Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

To a certain extent yes.

As a counterpuncher he is the version of Louis the poor man threw away when he found a better one.

 

And so it goes...

Why thank you. And as I've said before, you're highly knowledgeable yourself--probably more knowledgeable on boxing technique than I am, and I'm sure you have more practical experience as well.

But I still place great stake in proof--in this case, training great fighters. That is, after all, where the boxing knowledge hits the fan. Steward could do it, Blackburn could do it, D'Amato could do it, and neither of us can. At the very least, we should bear this in mind when evaluating these matchups...and nothing beats actually feeling what your opponent is doing in the ring. Louis understood how Galento fought better than we do because he actually fought him. Maybe he couldn't articulate it well, but then again few boxers are George Bernard Shaw.

Boxing-wise, he is. Tyson doesn't understand a lot of social skills that we take for granted, but inside the squared circle he has a very good idea of what's what. Different sorts of intelligence, you might say.

Re: Errors--what are they? Louis was confronted by a massive, bull-like puncher in Baer and managed to turn him around and barrage him in the clip I showed.

Tone is difficult on the internet, so don't take this as a complaint but a question: When I show you exactly the skill you're looking for (performed with FAR better technique than Foreman's "Swan Lake Attack"), you pass it off on crude opponents. Since you consider all of Louis's opponents crude, how do you want me to go about proving that Louis's skills were useful? It's not as if I can whistle up Joe Frazier to go back in time and get punched by Louis.

I would disagree on Foreman's fight with Ali. In his second career, he was missing many of the advantages that made him somewhat successful early against Ali--he didn't have as much power any more, wasn't as strong, and was even slower than the last time. His technical skills wouldn't have been enough to shore up his eroded *timing against a fast counterpuncher like Ali. It would have been a a slower, fatter Ali-Moore fight.

You must assume, just because Frazier is an ATG, that Foreman must have amazing qualities to be able to beat him. Perhaps he is just as bad as Louis.

Cutting off the ring--no doubt he was amazing. Chin...well, it's tough to judge. In his second career, he absorbed some real bombs, but his first career saw him floored by Lyle, Ali, and Young. Two were from exhaustion, but still.

On second thought, I'll give you "chin". He had more or less zero defense, so his success must have owed something to a great chin. When his defense improved in career #2, he was able to absorb very good shots as an old man.

But cutting off the ring is really where his skill ends. He carried his hands excessively low, arm punched continually, and did all the other stuff I already mentioned. The footwork was good only for one thing--to get in close enough to wildly trade punches. Ironically, Foreman's ring-cutting skill is also one of Louis's few glaring weaknesses.

You're right, we can't. It looks like it's time to shove Galento into the trunk for a moment and concentrate on Farr, Godoy, Baer, and anybody who isn't Galento. I can't explain the guy, but I remain faithful that somebody can.

I believe you, but if you want to produce your top 15 it would be nice to see anyway.







Re: Louis's footwork...


Louis's stance was narrow when he was moving around the ring, but when he got close (as I briefly alluded to earlier), he repositioned his feet to get maximum power out of his shots. An extreme example of this occurs at 1:53 of this video:

[yt]lnTDtqiYzww[/yt]

and at 2:30.

Unlike Hamed, who off-balanced his body to get punches in with weird angles, Louis took short, subtle steps on the inside to do the same. He's a little wilder than usual in this clip, because his opponent is clearly hurt. However, he uses his footwork to position himself perfectly for each individual shot he lands starting around 2:45.




An even better example (and taken from a slower, older Louis, along with slow-motion) is his final infighting barrage against Walcott before Jersey Joe goes down for the count.

[yt]wz0_j08dwrM[/yt]



The narrow stance that you mention so often seems to me to be a transitional one which permits him to get the angles he needs. You might say that it's "wrong", but just because it's not in the textbook doesn't mean it's incorrect. There's a lot of stuff that they don't have in the USA Boxing manuals. He clearly shows that it is effective, since it allows him surprising mobility on the middle range and inside (where he usually operated) that a deeper stance would not have.


He had three sorts of punching stances, from what I can see. When on the outside, he used a narrow stance in jabbing. He still used significant hip rotation and shoulder roll, but seemed to derive more linear power than we do thanks to his fencing stance. Less rotation, more straight-ahead push. One or two of his jabs in the 4:20 mark illustrate this decently. There were better clips, but I can't seem to locate 'em at the moment:

[yt]wz0_j08dwrM[/yt]

When he was throwing power punches, he would either do a lunging punch to get in range--after which he would usually be in that narrow transitional stance--or would move his feet far enough out that he could get power from them. The former is best illustrated at 0:45, in a very neat little leaping left, and at 1:10 or thereabouts, where he goes leaping hook--squared stance--reposition at an awkward angle for another blow. And in both cases, it works.

And the latter as Louis was being backed up--one of the things that generally made him less effective--and still found a way to plant himself with leverage for many of his punches. Starts at 2:05

Also, at 1:17 and 1:24 he demonstrates that he could indeed put leverage consistently on his punches when he considered it advantageous to do so. He understood the concept well enough.

[yt]lnTDtqiYzww[/yt]





I would also disagree that leaping punches are "wrong". They're useful if you time them right, and some fighters made a career of them. Patterson's leaping lefts on Moore and Ingo are two great examples--both are on Youtube.

Finally, I will add that Tyson also had a tendency to lunge in and then square up. Part of it may come down to the fact that he, like Louis, could hurt you with any punch and either hand, and benefited from the versatility.

 

Thanks. I thought I knew more on technique, but you've impressed on your knowledge of boxing technique all the same. I am speaking a lot from amatuer fighting experience, I have had 40 amatuer fights and when I have been saying that you can't make some of the mistakes that I have called on even in the video's in the amatuer level, much less the elite pro level, I'm being truthful.

If I simply lunged off my feet, even with good timing against a top class amatuer or exhibited the footwork and guard problems, I get countered badly, it's the truth.

Continuing now...

Fair enough, but I'll make a point. Artists hold their work to a higher esteem that what others observe naturally... this is why I tend to look at an outer perspective than from the standard analysts in all fields and why I'd prefer yours over Bert Sugar's and Manny Steward's...

Boxing wise, he is well versed, but his historical knowledge won't rival yours, trust me, he's struggled at times to remember some of easier names that we would spot at the start. Then on the technical side, I've seen him make tons of errors also, I will try to find the video's, but I don't know if I can...

The errors in the movement, positioning, defensive stance and general gaurd. Baer certainly is crude and a bull rusher, Foreman the same, and we can compare those by video's. I am not meaning to discount these guys, I am just meaning to compare them...

I'm not meaning to just pass it off, but I am assessing each opponent. I realise you can't whistle up Joe Frazier, but I am mentally projecting the differences of what I am watching.

You've given me enough to where I've agreed that Louis' fundamentals at the base are better, that was the target, I have moved on since.

And I am not judging Joe Frazier for the sake of him being Frazier, I am judging his technical skill and defence over Tommy Farr and Max Baer and the other opponents we've been discussing, Frazier was quite a different animal all together.

That's fine enough, I can agree to a point, I was just thinking Foreman-Holyfield, how he'd be well paced instead of blowing his load and how that goes into the late rounds.

I said he's fair better, I'd still pick Ali. Foreman lost 4 of the 7 scored rounds on my card vs. Ali in Zaire as it stands... I don't know about yours.

No, I don't actually. It's mostly styles at that, but Foreman still has to have the timing and positioning qualities to beat a beast swarmer like Frazier, who had a whole package of things to work with. It's not because Frazier is an ATG, it's because I have watched a lot of Frazier and he is quite an amazing fighter for his style and highly skilled and full of finesse, I think you'd agree.

I could list out why Frazier is, but there is no need.

Ali was an underrated puncher, the exhaustion is totally why he was KOed anyway, people tend to think that Ali simply took bombs and waited, when Ali landed an equal amount of bombs on Foreman through the whole event, fully sat down vicious combinations to the head, enough to score 4 rounds for him on my card and to make Foreman bloody and swollen, they were very brutal combinations and with Ali's handspeed....

Foreman took some massive shots there and those shots in that volume round after round would have taken out lesser men.

Lyle and Young, fair, but in conext, that was not Foreman at his best.

The second career proves his chin to me. I rate Foreman's chin as "great" but not "iron". I believe this is the fairest rating for his chin.

Yes, I'm glad we agree. But he did have SOME defence, even if it was crude, not in the way that these older fighters were always open for the counter shots that I have been talking on.

He could also move fairly well, enough to position himself against Frazier, which extends from his footwork. So cutting off the ring and underrated movement, as well as he could get around on his toes well if needed, I think his footwork's pretty decent all in all.

And that is one of Louis' weaknesses.

I've explained him my friend...:yep

At any rate, goodbye to Tony Galento.:hi:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammed Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. George Foreman
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Joe Frazier
7. Rocky Marciano
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Sonny Liston
10. Mike Tyson
11. Jim Jeffries
12. Lennox Lewis
13. Jack Johnson
14. Joe Walcott
15. Ezzard Charles

So this is a fair list, even though these lists are as subjective as it gets, I have absolutley 100% believe that Lennox pastes Joe Louis to the floor within 20 seconds, but look where he's at at #12 and where Joe Louis is at #1.

In the era/era comparison, I hold Louis into high enough regard to rank him as my #1 HW of all time. Because for his time, he was simply brilliant, much like ranking music and it's effect....

 

Mr Magoo--I like your avatar. They always say a dog takes after his master.

 

Had to cut your response in half CT....

Okay, that was a good display of tactics there, one that I hadn't seen much in all of the Louis clips. I've stated that Louis was an advancement on HW boxing and I stand by it. However, the defence issue's even in that better display of positioning still stand.

I don't want to go into the opponent problems again though mate...

But that opinion is standing. Louis was wide though, which I've seen that more than a few times in various fights, it's not just this one, but I understand the opponent was hurt. I'm surprised he didn't deck the guy faster though, but that goes back to the whole discussion.

Understand that I'm judging the opponents unbiased just from watching technically and I'm not bashing the era, for further discussion.

Do you think Louis really looked worse when he was older CT? I have really seen few differences, his style uses workrate, but it's well paced and the experience there counted.

Walcott has a ton of issue's also. I really want to bring up timing and judgement of distance, but this is all technical, in any rate the timing and judgement of distance issue's don't come with my modern counterparts, proving some validity to my argument of evolution.

But that is a finer example, I'll concede to that point, even though not quite there.

I'm going to watch the two video's a little deeper, then I'll come back with some more analysis, cool with you?:think

But in that transitional phase, you at least have to admit that he's incredibly open for a sharp counter punch coming from any angle with the excessively low hands, being that Louis was not a quick fighter by any means in anything but putting together his combinations.

Nobody is textbook perfectly, save for Larry Holmes wich comes close, but that transitional phase is just all wrong.

Even weirdo fighters like Sam "king" Solimon are on their feet in a correct manner that prevents brutal counter shots from most fighters, but even then, Wright and Mundine smacked him when he was off for the low hands issue and for his technical defencive flaws... similiar to how any of these guys, including Foreman would have done to Louis for this flaw.

I agree with this, this is on target to what he had in his arsenal.

He's far too open when he's lunging in, and the leaping hook is not coming from his legs directly, which is a mistake. It works yes, it worked there, I couldn't see that working for myself, or for it working for him against an equal opponent, even fi that sounds like I am beating a dead horse.

But I'll study this video some more....:good

He doesn't fight well off the backfoot at all and he did find the levarage you are talking about, that's fine.

Fair enough.

And I am not against lunging, lunging in with a timed shot and doing so from the legs up(not just lunging arms and torso in) is a good technique if you can hit it.

No, they are not wrong, I illustrated this above

 

No, he likely thinks Baer would paste Frazier in a similiar manner. Give it 20 years and he will think well of Tyson, Lewis etc.

Janny runs off of historical regard, that's it. A modern fighter, even a great modern fighter means little to Janitor.

I find it hard to debate with someone that era/historically biased.

 

This is the position he was most often countered from, yes. It lead to occasional "balance" knockdowns. But it's one of the "risks" he took sometimes, and it generally paid off. He made it work. And as I said, Tyson did the same thing. Part of it may have been that Louis was not particularly fleet-footed--his footwork was designed for when he was right in front of his opponents. This is one of the few things about Louis that Revolver got right. That's why he was able to blow out guys like Baer, Baer, and Simon.

But Louis has many fewer flaws than Foreman did. It's impossible to pick out one flaw and say that it's going to be the decisive one in a matchup like this. Louis could just as easily use his feinting and subtle in-and-out movement to penetrate Foreman's already leaky defense and avoid his stiff-arming.

Yeah, sometimes he leads with the upper body, which occasionally gets him in trouble. But often, he keeps pretty centered with his leaping punches, and uses them as I described.

You are right about the jab's pawing, but he used this more frequently against opponents who were smaller than he was (as Wlad does today).

In the first one he seemed to flip his legs into the shot more, but I see the distinction you're making.








I'll give you some time to look over it further. In the meantime, I'm going to take a much-deserved break and do some exercise.

 

I find Janitor very reasonable most of the time. He is oriented toward older fighters, but that definitely has an advantage--he knows a good deal about them. The 'happy medium' is almost impossible to find in any individual, but I get the feeling that the Classic section as a community is close. We all have our place in the mix.

 

Everyone has their place, but some you can't necessarily take seriously. You all don't take CHJ seriously, but he has his place as well amongst us all.

Have a good workout.

 

Worse than two journeymen on FNF's honestly. Galento is about as awful as it's going to get in terms of what has competed at a top 10 level...

I find myself respecting what the doughball was able to accomplish, even though everyone knows my reasoning on why he was able to do this with that poor set up that he had going on, it's still an entertaining thought thinking on it...

Then living to 69.:yep