Ali or Louis; who looks better on film?

That has nothing to do with footwork, it has to do with the fact none were the greatest in-fighters or in Robinson's case he was fighting above his natural weight class. Footwork isn't ever going to keep you away from an opponent for the whole fight, it controls the fight however

When it comes to Louis footwork lets not compare him to Ali, lets compare him to someone more offensive like Tyson, it falls way short

 

Pep was a pretty good infighter, tbh. I think that he does a solid job of spinning guys away, bobbing and weaving up close, hooking himself away from the ropes. I'm just saying that everything in boxing has a natural foil and carving circles with your feet and moving left has it's own predictability and countermeasures.

Louis' feet are nothing like Tyson's. The best parallel we still have on film is Alexis Arguello. Or maybe Monzon.

 

Two other guys who had very static footwork.:yep The Arguelllo comparison is interesting actually because of their other similarity's, the power, the sharp concise punching, similar rhythm.


Also in a square ring, footwork and movement has it's limitations. You could put a ballet dancer in there with the reflexes of a tiger and sooner or later the distance would get closed due to the enviroment.

 

Good point, I'd actually agree with that, his problem was he was a weakling inside in comparison to that freak Saddler

I don't think much of Arguello's footwork either and was a weakness for him. Monzon's footwork worked mainly because he was the taller man and he used his footwork to control distance brilliantly, I'm not sure it would work that well against bigger men though.

 

Touche, in retort, plod, plod, plod, plod, plod, 'why can't I punch Conn and Walcott? Where did they go? Those tricksters won't stand there and be punched like those other bums of the month, don't they know that's not the deal' plod, plod, plod, plod, plod, fall down, plod, plod, plod, plod, plod, fall down

 

Well done bro!

You are the second person (after Foreman Hook) to reach a negative IQ!

:good

 

They had static footwork, but it did them quite a bit of good. All three guys maintained absolute devastating knockout power in the later rounds, they didnt gas and lose their dynamite like a Tyson or Dempsey. And they were all good at stepping back and controlling the distance well.

Arguello's footwork was good. It worked well for him in that like Louis he was very good at stepping back right when it counted and nailing someone coming in with counters. That's why these dudes all have the same quality of knockouts... The kind where a guy loses control of his nervous system in an instant and is out for minutes.

Conn stood with Louis quite a bit. The reason he won that **** was his dexterity and skill on the inside, as much as his great outside movement and combinations. Conn getting on his bike all night is a total myth.

Boxing Math!

(Kid Chocolate+Joe Louis)=Sugar Ray Robinson
(Sugar Ray Robinson-Joe Louis)=Muhammad Ali

 

Ali has the advantge of having better film quality and camera angles.

 

Good points actually. I'm just not a fan of those styles aesthetically, but they were certainly effective and all styles have their weaknesses. In my opinion they could have all moved better, but if you start imbuing fighters with better attributes nobody is going to escape the factory recall.

Conn did great on the inside against Louis, until he got stopped anyway...

Nice math too.

 

So he managed to knock out the smaller version of Joe Calzaghe who schooled him for most the fight and the semi-pro who already beat him and couldn't train properly because he had a full time job. Perfect footwork for a HW indeed

 

It's always funny how we come back to Conn and Walcott as to why Louis is a flawed fighter. Borderline hilarious considering that really only dropped a single unofficial loss to one guy who would later be a heavyweight champion and have straps like a Charles knockout to his name....And then annihilated that same guy in a rematch while being older and slower. And then we have Conn, who again lost by knockout twice, faster around the second time.

If this is the measuring stick of Joe not being great or bad on film I'm confused. The funny thing is that we do have record and film of Joe knocking out plenty of damn good boxers/movers: Pastor, Schmeling II, John Henry Lewis, Sharkey, Valentino, etc etc... You had to have a lot more than just a good set of legs to really make him look bad.


Please don't ever compare Billy Conn to Joe Calzaghe ever again.

 

Not bad maths, although I don't think Robinson was quite as slick defensively as Chocolate.

Your right that the lack of movement in all Louis, Arguello, Monzon's footwork saved them the energy to rally late KO's. But that in turn doesn't mean they have good footwork

Too much movement will inevitably tire a fighter, boxing like life is about balance. If a man can control a fight with his footwork for 12-15rounds then the likes of Louis and Arguello are likely coming out with an L

I really do think Arguello's footwork, head movement and workrate was his defense against Pryor. And his footwork hindered him against Marcel/Fernandez

If Conn wasn't so aggressive got on his bike and just moved and countered in those late rounds he'd have beat Louis first time. He actually made the mistake of trying to go toe-toe with 1 of the best punchers ever