Who was more skilled : Louis or Robinson ?????

"The majority"? He outbxed him for about 6-7 rounds at most. Conn still had to win at least one more round in order to secure the decision.

And what pre-Robinson films are you looking at in which he wasn't a swarmer?

 

Well the thing is if Walcott didn't get robbed in the first fight he may not have fought as aggressively in the rematch, which effectively meant he fought Louis's fight. Louis may win in his prime but Walcott's style would always give him problems and its possible Walcott made Louis look older and more removed from his prime than he was. After all he looked very good in his Conn rematch, which wasn't long before

 

For what it's worth, Pastor and Nova were both good boxer/movers, Schmeling was an excellent right hand counterpuncher, and John Henry Lewis was a good all-around boxer/puncher - and Louis crushed them all during his reign.

I also think it's worth something that an ancient and bloated Louis, whose power had visibly deteriorated, was still able to score some decent wins using almost exclusively his jab and boxing technique.

 

He looked good in the Conn rematch? Totally ineffectual fight from both men. Neither looked dynamic or motivated. As for the somehow concrete idea that this was a robbery which is hilarious considering you dont have the full film; we've had countless discussions here about ringside and press splits as to who did so don't call a close fight a robbery :nono especially when he presented the guy with a rematch and won :deal

 

not totally ready to make a pick but i will say this: if this is about pure technique, that's one argument. however if this is about skill i think it's only fair to include they're entirely arsenals of talents, natural or not. for instance speed of hand or foot i consider a skill because there are surely athletes that have equal or greater speed than boxers but could not become fighters themselves. it is how someone USES and takes advantage of their physical qualities that is the skill. joe louis wouldn't be joe louis if he were born with polio...since he was not, should we discount his career based on the fact he was born with a fighter's physique and build? Of course not. Natural talent and how you use it in the ring should be considered a skill imo

 

Louis has 2 victories over Conn and Walcott, Pastor, Nova, JH Lewis, revenged a Schmeling defeat in great fashion, Mauriello, Ettore types... Clearly not as poor against boxers as people think if he was able to compile that many victories versus those types.

 

personally i think he had more trouble with awkward/unpredictable types. i've heard godoy described as such on occasion

 

And Schmeling beat him up and Pastor is said to have given him some trouble...

I know, that is impressive. Is there film of any of the fights?

 

Godoy had success because he smothered very well, and took an absurd amount of punishment. Types like Robinson and Louis always have trouble most with guys who either take away the space in their punching like that or the ones who move around too fast. I reckon if SRR fought a lot of the more mobile murderer's row members you'd have seen him struggle quite a bit.

Pretty much anything after Conn II has a very faded Louis, but here are a couple examples of the last times Louis looked even close to what he used to be:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUzJaokX_N8[/ame]

 

40 year old Robinson was pretty good also.

In the late rounds against a young, strong mauler in Fullmer:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2Gi4wQA-JQ[/ame]


Against top boxer Denny Moyer:

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

 

I agree here to an extent. But speed has to have some influence in how skilled you are, in the speed in which you execute the skill. Because most people can do something perfect if they tak their time at it, but in boxing footwork needs to be instantaneous, and quick.

As for the question...

I'd put it like this, Louis is the better technician but Robinson is more intuitive.

 

SRR was vastly more skilled.