Gene Tunney v Joe Louis

Tunney would outbox him but his low hands against Louis's fast powerful hands may see him get put to sleep.

Tunney UD or Louis late KO

You're wrong J, in all his filmed footage Tunney uses lateral movement, his jab and counter punching even if he did look to finish opponents late.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

The amazing Tunney wins the big one again! Does this guy ever LOSE?

 

Sorry Big Bud... That should be 1-1 vs. Walcott... The vast majority agree with that being the case.

Thus, it's actually not that great

 

People today do NOT realize that what the trip-hammer punching Joe Louis total
assets [Baer,Schmeling2] brought into his arsenal, has and I am sure will never be
duplicated again... Yes he could be outboxed for awhile, but SOONER or LATER, he
invariably catches up to his man hurting him badly with a crescendo of blows and finito for whoever Louis hurts, and to quote a popular boxing physician of that time,"the
human body was not made to withstand the trip-hammer blows of a Joe Louis once he had you hurt"...

 

Huh? that makes no sense and doesn't answer my question though... So you're essentially saying a whole bunch of meh fighters will exploit weakness.. huh? That is WHY they are meh fighters because they aren't good at doing that or very good fighters to begin with. That is HOW they got the reputation as such. How can you form an argument of yes.. the era wasn't very good.. but hey they could still exploit weakness of a champion. That just doesn't seem to work in any type of fashion. It's like saying Greg haugen could exploit the weakness of Whitaker if he fought a whole bunch of Greg's... Why would he? He was an okay fighter.. nothing more.. why are we acting like okay fighters are anything more than okay fighters, and in turn, acting like beating okay fighters makes one great. How do we jump to such a conclusion.

So you don't think it would've been better to see Louis against some all time greats in their primes and his to truly evaluate how good Joe was.. you don't think that would've given a better picture of Joe as a fighter?

 

Right... but how does Domination of so so fighters mean as much as being made out? Same with looking wonderful as I've addressed. That is what happens when you fight so so fighters.. so you can look awesome correct? Wouldn't that be in stark contrast to fighting ATG's in their respective primes? Would that be a whole different animal would it not be? An animal Joe was never exposed to.. and when he was.. call him past his best but his record wasn't the best. Which is my point here.. I'm just wondering why some fighters get passes for fighting a whole bunch of meh fighters and Joe isn't docked for the same exact thing.. instead he's labeled the best ever HW.. That just doesn't make sense logically. I myself obviously have him high up myself.. but not no. 1 because who he fought is certainly not deserving of a no. 1 slot.. not sure how it could be argued otherwise.

 

Not much realy, no.

Look, the difference between strong eras and weak eras isn’t really that great.

Most eras do not have a heavyweight as good as George Foreman, and if they do he is usually the best in the era.

On the other hand every era has somebody like Jimmy Young or Ron Lyles, and they are usually not the best contender of the era for very long, if at all.

So yes, a great fighters weaknesses will still be exposed in a weak era.

Furthermore there have been a lot of weak eras, and still nobody has come close to replicating what Louis did.

 

See Louis vs Lee Ramage: Ramage was as Jack-Rabbit quick as any of them, and really was a runner! All runners stop some time to sit down on some shots for a moment here and there but he never stopped moving, and he was like a lightweight in there never stopped moving this way and that, and that left continually out there (sure I read someone Louis thought Ramage the best 'boxer' he ever faced).
But one thing about this Louis never for a second looked unusually out of sorts? His own left hand was beautiful and he was tracking him every second, these guys didn't actually outbox Louis in my eyes - a lot of running doesn't mean you're out boxing somebody? And Louis wasn't slow anyway and he dominated the space.
Seamus referred to walking the tightrope earlier and that was what these boxer types/runners were doing in the main they weren't out boxing him they were walking a tightrope trying to get by without getting caught - not out boxing him. People forget how good a boxer Louis was.

And when you watch Louis against Pastor the vast majority is a feinting match. Lots of threatening shapes but not a lot of actual punching from Pastor. Pastor again is twitching all over the place and the desperation is evident any times Louis rushes him - he doesn't want to get hit by Louis and would rather not commit to a punch and not get hit in return than commit and risk Louis' cobra fists striking out the instant he goes for a shot himself.
But Louis is content to wait him out and is right there with him every second - it's not like Pastor is leaving him flat footed and turning him etc - the only real problem was Louis was happy to conserve if Pastor didn't throw so hence because many of the rounds were devoid of any action there was little to score for Louis?
Louis sure had plenty of time to safely and regularly pull up the waistband of his shorts whilst Pastor ran away.
Conn in the early going was similarly on the run so much so that he tripped over his own feet when Louis got a bit too close for comfort. But again he wasn't out boxing Louis when he was doing this - Conn's successes again Louis were actually when he hooked his way in and took the fight to Louis any time Louis relaxed for a second.
Engaging Louis and out boxing Louis looked virtually impossible to me and even a master boxer like Tunney, I don't think could've out-boxed Louis yes he could've boxed very well against Louis but then so could a lot of good boxers but Louis never got outboxed for any extended period of any fight in his best days that I've seen anywhere on film?

 

This isn't an honest statement though Janitor and you know it bud. I like you man, but come on, you wouldn't have liked to see Louis in there with all time greats in their prime? You don't think that would've helped to see how good he really was? Not much really, no.. isn't the true answer.. it's yes obviously I would've liked to see that and I would've helped to see how good he was. There is no way for that not to be true.

You also skipped over how a whole bunch of Greg H's were going to expose Pea... That is being generous to with some of Louis foes who were worse than Haugen. The point is, how was he going to EVER expose Whitaker's weakness? He got totally owned. You think a whole bunch of those B level fighters were going to expose Pea? Which is my point, no that isn't what they do. They are C or B level fighters for that reason and others. That's why they are there because they aren't good. So again what was a whole bunch of Greg's going to do to Pea? Nothing at all. My whole point is this, Louis needed better competition to truly evaluate how good he was. As we know, people can look great against not so good foes. It's easy to do so. With Louis he did exactly that. To me, that doesn't give a complete picture of the fighter when he doesn't face ATG's in their prime. It just leaves something missing imo. Even still he's one of the best to ever lace them up..