Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Galento is comparable to Bean, I don't care what you say.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6043418746799490157&q=tony+galento&total=9&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Lunging in with such a lack of technique, that you're feet are lifted off the ground instead of firmly planted and with punches that totally lack any form at all?

Hell, even Butterbean can throw a shitty jab and a shitty counter shot, Galento is probably the worst I've seen. There is nothing about Galento that even resembles boxing, or effective brawling for that matter, other than the fact that he was able to hit and drop Louis, whom everyone thinks is invincible, whom is also extremely technically flawed.

If you don't see what I am saying through Galento, then you're lost.

Butterbean KO 1, again, stop looking at the records and look at the evidence in film.

 

At eating without a doubt!

 

Identical to what you said about Greb. To tell the truth, I think you're dazzled by records as well--as you should be. You take Foreman and Hamed at face value, because you respect the fighters from their era--overlooking a bevy of technical flaws in each. Yet the same is not true of early fighters, from whom you draw the opposite conclusion.

In any event, what are Louis's technical flaws?

 

I do have another question, this time regarding Dempsey and Tunney. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you produce a list of everything that each of them does wrong in this clip, how frequently they do it ("a lot", "a little", etc.) and why it would get them killed today? Assume I know very little about boxing technique.

Not saying this as a challenge--rather, I want to see them from your perspective so I know exactly where you're coming from.

[YT]Z0tMBpsRgTU[/YT]

 

Foreman and Hamed have technical flaws, don't get me wrong CT, but they are also highly skilled in their strengths. Foreman had good footwork and a very good jab, as well timing and compared to these guys here, a very solid defence. Hamed had a lot of natural talent but similiar factors.

Not even regarding Louis, but Galento here, he has ZERO technique what so ever, possibly the worst that I have seen, it's pathetic that he's even competing mildly with any top fighters. Greb looks like a masterful artist with his sloppy routine in comparison to Galento.

Louis -

Poor guard, little to no footwork, lazy jab, wide at times, horrible stance, open.

If you want true brutal honesty...

 

Well, here is the thing, they have the base down for it to be made superior, Dempsey with his swarming and his crouching bob and weave, but they just aren't doing it correct.

Dempsey's footwork is terrible, he's flat footed and his legs are always too wide. His crouching position is terribly flawed using a duck to that angle coming in at a guy and using NO guard, a modern fighter could just position himself to land a massive sharp snappy uppercut right on Dempsey and follow it up with a tight right cross, which would end the night with those small gloves.

Tunney's footwork is pissy in the same way as Dempsey, they have little knowledge of effective positioning and thus don't use it. His jab is all wrong, not snapped out correctly, which I realise he's using as a range finder, but his stance has little guard and his jab drops right after he throws it, and it is with poor timing considering Dempsey's total lack of defence... but this was GOOD timing in that era. Tunney's punches work off the jab, but they are wide like an amatuer, not like a tight pure boxer....

The only thing they are doing correctly is clinching well, which goes back to your statements on fighters training in wrestling often and using a lot of standing grappling, as well as being defencive towards it.

Everything you say about their technique is true, but a modern fighter would land a vicious timed shot immediatley just on their poor footwork, positioning, stance and incorrect punches.

 

The theory behind Tunney's work is great however, movement, jab combinations and staying away from Dempsey's shots, a primitive slickster defence.

I'd give Tunney a well shot against Louis.

Tunney had the correct idea for a pure boxer style, I highly respect him, his skill was just poor in comparison to what developed there after and I highlighted some reasons why.

 

Exactly--I wanted brutal honesty.

Re Louis, though, I have no idea what you're watching when you say that his punches were wide. They were very tight and crisp. Could you produce a clip that shows what you're referring to?

 

This kiddie don´t know that an offensive machine like Louis can´t have a guard like a runner like Sweet Pea or PBF...

 

Watch the Galento fight I posted, first left hook he lands, quite wide and quite open, lacking the modern tightness that would prevent a counter shot by a competant fighter. In addition his feet are in the wrong position and showcasing horrible balance, considering Galento, who's just a very durable little boulder with no skill what so ever was giving him issue's.

Don't care if it's an off night. A tight, compact fighter with proper footwork would have ripped Galento to pieces with combinations and it would have been over really early, when Galento lunged, a strong jab(unlike Louis' weak pawing jab, thrown from a flawed position and stance as usual) followed by a quick right would have landed and then other shots could follow up thereafter.

As I said, Galento's feet were physically off the ground as he was lunging in with no guard and zero footwork or general technique, he was just a durable little boulder lunging with loopy shots, it's lower than most amatuer's I've seen, it's the worst yet.

 

Then why does every modern offensive machine have a proper guard, even known non-defensive ones, they have some sort of guard that blocks shots.

Louis has no guard that would be there to deflect crisp* shots. You're watching skill lacking, lazy shots.

 

You mean a "modern offensive machine" like Wlad who trows 10 punches in a round?

 

Too wide length- or width-wise? There are many fighters in the past 20 years who held their base wider than Dempsey appears to, in either direction.

The gloves are lower--that is certain. And a flaw I've often mentioned. But I would suspect that this is different from no guard at all. And wouldn't the lower hands be of some benefit if he wanted to block the uppercut?

I would think that the overhand right would be better than the uppercut to open up that defense.

Are there any specific time-slots where he loses a chance to position himself correctly...and if so, in what way?

Again, I agree that the guard is low--but isn't this one error rather than two (the guard is low, and the jab drops) since the jab is dropping to the guard?

As to timing--I'm not sure that this is a technical skill so much as a talent. It has nothing to do with body mechanics. More importantly, I think you're magnifying one error into many here (as with the low guard). Dempsey looks bad, and Tunney can't beat him, ergo Tunney also looks bad...when perhaps the answer is that Dempsey is doing something that prevents Tunney from looking good.

Many of his punches, particularly his uppercuts and his hooks off the jab on a couple occasions, seem pretty tight.

Are there any specific time-slots on the film you could direct me to?

This makes a great deal of sense.

Talent would play into it a lot as well. Even an incompletely evolved world champion is still far better than most modern fighters.

 

He was born in 1910, lived to 79, despite dying in 1979? Galento truly was underrated in his talents.

Anyway, this is a total mismatch. Galento was a fattie more comparable with modern heffers like Corrie Sanders, Danny Williams, Matt Skelton and Michael Dokes (in his latter days). In fact, I'd take the hard-hitting Galento to beat all of those boxers. Butterbean, on the other hand, would struggle to go four rounds with Brian Nielsen.

Galento would KO Butterbean within the first two rounds.