Is Joe Louis technically unevolved, or is he up to modern standards?

Well we’ve seen numerous eager appraisals for Louis, but the modernista crew has been awfully quiet and absent!

 

He was definitely up to modern standards. Technically his offence was hard to fault, and his combinations were delivered with a precision and speed that's rarely ever been matched in the division. His head movement was a little lacking and his feet tended to be a bit flat, but that's not entirely uncommon at higher weights. He would have had to alter his style to cope with the clinch heavy behemoths of the modern era, or more likely simply fought at a lower weight, but he certainly had the skills to compete on very even terms provided his chin held up.

 

Louis had beautiful technique. Has anyone ever denied this?

 

Ok, so you agree that there are boxers who fought in the 1930's that are technically proficient by modern standards. That's cool.

 

This. Joe would be chopping these guys down with his combinations. Most modern fighters lack good timing and don't know how to throw effective combinations in position anymore. Both Joshua and Wilder are extremely vulnerable on the inside, but effective inside fighting is almost becoming a lost art in professional boxing. It also doesn't help that talented fighters are mostly fast tracked now days, so they never get the experience they need to fully develop as fighters.

 

Yes, I've never argued otherwise.

 

evolved doesnt mean superior over the past, it means best fit for current environment.

sometimes people dont get that here.

 

Effective inside fighting is becoming an underallowed art, rather than a lost one. Refs are too quick to break fighters up, and too lenient on those who shut down shorter fighters in the clinch. While techniques do get lost over time more often they simply become obsolete in the ever-evolving (i.e. changing) boxing landscape.

 

Perhaps there is a better way to look at this.

Which heavyweight punchers’ don’t knock out much smaller men, or men with average defense that often lost a lot?

Answer best given, very few, if you add in 6 ounce gloves, you’ll get some spectacular endings.


I think Louis is excellent with his feet set, vs. stationary type of opponents, which were common among the fighters Louis fought in the 1930’s and 1940’s. His technique for punches should be considered as excellent vs stationary targets.

However it Louis was in there vs. skilled guys who can box and move, Schmeling, Conn, Walcott, or Charles, men we all agree look good on film, he really struggled to win rounds ( losing more rounds than he won ) despite having the height, weight and weight edge on just about all of them. So he was far from a master boxer type, and had some footwork, and defensive liabilities.

Some guys look great on a heavy bag, but do poorly on a speed bad or double ended bag that moves around a lot. Louis in a nut shell.

I still say he missed out on many of the best African American talents on the 1930’s and 1940’s, and many of the best punchers from the 1930’s to 1940’s.

 

Unevolved from from whom? John L Sullivan? Sullivan was a trilobite as compared to Louis.

Better to say "have modern fighters evolved since Louis' time" since he came before they did.

(Sorry for being picky but I AM a geologist; couldn't help myself).

 

Hes the most textbook technically proficient heavyweight in history.

 

I wouldn't bet the house, but if I were laying a bet, it would be on Louis beating Klitschko.

 

The only thing that you could criticize about Louis from a technical standpoint, is that his off center stance is a bit old fashioned.

This is not a very strong criticism, since the old school stance has certain advantages, and modern heavyweights such as Tyson Fury have been successful with it.

 

He'd have a field day!!!

 

Well his managing of his finances were definitely lacking any level of good technique but his combat skills within the squared circle were par excellence.

Louis was a very efficient fighting machine who would be judged as such in any era.