Earnie Shavers V Joe Louis?

Did you contract the accent?

 

1947 Louis by KO. That same right that hurt Walcott badly in the 9th round puts Shavers in coma.

 

No that is one of the few local afflictions that I escaped!

 

I don't think that Schmeling hit as hard as Shavers, but I think that he was a far superior boxer, and that this was far more important to his success than his power.

I think that if shavers gets Louis good, it will be a bit of a lucky shot, and Louis will recover from it.

 

I actually met him there. He was a bouncer as I remember. We had a great conversation!

 

Bet you didn't cause any trouble!

 

Definitely. Earnie's shot was the most terrifying in boxing history, but I'm thinking Joe's heart rivalled Holmes'. And Joe was probably overall a greater ATG...as much as it pains me to say (Larry's my favorite fighter).

 

I'm not ready to die.

 

It doesn't quite make sense to me either, but that's how I think it is. Probably has something to do with modern coaching, that's my guess.
Boxers from the 1890s-1910s could not compete with the boxers from the 30s-40s-50s, just how the boxers from the 30s-40s-50s would not be able to compete with the boxers from 60s-70s-80s. There are exceptions, but I am talking about the best of the best against the best of the best. Obviously you will have freaks of nature like SRR who would be dominant in any era, but that's why he is considered the P4P GOAT. Then again, he may have only looked like that against the competition of his time, we don't really know how he'd look today - we just speculate.

I wouldn't say boxers have necessarily gotten worse either, but today heavyweights sure aren't as good as 70s heavyweights. 70s was filled with those freak of nature talents like Ali, Foreman, Norton, Frazier, Holmes... the only one who would have trouble out of those today is Norton (Ali would have trouble due to his stances on homosexuality and roles on women being conservative and would get media backlash, especially since the dude never backed down from what he believed but that's beyond boxing).

Ali beats all of today's top heavyweights, except possibly Tyson Fury but even that can be argued.
Foreman beats all of today's heavyweights, would probably have some trouble against Fury though.
Holmes would beat all of today's heavyweights, but the big Fury would give him some trouble.
I think Norton can beat Ruiz Jr, most likely AJ, but Wilder and Fury would give him trouble.
Frazier can beat them all, might get stopped by Wilder but I think Frazier can take Fury.

[url]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/db/39/97/db399726916ecff591aa5f4023a5cddd.jpg[/url] - The Goats

 

I agree that 60s Ali, early 80s Holmes, and prime Foreman beat all the guys out there today.

Not so sure on Frazier and Norton...big, big guys/punchers out there.

 

No it isn't. Like all sports boxing developed. Louis was good for his time but his technique is severely limited because boxing at this time was poor compared to what it became. Louis had a porous defense, a short jab that was very easy to counter and was very very stiff. Louis was a plodder.

Also if Louis doesn't have a short easy to counter jab why did Schmelling and Walcott avoid his jba and counter it all night long? Same with Billy Conn



Sorry but you don't understand basic boxing technique if you can't see how poor Joe Louis is technically. Shavers clearly shows skills on film that are better to Louis, at least as an outboxer

You obviously rate all eras as similarly skilled, which isn't remotely true.[/QUOTE]
I’m no technical expert, but I gotta say this post is absolute pure nonsense.

 

Those were the best technicians Louis faced Conn aside and they all beat him, Walcott deserved the first fight. None of them had near the size or power of Shavers

And yes I believe the last paragraph. Louis made tons of mistakes and had a very porous leaky defence. That's why he was knocked down and outboxed so many times in a poor era.

 

Louis's critics have a serious problem here.

History shows that he was a very hard man to stop, and this has to be explained somehow.

If you say that his defense was poor, then it becomes inescapable that he must have had a pretty good chin

If you say that he had a weak chin, then it pretty much follows that his defense must have been excellent.

Even trashing the era doesn't get you very far, because every era weak or strong, has people who can hit like a truck in it!

 

The best fighters don't emulate Louis at all. In the 80s the best fighters tried to emulate Ali. In the post Mayweather era, they've tried to replicate the shoulder roll. Although generally different boxers, undertake different styles anyway.

No boxer today throws a short jab like Louis because it's very very easy to counter. It's why Louis was owned against Schmelling and Walcott. BTW Schmelling was 33, against a hateful crowd when Louis beat him. You say Louis was green against Schmelling but he'd beat Max Baer, Carnera, Uzcudun and would beat Sharkey in his next match. A very good case that Schmelling beat a prime Louis. And how did he do it? By looking at the films of Louis, seeing his weaknesses and building a plan to counter them.

Louis was kept away from the best black contenders because it was an easy duck to make.

 

Lucky *******.