Well Walcott was by far the best HW Louis ever fought, he won the first fight, the second fight after being robbed he fought aggressively in order to gain the win as only outboxing Louis round on round wasn't considered enough. This completely played into Louis hands but if Walcott fought the fight the same way as the first fight it quite possibly turns out the exact same way Who's to say a 167lb Conn is any better than Calzaghe? I don't see it in the film, although maybe he's smarter defensively, although not by much, and he's certainly not got a better wins resume, he certainly isn't the same athletic specimen I'm partly trolling McGrain and his 'perfect footwook' talk here, Louis is great, but his footwork imho (ok not so humble) is his weakness
Exactly, but the point is that he's a combination of chocolates movement and footwork and joe's dynamite. Actually it does, if a component of any boxer's game is designed for an end that has proven results then it is good. How is economy not a good thing, especially for 12-15 rounders? Not true, you can't just run around in a circle to beat either man, you have to have more than that. A gameplan, to either fight them(escalara-arguello, conn-louis) or to spoil them consistently (arguello-marcel, walcott-louis). Doing either for 15 is hard, especially when either man has one punch potential. Conn going for the knockout does not pan out in film to me. I see him doing what he was doing before. circling, backing away, landing his combinations and blocking. I DID see Louis come out aggresively near the end however. I'd say Schmeling was better and would beat Walcott head to head. If he lost the second time around, he still lost by knockout. The surrounding circumstances don't really change the results. Pretty much everyone who's familiar with the career of either would say Conn is much better. Conn's names held are MUCH better. Look at the lineal champs he beat: Zivic, Corbett III, Apostoli, Yarosz, Zale McCoy, Risko, O'Dowd, Lesnevich, Dundee, Bettina.. That's 10 legitimate world champions under your belt. Calzaghe was dominant, but the level of opposition is not equivalent.
No, he lost the first fight. 2/3 pressmen saw the fight for Walcott. 2/3 judges saw the fight for Louis. Now people batter about the forum handing out unoffical wins to Walcott...bizarre. I have extended highlights. The fight's on a ****hair. Walcott was clevered, Louis "made the fight". The champion got the decision. Then put it beyond all reasonable doubt in a rematch.
By "better", do you mean: who looks more effective? or who looks like someone you'd want to show film of to a rookie if you're their trainer? or who do you personally find more aesthetically pleasing to watch? Going with options 2 or 3, my pick is Louis. Hell, even with option 1 it might be.