Legends on film. Can we be honest in both parsing and critsing ... Joe Louis i

But Mendoza, we can say that about every other ATG- HW, for example: Can you immagine if fighters like Cooper or Banks almost KO´d Ali, what would happen if he had faced a puncher like Marciano or Dempsey? If Marciano was outboxed by an old Walcott, what would have done a prime Holmes? If a unskilled and slow fighter like Firpo knocked Dempsey out of the ring, what would have done a murderous puncher like Foreman? I hope you know what I mean, the same with the thing you wrote about Louis style, the same can be said about other ATG (Ali´s guard could be wrong against a quick combination- puncher like Louis, Foreman´s lack of defense would cost him much against a fighter like Dempsey, etc.), Louis had 25 succesful title defenses and many fights, also against some very good/ great fighters like Carnera, Baer, Schmeling, Marciano, etc., he showed incredible skills (great power, great finisher, good chin, good heart, etc.), head-to-head we would be hard to beat for everyone, and also his legacy is great, only Ali, Jeffries and Marciano could theoretically be ranked over Louis IMO...

 

Of course he does, but my point was that every single fighter out of a Top 10 HW- ATG- list has/ had flaws. I don´t understand exactly what you want to prove with that thread, do you think Louis is overrated? How much?

 

I dont understand the "low guard" criticism. Only Patterson and Tyson had a peek-a-boo style, most the others held their hands low.
Louis's right hand is almost always up beneath his chin, and his left is out in jabbing position. The left SHOULDER is supposed to protect the left side of his chin.
I'm not saying Louis didn't make errors in his defense, but "low guard" seems an odd criticism.
Tunney, Dempsey, Lewis, Ali, Holmes had much lower hands. Most the others held their hands the same height as Louis did, and a FEW had them higher.

 

I suppose that the flaws made out here are valid , im not trying to make an argument , but they all had flaws. When Louis ame up against larger fighters , he normally chopped them down like a tree. I understand that the larger guys he fought were not boxers using mobility though. Baer was a fighter , and Carnera was not a great boxer , he beat good/great boxers like Sharkey and Walcott though. I atually think that Louis was not just a good or great finisher , but actually the best ever , maybe Trinidad comes close, but no1 else imo . Louis did have a shaky chin , and was hurt in his career , but great fighters overcome these things , and Louis did usually. Shmeling was great imo , and Louis cemented his legacy there.

I understand the point of this thread was not to diminsh Louis' legacy , or to discredit him either , but im simply just making the point that truely great fighters have flaws , as do all fighters , but the great ones usually have things about them that make up for it

 

What about the jab of Louis though , it wasnt a boxer's jab , but it was very heavy , and he did set up a lot of great offense of it , beause it ould hurt a guy , he ould land it , and then land great rapid combos afterwards. Just think about his assets aswell

 

Louis beat some very good fighters and you can look at the fights that he looked bad in and say the same about Ali, Marciano,Dempsey,etc....Thing is Louis was the best powerpunching Combination puncher ever and once you were hurt, you were done...Louis fought master boxers(Walcott,Conn) as well as punchers(Schmeling,Baer,Galento,) he fought all sizes, to say that Foreman (untested and crude and amatuerish was better than any of Louis's opponents is wrong,Liston had his stengths but he also had his weaknesses and Frazier only had 26 fights when he beat Ali in there 1st fight. I dont think Joe Louis would have had any trouble with Foreman,Frazier or Liston, he was too accurate and would use the jab vs these dangerous guys...Joe Louis was a complete fighter and they were not. I often see Liston and Foreman being built up to be seemingly indestructable fighters at the time Ali beat them but this was not the case, but when most Ali fans talk of the 1st Frazier fight, they just say Ali was not in the best condition or the lay off hurt him. Ali was great but IMO Louis was the greatest.

 

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/louis_fl.html

The above is an excellent break down of why Joe Louis is one of the greatest heavyweight fighters of all time.

Monte Cox quotes Louis in the following segment of his piece, "How Joe Louis Would Have Beaten Muhammad Ali":

"Louis would pressure Ali, like Frazier and Norton. Ali didn’t like pressure, as he preferred to box from the outside. Joe Louis once described how he would have fought Ali, The Ring, Feb. 1967:

'The kid has speed and there’s no one around to outbox him, and the opponent who tries is in his grave. Especially in the middle if the ring. I’d see to it that Clay didn’t stay in ring center. No. He’d be hit into those ropes as near a corner as I could get him. If he stayed on the ropes he would get hurt. Sooner or later he’d try to bounce off, when he did he would get hurt more. I’d press him, cut down his speed, and bang him around the ribs. I’d punish the body. “Kill the body and the head will die”, Chappie use to tell me. It figures. Sooner or later he’d forget about that face of his and he would start dropping that left hand like he did against Mildenberger and Chuvalo. Those fellows got their openings by accident, and fouled it up. I would work for it and wouldn’t reckon to miss when it arrived. Cassius Clay is a nice boy and a smart fighter. But I am sure Joe Louis would have licked him.'"

The film shows me a classically perfect monster of the ring. Louis was much, much more than met the eye and he knew how to win.

 

I would be more concerned about their style than historical standing when matching Louis with them.

Foreman is tailor made. This is the one of the three that I would be targeting as Louis's manager. I would honestly have more concearns about matching Louis with Tommy Loughran.

Frazier and Liston provide more worying stylistic problems but they are certainly beatable. Especialy Frazier.

 

Not necessarily.

When analyzing a fighter's flaws on film, I'm also wondering whether those flaws are etched in stone.

Not to digress, but only to use an example, we've seen footage of a prime Ali getting hit with about fifteen consecutive body shots by George Chuvalo. Does that mean that any fighter with more reach, faster hands and feet, and a bigger punch would beat Ali by wearing him out downstairs?

Not to me.

Because I've seen other footage that says that at his peak, Ali could have avoid such attacks if he was so inclined.

That's the analysis I have for Louis.

I'm not going to assume that the slow-moving, easy to hit Louis who was sure he could take a challenger's best and still knock him out is the best Louis there ever was when I've seen him do better when he was fighting a guy he really thought might be a threat to kayo him: Max Baer. The head and foot movement he displayed against Max was almost never seen again, but if he could do it once he could have done it again.

As I see it, the reason he didn't is because he didn't think he needed to. For all his humble image, his autobiography and all other in-depth studies of Louis show that he was just as arrogant about his ability as Ali or any other all-time great. Even when he got hit and hurt, we didn't see him behave as if he needed to worry, change tactics, avoid punches, etc.; he just figured he'd come right back and knock the opponent out.

So just like I figure Ali would never be standing around against Louis to get hit by the punch Henry Cooper floored him with, I figure that a truly motivated Louis against a known great opponent is more likely to be the more moblie Louis who outboxed Baer on the way to blasting him rather than the guy who jumped right up to rush after Galento as if the knockdown was just an embarrassing momentary fluke.