Did Joe Louis have obvious boxing flaws?

Yeah, that’s a stylistic choice.
But I don’t put it against Tyson that he can’t use his bicycle like Ali.
It’s a style thing.

Louis had the efficient, perfect kind of head movement. The kind where he was able to move his head an inch to avoid a punch, while being in position to return cannon fire right away.

Julian Jackson and Golovkin don’t do what you described as head movement either. It’s okay.

It is interesting though. How thin the line seems to be between flaws, and stylistic preference.

 

What @Contro described is pretty much the standard meaning of the term “head movement," as it's used in this context. Reactively moving one's head to slip or duck incoming punches is head movement in the broad sense of the word, but it's not what people in boxing circles are referring to when they note that certain fighters don't use enough head movement. I've seen both Julian Jackson and Golovkin called out any number of times for their lack of head movement. It's not a style thing--fighters who don't use proper head movement are placing themselves at a greater risk of being punched in the face. They end up eating punches that never should have landed, because they're much easier to find. It's the difference between punching at a fairly stationary target vs. punching at an unpredictable one. It's a liability that any talented fighter would attempt to exploit. Some guys, like the very heavy-handed, come-forward fighters you've listed get away with it, but it's a liability nonetheless.

 

I disagree that slipping doesn't constitute as head movement. What is a slip? You don't slip with your body, right? You slip by moving your head.

Tyson often waited for a jab to slip before going into his side to side head movement, which were essentially a series of slips. Most people consider that head movement. Otherwise, he was often straight up, and stiff, until going into his slip frenzy.

Floyd Mayweather, same thing.
He doesn't passively sway his head around.
He is mostly "stiff" until punches start coming his way, and that is when he moves his head.

Freely moving your head when punches are not coming at you restricts you mechanically.
You can't get off certain combos while doing it. You can't jab properly from all the different balance points when moving your head. And if you don't have the right body mechanics, you'll need to reset before punching. Which is why doing so is a stylistic move rather than a boxing basic.
If it were a boxing essential, all great fighters would do it.

At any rate, Joe Louis actually did move his head when punches weren't coming. As a means to offset an angle, or to feint. It's just his head movement was more extenuated when he was slipping.

Not sure how anyone could not consider this head movement:
https://streamable.com/zdfso

Perhaps not in a certain context. Anything in a certain context can have a different meaning, but it looks like we're talking about plain old head movement.

As per the end of your post, yes, in a sense.
Joe Louis doesn't threaten your offense by risk of missing a punch.
He threatens your offense by the risk of receiving something more powerful right back.
Which is why it's stylistic.
Others who can't do what Joe Louis could, might choose head movement as a key tool in their asrenal, and vice versa.

 

You can refer to slipping as head movement if you want, so long as you know that it's not what most (any?) fight people have in mind when they criticize a boxer for not using enough head movement. This criticism refers to the movement that fighters use before they actually see a punch coming at them, for example when they're closing distance or after they've thrown a punch. I haven't watched any Louis fights in a while but I'd bet that his limited head movement played a big role in the Schmeling loss, the early battering v. Galento, and any number of other fights where he walked into flush punches. It's definitely the kind of tendency that a mobile, talented big man could exploit from outside, or a Tyson or a Tua could exploit at a closer range.

 

Louis liked minimalistic movements in defense so opponents were right there for his devastating counters. He was more offensive minded.

 

Just because somebody doesn't take advantage of a weakness, doesn't mean it's not a weakness. If I'm a poor outside shooter, by a defender insists on playing up on me, does that mean I'm a good shooter? Of course not, I would still be a bad outside shooter. Same thing here, it's clearly obvious on film, that Louis doesn't have the best movement (legs and head) in the ring. That is obvious. It's also clear, that the fighters that gave him the most issues, were people who had good movement in the ring. So it was shown, by a fair number of fighters, just because some of the B.O.T.M.C. didn't take advantage of that because of their own deficiencies doesn't make it not a flaw.

 

I would dispute your assertion that the people who gave Louis trouble were movers.

The men who objectively gave Louis serious problems, at a time when his age was not the primary factor in them doing so, are Max Schmeling, Arturo Goddoy, and Billy Conn.

In none of these cases was their movement the primary factor in them troubling him.

The reason that Louis abandoned the flashy footwork that he exhibited in his earlier fights, is that he simply didn't need it.

His seek and destroy approach worked.

 

Come on. While it's true that little Billy Conn was beating Joe Louis from all distances, he was clearly inept against Conn's movement. How long do you think this little merry-go-round would've gone on versus Holyfield, Tyson, or even Riddick Bowe?

https://streamable.com/2haq4

 

I disagree with this assertion totally. Age WASN'T the primary factor in why Walcott gave him problems, it was his movement. This is something Louis has said himself. Conn most certainly caused Louis problems with his movement. It wasn't because cause was moving around the ring like Ali, it was because he was come in, hit louis with fast combos; then dart back in quickly and hit louis and repeat. Then he would circle Louis, create some distance and a lull in the action and start back up again. His speed of foot when attacking, backing away, and then coming back in, then circling is most certainly caused Louis problems. His movement did that.

 

Louis also said that he kept seeing openings against Walcott, but that he didn't have the reflexes to exploit them any more.

That basically tells you the story of the fight.

He certainly didn't retire because he thought that he was in his prime, but had been unlucky to come up against Walcott.

I honestly think that the main reason that Conn troubled him was speed.

Louis had always had a speed advantage over his opponents, and when suddenly he didn't, he wasn't quite sure what to do.

Conn did use movement, but he didn't run.

He took the fight to Louis, and threw him off his game.

 

The merry go round ended for them fairly early, because they lost their titles after a few fights.

 

Louis had pretty good feet, more than anything he was cordinated, accurate, great ring i.q. with amazing reflexes and timing, he hit harder than most people he fought but he wasn't a one hitter quiter, he would set you up for a combination and dismantle you that way

 

According to his wife he was "Can't say no Joe". He gave money to anyone with a sob story or who was in need of help. He rarely asked for the money back and had zero financial literacy.

 

Why do people say Louis had slow feet?

It’s interesting how it seems acceptable for modern fighters like Mayweather to literally not move their feet in the pocket for extended periods of time. Whereas if an old school fighter doesn’t move around the ring like Ali or Tunney, then they have footwork/mobility issues.

 

Louis had a slow footwork,poor move of head, low guard,his chin was not great and his low weight would not help him too much against others heavier- great hws