Tommy Morrison vs. Joe Louis

Which ones?

 

What do YOU watch ?!? It's clear as daylight that Holyfield moves better.

No. Let me get this straight.
I feel that as a whole, boxing has evolved constantly, so that means that in general, boxers from an era are better than those from the previous era. Also, the bigger the gaps between eras, the bigger the gap between boxers too. There are exceptions of course, say someone from the 60s might be better than someone from the 70s, but those are exceptions not the rule.
I only call scrubs guys from the turn of the century, up until the 20s-30s. But a guy from the 20s-30s can also be a scrub in relation to say someone from the 80s/90s.
For some reason, this gap is more noticeable in the higher weight classes.

No. SRR was way ahead of his era and he helped boxing grow a lot.
He'd do great in any era, but that doesn't mean that he'd just turn up now and beat everyone. He'd rack up losses as well.
But SRR is one in a million, like I said, the exception, not the rule. With him, you can clearly see on footage that he was incredible, the complete boxer, who could punch and move well.

 

ill have to link like I said couple days ago

 

you keep forgetting your talking to a person who cant see good so no it's not clear

holy moves way better then that whole era it's not a opinion

I dont see srr good like that he had the same problems the other people did back then and boxing did get way more advanced in tech and movement that is no opinion

 

Nearly everything you wrote here applies to Louis. His technique and fundamentals, timing, accuracy, etc were way ahead of their time. Robinson admired Louis and nearly quit boxing when he found out Louis lost for the first time, that's how high of an opinion Robinson, the boxer you consider the best, had of Louis. Several other champions, coaches, and historians say the same and consider Louis up there with Robinson for ability.

Louis was incredible on film just like Robinson, especially considering he was a HW. He was a complete boxer. Nobody else in the division has that unique blend of great power, speed, and technique like Louis except Tyson. Jab, right hand, hook, uppercuts, body punching, combinations, parrying (a lost art), killer instinct, timing, you name it.

So it's pretty odd for you to say Robinson would do great in any era but Louis would be trash. It doesn't remotely make sense.

 

So again, this logic only works with SRR, but not someone like Louis or other countless number of ATGs from that era?

 

yea cause srr moved better is why your thinking Is so bad why you think ali copied his style over joe he seen joe was to outdated like I always say

 

But SRR faced obsolete opponents who couldn't move in "modern way". He wasn't tested.

 

In general boxing skills peaked in the 1930s and 40s. With the invention or TV the sport started its decline from roughly the Mid1950s on. Television was great for the fighters at the very top but it killed so many other boxers. The small clubs that had cards every night died off and with the # of fighters started to decline...back at that time the #30 Welterweight for example could handle himself with anyone. Why? Because they fought.
All the sparring isn't the same as when the lights are on. Fighters lost fights and learned from it and moved forward. That's old school, thinking was that a fighter isn't ready for a title shot until he has lost at least one fight.
That's why someone with some knowledge can see clips of a Charley Burley or Ezzard Charles, Willie Pep and see complete fighters. Not depending just their legs for defense as a example. Many of the " beltholders" in recent years would be novices based purely on their rudimentary skillsets. I'm not saying they don't have some talent. There are exceptions, great fighters in every era.

Bennie Briscoe "I'm not into talking bad about cats but some of these guys that have belts today couldn't have sparred with me"
When Mayweather came along in the late 90s the wise Old Owl Eddie Futch took notice..."I see him doing thing defensively that I haven't seen SINCE the great black fighters of the late 1930s."

 

Your entitled to your opinion. You don't have to agree with me or anyone else. Even if you feel strongly about something is try to stay open-minded. Let me tell you the longer you follow the sport your gonna see things differently 10 years from now, 20 years from now. Trust me, it's impossible to learn anything if your close minded. That goes for me, you and anyone reading this. I don't take any of this personal. If we all agreed on everything this would be a boring forum.

 

Alexis Arguello copied Joe Louis and ETM did alright in the 70s and 80s. Actually he dominated the sport with the same old shuffle of Joe Louis. Hard to see those subtle angles he gets he does before those hands get in range.

 

I'm not sure if you're serious... that boxing evolves constantly over time, from one decade to the next? That boxers from the 70s, on average, were better that those from the 60s, and so on... until we, presumably (following your logic), are at an all-time high right now, when it comes to the evolvement of boxing. Is that really how you see things?

I think it's obvious, that boxing took a huge leap forward in the first 40 or so years of the last century - but in the 80 years since then, I really don't think much has changed, ability-wise. Imo, there's certainly not a visible improvement from one decade to the next!

 

The HW division quite clearly took a huge decline in overall skill and ability in post Klitschko. Fury and Usyk are actually the exception, not the norm.

It ebbs and flows. It's not in a constant state of progression. Outside of a punchers chance, guys like Whyte, Kownacki, Areola, Brezeale, etc would not be boxing gods in the 90's and would probably have way more losses on their record if they actually fought the best on a regular basis. I notice a lot of guys who believe in this linear progression thing suddenly change the narrative when you take mediocre guys from today and put them against the best in the 90's. By their logic, Ruiz or Parker shouldn't have too much trouble with Lennox, Tyson or Hoylfield.

 

thats not right legend etm I have a quote that I have said when i have said that joe would need to be advanced to do that alexis was a no name and he did advance that style like I said joe would need to cause he knew it was outdated

so no he didnt use the exact outdated style he advanced it like anybody with logic knows the real joe would need to to he didnt just tiptoe he added to

I leave alexis out my breakdowns which is all I would need for proof of how joe would need to do the same advances to do good in those years

I leave him out my breakdowns cause people will still act crazy and act like im wrong when im not

I know what I am talking about with breakdowns i first seen him last month I found out of him from reading a old page on here that somebody brought him name up and compared him to joe

im more impressed by alexis then joe cause of the advances and that he knew how to hit a moving person while not struggling as bad as joe did

I have been saying joe would need to advance sense 4 months ago

I am impressed by alexis with his advances of it and him being able to hit a moving person

im not to impressed by the outdated ver of that style when I think of how joe wouldnt be able to do go

you know yourself that joe would need to advance to do good in that era when he stuggled with the people he did and as shown by alexis he knew it to which is why he advanced it

 

legend etm how can you say im closed minded my mind is open just not to unrealistic thoughts or crazy talk

cause I dont argue with everybody I only argue with those saying something that wouldnt happen or is just a lie

most the time I dont talk to a certain person I will just say in general and they get offended by me being raw cause my mind is not stuck in time like alot here

I have said mutiple times its mutiple people who move better then son and Louis cause it's true I posted vid of mutiple people bowe smith razor