Tommy Morrison vs. Joe Louis

Michael Bentt. Six knock outs in thirteen fights so he wasn't a strong puncher, dropped Tommy with a counter right, single shot.

 

Bent still hit harder than say Schmelling.
And he put Tommy down with 2 punches the first time.

 

so by you saying might your saying those names your saying that they moved like they moved in louis era cause if your not then it is no might there

or maybe the names I put aren't that good so that's why you said might

or do you see those in Louis era being as great movers as the ali era

how could I believe you if you dont believe you well unless its one of the reasons I said

 

never

 

schemeling didnt really hit that hard he had less padding

 

Foreman, Ali, and Frazier were all really good.

Louis was also really good.

Ali probably pulls off the same thing Louis did. Foreman might or might not. Frazier couldn't because he burned out too quickly.

Many of the sluggers in Louis's era had ultra crude boxing skills, by textbook standards. So did Foreman.

That is all.

 

your avoiding my question I said do you see those 70s moving like the louis era or better

so you said crude which usually means outdated but I look at George and see he moves better then those in louis era do you see the same or you see George moving as outdated as them

 

Depends who you're comparing. Schmeling was a much more technical boxer than Foreman. Baer less so.

 

You can't be serious

 

agreed more tech as far as better punch tech but still moves bad compared to 70s you see him beating George and joe how

This content is protected

I dont see anything here that George has problems with to much

your avoiding buddy your doing that cause you know mostly all moved bad

 

Buddy's technique was probably better than Max Baer's.

How was Foreman's footwork compared to Billy Conn's?

 

That was written better than some of your replies.

 

bill upperbody movement is not that bad his footwork is not slow but still not really impressive its basic

George footwork but punches from wide angles
agreed bud tech is better

people always think I say as in general those dudes was trash no I can see the tech in that era and before it was good

when the trash part comes in is only when compared to 70s-90s thought I would let the trolls know sense they think I have something against those dudes

you agreed to that to the tech of those dudes is bad when compared to other eras in the future

 

Which post did I agree to this in?