Tommy Morrison vs. Joe Louis

right but he still moved better then joe and wouldnt need much changes to do in other eras where as joe would need more changes

 

What the actual **** is going on?

 

The main difference between the two is movement. Louis was flatfooted and so were most of his opponents. SRR moved way better.

 

And yet Louis beat guys with good movement. There are several flat footed fighters who are successful even today so this is a terrible argument. Golovkin is fairly flat footed and similar to Louis in some ways and he's probably going to the hall of fame.

 

My logic works with anyone who looks as good as SRR did. Louis did not.

 

Which good movers might those be ?!?
All he has is Jersey Joe Walcott and Billy Conn, and he struggled with both. Now imagine Louis against superior versions of those guys, whom also happen to be much bigger. He stands no chance.

 

You're so ****ing backwards

 

yea exposing glass for trolling like always Jersey being the most advanced mover like I always said for the black and white era before ali

they leave those movers out cause it shows how outdated he was

leave in these names instead like cause it shows joe was good at hitting a person who stands there baer primo schmeling

didnt Jersey catch joe with 2 knockdowns off of counters and did it easy cause joe was so open with his bad defense and movement

but joe can hit fury who is good at keeping his range and joe can hit razor to who when young was good at keeping range get outta here

joe moved bad and to slow and had a bad defense system

 

@Glass City Cobra already gave you the good movers Louis beat: Conn and Walcott. Now you are raising the different issue of which ones Louis struggled with, and that's a separate set of goalposts.

Unless you are denying Conn and Walcott were good movers, I guess.

 

But. He. Beat. Them. 4-0.

And the part you're not getting is that a bigger heavyweight, especially ones north of 230, aren't going to be as agile and quick as Conn or Walcott, and they certainly won't have their stamina. Boxing is not a video game. Walcott is also arguably more skilled than any mover after him except Ali and Byrd.

 

The whole "he struggled with x style thing" is suddenly ignored when you ask if Ali could beat someone like Samuel Peter or Lamont Brewster because Ali struggled with aggressive swarmers with good hooks. Peter and Brewster were much bigger and hit harder than Frazier. I guess Ali has no chance against them?

Every champion has styles they struggle with or opponents who made them look bad. And simply inserting a similar styles boxer doesn't guarantee success because not every boxer is exactly the same and there's a lot more nuance to it than that.

 

the point was not who won buddy cross the point is he struggled dont you say to how great louis was in his tech that was his era
same as ali was the best tech in his time

we never seen ali look outdated in any of his fights not counting the brain damaged ver of him

we seen joe look outdated with Jersey I know you can admit that buddy cross you know he looked outdated with him

were not denying conn and wal moved good back then but when we look at them we dont see them ahead of their time we do see ahead of time with jersey

 

Apparently Morrison's trailer park, body building, seek and destroy style is more advanced than Joe Louis. You'd think trainers around the world would be analyzing his film and encouraging students to fight like him the way these guys have gone on and on.

 

Ali very clearly looked outdated with Frazier, since the technique for blocking hooks was invented a while ago.

 

your meaning felloff not the same thing
ali was never outdated in any match like I said same with Frazier

joe looked like he shouldnt been in the ring with jers thats how outdated he looked