Joe Louis '41 vs. George Foreman '73

Frazier didn't manage that because he was too short and couldn't box from outside. Louis wouldn't have that problem, his jab was arguably better than Foreman's and his midrange punching were on another level.

 

Louis would do well early. but hes standing in front of a absolute powerhouse, Foreman with the size, reach, and height advantage. I believe Louis would get caught, dropped multiple times, and stopped in 5.

 

Getting PTSD flashbacks from a certain thread.

 

Frazier didn't manage it because Foreman was drilled by the likes of Sandy Saddler, Dick Sadler, and Archie Moore NOT to let other fighters, shorter or otherwise, dictate the range at which the fight takes place.

Between Frazier and Louis, the former is known as a relentless swarmer and inside fighters. Not the other way around. To suggest that Louis can just get inside and finish the fight with combinations, which was the claim I was replying to, is nothing short of baseless.

Louis' jab being better than Foreman's is highly debatable. Joseph's was definitely underrated and all to often mistakenly labeled as lazy; Foreman's while underutilized at times is often mentioned as one of the most notable in heavyweight history. Hard as a battering ram and menacing when combined with his control game.

 

Foreman Brutal KO.
Big, extremely strong and knows how to use a jab. Joe Louis' enemy was a good jab since he never really faced anyone who had such a heavy and powerful jab like Big George Foreman.

 

Foreman had to keep Frazier away from inside. That's not enough against Louis. Louis could attack George from outside and mixing it up close.

It is, which means that we don't know who would establish his jab better. I don't think it's debatable that Louis had more versatile jab

 

This doesn't make any sense...

 

Yes because Frazier and Louis fought nothing alike. I could compare Max Baer to Foreman and be closer to the mark without losing credibility as you just did. By the way Joe Louis had power from both sides unlike Frazier.

What some who side with Foreman here may be overlooking is that George often distained his excellent left jab to wing wide shots. With little to not headmovement Louis would have little difficulty firing his sharper, quicker, shorter, more accurate combinations between Foreman's more crude attack. All Joe had to do is pull the trigger.

Terrible matchup for Big George because he has to come forward, he has no choice but to walk into a buzzsaw.

 

Oh the one Foreman used against Norton, Ali and Lyle?

 

To be fair, he used it against Norton. Not so much against Ali or Lyle

 

Foreman obliterates Louis. Louis lacks the power to hurt Foreman. Foreman will walk right through Louis's punches and destroy him.

 

I don't care about your clueless opinions. With your strategy of walking through punches, Foreman wouldn't last 4 rounds. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I'm sorry. I love Joe but Foreman only needs to put together a handful of shots to get his man in real trouble. He would hurt louis well before louis' steady attack would ever take effect on George

Big George in five

 

while it's true that Big George didnt have the lateral movement of a Terry Norris or a Sugar Ray Leonard, I have seen enough of him to see that he was much harder to retaliate against than people expect.

OLD George Foreman is another matter. He got hit all the time

 

Oh no, my creditibility. Anyway..

Frazier not being able to get close is relevant because his entire style revolved around being able to move to the inside and start his work there. Bob and weave in his own immutable rhythm; make his opponent miss and penetrate his own tempo; create pressure and instill doubt by seamless transition from defense to offense.

Frazier was shorter, sure, but given how adept, willing, and successful Joe was at getting in and fighting up close, I consider him, or many other boxers for that matter, not being able to do so against Foreman a good indicator of how effective such tactic would be for Louis.

What part of Louis' style or stance indicates that he would be successful at getting close and unloading combinations against fighter so hell bent on controlling and framing terms of the engagement as Foreman was?

a) Short shuffling steps meant to move around without compromising Blackburn's stance? Not really. They were supposed to minimize the time during which he wasn't in optimal position to strike.
b) Slight bend at the waist and side on(ish) position with raised lead shoulder? Take the head off of the direct line of attack. Minimize the target and easen his preferred form of defense — rear hand parries and slips.

Nothing to truly help him to Frazier/Armstrong/Marciano his way in because he was a stalking counterpuncher with outstanding fundamentals. That is what makes him so dangerous for sluggers like Foreman. Even such specialized and well drilled slugger as Big George.

Bottom line, I doubt going inside would be a part of Louis' game plan unless he had George hurt and ready to go — in such case he would be a horror movie villain ready to get rid of his unfortunate victim, I agree.

Postscript: regarding the things people get wrong about Foreman you mentioned — they could be turned into an entire essay. The tendency to debase him into a hard hitting, granite chin stalker with looping punches greatly diminishes the unique, unorthodox machine and in many ways a relict and beacon of forgotten or slowly abandoned old-school techniques. His both careers are a tribute to the likes of Moore, Liston, and especially the great Sandy Saddler.