of some the people that I know, whom can spot the same flaws that I am spotting, but can name them right off the top of the head of their proper name, where as I am spotting some and how I call them aren't going to make sense.. if this makes sense at all.

Foreman was worse, from a technical standpoint, than Dempsey or (especially) Tunney. He was MUCH worse than Joe Louis. He simply did more things wrong. He pawed horribly with the jab, dropped his guard at a moment's notice, parried downward and reached when he was trying to block punches, had very little head movement, and often stood in a stance far narrower than Louis's. His punches were often merely arm punches in the truest sense of the word, and he had a tendency to drop his punches after he threw them. He would often swing too far around because of the narrow stance, too much force, and too little precision:

Foreman had very crude elements to his style, flaws, I am not going to deny this at all or overrate what Foreman can do. But I will comment that even though he is flat footed at times, if you will look at the start of the video, Lyle, whom is definitley a better fighter than Galeto rushed at him much faster than Galento rushed at Louis with a wide punch.. instead of that ending up as landing on Foreman or initatiating a clinch, Foreman was able to easily dodge it due to his superior movement ability...

Lyle also lunged in with his damn feet on the ground.

Other than that, if you will notice when Foreman manuvers, he uses some correct footwork, better than Louis does, just compare them straight.

Foreman's blocking is very terrible, but his ability to cut off the ring against opponents with an adequate defences and maul them is still showing more ability than Louis did with that guy who had no guard, poor movement and generally no defence except his judgement of distance, which Foreman would have shot that jab down the pipe and would have backed him up easily and KOed him as the guy was moving backwards.

You have to take the flaws into context...

Dempsey and Tunney were even wider, slower, with less foot and movement ability, it just seems that way that they could move because both of them were poor movers in terms of adequate footwork and couldn't expose each other therefore.

Louis was also much weaker than Foreman from a strength stand point...

These are terrible flaws, at least as bad (definitely worse) than anything Louis committed. But you do not generalize about Foreman's era, or Foreman's ability to fight modern fighters, because he happened to be born in a later era.

I actually feel Foreman's skills were better the second time around, he clearly was more paced, had a stronger jab and his timing was pretty good.

Foreman was a freak of nature, an exception for the most part, where as Louis is heralded for punching power and his extremely refined skills for his time... this is the difference.

This is not to criticize Foreman--indeed, his accomplishments speak for themselves. But for some reason, you do not believe that Louis's accomplishments do.

I have given criticism's of George Foreman and Foreman remains as one of my favourites.

I rate Louis as the number 1 HW boxer of all time in a list considering the "whole of boxing", does this show that I appreciate Louis and his accomplishments in his day? I think it does.

This sole discussion is of boxing evolution, which is an ongoing debate.

[cross_trainer]

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Tyson's technique comes from Dempsey-theory, yes. But it's done in a whole different way than Dempsey and we can bring up any video as evidence.

Yes, he does as you say, but he's leaning too much with jab every single time, rather than straightly stepping behind it effectively and the jab is still not well timed against an open who is totally open with no guard, whomever Louis was fighting there.

He does lean too much...but again, Wlad does something similar. Both of 'em are doing something similar to fencing lunges, using a forward lean to extract power rather than the two orthodox ones that *Dempsey* mentions--a shoulder roll with rotating leverage, or a drop step.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

But was immensely slow and carrying these flaws from all area's.

We were talking just about stamina, though. You said he had stamina "for his era" which does not exactly make sense in that context.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

I'm going to have to look at some video for specific examples that you can watch, give me a bit for that one so I can get a few adequate ones, examples that modern guys would not do.

I look forward to it.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

The footwork in general is very flat footed, sometimes even ridiculous staight.

Sometimes, yes. But Wlad's footwork carries a few fatal flaws as well--most notably his tendency to cross his feet when backing up and leaning away. The arm-flailing doesn't help either. And Foreman, as I mentioned, did exactly the same thing that you accuse Louis of doing. In both cases, they managed to shift their stance slightly to get leverage, as you can see in the Lyle, Frazier, and just about any Louis vs. X fight.

Foreman's stance was sometimes deeper, but the again his lateral movement was worse than Louis's. Compare Louis's ability to spin Farr around (before the 1:30 mark in the clip I posted) to Foreman's arm-swinging, leg-crossing pirouette in the Frazier I fight. Louis's was far crisper, shorter, and his narrow stance actually helped him pivot out of the way quickly, set his legs, and counter. Foreman often did this, and got away with it, yet I'm not going to go ahead and conclude that his era was more inept than Louis's, but rather that he was able to get away with it because he was talented and (more importantly) experienced enough to do it effectively.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

It is and I am saying his judgement of distance is nothing in comparison to say Ali for example, light years behind him. Ali's speed of foot and lightning jab would have landed in combination with Ali's other offensive assetts on that opponent Louis was against and it would have produced an immediatley KO.

Aha! What you are describing is an innate, inborn TALENT and not a technical skill. Unless our depth-perception genes have changed since Louis's time, fighters in Louis's era had just as much ability to judge distance as we do.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Much of Louis' punches are pushing at times, not snapping, another problem.

Sometimes his jab could be that way (perhaps, as Wlad does, using it to control distance), but it does not seem that his combinations were so.

[Amsterdam]

I am--at the moment we're talking technical aspects, are we not?

Yes and I am throughly enjoying this challenging debate, it's been the first real challenge to my viewpoints on boxing and boxing knowledge.

As I said earlier, Marciano managed to befuddle Moore, Charles, and Walcott in the ring, even though all of them look far better on film than he does. I think there's something similar going on with Galento, and it's not really dentable with your (admittedly competent and very precise) logic. I'm not refusing out of stubborness, but because I've seen other examples of fighters like Galento who manage to win despite terrible technique.

Yes, but Marciano had some major qualities over Galento. He never jumped at someone where he feet were high off the ground for one, and he kept coming at you with an underrated defence and workrate, Marciano also had quite decent footwork and his judgement of distance was quite good, as was his ability to cut off the ring.

Marciano was wide, but had some precise elements to his style, his ability to simply last gives a lot of guys danger with his chin and stamina.

Galento-Louis had nothing to do with cutting off the ring and positioning like Marciano would produce, or even timing for that matter, it was a guy lunging in wildly with little to it.

He's able to do this because for a doughball he moved all right, but it's still no excuse as any fighter with proper timing(check the Foreman-Lyle lunge example) wouldn't have been effected with such a ridiculous attack, they'd either have gotten clearly out of the way or would have picked him off immediatley, Louis lacked the ability to do this.

Let's leave our rolly-poly friend behind for a moment and focus on Louis.

Fair enough.

What do you mean by "well timed"? Are you referring to the natural ability to see a punch coming and counter, and judge distance? If so, these are more physical abilities than they are technical skills.

I'm talking about punch timing. Randy Couture could have slipped Louis' punches that I have viewed, his jab and right are nowhere near a top boxers currently, but they can be considered in better form to Louis' if you really compare them hard enough, as well as timing.

Couture would have caught that guy Louis was fighting who was wide, wider than some of the MMA fighters Couture has caught standing up.

... Thought a new perspective was needed that we both can relate at....

Could you be more precise than just *footwork? What is it about his *footwork that is more precise? Could you elaborate?

Yes, footwork, the ability to move into position for punching, move out of position for defence, to be perfectly balanced in Louis' boxers stance, which he was totally flat for the most part, worse than Foreman and Foreman's footwork was used to simply cut off the ring and move him into position to pound the opponent.

It's a bit like me saying that Louis beats Wlad because of his superior *ability. It's a nebulous term except when you put meat behind it.

Wlad's superior timing, judgement of distance are very evident, as well as defence. I think we agree on this at least.

The idea of using a hypothetical matchup as proof does not seem sensible under the circumstances.

I'm doing my best to explain this viewpoint, but I'm going to need a pot of coffee in a minute, then I have things I need to take care of...

Louis's jab is crisper than Wlad's, though. Wlad's appears faster because it travels a shorter distance, because he hangs it out further (a fault). Unlike Louis's, Wlad's jab hangs much longer in limbo, and does not even have a distinct beginning and ending. He often holds it straight out, little different from Corbett in this respect, and a vast majority of his landed jabs are taps with very little leverage on them. Louis hangs his out a bit too long at times (as Schmeling saw), but he dutifully returned it to a high guard after throwing it post-Schmeling, something that Wlad still does not do.

It is by no means crisper than Wlad's, it is lazier, this evident on the film. Wlad's jab gets there faster, is used in better timing and sometimes it hangs there yes, but it's sharper than Louis'. Louis is using by modern standards, a very lazy jab and it's not pulled back to a defencive guard but a few times.

Schmeling landing those counter rights as an example of a primitive fighter(we can go into his issue's) is telling also.

And I am trying to be likewise. Sometimes, different perspectives can produce conflict even in the most objective arguments.

I'm doing my best.

[cross_trainer]

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

I'm not, I called Wlad Klitschko's flaws well, I am not even a Klitschko fan to the least there.

I did highlight some, please go looking for it in one of these posts. Granted, I will admit flat out that even though I have boxed amatuer, that I lack the truly extensive technicality knowledge of some the people that I know, whom can spot the same flaws that I am spotting, but can name them right off the top of the head of their proper name, where as I am spotting some and how I call them aren't going to make sense.. if this makes sense at all.

You are doing quite well, and seem to have a good sense of what should and should not be done. And I will definitely continue the debate, but I want to point something out--neither of us are really qualified to critique Louis. Even Steward, with his amazing collection of boxing lore, may not be able to, because Steward is operating from a different paradigm compared to Chappie Blackburn. Neither can claim to have trained more champions, and Blackburn probably knew as many things that Steward doesn't as vice-versa. The only legitimate way to test this is not the random speculation of internet posters and amateur boxers such as ourselves, but to have Blackburn's guys fight Steward's guys. Impossible, unfortunately.

D'Amato might be the best source on this, and it should be noted that his protege Tyson thought Dempsey was an excellent fighter by MODERN standards. But even he might encounter a few wrinkles if he conversed with Blackburn or even Mike Donovan.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Foreman had very crude elements to his style, flaws, I am not going to deny this at all or overrate what Foreman can do. But I will comment that even though he is flat footed at times, if you will look at the start of the video, Lyle, whom is definitley a better fighter than Galeto rushed at him much faster than Galento rushed at Louis with a wide punch.. instead of that ending up as landing on Foreman or initatiating a clinch, Foreman was able to easily dodge it due to his superior movement ability...

He often resorted to spinning around with his hands splayed out and on his toes, though. I prefer Louis's attempt to counterpunch. Leave Galento aside for a second--he seems a poor example in any event. Why not evaluate Louis against someone better technically--say, Schmeling, Farr...or pretty much anybody who isn't Galento.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Lyle also lunged in with his damn feet on the ground.

Other than that, if you will notice when Foreman manuvers, he uses some correct footwork, better than Louis does, just compare them straight.

He also commits more errors than Louis does. I'm the first to admit that Louis's footwork was often shuffling and boring, but it also left him fresh to barrage and counterpunch when he needed to. When he needed to be explosive (as against Baer), he showed ability to position himself correctly for combinations, and spin his opponent around when he needed to.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Foreman's blocking is very terrible, but his ability to cut off the ring against opponents with an adequate defences and maul them is still showing more ability than Louis did with that guy who had no guard, poor movement and generally no defence except his judgement of distance, which Foreman would have shot that jab down the pipe and would have backed him up easily and KOed him as the guy was moving backwards.

There you have it. Galento was a master of judging distance.

Seriously, though...hypothesizing what MIGHT happen if Foreman fought Galento probably is not a good indicator. I would tend to think that Galento would look as horrible and technically worthless as usual, but still manage to land on Foreman. Modern commentators would be baffled that Foreman had so much trouble, and future commentators would conclude that Foreman wasn't a good fighter.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

You have to take the flaws into context...

Dempsey and Tunney were even wider, slower, with less foot and movement ability, it just seems that way that they could move because both of them were poor movers in terms of adequate footwork and couldn't expose each other therefore.

Louis was also much weaker than Foreman from a strength stand point...



I actually feel Foreman's skills were better the second time around, he clearly was more paced, had a stronger jab and his timing was pretty good.

I agree. Foreman's skills definitely improved the second time around.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Foreman was a freak of nature, an exception for the most part, where as Louis is heralded for punching power and his extremely refined skills for his time... this is the difference.

But WHY is he a freak. He's strong and powerful, granted...but so are a lot of fringe contenders and journeymen. Chuvalo admitted as much when he said that Foreman and some unknown journeyman hit him hardest. Foreman's chin was pretty good, his speed unimpressive, his judgment of distance not exactly amazing, stamina poor...physically, he only had one really "freakish" aspect. And when people tried to improve his boxing skills, he got worse.

More likely his style worked despite its technical incorrectness, for reasons we can't entirely fathom because we're not Foreman or Foreman's opponent. We can point out MOST of the niceties of his style, but not all of it.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

I have given criticism's of George Foreman and Foreman remains as one of my favourites.

I rate Louis as the number 1 HW boxer of all time in a list considering the "whole of boxing", does this show that I appreciate Louis and his accomplishments in his day? I think it does.

Of course. I'm referring more to technical skill. I know you respect the old-timers for their toughness and their legacies.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

This sole discussion is of boxing evolution, which is an ongoing debate.

You're telling me...

[Amsterdam]

He does lean too much...but again, Wlad does something similar. Both of 'em are doing something similar to fencing lunges, using a forward lean to extract power rather than the two orthodox ones that *Dempsey* mentions--a shoulder roll with rotating leverage, or a drop step.

But the difference is that Wlad is doing it controlled from height, if Wlad were Louis' size, he would not even be a top 10 fighter in my opinion. And even at those ends, his general technique is still much sharper than Louis if he was 5 inches shorter, showing superior to Louis in head movement(even though Wlad is terrible), sharp punching, timing(this is trainable) and the footwork that I have stressed greatly. As well as general straight punches, you can't even compare the two really.

We were talking just about stamina, though. You said he had stamina "for his era" which does not exactly make sense in that context.

At that slower pace, I can't mention roly poly...

I look forward to it.

I'll get it.

Sometimes, yes. But Wlad's footwork carries a few fatal flaws as well--most notably his tendency to cross his feet when backing up and leaning away. The arm-flailing doesn't help either. And Foreman, as I mentioned, did exactly the same thing that you accuse Louis of doing. In both cases, they managed to shift their stance slightly to get leverage, as you can see in the Lyle, Frazier, and just about any Louis vs. X fight.

Foreman's movement was still much better and I have to go back to the opponents, Foreman's were a lot sharper, even Frazier for example, his guard and footwork are so far ahead of the Louis opponents in those clips, as well as his extensive head movement.

Foreman being more flat footed is going to look sloppy, he was crude. This bodies bad for Louis if he's being compared as a finesse puncher to a crude candidate in Foreman, whom still had better timing and better movement, giving these flaws more breathing room, as well as his ability to cut off the ring.

Foreman's stance was sometimes deeper, but the again his lateral movement was worse than Louis's. Compare Louis's ability to spin Farr around (before the 1:30 mark in the clip I posted) to Foreman's arm-swinging, leg-crossing pirouette in the Frazier I fight. Louis's was far crisper, shorter, and his narrow stance actually helped him pivot out of the way quickly, set his legs, and counter. Foreman often did this, and got away with it, yet I'm not going to go ahead and conclude that his era was more inept than Louis's, but rather that he was able to get away with it because he was talented and (more importantly) experienced enough to do it effectively.

But do you compare Frazier to Farr realistically? Frazier was a hell of mover, Farr's showing those same gaurd flaws, same movement flaws...

I described above why Foreman could get away with some of it. Now let me ask you, can Louis spin Frazier like that?

I can make a video with a friend showcasing imitation movement and footwork and make it look on par with Foreman's sloppyness, but it's not the same thing at all and Foreman's timing with some of those shots come into play, as well as positioning, two underrated qualities.

Another thing on setting far too much, this is yet another flaw, Foreman could throw punches off his feet quicker and easier.

Aha! What you are describing is an innate, inborn TALENT and not a technical skill. Unless our depth-perception genes have changed since Louis's time, fighters in Louis's era had just as much ability to judge distance as we do.

Let's compare the technical jab then.

Sometimes his jab could be that way (perhaps, as Wlad does, using it to control distance), but it does not seem that his combinations were so.

Wlad's always seems to get shoved in his opponents face though, where as Louis' is often left sloppily off.

In addition, the technique is all relevant to the same theory, it's the context and way it's executed, I know all of these technique's, can I produce a jab like Wladimir Klitschko?

I've got to run for now... I'll be back later...

[cross_trainer]

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Yes and I am throughly enjoying this challenging debate, it's been the first real challenge to my viewpoints on boxing and boxing knowledge.

Thanks. And likewise.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Yes, but Marciano had some major qualities over Galento. He never jumped at someone where he feet were high off the ground for one, and he kept coming at you with an underrated defence and workrate, Marciano also had quite decent footwork and his judgement of distance was quite good, as was his ability to cut off the ring.

Marciano was wide, but had some precise elements to his style, his ability to simply last gives a lot of guys danger with his chin and stamina.

Galento-Louis had nothing to do with cutting off the ring and positioning like Marciano would produce, or even timing for that matter, it was a guy lunging in wildly with little to it.

He's able to do this because for a doughball he moved all right, but it's still no excuse as any fighter with proper timing(check the Foreman-Lyle lunge example) wouldn't have been effected with such a ridiculous attack, they'd either have gotten clearly out of the way or would have picked him off immediatley, Louis lacked the ability to do this.

I never said that Galento was identical to Marciano, just that the general idea (that he did things to you in the ring that you couldn't notice on film). To use an extreme example--Marciano always looked like he was constantly getting hit in the face with a jab. Walcott, Charles, and Moore, before they went in to fight him, knew this, and were sure to jab. On film, they appear to have succeeded. BUT...and this is a big one...they all said that they didn't hit him cleanly, despite the film evidence. And since they actually fought the guy, I'd expect them to know.

Somehow, Galento negated his opponents' abilities. I don't know how. Maybe his bad punches were thrown too awkwardly to be easily stopped. Maybe he had a deal with the Devil. But whatever it was, it worked against fighters who I consider to be extremely good. And despite Louis's flaws--I don't care how many--he STILL looks lightyears ahead of Galento. From my own judgment of Galento, which is even more damning than your own, there is no way Galento should have been able to do anything with Louis. Heck, there isn't any way he should have been able to do anything with Jake LaMotta. I KNOW that Louis was not terrible enough to leave himself open to a brawler that bad, even if everything you say about Louis's style is true. So, with reality arguing against my (and your) technical opinion of Galento, I pick reality.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Fair enough.





I'm talking about punch timing. Randy Couture could have slipped Louis' punches that I have viewed, his jab and right are nowhere near a top boxers currently, but they can be considered in better form to Louis' if you really compare them hard enough, as well as timing.

So by timing, you mean exactly when the counterpunch is thrown? I would expect that to come down to physical ability and practice--the reflexes to see that the hands are down and the guy is open.

Let me prove that it's not a technical skill. Look at old fighters--they are more or less identical technically to their younger selves, but their timing is off because their reflexes have eroded. They see openings too late. I'm sure you know plenty of examples. Saying Louis had bad timing does not discredit his era at all, since you're not referring to a technical skill.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Couture would have caught that guy Louis was fighting who was wide, wider than some of the MMA fighters Couture has caught standing up.

... Thought a new perspective was needed that we both can relate at....

I disagree, naturally. But this is one of those occasions where my point of view, while I believe it to be correct, is not provable. I can only point to his record and hope that some enterprising boxing historian figures out someday why he managed to be effective.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Yes, footwork, the ability to move into position for punching, move out of position for defence, to be perfectly balanced in Louis' boxers stance, which he was totally flat for the most part, worse than Foreman and Foreman's footwork was used to simply cut off the ring and move him into position to pound the opponent.

As was Louis's, actually. Louis wanted to force punch-trading, because he was great in midrange counterpunching. He, like Foreman, wanted to move you into position to batter you toe-to-toe. You'll notice that almost all of his successes come when he is able to position himself correctly, and he seems to use his stance as a vehicle to do that, as he cuts off the ring.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Wlad's superior timing, judgement of distance are very evident, as well as defence. I think we agree on this at least.

His superior height, I'd say. It means that his reaction times don't need to be as fast. Even then, though, Louis's reaction times weren't inferior to Klitschko's.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

I'm doing my best to explain this viewpoint, but I'm going to need a pot of coffee in a minute, then I have things I need to take care of...

OK. I shall talk to you later then.

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

It is by no means crisper than Wlad's, it is lazier, this evident on the film. Wlad's jab gets there faster, is used in better timing and sometimes it hangs there yes, but it's sharper than Louis'. Louis is using by modern standards, a very lazy jab and it's not pulled back to a defencive guard but a few times.

It hangs there more often than Louis's. Far more often. For crying out loud, the man fights with his left arm extended almost horizontally!

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Schmeling landing those counter rights as an example of a primitive fighter(we can go into his issue's) is telling also.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.

It seems like you're saying that Schmeling exploiting Louis's flaws means that Louis was primitive, and thus the era was bad. On the other hand, Schmeling not exploiting Louis's flaws means that Schmeling was primitive, and thus the era was still bad. But since when have there been any flawless boxers?

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

I'm doing my best.

As am I.

[cross_trainer]

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

In addition, the technique is all relevant to the same theory, it's the context and way it's executed, I know all of these technique's, can I produce a jab like Wladimir Klitschko?

Precisely. You hit the nail on the head with this and your youtube-with-friend comment. You can look exactly like a professional boxer and still be awful. A professional boxer can look awful and still be an ATG. The fact that you can't punch like Wladimir Klitschko has a lot less to do with your technical abilities (indeed, with enough practice you can make yourself PERFECT technically) than with your physical talents and practice.

Greb had the talents and practice. Louis had the talents and practice. All of their opponents had the talents and practice. Compared to their technical perfection, these factors are MUCH more important.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Galento is comparable to Bean, I don't care what you say.

But he clearly isn't.

Galento is a genuine ranked contender. Butterbean is a four rounder circus side show.

They are both fat and that is where the similarities end. Hell Galento is not much worse than Ruslan Chagev in terms of waistline.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by Luigi1985

You mean a "modern offensive machine" like Wlad, who trows 15 punches in a round. Don´t say now "Well, but it´s enough to KO his opponents...", against the likes of Austin or a totally shot Brewster it´s not that impressive.

He threw 72 punches a round against Brewster and has produced similar numbers in other fights.

Watch some of his fights before you come up with 15 punches a round.

Originally Posted by Luigi1985

Do you think Wlad´s footwork is great?

Because it sounds so...

He didn't get caught on the ropes on a single occasion in 12 rounds against Samuel Peter. Peter may not be a masterful boxer, but he's a powerful bull with basically no neck who keeps plotting forward. I thought that was pretty impressive footwork.

[Duodenum]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Obsolete = "no longer in use".
Not the ideal word for what I mean but the best I can think of.

They dont have 13th and 14th rounds now, that's the extent of what I'm saying.

Comparing Galento to the "king of the four rounders" is insane when you consider that Galento went longer distances than any active fighter has, barring perhaps only Holyfield and maybe some other old (45+ year old) veterans who went 15.

Oh, don't worry Unforgiven, I got your meaning, but couldn't resist the wise crack. (The 15 round distance is my "cause celebre" of the moment.) I can think of some much better words for 15 rounders no longer being in use; like stupid, wimpy, pathetic, coddling, cowardly and patronizing. (I'd use other words my good fellow, but this is a "family" forum.)

[Bummy Davis]

Galento was a real fighter, Bean is a sideshow,Galento would Knock the Bean out 4 SURE