Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Because most of them, including me, see it more p4p. Louis was a big man in his times. In this times, when you look at and compare statistics about sizes and weight he would be bigger and way heavier. Wlad has really, let´s say it carefully, a shaky chin, one power combination and Wlad would be out for some minutes. Louis on the other side survided big shots even from giants like Buddy Baer (who wasn´t that great, but with very good power)...

 

Galento murders butterbean!!!!!

Anyone thinking otherwise should consider therapy.

 

No, he was great because he was an Italian- American!!!!

No, seriously, you´re totally right, but you forgot the most important thing, when he landed his left hook, this shot had really very good power...

 

You needn't go that far, but staying on the subject of tight, crisp punches, I will do so for a brief clip:

[YT]5DQkX5RDke8[/YT]

Aside from a hookercut-ish thing that he winds up at the beginning, and another similar punch during infighting later on, Louis's punches all come from guard position. He hangs one jab out there once as you point out, and Schmeling capitalizes by nailing him with a right hand--so he couldn't have been that clueless. The leaping left hook is an off-balancing punch, but so is Floyd Patterson's.

One other thing I notice--the gloves are smaller than they are today, and the still seem to use some vestiges of the arm-parrying rather than glove-parrying of an earlier period. This may account for one or two weirder movements, and the hands being a little further out. It may be intentional and sensible, given the small gloves. Then again, it might be a flaw such as you were referring to. Ideally we could test it and see.

But that is a mistake. One must always consider who they're watching--for instance, a fringe contender can look like Tyson against most journeymen, but their flaws only start showing when they step up in class.

Believe me, it's baffling to me how Galento could have been a top contender. He truly looks as awful as you say. But Louis, and many other fighters of that period, do not. If Galento was truly as bad as you say--and he looks it--then even Louis's somewhat "primitive" skills should still have annihilated him. Wouldn't you expect as much?

 

I'm not meaning to insult or give advice here Luigi, I'm here to debate the classic vs. modern issue seriously, you all have asked me time and time again to call on the technical flaws of the older hero's, I am doing so now.

Now, we're going to intangibles:

Power - Absolutely, that man could knock your head off, but can the power compare to a 220 pound monster who fully sets up his shots from the legs and positioning like Mike Tyson? Louis throws arm punches to be exact, a bit wide also...

Heart - Definitely

Stamina - Definitely, but for his era and his pace.

Versatile combo's - Yes, these were a heavy evolution to be precise, but again, look at my critique of his punches and his legs, which are used in modern fighting to set up sharper, more effective punches.

Louis also threw punches too often before he found his range, an amatuerish flaw...

So, in the awful footwork, which we now agree on, footwork that is so bad in comparison to his modern day counterparts, that he could not compete as he's in a awful position while his modern counterpart moves in proper position to set up a shot that is so very easy to time, due to his lack of guard and effective defence... how does Louis win, when his timing was off against a doughball that wasn't anything more than what we've already discussed?

How does he beat say Evander Holyfield?:think

Most people here take Louis over Holy in a fantasy matchup.

 

I just replied again. It took a little while to watch the clip again the whole way through and analyze it. Jokes don't take nearly as long.

 

But how does he get in position to land against a very tight, crisp big man like Wlad, who's immensely quicker and sharper with his punches, whom will be in position for a lead right hand immediatley and it will land on a guy who's ducking under with a lazy and no guard... it goes right over the lazy jab mate...

Then Louis is dropped, as Wlad hits very hard.

What next?

 

Holyfield is great, but face it, he struggled with light-hitting CW Qawi, Dokes, Mercer, older Foreman, etc. Louis would TKO him IMO. And you overrate the weight, some people quickly add weight, me too, when I don´t make that much a weekend I´m immediately 230 lbs., otherwise I´m at 215 lbs ca. Does the weight makes me stronger? It´s the opposite, the today HW´s have way too much fat on their bodies, exceptions like Wlad are there, but even Brewster( the example you came with) has way too much fat, no surprise that he weighs so much. Weight= automatically more power=myth from passive boxing fans without fighting experience


we have that theme ca. every month

 

Do you think Wlad´s footwork is great?

Because it sounds so...

 

On the other hand, Tyson's stance is as deep and rooted as Dempsey's, which you consider to be too deep. Louis seemed to be able to position himself from his narrower, more mobile stance to get quite a bit of leverage, as for instance in 1:25 (the counter left hook) of this clip:

[YT]2A8vO2H2SLc[/YT]

You've just said, though, that the rules had not changed. He threw more than enough punches to be considered a "high workrate" fighter today.

As to the footwork, what specifically do you not like about it? What do you mean when you say he was not in perfect position to throw his punches? Which punches, and in what way? Could you give me a couple more examples aside from his lunging against Galento?

Throwing punches before finding range--this would have more to do with one's ability to judge distance than the technique one uses, would it not?

 

Louis's pawing and general "laziness" on his jab was nothing compared to Wlad, however. Even allowing for a "blinding" jab, it's still pretty bad:

[yt]hO_sWnawpU4[/yt]

His jab hand is extended too far, he often doesn't retract it rapidly enough, and paws with it extremely frequently. Yet, despite its incorrectness and unorthodoxy (and it IS incorrect), he somehow makes it work. The same applies to many "old time" fighters.

 

Yes, there is some better technique there than shown from the Galento bout, but it is in a position that he is controlling against another paced boxer type, not a boulder who's lunging in and giving him no room.

Floyd Patterson did so many other things correctly however, every fighter will present something sloppy here and there. In that clip I still see arm punches rather than punches coming up from the legs as his main offensive punching technique, while it's tighter than from Galento, he's still open for massive counters and his shots are poorly timed.

It's a flaw, trust me there. It has to do with the gloves, but it's a flaw none the less for proper boxing and the Louis era was proper boxing more so than the brutal era's before it of dirty boxing.

Regardless, Louis is fighting under a modern ruleset, a modern fighter with the smaller gloves still uses the footwork*, even if that modern fighter isn't known for the footwork, since Louis has no footwork what so ever hardly and gets into position to throw a crisp shot right down the pipe and there is no way that it won't land and put Louis on the floor.

Alas, I have given my example of Antonio Margarito. I can really call these things CT, someone doesn't look to me what they aren't, ever. They shouldn't to you either, unless you in fact hold boxers to too high of a degree... then you'll be watching from a different perspective.

It's no mistake, Galento is what he is and he's the worst I've seen so far.

Louis could not annihilate him massively in the first like I say because he lacks the movement ability, which comes from footwork* and Tony's lunging throw Louis off balance, whom without footwork* cannot pick him off from the back foot. Toney's lunging also exploited Louis' poor gaurd and no defence like I am calling on, making it rough... then he just leaned his weight on him in the clinch.

There is nothing more to it then that CT, Louis looks better at a controlled pace of course.

My point is if the dough ball can get him looking that bad, well, what can a modern fighter who can easily pick through his guard and use the modern positing and footwork* and superior movement speed and punching sharpness, which is normally generated partially or fully from the legs, do to Joe Louis?

Well, he'd knock Louis out early, because Joe lacks the skill to otherwise compete.

And to Luigi, Wlad was throwing 45+ jabs a round vs. Brewster, very stiff, straight well timed jabs against a guy with a great chin, but even then, an offensive fighter with somewhat of a guard, regardless of how bad his defence is in the modern era... the guard is still there, blocking and slipping to a minor degree is still there...

 

Yes, Wlad's a flawed fighter, he can get away with that, but look at the clear differences in the movement and look at it unbiased. Put Galento in with Wlad, as even Austin is an amazingly skilled fighter in comparison to Galento, whom has no skill at all.

His jab is well timed though, against a wide guy, albeit one who still has some form, he also landed a left hook, which was a bit lazy, but still much more precise than anything Louis had thrown.

Look at Wlad's head movement and guard also to supplement his superior movement speed and his well schooled footwork*.

Needless to say, Galento gets a right landed on him immediatley, a lead right and gets put out. Now take Louis' slower, sloppier and lazier jab and picture that Wlad right hand going over it as he is easily in position immediatley to do so.

There is some of the evolution right there as example, I am being very fair and very unbiased.

 

Getting back to this point--this is part of what I'm referring to. You're often glossing over modern fighters' flaws because they worked against other modern fighters, and instead highlighting what WAS modern or orthodox about them.

Foreman was worse, from a technical standpoint, than Dempsey or (especially) Tunney. He was MUCH worse than Joe Louis. He simply did more things wrong. He pawed horribly with the jab, dropped his guard at a moment's notice, parried downward and reached when he was trying to block punches, had very little head movement, and often stood in a stance far narrower than Louis's. His punches were often merely arm punches in the truest sense of the word, and he had a tendency to drop his punches after he threw them. He would often swing too far around because of the narrow stance, too much force, and too little precision:

[YT]96KfeAFakak[/YT]

These are terrible flaws, at least as bad (definitely worse) than anything Louis committed. But you do not generalize about Foreman's era, or Foreman's ability to fight modern fighters, because he happened to be born in a later era.

This is not to criticize Foreman--indeed, his accomplishments speak for themselves. But for some reason, you do not believe that Louis's accomplishments do.