Tommy Morrison vs. Joe Louis

Then it is literally anybody's game.

They are both mavericks!

 

I have mutiple times and was told by crazy trolls that they wasnt when they were
odd quotes like but he was ko nothing to do with skill

he wasnt half as skilled as joe or ali
he never won a title
name a big name

so maybe a diff day when I feel like seeing odd stuff said to me which have nothing to do with the video Im showing

 

That's your choice. But nobody is going to take your argument seriously until you name names.

Your whole argument is that Louis doesn't look modern, unlike unnamed "modern" fighters. When pressed about which modern fighters look the best, your response is, "They exist, but I won't tell you who they are. Because you will disagree with me."

That is not convincing.

But since you've never even explained what a modern fighter looks like, aside from my attempt at reconstructing your reasoning a week ago, I am no longer confident that you're sure what you mean when you say the word "modern." That would explain why you hesitate so much to explain it in detail.

 

The question re Louis’ mobility/upper body movement ignores the fact that, whatever the era, you will still have distinct styles and accents to serve your end game - styles that don’t necessarily have anything to do with the sports evolution or lack thereof.


We have the puncher, the puncher/boxer, the boxer/puncher, the swarmer, the pure boxer, the defensive wizard etc. To each his own but I put Joe in the puncher/boxer category - and a damn near perfect example of same.


As such, Joe’s “movement”, as we might call it, was more than sufficient as a component efficiently integrated into the total sum of his parts.

Joe didn’t nor did he need to move around like a chook with its head cut off. His defensive measures were very effective and notably subtle in order to keep him in the KILL zone.

We need not be misdirected into comparing and finding Joe fatally deficient as compared to a dedicated stylistic mover like Walcott - whose peer in the 90s I do not see at any rate. Every style will have its pros and cons in the face of yet again different, opposing styles. You can’t be everything all at once.

An older, slower Louis still achieved his specific end game KO’ing Jersey Joe in the rematch.

This discussion has been so whacked out that in argument against Louis it has actually been stated that the ultimate “result” doesn’t matter at all (viz Joe KO’ing Jersey Joe). That’s as irrational as it gets.

In all seriousness, if I was asked to choose an exact style of any HW to take into the ring with me, no modifications, I think I would select Louis’.

That actually could present as an interesting thread premise - particularly among boxers and non boxers.

Anyway, here’s some nice prepackaged vision of Joe’s skills in all senses. The BW footage and background Charleston music might put off some of the more superficial viewers - it looks and sounds sooo old and outdated.

https://youtu.be/R78hdxpRfws

 

You spent a LOT of time arguing why you shouldn't have to name names. Much longer than actually naming really skilled heavyweights would take.

This makes me suspect you don't actually know what the words "modern," "future," or "advanced" mean when they're used in boxing.

At first I thought maybe you just didn't express yourself clearly. But once you fix the punctuation on your posts, they're actually pretty clear and written decently well.

Now I'm beginning to believe you don't actually understand the words you're using, and don't understand the boxing techniques you're talking about. Even boxers with actual damage to the speech centers of their brains can still provide details about boxing technique. The amount of vagueness and dodging of questions seems more like someone who just doesn't understand what he is arguing.

 

back then it wasnt outdated the way joe fought but now we look back and see how others moved back then and it looks outdated

people dont look as a whole as jers being outdated they see areas of him as outdated that's two different thing buddy cross

if we had footage of joe moving from as many angles and using as much movement I would argee to him looking like he was from future like jers did nobody will show me that footage though wouldnt you think it would be simple to show if he fought that way

why can we find jers footage easy but not joe we got all of joe top matches on vid but yet no vid of him using advanced movement like jers is that not odd to you if he so called used future movement like jers used and we can easily find mutiple vids of jers using that advanced movement

 

He doesn't understand what he's arguing. He doesn't even know the difference between writing and talking. He uses words that mean one thing and applies his own definition.

The only 2 things we know for certain is that: he believes the "modern" era is superior to the old black and white "outdated" era, and that boxing has steadily evolved to where you can't be successful without "modern" advanced "movement".

Hence why he almost always automatically picks a more recent boxer over older ones. I guess the idea is that every boxer in general progresses within an era across the board. The assumption is that the modern guy would be too advanced, and then he worries about explaining why afterwards. Putting the cart before the horse.

That's why when you ask for specifics, details, and explanations, it's like pulling teeth. Instead of simply answering questions, he responds by asking rhetorical questions such as "are you blind" or asking if you're attempting to troll him when really you're just trying to understand his bizarre position. As if his view point is the "correct" one and anyone disagreeing is crazy. That's a lot safer than actually putting forth a statement that can be dissected or disputed (in his mind at least).

It's a little bit paradoxical because if he thinks that what he's saying is so clear and obvious, there should be tons of people agreeing while also being able to chime in and break down what he's arguing for. But, there isn't. Only a small handful of people agree, and they often use the same tactics of deflecting or being vague while often demonstrating very poor understanding of the sport. Even people who are being polite in disagreeing while giving very well thought out reasons for thinking what they think are dismissed as trolls.

Kudos to you for attempting to navigate through this sea of madness, but I'm honestly just here waiting to witness the burning ship sink.

 

you said he didnt need to move that's cause the era he was in was basic he would need to in the future 70s-90s which means like I always said he was outdated and no his defense wasnt effective or he wouldnt had stuggled with the people he did those dudes was low level or would he ever been beat by them ether

that vid is a nice showing of skills but it's for that era and before only doesnt mean it would work for the years I named

like I always said jers fought like he was from the future he is the one who should be respected for his great movement not joe why is it joe who is respected for having bad basic movement the same as his era

jers is the one who needs the respect he was the best mover for the whole era and before his era

and no that odd quote doesnt mean anything of who won or lost it never was the topic so no it doesnt matter and people have to show movement before they get a ko they dont just start the match and the person falls it's a before which you odd people keep leaving out that before is the movement shown for all matches

 

I actually have to agree with you on one thing: It's becoming clear that the debate isn't really going anywhere, and might be pointless.

I'll try one more thing to get through, and if that doesn't work, I'm out.

 

Joe used advanced future movement. Joe used angles. Joe was modern.

90s fighters didn't use advanced future movement. 90s fighters didn't use angles. 90s fighters were primitive. 90s fighters were outdated.

Prove me wrong.

 

you prove me wrong didnt you show me jers using more angles and moving more then joe and the whole era

 

You prove me wrong:

Joe used more angles than anybody else. Joe used more future movement than anybody else. Joe was modern.

90s fighters couldn't use angles. 90s fighters used primitive movement. 90s fighters were outdated.

 

You’ve perverted the discussion straight out of the gates.

I didn’t say that Joe didn’t need to move. SHOW me where I did. This isn’t a cold question that you often evade. You made a cut and dried statement so PROVE it.

Results are OF COURSE part of the point. Without knowing the result, anyone reading your take on Louis v Walcott would conclude that Louis was beaten pointless, losing every second of every round, such is the inaccuracy of your perceptions.

You continue to ignore Joe being a puncher/boxer in style and also Joe’s ECONOMY.

Since the days of yore stylised boxers can and have given punchers nightmares, even to the point of resounding defeat. But Joe was a puncher/boxer, so while focused on landing the definitive shots to end a fight, he could also box his way into more difficult targets to ultimately end a fight.

Whatever Joe’s movement from one fight to another, it was simply enough for the opponent in question and in terms of Joe’s opposition, the degree of their movement varied also so Joe might do more or less as and when required. You can’t put a ceiling on Joe if he simply moved enough as per his style and the opposition.

Looking at what Joe could and did so, his movement was very good and FUNDAMENTALLY sound and it would only be a question of amplifying those same attributes IF the opposition before him demanded it.

You’re happy to broadly nay say on other people’s detailed arguments BUT you don’t give your own breakdowns or answer specific questions yourself which leaves a whole lot of empty space behind your conclusions.

 

Im right we have no vid like I said of joe moving like a modern I keep asking for people to show it they wont and no like I keep saying winning and losing has nothing to do with movement

we seen deontay win matches does that mean he had good movement no it doesnt his movement is trash his tech is trash to he only has a good punch and we seen mutiple other people who were beat by a person who didnt move good

so to keep saying a person won the match is odd it doesnt change a person's movement or give them skill it's just a person winning or losing that's it why dont you people get that it's simple it's two separate thing winning/losing and movement the two dont have to connect it's simple to understand why do I have to keep repeating it like im talking to dummies

joe movement being economic is a odd quote to keep using it worked good then it wouldnt for 70s-90s boxing became more advanced they moved more he would need to move more to

he stuggled to hit jers showed that saving energy wasnt good he needed to move more your making dumb points which show im right like I already knew and always know I am

and like I said people dont just go in a match and just fall or it just fast forwards to the ref to show who won or lost like a game system or something on a cpu real life boxing moves in mins and secs and before the person wins or loses they have fist that are thrown and people can see each movement you dummies keep leaving that out you keep forwarding to who won

each match we have before the winner shows joe movement is bad it's to slow basic and missing alot of advances like I always said and like jers showed how basic Joe was

 

I asked you to PROVE one simple freaking statement you made in your previous post.

You couldn’t do it because, as usual, you were WRONG again. Too small to admit it.

You should actually stop right there UNTIL you PROVIDE the simple PROOF I asked for.

Louis didn’t just win via so many KOs by magic or 11th hour Hail Marys. His KOs could come quick, mid way or by later rd. Joe was always progressing toward the result, supported by his boxing abilities.

Atop not answering a simple question you have also contradicted yourself again.

Modern movement - Your take: AS IF to suggest a NOW standard mobility, rarely employed by old time fighters, if at all, BUT now possessed by ALL modern boxers going back to at least the 90s.​

However, in 2021 you nominate Wilder, a boxer embedded in the most current and modern era of boxing as NOT possessing this mobility. You don’t know whether you’re coming or going, do you?

I’ll give you an actual SOLID paradigm shift in technique in another sport - the Straddle Technique superseded by the Fosbury Flop circa 1968.

You can call it the Dick Flop if you like but then it should be obvious as to why they used his surname instead.

Returning from that small meandering - You’re focusing on age old stylistic differences far more than arguing for evolution or progressive and advanced techniques in boxing.

Anyway, imo, Louis’ movement would stand up today very well as is but if tweaking was required the of course Joe would be up to it.

Results don’t matter? Utter rubbish. Boxers will reach a certain quality in their own right and then they will also learn and improve by way of the quality of the opposition they engage.

Compare the performances of an older and slower Louis (you conveniently skip that FACT) in the two Walcott fights. Joe obviously did better the 2nd time around - as was Joe’s habit in rematches. .

If Walcott was from the future and a rarity in Joe’s era as you see it, then Joe was exposed to a new groove first time around and then did so much better the 2nd time around as was Joe’s habit. Read: Joe learns and customises himself to the opposition, even past his prime.

You skip a whole lot of points put to you only to cherry pick one or two and you still don’t rationalise your case on those one or two points.

Now, treating you in kind, you conceptualise and write like a dummy. No malice intended, but it’s clearly the language YOU choose to speak and therefore should understand - and without any chagrin.