Joe Louis vs Butterbean

Not really.

Look at some of the men who got title shot's in the last decade!

At least this guy earned it!

 

From what I've seen, he was just too lazy and undisiplined, but very talented.

 

it does show how bad the era was! At one time I was impressed by Joe Louis, but at that time I had only seen highlight videos of him knocking out his "competition." Then, Youtube came along and I saw his competition fight...Galento, the Baers, Carnera, Braddock, etc., I was underwhelmed by them.

I realized that Joe Louis was beating the equivalent of 4 round club fighters on the midwest circuit, but they were in championship fights. Who knows how good Joe Louis was? His competition was so weak that it's impossible to judge him. Butterbean would be no worse than Galento, the Baers, Carnera, or Braddock, and he'd probably be more dangerous for a few rounds.

 

This thread is a classic example of "careful what you wish for".

Post a joke thread about Butterbean beating Louis...and people start agreeing with you.

 

Ridiculous!

There were fighters in that era, who were better than anybody today, from a technical standpoint.

For example Billy Conn would be the best light heavyweight, or super middleweight, or whatever, by a very considerable margin.

Max Schmeling, and Joe Walcott, were a class above any extant cruiser weight, except perhaps Usky.

Hell even Primo Carnera, puts a lot of the current super heavyweight crop to shame technically!

 

Basically, yes.

He was a fat undisciplined idiot, who had top end power and chin, for any era.

He probably got it all together, just once in his career, and it wan't even for his title fight against Louis!

It was for the Lou Nova fight, where he really seemed to give his one off performance!

 

Louis is overhyped by literally every boxing guy from all circles...but its not actually overhyping skills its more overhyping that no one comes close to him which is ridiculous .

Joe Louis was very good but ppl cant grasp that many guys throw short right hands and know how to set traps nowadays. they also have to understand wearing much larger gloves changes the way a fighter will fight.

A guy like Butter Bean would have certainly been much to talk about in the pre 50's era and im sure Jackie Gleason wouldn't be asking him to step outside while being heckled during a comedy act.

One detraction off of Louis is how would the low hand lead /parry system work against other much better guys in other eras? certainly Bean would have a chance at landing those fast haye makers if he kept swinging against slow starter Louis.

the only reason why its plausible is the actual Galento fight where no one of joes size dented Bean it was always tall guys around 6'4 about 240 plus.

 

....wow some people are picking Butterbean here...wow lmao I can’t. Actually a great thread by the way!

 

I think that we are starting to see how extreme some of the modernist's are!

Literally the only qualification, for being picked over an old timer in their eyes, is having fought in the 1990s!

We have just seen the most hideous proof of this!

 

What opponent had he beat to EARN a shot at Louis?

 

Rose didn't stop Bean ,he was fighting back...bad stoppage.

 

no, that's not true. Good fighters today do everything that the older fighters did that works, plus they do more. Nobody from the older eras is a "class above" what we have today. The training today is better, the knowledge is better, the fighters are better. And, the whole world participates in professional boxing, I've never seen as much talent as we have now.

I'm not going to change your mind, and I don't care, but the video doesn't lie. The Carneras, Baers, and Galentos were not good and anybody that knows anything about boxing fundamentals and technique can see the proof.

Neither me nor Galvatron has said that Butterbean beats Louis, we have both written that Bean was just a gimmick fighter, but he was no worse than many of Louis' title challengers...just shows how weak that era was.