1939: Old George Foreman replaces Galento vs Joe Louis

mark is trolling most people know that 90s holy was the best of him he got rid of just brawling in his young days and combined it with outboxing and a super tough heart and toughness

 

Eh in this instance I'd favor Joe Louis to beat old George Foreman. However i favor prime Foreman to beat Joe Louis. I do also think Holyfield is better than Joe Louis in most eras besides combination punching

 

holy never would have struggled with anybody Louis fought none

when its missing mutiple changes from 70s-90s it is bad now when compared to his own era and before yea its good

 

On film, especially that one, Joe Louis looks good

 

ok mark now I ask you maybe you can answer sense he wont which person did Louis fight who he had to be real careful with cause of the power

who did louis fight who could cause close to the damage George did even at a old age

who did louis fight who cut off the ring close to George cause he still had that skill just downgraded

max doesn't work for me or does galento max was the top guy galento just hit hard but was way to sloopy and off balance

 

Would you favor Lou Savarese over Joe Louis ?

 

I usually will politely deconstruct a post point by point & show where I think someone is wrong-such as that a "real" HW is not what is defined by you based upon modern sizes, but what the rules allow, & being good or awkward as a SHW does not define what is "real"...

But I will not bother to do so for the same reason many others do not even address you.
You note people by name who allegedly "cannot" debunk what you say:
Such as Magoo, who is kind & deeply knowledgeable.

Did you ever think that maybe they do not bother because not only is your grammar so poor it is hard to understand what you are saying-which is understandable if English is a second language, or you have some kind of disorder...

But you keep launching personal attacks by assuming the worst intentions, completely irrationally.
You *repeatedly* stated I LIED just because I believe differently than you.
Most folks understand that smaller guys are on average faster, even saying things like Tyson Fury is fast "for his size".
Compare him to the real past HWs who were often modern rehydrated CWs or LHWs-sometimes less-then all that extra muscle, & sometimes fat, means guys today tend to be slower.

We do not care to school or discuss with you the particulars of absurd claims that all the older boxers are "slow, stiff, amateurish, lacked defense"...
You are the mirror-image of old-timers who always say their generation or before were better, disregard progess & som increased average quality...
These are extreme, emotionally based identifications & beliefs.
But we do not want to sort things out with you because you say things like we are LYING despite (if you are at all reasonable) the evidence showing us tio be very honest.

But I do not care that you disagree, that is fine.
What is wrong & a 'lil bit *sick* it you keep calling out people as LYING with no evidence, against any common-sense interpretation- for no reason at all.
There is never a time when you point to anyone knowing & consciously distorting the facts.

This immaturity & personal attack is why few talk to you & you are not well-respected here.
Take a poll or ask people privately.

Now if you can get over ego, then apologize to people like me you have insulted, & repair relationships you have damaged-or prevented people from engaging you.
Ironically i do not think you LIE about people lying, even though it is easy for most to see that we are not lying.

You just have not yet reached a developmental level where you can see how just because folks have different opinions than you, that does not mean they are tricking you!
Or that you need to be so *threatened* by courteous differences of opinion that you demean their words, character or intentions.

Think before you reply. You are treating simple varying beliefs as some kind of a war.
This is isolating you, & removes any credibility about the GOOD/correct analyses you make.
You are driving people away from your position when you are nasty & assume all who differ must be deceptive.

That is the way of Intolerance, & at least the beginning of fundamentalism & fanaticism in many realms.

 

I talked to you weeks ago I told you I dont have to talk the so called right way and your here saying agian how the way I talk here is so called wrong i left you alone why do you pick to talk to me if you know I wont change how I talk or how I

I dont understand you people I told u couple weeks ago i dont follow the so called correct way to talk which is opinion here agian trying to tell me how it's wrong when I dont believe in a right or wrong way

then say how I put people opinions down which is bad yea cause its said as fact I dont say anything that wouldnt happen or couldnt I post vid and say exactly what I can show in vid which is just like I said even if I wouldnt had shown vid

people will say Louis or anybody else could beat said boxer i say exact details which show it wouldnt happen thats not opinion its fact it's nothing wrong saying facts it's wrong saying skills or advances that the person never showed in real life
so no it's not wrong

and I dont find any way how it's hard to understand anything I say how just cause I dont use paragraphs but I separate words by using spaces instead of paragraphs should be easy to understand that way
you only think like I said you have to talk that way cause your brainwashed into thinking its wrong to not

why can other people who think I talk to raw not talk to me but you feel you have to you it's nothing wrong not talking to each other

you did lie you keep saying belief nothing I say is a opinion its fact from vid everything is on vid 70sfan said trolling mutiple times how louis could beat lennox he couldnt was to outdated in his movements and outweighed

George fought people who had to for a fact not brawl with him the whole match to win and had to have defense

they only say Louis was fast he would for a fact like I said and shown have defense and not brawl the whole match and have a upgrade in upper and lower body movement not a opinion its fact he would have to

where am i wrong these are facts on vid it's nothing wrong with facts you just dont like how I say the truth in a raw way

 

No, Holy was more of a clever brawler than a boxer, he got hit far more than Louis, Holy relied on his out-put, handspeed and counter punching, but Louis had better offensive tools and was a better combo puncher with a better jab.

 

And superior head movement, you forgot to add that. He relied on his superior head movement, superior counterpunching abilities and active guard at mid/close range. Tools he had moreso that Joe Louis. Holyfield was a more consistent counter puncher than Joe Louis

 

Louis always changed head levels before puncing and Holy slipped very few shots he relied mainly on blocking shots.

 

Very few heavyweights now are half as good as a prime Louis at using footwork to counter

This content is protected

Compare how Louis, in the first round of a fight, two years into his pro career, reacted to a leaping left. He steps back and to the side causing his opponent to overreach, and getting Louis in the perfect position to counter.

Compare that with how Pulev just stood there and got hit while Wlad threw the leaping left over and over.

 

You must make a lot of money gambling

 

I never gambled but I know from facts on vid not a thought of a way I would want to happen

 

your talking of now I compared 90s a man named Rodriguez who had better in general movement then Louis

your picking Louis counter skills which was great at the time and years before but your forgetting the people he fought look at who he was fighting look at how they moved do you really see him able to do that with a person who moved way better In 90s

this is holy who punch tech was like Louis but see how he moves his body way more advanced then Louis ever did

This content is protected