Butter Bean Esch vs Tony Galento

My own take on reading your posts is that some of your arguements were not strong. You focused on how crude Galento was, but Louis, after all, beat him to jelly, and then compared Louis' performance against Galento with Klitschko's against Brewster, but it was Brewster who beat Klitschko to jelly in their first fight, and he retired after six in the second nowhere near as badly beaten as Galento.
Modern fighters are mentioned as if without flaws, but Frazier did not even have a decent right, Holmes did not move his head while jabbing and was thus vulnerable to a well-timed right cross, Lewis was caught by a lead right from Rahman with his hands down at his sides, and Foreman was in his first incarnation a wild swinger with a leaky defense.
Also, all, or at least most, of the flaws you mentioned about Louis were harped on in the thirties. Johnson critized his stance. Schmeling his lazy jab and dropping his left. Everyone his sometimes ponderous footwork. Charley Goldman schooled Godoy to stay low and crowd as Louis didn't like crowding.
Some of your criticisms, such as Louis being an arm puncher and having poor timing, I don't find convincing myself.

By the way, I have watched 18 Louis fights from my collection last night and this morning.

 

Summer. Too damn hot for someone my age. I do better in my air-conditioned living room slumped on the couch watching my old films,
of boxing or Hollywood, while sloshing down a cool drink. That is what I retired for.

 

Brewster pulled a fortunate stoppage over a completely gassed fighter whom was brutally beating him around the ring, he in no way beat Klit "to jelly", the TKO was purely on exhaustion. If you want to criticise Wlad's stamina and his endurance, than that's well valid, but let's keep it into context.

I compared it to Brewster because he easily picked off what would be be a crude guy with his punches and in their first fight, easily brutalised him from the opening bell with well timed shots, even with Brewster's aggression but in the first, failed to be able to sustain that type of assault and was out of gas, Brewster lasted and removed him...

That has nothing in comparison to Galento, it's like if you're comparing Galento's endurance(I credited this to him) to Wlad's technique and skill, attributes and even Brewster's attributes...

If you think my argument is not strong then that's fine, but I think you have maybe missed a few factors in it.

This is all true, I'm not claiming these guys are invulnerable, I am just claiming they are "better" as time has moved on. I have really pulled out all of Louis' flaws, Holmes' flaw of being able to be timed was covered up with a very good defence and sense of distance, Louis didn't have these same things at all.

I am sure they were, he was far from a complete fighter, but he was the best of his day. My points lead to how you can't do those things today without getting chopped to pieces at the top level.

Find me where he comes legs up for the most part? Find me where he immediatley takes the head off a guy like Farr, whom had poor movement, head movement and little guard, right there to be hit.

These are the things that I am talking about.

Keep watching them, they are good fights, maybe you'll see some of the things that I have been talking about...

 

I was more active at your age, also. I do take out the cane and try to get several miles of walking in before it gets hot.

 

"Find me where he comes legs up for the most part?"
I admit I don't understand this.

As for Farr, I will try to watch the Louis-Farr fight later. I have it but did not watch it recently as it is long. I remember Farr moving pretty well. Okay--off to the Farr fight.

 

No problem, I meant that he doesn't use his legs to punch, like most boxers do. You generate a proper punch from the legs up, the energy then goes into the punch.

 

It is a serious tell McGrain, because it's a serious problem. Punching through "all right" is not what a head to head monster, guys who would blow out Foreman in a single round would do.

Then the timing, the sense of distance issue's and while CT has shown some better examples of Louis using better footwork than I thought, it's still pretty damn dodgy for a finesse great and it's a serious problem against other ATG's whom have phenominal footwork and positioning.

You know what I mean?

 

OK. Back for a moment from the workout. I won't have long, but I have a bit of extra time. So...a couple brief things:

1. Several of the clips I indicated do show Louis using leverage from his legs. It generally comes (as I mentioned) when he's not in his narrow-legged stance. When he deepens his stance in punching range, he uses hip motion quite well. Even when he squares up (Walcott knockout) in something resembling a Wing Chun stance, you can see forceful hip rotation.

2. Since you seem to have a slightly higher opinion of Louis's general skill-base now, one of the major holes in my argument (from your perspective) seems to be what Louis didn't do against opponents you see as incompetent. So let's look at some of his better opponents--Schmeling, Farr, and Conn--in their best fights against Louis:


Farr

[YT]2A8vO2H2SLc[/YT]

Conn

[YT]sf5_tL2cOag[/YT]

Schmeling

[YT]lihT_ewxVko[/YT]




Let's deal with them the same way that we're analyzing Louis. For any or all of them (whatever you like) could you point out specifically what they do wrong? If possible, could you also include one or two examples of the exact time frame (eg. 2:40, 1:22, etc.) that they do it in?