Does Joe Louis stand the test of time?

No I dont agree but what does movement have to do with anything. Ali and Jones werent technically proficient at all but they were movers. Big deal. Joe Louis didnt need to be a mover any more than Frazier or Tyson did and yet he forgot more about the fundamentals than both those guys together. Most HWs have to rely largely on god given gifts. One guy might be unusually fast, one might hit unusually hard, another might be really tough, or really big. Louis didnt have to do that. Its true he had some of those things but even when he was totally shot and wasnt even a great puncher anymore he was still so good technically that he was one of the top fighters in the world. What exactly about Louis doesnt stand the test of time? He was always in shape, he hit like a sledge hammer, he had blinding combinations, an educated jab, perfect footwork, excellent defense, he could lead or counter, he had a great boxing brain, heart, and cunning nack for setting traps, his resume for a hw is stellar and his accomplishments are arguably second to none. Its beyond belief to me that anyone would question his staying power in this day and age of Tyson Fury et al. Has anyone taken a look at the rankings lately, theres some absolute **** in there.

 

I'm just gonna shamelessly plug my work here. http://imgur.com/gallery/DW2Q5

 

In my opinion getting dropped by Braddock is the single most embarrassing moment of Louis career. All hyperbole around the myth of Braddock aside he was a shitty fighter. If you watch the unedited film of him and Baer you can see that he barely beat Baer and you could make an argument he didnt deserve the victory. He looks absolutely attrocious in his lhw title shot against Loughran when he was supposed to be in his prime, and once he won the title he shamefully ducked max schmeling knowing that he would lose that fight. After Louis brutalised him, knocking his teeth through his lip in the process he got an obvious gift against Farr. Louis should have never gotten caught like that against a guy as bad as Braddock.

 

It matters because, well, that is the discussion we are having. I'm not questioning his punching power or combination or jab... We're specifically talking about his movement, or lack there of, and that is the discussion at hand. His movement was lacking, and movement bothered him. He didn't use angles very well while coming in or moving away. To say he did, is being disingenuous. I also very much question your assertion that he had "excellent defense". You don't get dropped as many times as he did, and still have excellent defense. The reason he was dropped so much was because he wasn't careful enough coming in or in exchanges. He movement coming in consisted of him leaning to the side and parrying when possible. That isn't what I'd call great defense. I agree with many thing you listed and being strong suits of his.... Movement isn't one of them.

 

Joe Louis was a pocket fighter. That's where he liked to fight. His arsenal at midrange is devastating and quick, and he had a pretty good jab as well. Louis had very good defense when he was defensively-minded but like any power puncher his misses left him badly out of position due to weight transfer and that's what Braddock took advantage of. Joe whiffed on that big overhand and Braddock caught him with an uppercut.

Joe was certainly not a plodder, it's just he didn't like to spend his energy on footwork unless he absolutely had to, throwing punches like he did is very energy consuming and it is impossible to move laterally and throw power shots and throw in combination for the full 15.

You have to make a sacrafice on one of these fronts if you want to have a sustainable style deep into fights. Joe based on his physical gifts decided he'd rather throw power shots in combination and have somewhat flat feet, than stick and move with single shots.

When guys like Conn, Walcott and Charles did show him lots of movement and single shots they forced Louis into his B-game. YES movers troubled him. They didn't play his game. But he adapted quite well Ko'ing Conn twice. Taking a controversial decision from Walcott before KO'ing him in the rematch. He was on a serious downside of his career against Charles and lost. He never got a rematch.

People who hold Schmeling 1 against him are insane. He didn't train at all and still lasted 12 against an excellent fighter. He almost killed Max in the rematch. It's like holding the DeJesus fight against Duran. It was a lapse of discipline nothing more, nothing less.

Joe was damn near unbeatable if you played his game. Pretty close to unbeatable if you didn't. Just my 2 cents.

 

Louis may not have been a dancer but his upper body movement was great. So, to say he had a lack of movement is inaccurate.

I can't say that I agree with your view of Louis not using angles very well, either. He may not have used them as a primary form of offense but, given his counter-punching prowess, he often countered from offset positions and he could comfortably wrong-foot and strike his opponents with accuracy.

Louis is widely considered a great defensive fighter and, in the context of his attacking style, he was. Yes, relatively speaking, it could be said that Louis was knocked down often but when you like to fight in a phone booth like Louis did, the KDs aren't all that unexpected or remarkable.

What does "careful enough" even mean in those circumstances?

 

You are talking about movement. We aren't. We are talking about whether or not he stands the test of time. He does, easily. I disagree with every other point you made here. Getting knocked down doesn't necessarily mean you have bad defense, especially not when most of those knockdowns come at the hands of men who are enshrined in the HOF. Willie Pep, arguably the greatest defensive fighter of all time, was knocked down more throughout his career than Louis was, was Pep a bad defensive fighter as well? I'm not saying Louis was Pep but you seem to be running under the impression that because Louis didn't dance like a ballerina that he had no defense and no movement and that's silly. But like I said, regardless, whether you believe he had movement or not he stands the test of time by any measurement you care to apply.

 

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/woah.gif

 

Tremendous post. Only thing i would add is that Louis improved technically after the first Schmeling fight. The loss for me is a combination of poor preparation and some technical issues which were shored up much like Lewis did after McCall.

 

The Pep analogy is a bit deceptive as pep had 240 fights compared to Joe's 80 or so. I would argue that Pep also faced far better competition but that is neither here nor there. Joe was a power puncher. Anybody who is throwing his punches with as much power as Louis did is going to get caught out of position every now and again. Joe went for the KO every fight he had. As Duke Roufous (mma and kickboxing trainer) once said "You want to make spagetti, You're gonna get sauce on the apron sometimes." That pretty much sums up most of Louis' knockdowns.

 

One thing that always confused me is the argument about joe having flat feet yet tyson, frazier, bowe, and several others had flat feet and found tremendous success. No one questions if these men would do well in the modern era and joe was far more skilled than them with just as much punching power. Heck 80% of the heavyweights since ali retired have had flat feet and several became belt holders!

 

Ali has only stood the test of time more because he hasn't suffered as MUCH time. Ali is still living memory for many and more imprinted on the public's consciousness. While they share the top 2 spots in legacy, for h2h, Louis has a better stake at relevance than Ali, at least Louis had power. Ali only had size and movement. The former is greatly eclipsed in this era and the latter is largely historically irrelevant for hw dominance. Louis had power, which is more rewarded historically.

 

Of course its deceptive. Its meant to be. Its just as deceptive as saying that because Joe Louis practiced an economy of movement that he had no movement. Its just as deceptive as saying thst because a fighter got knocked down he had no defense. The point stands. If your point is that Peps knockdowns shouldnt count against his defense because some came pre and came post prime then you can say the same thing about Louis. The majority of kmockdowns he suffered came both before and after his prime. Different fighters have different defense. Benitez planted his feet in a wide stance and despite being a defensive master he wasnt a mover, he also suffered a lot of knockdowns. You could spend all day with such analogies but the bottom line is Louis' style was based on strict fundamentals and if you have great fundamentals and crippling power you dont neef to run around the ring like a scared deer to be a timeless talent.

 

The problem here is, you're making arguments for something that was never stated. I never said he had horrible defense or atrocious defense like you're characterizing my argument. I am however, SPECIFICALLY talking about your statement of, "he had GREAT defense"... That he did not. That is the statement I'm contradicting, not one I never made that you're trying to contradict. The simply fact remains, and there is no getting around this, Movement bothered Louis, and it also wasn't his strong suit in the ring. I can get behind an argument that his style wasn't based on movement, therefore, of course he didn't move. Okay, but that doesn't change what we saw the product that was on display. If I continued to play basketball in Junior College, I could've transferred to a division 1 school as I would've continued to improve my trade. Possible, sure, but that is an assumption not in evidence. Louis being a good mover, is also an assumption not in evidence. It's plainly that simply. I do agree he stands the test of time, agreed, that doesn't mean he had great defense or movement.

 

No, he wasn't a great defensive fighter, and to say so it's kind of funny to me. I could get behind a decent defensive fighter, but certainly not great nor good really. He left himself wide open too many times while coming forward to be consider that. Just look at his fights, literally his favorite "defensive" move is to lead to the side with is upper body while coming in. Not a bob and weave like we see with Tyson, Frazier or Dempsey but a slow methodical lean to the side. That was about the extent of his defense when coming in, and of his "movement" when coming in. He's not using angles he's not bouncing around in there trying to gain different angles or present problems with his feet. His feet never presented any problems to anybody. I could agree that his style was one that he just didn't fight that way, and the little movement he did employ was technically sound and fit where well with his power punching combination style. That doesn't mean we say he had good movement in the traditional sense. He had economic movement sure, and it was good, but his movement in general wasn't great. Which again, is what we're talking about.