Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-31-2007, 09:12 PM   #76
rodney
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,720
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Buterbean is only a 3 round fighter.
Galento destroys him.
rodney is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-01-2007, 09:36 AM   #77
fists of fury
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: March for Revenge
Posts: 6,215
vCash: 1887
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Amsterdam and Cross_Trainer...awesome work guys. Absolutely awesome. THIS is debating.

My 2c (and that's what it'll look like in comparison) is that Louis after his retirement said that his weakness was facing a swarming/crowding fighter like Galento.
Maybe to a degree it's why Louis does not look his usual precise self in the video. It could be that his rythymn and timing were upset by Two-ton.

As for a prediction...I'd say Butterbean. He was fat, slow and had bad stamina, but he was the closest thing to an immoveable object I know of, with a crunching punch. I think he'd catch Tony lunging in.
fists of fury is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 10:25 AM   #78
Bummy Davis
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 9,443
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

[quote=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.



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...



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.



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
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Great fight between two slow wide swinging sluggers,Foreman could hit harder Lyle was a better than decent puncher, not a great puncher,still I cant see Foreman lasting if he was in with Dempsey,Louis,Marciano, he was easy to hit, many flaws, but heart and good recupretive power were not his weaknesses, still George was protected on his way up and matched carefully, Foreman had a great amatuer pedigree and was great dispite his many flaws, he would have lost to a lot of guys in era's where you had to fight the best
Bummy Davis is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 10:35 AM   #79
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,581
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bummy Davis
Great fight between two slow wide swinging sluggers,Foreman could hit harder Lyle was a better than decent puncher, not a great puncher,still I cant see Foreman lasting if he was in with Dempsey,Louis,Marciano, he was easy to hit, many flaws, but heart and good recupretive power were not his weaknesses, still George was protected on his way up and matched carefully, Foreman had a great amatuer pedigree and was great dispite his many flaws, he would have lost to a lot of guys in era's where you had to fight the best
I agree, Foreman was protected on his way up.
And Joe Frazier obviously took that fight lightly and wasn't properly prepared.
Still, Foreman was a monster.

I agree that Dempsey & Louis would have beaten him.
But I'm not sure about Marciano. Marciano was protected a bit too.
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 10:47 AM   #80
Bummy Davis
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 9,443
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Kurgan
He was born in 1910, lived to 79, despite dying in 1979? Galento truly was underrated in his talents.

Anyway, this is a total mismatch. Galento was a fattie more comparable with modern heffers like Corrie Sanders, Danny Williams, Matt Skelton and Michael Dokes (in his latter days). In fact, I'd take the hard-hitting Galento to beat all of those boxers. Butterbean, on the other hand, would struggle to go four rounds with Brian Nielsen.

Galento would KO Butterbean within the first two rounds.

Bummy Davis is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 11:50 AM   #81
Amsterdam
Boris Christoff
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 9,239
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Okay, I'm back and have the afternoon off, let's continue CT.

There is one factor that I have come to terms with and that is that Louis did in fact have better basics than Foreman, not that it's a surprise.. however, it's really not by much and I still rate Foreman's footwork to be much better and then when added with Foreman's physical assetts, such as his good timing(even with those clubbing blows) in comparison to Louis and his better movement(I used the Lyle lunge as a clear example).

The point is that Louis in his era was a finesse boxer-puncher who beautifully took guys apart(it is nice to watch) and that Foreman was just raw, crude caged animal like power punching slugger, for even some slight comparison in fundamentals, it's telling of the era and the evolution of the era's because I've shown some poor qualities in Louis intangibles(timing/movement/speed) in comparison to a George Foreman crude set up, and the minor things that Louis has better in fundamentals...

Foreman would definitley easily take out Louis, a clubbing right hand over that jab, not to mention not allowing the controlled pace and forcing Louis into the corner and banging him out.

This is not meant to be Foreman vs. Louis, but it's relevant to the topic of the era's.

Anyway, I am going to respond to your responses from yesterday before I left.
Amsterdam is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 12:08 PM   #82
Amsterdam
Boris Christoff
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 9,239
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Quote:
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.
I highly disagree with this CT. You don't need a credential or a "paid my due's" stance to critique someone correctly, you just need the knowledge to do so and the observant factors. You certainly fill that bill out.

Many times the most "qualified" guys seem to me like they don't even know as much as me on the subject, make erroneus statements and lack even some of the observant qualities that we're using now to debate this subject, I'm talking of your Manny Steward level guy as well.

Don't sell yourself short, you're right up there, just not on a pedastool...

Quote:
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.
D'Amato WOULD be a great source for this, he was truly the definition of a walking excyclopedia when it came to this sport, but I feel even his vision would be skewed having lived through it all, if you know what I mean on that.

I'm sure Tyson did, since his style is a modernised version of Dempsey-theory, but let me make a point here, how many times do fighters themselves make erroneus judgements in terms of technical analysis'?

All the time.

I think we can also agree that Tyson is no intellect.


Quote:
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.

Yes, I've commented on Schmeling and Farr, how it's different from a controlled boxing pace, rather than someone lunging in at you. My Lyle example of lunging in has credit as well.

Farr still had his hands ridiculously low the entire time and had poor movement and head movement, for the supposed phenominal counter puncher in Louis(was for his era, don't get me wrong, but some fans feel in ANY era), should have removed him immediatley. A Klitschko or a Lewis would have right at the start, because you simply can't do that in boxing(Farr).

Quote:
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.

BORKED
Fact, he committs a ton of errors, but it's very comparable, my return post described this.

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


Great comeback!

However, even if he were the ultimate master at judging distance, you simply cannot lunge in a manner where your feet are clearly off the ground and have any at all success these days in boxing, it's impossible.

I know you're line of thought is "it was effective against Louis, had to be something more to it", and that's fine because Louis is a hard legend to bring down, but what I am saying is that there is really not much more to it, even if he were the grand master of judging distance and timing, because his display is that bad and any counter puncher, including the clubbing Foreman(whom escaped a much quicker lunge as I've stated over and over), would have counter punched the straight on Galento into submission.
Quote:

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.
But now you're putting into Galento things that aren't even there, just for the sake of being fair to boxing lore. It's less of an indicator than just running off of a pure technical/intangible analysis from viewing both, which is what I am doing.

Quote:
I agree. Foreman's skills definitely improved the second time around.
I think the second George Foreman would have faired better against Ali in that 15 rounder to be honest, perhaps even win a late TKO.


Quote:
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.
He had really good timing, to clock Frazier with a clubbing shot, you had to have good timing. His agility really was solid for his type also, decieving and his chin is excellent(I run off the Zakman standard) and then his ability to cut the ring off and pressure was fantastic... coupled with his power, this is a dangerous foe.

He could get away with things that a Louis in the modern era could not.

Quote:
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.
But I've given examples of why Foreman had plenty of effective features that went together with a set skill, even though it didn't look pretty, we can't find these on a Galento.




Quote:
Of course. I'm referring more to technical skill. I know you respect the old-timers for their toughness and their legacies.
I respect them well, I watch the old bouts and enjoy them. I respect what they did in their time and I compare the whole of boxing on an era/era basis, would you like to see my top 15?

I just can't stand when someone picks Jack Dempsey over Wladimir Klitschko, because that's absurd.



Quote:

You're telling me...
Amsterdam is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 12:12 PM   #83
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Quote:
Originally Posted by fists of fury
Amsterdam and Cross_Trainer...awesome work guys. Absolutely awesome. THIS is debating.

My 2c (and that's what it'll look like in comparison) is that Louis after his retirement said that his weakness was facing a swarming/crowding fighter like Galento.
Maybe to a degree it's why Louis does not look his usual precise self in the video. It could be that his rythymn and timing were upset by Two-ton.

As for a prediction...I'd say Butterbean. He was fat, slow and had bad stamina, but he was the closest thing to an immoveable object I know of, with a crunching punch. I think he'd catch Tony lunging in.
Whom did Butterbean fight to prove any of this? If Galento could stand up a while under punches from Joe Louis and Max Baer, it is reasonable to assume he could stand up to Butterbean and if this fight drags even beyond the fifth round Galento has a big edge, and Butterbean has never proven he could take a punch from a puncher like Galento, crude or not.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 12:14 PM   #84
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,236
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amsterdam
There is one factor that I have come to terms with and that is that Louis did in fact have better basics than Foreman
No sh1t sherlock.

Quote:
however, it's really not by much
If you think that then you might be better off studying another sport.

Louis had the best fundamentals of any heavyweight from any era.

I would challenge you to name any more complete heavyweight.

Quote:
Foreman would definitley easily take out Louis, a clubbing right hand over that jab, not to mention not allowing the controlled pace and forcing Louis into the corner and banging him out.
Actualy Foreman is the one all time great that Louis would beat every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

You could not design a fighter better suited for Louis to exploit stylisticaly given a blank sheet of paper.
janitor is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 12:20 PM   #85
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,584
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

[quote=janitor]
Quote:

No sh1t sherlock.



If you think that then you might be better off studying another sport.

Louis had the best fundamentals of any heavyweight from any era.

I would challenge you to name any more complete heavyweight.



Actualy Foreman is the one all time great that Louis would beat every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

You could not design a fighter better suited for Louis to exploit stylisticaly given a blank sheet of paper.
Frankly, I think that given Foreman's prefference for a mid to close range target, and Louis's tendency to want to throw combos inside, he might make a rather easy target for Foreman. Louis's style certainly looks as though he might be prone to getting nailed with some of the looping hooks, uppercuts, and overhand rights that foreman threw. In any case, Georges power would be highly detrimental to Joe if he landed flush, which I think he'd do often.
mr. magoo is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 12:23 PM   #86
Amsterdam
Boris Christoff
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 9,239
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Quote:
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.
I wrote a bit on Marciano in another post, but I think we should let Galento go for now.

Quote:
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.
Well, this is not "reality" to me. "Reality" is what we are seeing. Galento negated their abilities because he simply would brawl at them and he had an obvious good chin and we can say his judgement of distance was decent... but neither are enough to negate a technical opponent given that he is ridiculously unskilled... worst I've ever seen.

Anyways... Galento.






Quote:
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.
Yes, Louis had none of it in comparison to Foreman, which this is the comparison we've used. Timing can be learned to a point.

Quote:
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.
But even with the most talented timer, they have to develop it through training, it's learned to a point. You'd expect Louis' to be phenominal.

Technically, I have submitted that Louis' punching and things involved can look superior on film because his fundamentals are there more so than Foreman.

The discussion is how the era's evolved, how picking Louis over Foreman, or even Wladimir for that matter is ridiculous and I think you can agree that my spot on Louis' timing is even somewhat valid. Then without the freakish qualities, to not technically be that far off looking than Foreman...

It says plenty about the era, because Louis was the creme de la creme, the 9th degree black belt of boxing in that era....

Quote:
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.
I've given perfect logic on why he was effective, it's just very hard to let go of the legendary features and submit to it, and I totally know why.

You claim you came in thinking the modern guys would paste the classic guys, well, I was the opposite, I used to think that the classic guys were superior. I've learned what I am saying through study, just like you've learned yours...
Quote:

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.
It took him a great deal more to cut off the ring and position himself against much more subpar opponents. I don't compare Tommy Farr to Joe Frazier, nor even Max Baer to George Chuvalo for that matter technically. Louis was the best of the era, so he's obviously going to have things that we can spot that can appear to be superior to a Foreman, but Farr's approach was pretty bad in any respect.

Quote:
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.
How were they not? He's fighting against totally hittable opponents with no sense of what would be the expanded defensive technique's used today.

Klit's guard and defence even with his height you have admitted were superior, even if Klit was shorter down to Louis' level, losing his main assett, height and leverage(power) on those punches and his imposing figure.

Klit's reaction time is vastly superior.







Quote:
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!
It hits more often than Louis also, is used more as defensive jab, where as Louis' used it more as a range fighter and an offensive weapon. Klit simply hates to be hit, he's become good at not being hit as well with his using his strengths to his advantage.



Quote:
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?
I'm saying that Schmeling being a very much technically flawed fighter(see the debate of Louis Foreman) being able to land those arm punching right hands on Louis all night is telling.

The era is not bad, it's just more primitive.

Flawless boxers? Hmm. Never

However, these days you get less flaws in the cream of the crop than from back then, even in Wlad K, who's much more flawed than Lennox.
Amsterdam is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 12:24 PM   #87
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,197
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
Louis's style certainly looks as though he might be prone to getting nailed with some of the looping hooks, uppercuts, and overhand rights that foreman threw. .

Can't agree with that Magoo.

No disrespect at all but this is Crash Dummy thinking, as in, that is what Foreman would do agaisnt a crash test dummy that looks like Louis. What do you think Louis will be doing whilst Foreman is throwing these looping hooks? Firing of a nasty four punch combo with pep on every one of them.

Louis KO1 Foreman, no joshing.
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 12:28 PM   #88
Amsterdam
Boris Christoff
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 9,239
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Quote:


No sh1t sherlock.
It isn't by much.


Quote:
If you think that then you might be better off studying another sport.

Louis had the best fundamentals of any heavyweight from any era.

I would challenge you to name any more complete heavyweight.
Coming from a guy who gets his info from already set opinions, who cannot correctly analyse from a technical stand point?

I'll name a boxer-puncher who's more complete easily, Lennox Lewis. Want another one? Larry Holmes

Want another one? Sonny Liston

Want another one who's not an ATG? Tony Tucker

Want to get into different styles then?


Quote:
Actualy Foreman is the one all time great that Louis would beat every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Clubbing right over that lazy jab, everytime, immediatley....

Sorry.

Quote:
You could not design a fighter better suited for Louis to exploit stylisticaly given a blank sheet of paper.
How does Louis not get backed into the corner and not get timed with a right hand or some of those hooks that Foreman is famous for?

His footwork is that bad, his hands are low and his timing is not comparable, nor his movement speed.
Amsterdam is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 12:29 PM   #89
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,236
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
Frankly, I think that given Foreman's prefference for a mid to close range target, and Louis's tendency to want to throw combos inside, he might make a rather easy target for Foreman. Louis's style certainly looks as though he might be prone to getting nailed with some of the looping hooks, uppercuts, and overhand rights that foreman threw. In any case, Georges power would be highly detrimental to Joe if he landed flush, which I think he'd do often.
Louis would have to take a few bombs to get the job done which he could but every time Foreman opens up he is going to get countered with wiched combos.

If a relatvely crude counterpuncher like Lyle could make Foreman pay for his open offense then a sharpshooter like Louis is big trouble.
janitor is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 12:29 PM   #90
Amsterdam
Boris Christoff
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 9,239
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

[quote=mr. magoo]
Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor

Frankly, I think that given Foreman's prefference for a mid to close range target, and Louis's tendency to want to throw combos inside, he might make a rather easy target for Foreman. Louis's style certainly looks as though he might be prone to getting nailed with some of the looping hooks, uppercuts, and overhand rights that foreman threw. In any case, Georges power would be highly detrimental to Joe if he landed flush, which I think he'd do often.
The style, the defensive flaws and then lastly, the heavy intangibles difference.

Foreman KO 1, no joking.
Amsterdam is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013