Those aren't crude, those are leaping hooks. Here is Tysons. https://streamable.com/3foj Short, stocky, and explosive fighters like using it because it works well out of a crouch. These knockouts are all some of these boxers greatest moments. And I would definitely show these to a friend to show them how great these guys were. Those are terrific punches. Galentos version is stylistically more unorthodox. But very effective as he gave the longest reigning champion of boxing history some extremely dangerous moments with it.
Problem is Galento missed with that punch most of the time, by far, when he tried it. And missed ridiculously, missing by long distance, losing balance, leaving himself totally open for a counter. He is totally/wholy depending on luck, not on skills or work of mind.
It would be a problem if it didn't work. But it got him to the championship level of heavyweight boxing. So maybe relative to Louis, Klitschko, and Holmes it is a problem. But relative to boxiana in general, hell it worked. Galento also has 57 KO's. I don't think we have a single one of those on film. You also have to consider that Galento had a ridiculous chin. His style left him dangerously open to guys who could punch. But he could really take those punches. And the guy was a nut, a flamboyant character, in the ring and out. Very unorthodox, and what many consider unscientific or untraditional.
I said I don't want to continue that debate, but you have to consider what era he got to the top of. The writers literally couldn't believe such a thing could happen that Baer and Galento were the only contenders left for Louis to defend against. The men Galento defeated weren't thought to be much either by contemporary writers. It was Louis at the top and the rest being third-raters and fourth-raters at best.
Nonsense. You're the only one here who scrambles to find other boxers' most awkward looking moments to counteract footage of guys like Galento, Baer, and Marciano being characteristically crude. You don't think I could find even worse clips of Baer or Galento to post if that was my goal?
Daaaaamn koolkevin, back at it again with the disingenuity. http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=563930 :deal
First, it's hard to see everything that's going on in that Tyson clip. Would you mind posting a more extended version, perhaps the real time one? Second, even from what we can see, the form of Tyson's punch is very different than Galento's. Do you really not see why a fighter would be much, much better off punching the way Tyson punches rather than the way Galento does in his clip? If so, let me explain briefly. Galento's version isn't just unorthodox-- it is objectively inferior and violates some of the fundamental principles of effective boxing. It is completely telegraphed, from a far distance, and comes in at a wide angle during which time he is completely exposed. This leaves the puncher completely exposed to straight counterpunches, it's easy to defend through lateral movement (which adds the risk that the puncher will be caught out of position and off balance), and takes much of the force out of the punch. I have no idea what was going through Louis' mind when he ate that punch but I have no doubt that most modern fighters who know how to box would have avoided it. Tyson's punch bears some of the same risks, but delivered with a much tighter trajectory and thrown from a much closer distance and more advantageous punching angle, it is much harder to counter. His opponent had the right idea in countering with his jab, but left his right way too low and didn't adjust to Tyson's foot movement (giving Tyson a much better punching angle) so he paid the price.
What on earth are you on about? Did you not read my post? Didn't I say, that while I don't agree with Burt that Louis would flatten Ali, I respect his opinion and don't claim that mine is more "right" than his? How is that being hypocritical?
I never said the form was the same. You pointed out that clip, and others listed reasons to why it was a bad punch. I found those same exact reasons in fighters that those same posters consider good punchers. It's that simple. It's not objectively inferior. Your opinion clashes directly with Galentos, who has seen way more success in the ring than you could ever dream of. And you just said that anybody who knows boxing wouldn't have been caught the way Louis was. So now you know more about boxing than Joe Louis? :rofl Who let you out of the insane asylum?
Always forget that it's a complete waste trying to talk technique with clowns like you who are determined to remain blissfully ignorant about it. Well, I tried. Hopefully others got something out of it.
Ali made amateur mistakes. It depends on how little you make them and how well you hide them as Ali shown Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok I owe you a real response. I don't think twisting your hips a la Tyson is good for every fighter. It's a good hook to throw off a jab or a straight, but that's not Galentos style. By not twisting your hips, you can follow the hook with an overhand right MUCH quicker, as you don't have to turn your hips back to get your right in range. And that's a combo that fits Galento much more. Watch Salvador Sanchez, a great puncher, stand straight up with his heavy blows. He's able to alternate his left and right quickly and with power because he doesn't turn his hips. He just relies on his core momentum and the shoulder snap. These are most definitely not arm punches. https://youtu.be/BCEVtFcIg2Q?t=10m50s Here is a hook, overhand combo, thrown stylistically similarly to Galentos: Sanchez: https://streamable.com/pcge Galento: https://www.instagram.com/p/BCexe6oAtiz/ Now there are some stark differences between Sanchez and Galento, such as Tony putting way more force (and risk) into his overhand, but look at the absence of hip rotation on the hook. Maybe you have a certain stylistic preference, but I think if you were more flexible on what may constitute a successful style in boxing, it would help to explain many gaps in your argument. Such as that Galento was technically worse than amateurs, but far and away more successful then most.