Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

Buterbean is only a 3 round fighter.
Galento destroys him.

 

Amsterdam and Cross_Trainer...awesome work guys. Absolutely awesome. THIS is debating.

My 2c (and that's what it'll look like in comparison) is that Louis after his retirement said that his weakness was facing a swarming/crowding fighter like Galento.
Maybe to a degree it's why Louis does not look his usual precise self in the video. It could be that his rythymn and timing were upset by Two-ton.

As for a prediction...I'd say Butterbean. He was fat, slow and had bad stamina, but he was the closest thing to an immoveable object I know of, with a crunching punch. I think he'd catch Tony lunging in.

 

I agree, Foreman was protected on his way up.
And Joe Frazier obviously took that fight lightly and wasn't properly prepared.
Still, Foreman was a monster.

I agree that Dempsey & Louis would have beaten him.
But I'm not sure about Marciano. Marciano was protected a bit too.

 

:good

 

Okay, I'm back and have the afternoon off, let's continue CT.

There is one factor that I have come to terms with and that is that Louis did in fact have better basics than Foreman, not that it's a surprise.. however, it's really not by much and I still rate Foreman's footwork to be much better and then when added with Foreman's physical assetts, such as his good timing(even with those clubbing blows) in comparison to Louis and his better movement(I used the Lyle lunge as a clear example).

The point is that Louis in his era was a finesse boxer-puncher who beautifully took guys apart(it is nice to watch) and that Foreman was just raw, crude caged animal like power punching slugger, for even some slight comparison in fundamentals, it's telling of the era and the evolution of the era's because I've shown some poor qualities in Louis intangibles(timing/movement/speed) in comparison to a George Foreman crude set up, and the minor things that Louis has better in fundamentals...

Foreman would definitley easily take out Louis, a clubbing right hand over that jab, not to mention not allowing the controlled pace and forcing Louis into the corner and banging him out.

This is not meant to be Foreman vs. Louis, but it's relevant to the topic of the era's.

Anyway, I am going to respond to your responses from yesterday before I left.

 

I highly disagree with this CT. You don't need a credential or a "paid my due's" stance to critique someone correctly, you just need the knowledge to do so and the observant factors. You certainly fill that bill out.

Many times the most "qualified" guys seem to me like they don't even know as much as me on the subject, make erroneus statements and lack even some of the observant qualities that we're using now to debate this subject, I'm talking of your Manny Steward level guy as well.

Don't sell yourself short, you're right up there, just not on a pedastool...:good

D'Amato WOULD be a great source for this, he was truly the definition of a walking excyclopedia when it came to this sport, but I feel even his vision would be skewed having lived through it all, if you know what I mean on that.

I'm sure Tyson did, since his style is a modernised version of Dempsey-theory, but let me make a point here, how many times do fighters themselves make erroneus judgements in terms of technical analysis'?

All the time.:nod

I think we can also agree that Tyson is no intellect.

Yes, I've commented on Schmeling and Farr, how it's different from a controlled boxing pace, rather than someone lunging in at you. My Lyle example of lunging in has credit as well.

Farr still had his hands ridiculously low the entire time and had poor movement and head movement, for the supposed phenominal counter puncher in Louis(was for his era, don't get me wrong, but some fans feel in ANY era), should have removed him immediatley. A Klitschko or a Lewis would have right at the start, because you simply can't do that in boxing(Farr).

Fact, he committs a ton of errors, but it's very comparable, my return post described this.

Great comeback!:good

However, even if he were the ultimate master at judging distance, you simply cannot lunge in a manner where your feet are clearly off the ground and have any at all success these days in boxing, it's impossible.

I know you're line of thought is "it was effective against Louis, had to be something more to it", and that's fine because Louis is a hard legend to bring down, but what I am saying is that there is really not much more to it, even if he were the grand master of judging distance and timing, because his display is that bad and any counter puncher, including the clubbing Foreman(whom escaped a much quicker lunge as I've stated over and over), would have counter punched the straight on Galento into submission.

But now you're putting into Galento things that aren't even there, just for the sake of being fair to boxing lore. It's less of an indicator than just running off of a pure technical/intangible analysis from viewing both, which is what I am doing.

I think the second George Foreman would have faired better against Ali in that 15 rounder to be honest, perhaps even win a late TKO.

He had really good timing, to clock Frazier with a clubbing shot, you had to have good timing. His agility really was solid for his type also, decieving and his chin is excellent(I run off the Zakman standard) and then his ability to cut the ring off and pressure was fantastic... coupled with his power, this is a dangerous foe.

He could get away with things that a Louis in the modern era could not.

But I've given examples of why Foreman had plenty of effective features that went together with a set skill, even though it didn't look pretty, we can't find these on a Galento.

I respect them well, I watch the old bouts and enjoy them. I respect what they did in their time and I compare the whole of boxing on an era/era basis, would you like to see my top 15?

I just can't stand when someone picks Jack Dempsey over Wladimir Klitschko, because that's absurd.

:deal

 

Whom did Butterbean fight to prove any of this? If Galento could stand up a while under punches from Joe Louis and Max Baer, it is reasonable to assume he could stand up to Butterbean and if this fight drags even beyond the fifth round Galento has a big edge, and Butterbean has never proven he could take a punch from a puncher like Galento, crude or not.

 

I wrote a bit on Marciano in another post, but I think we should let Galento go for now.

Well, this is not "reality" to me. "Reality" is what we are seeing. Galento negated their abilities because he simply would brawl at them and he had an obvious good chin and we can say his judgement of distance was decent... but neither are enough to negate a technical opponent given that he is ridiculously unskilled... worst I've ever seen.

Anyways... Galento.atsch

Yes, Louis had none of it in comparison to Foreman, which this is the comparison we've used. Timing can be learned to a point.

But even with the most talented timer, they have to develop it through training, it's learned to a point. You'd expect Louis' to be phenominal.

Technically, I have submitted that Louis' punching and things involved can look superior on film because his fundamentals are there more so than Foreman.

The discussion is how the era's evolved, how picking Louis over Foreman, or even Wladimir for that matter is ridiculous and I think you can agree that my spot on Louis' timing is even somewhat valid. Then without the freakish qualities, to not technically be that far off looking than Foreman...

It says plenty about the era, because Louis was the creme de la creme, the 9th degree black belt of boxing in that era....:yep

I've given perfect logic on why he was effective, it's just very hard to let go of the legendary features and submit to it, and I totally know why.

You claim you came in thinking the modern guys would paste the classic guys, well, I was the opposite, I used to think that the classic guys were superior. I've learned what I am saying through study, just like you've learned yours...

It took him a great deal more to cut off the ring and position himself against much more subpar opponents. I don't compare Tommy Farr to Joe Frazier, nor even Max Baer to George Chuvalo for that matter technically. Louis was the best of the era, so he's obviously going to have things that we can spot that can appear to be superior to a Foreman, but Farr's approach was pretty bad in any respect.

How were they not? He's fighting against totally hittable opponents with no sense of what would be the expanded defensive technique's used today.

Klit's guard and defence even with his height you have admitted were superior, even if Klit was shorter down to Louis' level, losing his main assett, height and leverage(power) on those punches and his imposing figure.

Klit's reaction time is vastly superior.

It hits more often than Louis also, is used more as defensive jab, where as Louis' used it more as a range fighter and an offensive weapon. Klit simply hates to be hit, he's become good at not being hit as well with his using his strengths to his advantage.

I'm saying that Schmeling being a very much technically flawed fighter(see the debate of Louis Foreman) being able to land those arm punching right hands on Louis all night is telling.

The era is not bad, it's just more primitive.

Flawless boxers? Hmm. Never

However, these days you get less flaws in the cream of the crop than from back then, even in Wlad K, who's much more flawed than Lennox.

 

It isn't by much.

Coming from a guy who gets his info from already set opinions, who cannot correctly analyse from a technical stand point?

I'll name a boxer-puncher who's more complete easily, Lennox Lewis. Want another one? Larry Holmes

Want another one? Sonny Liston

Want another one who's not an ATG? Tony Tucker

Want to get into different styles then?:yep

Clubbing right over that lazy jab, everytime, immediatley....

Sorry.

How does Louis not get backed into the corner and not get timed with a right hand or some of those hooks that Foreman is famous for?

His footwork is that bad, his hands are low and his timing is not comparable, nor his movement speed.

 

Louis would have to take a few bombs to get the job done which he could but every time Foreman opens up he is going to get countered with wiched combos.

If a relatvely crude counterpuncher like Lyle could make Foreman pay for his open offense then a sharpshooter like Louis is big trouble.