Louis had better fundamentals than Holy and a better jab, he parried counter jabs as he jabbed to, Holy was easier to hit with straight punches than hooks, he`d be outjabbed and caught with straight rights often.
Very nimble, a little half step forward and half step backwards quickly done, no crass movement and having his right hand ready to block jabs while slipping his head down to the right off center really quick, he was much slicker than Holy.
Better fundamentals than Holy? No way. You act like Holy was easier to hit than Louis, this simply isn't true. You act like Louis threw all the punches in the book like Holy, he doesn't. For example, Holy goes to the body more as an example. Holy used uppercuts more as another example. I'm not saying Louis isn't textbook, he was, but I disagree he had better fundamentals and more variety to his game. Holy had more variety and adaptability than Louis. Not sure how you could argue otherwise.
Every time this fight plays in my mind, I see Vander getting off before Joe is fully set, just a beat ahead with Joe trying to follow. He was less flatfooted, more nimble. And he's not going to stand there like a mug from the 30's. If there is going to be a KO, it would be Louis looking into the lights.
Damn, the Holyfield disrespect here. I'd tentatively pick Louis by decision, but what could Max Schmeling and co. do that Holyfield couldn't? He gives Louis massive trouble in a great fight.
Really, so you would say that Schmeling was a fighter to rival Louis? Remember this hypothetical matchup is both fighters (Holy and Louis) at their best. I see that loss to schmeling as a louis having a weakness, taking his opponent lightly and not training, and paying for it. Early in his career. Not taking anything away from Schmelings win, he earned it. I believe if Louis and Schmeling fought ten times Louis would win 9 in a row. To think Schmeling was a foil for louis beyond that one night is to miss the point.
