Feelings on Marciano vs Louis??

Another day!What is PB?

Never believe that I've ever walked away from a scrap.
What question/questions do you want answered?
Number them and I'll reply.

 

After breakfast I'll have some of this!

 

Ah, I knew you couldnt resist, let the games begin.

Brion was a fringe contender an also ran in Weill's stable.His best win is probably his stoppage of a washed up Tami Mauriello who announced his retirement immediately afterwards. Decent wins for Louis .

Of course this was a decent win no doubt, even not mentioning an old faded Mauriello. You forgot to mention that he beat Jack Gardner, who held the British, the commonwealth and the European HW, much better win then the Mauriello one, so he must've been ranked at the time. Please dont come back with Gardner su-cked, he still held those titles at the time he fought Brion

Beshore a small swarming cut prone punch-less fighter who lacked defence a fleeting fringe contender whom Louis stopped on a nose injury without ever flooring him.

See, as always you miss the point when you dont have an article. I been saying he was a durable journeyman, all along, which he was, also Beshore went 14 rds with charles and Louis stopped him in how many rds? So it was a decent win, for old Joe. Maybe you should refresh your memory, so it was a decent win. I am surprised you dont know that these fights were of the whipping himself back into shape type fights, or tuneups they werent major fights, Louis was coming back jeez, what did you expect him to do fight the best guys right off. I am glad nobody like you was managing Louis at the time there might not have been a Marciano fight. You are nitpicking "duh, he didnt drop Beshore"lol
Oops and guess what, neither did Charles drop him in 14rds and in a title fight, I know he didnt deserve it but still 14 rds with a 29 yr old Charles and he went 4 with old Joe, is saying something I would think, but I am sure you will find fault and have something to say. Oops you did with this observation, "a small swarming cut prone punch-less fighter who lacked defence a fleeting fringe contender whom Louis stopped on a nose injury without ever flooring him."


Agramonte short time fringe contender who was not hard to drop, Louis managed it but could not put himaway ,Agramonte's backstepping style obviously was a factor in this.

A guy with 20 yrs practicing, should know a mover is a difficult guy to drop or stop, and Louis you must know even a prime Louis always had problems with movers, nothing new. Louis got some good work and went the rds not a bad thing for a guy trying to whip himself into shape. So your nitpicking point is? Why not just say he won and continued his comeback, instead of well he didnt stop him cos he was easy to drop, sigh!

Walker= cannon fodder.
Exactly but checking his record Walker had fought a draw, what? 4 months previous to the Louis fight over a 25-1-1, rising contender in Rex Layne. I had this as a gimme from the get go. But you must say the draw result put Louis' win on a higher level, but still a gimme.

Savold 36 years old and showing as much wear and tear as Louis, not particularly elusive hard hitting or skillful in a better era he would not have been ranked, but usually durable.

You must've forgot the British commish, deemed Savold - Woodcock a fight for the "vacant HW title. I know he was practically blind and shouldnt have been allowed to fight, but he was and he did. Excuses, excuses anything to make a "point.

Bivins . Again he was on the downslope ,at180lbs some 23lbs less than Louis, he made no attempt to win this fight ,confining himself to retreating all night ,flicking out ineffective jabs.
Another decent win for Louis, without your nitpicking. But let me ask you why would Bivins be retreating from Louis, cos as you claim Louis lost his power according to the esteemed scribe Rice 3-4 yrs previous. Bivins was always around that weight, why are you always reaching for something, anything and claim it as a point.

My contention is that the pre Walcott Louis would have stopped all these fighters and the pre WW2 Louis would have done it early unless perhaps Bivins ran all night again.

Yes fine and dandy but what does that have to do with this thread?

Comparing Louis to Ali v Holmes is too big a stretch imo.Louis was still capable of beating good opposition ,he just wasn't capable of destroying top men anymore Ali was a shell against Holmes,I don't see the correlation.

I didnt bring it up your boy did, so give him a hug for mentioning it.

When I /Seamus say Louis was essentially a one handed fighter I believe we are correct ,
You're not there is plenty of evidence he used both hands

that doesn't mean he no longer threw his right hand ,he utilised short rights inside but his money punch, his right cross[why you have a problem with this description of it is a mystery to me]was missing.

It's simple a jab is easier to land then a power right cross, so old Joe used what he had, he was still punching with both hands, and as mentioned his reflexes didnt allow him to take advantage of the openings. Louis was always a two handed puncher, and was still a two handed puncher in the Marciano fight. Jeez what cant you see, and since you practiced for 20 yrs you should know you need proper distance to land a right cross effectively. Now against a mover who is looking not to get hit and has the experience to to take away somebodies punches by their tactic's, I guess this is all new to you, c'mon this is basic.

He threw George Foreman like ,right swings to the body in some of his comeback fight and how crude and ineffectually clumsy they were!
Nitpicking at it's best, pick only what suits you, your proof, well he didnt throw right crosses, and this comment shows it plain how you pick only what fits. Perfect example "right swings to the body in some of his comeback fights.
This is the proof you have that he was basically a one handed fighter, then you are proving nothing.

In summary Louis,by his towering standards WAS shot,he could outpoint the uninspiring contenders that fed at the bottom of the top ten and they were carefully picked, but he was no longer good enough to beat the Walcott's and Charles' of the division, a fact he privately conceded himself.

Again picking only what suits you. Louis was not as shot as Ali, was he was still capable of winning fights but a 37 yr old Louis was not the same as a prime time Louis, is that your point. Everybody and their mothers knew that even the esteemed scribes. FYI, even now opponents for "name" fighters are carefully picked, thats a matchmakers job, they want the "name" to keep winning, but Louis didnt fight ducks, he fought guys that gave him rds which was what was neeeded to get him back, jeez thats all basic stuff. Really did Louis have to tell you,"privately", that JJW and Charles would be a step too far? I believe everybody at that time knew that, I am sure the scribes at that time thought the same, so you are pointing out the obvious to everybody, but I guess that's a revelation to you.

You seem to have taken our observations as a sign that we are anti -Marciano and in my case also anti -Louis.

I believe you have me confused with somebody else, this is something that you are entitled to feel hate or not, I dont care.
either way, but I guess your love for Louis drove you to post that picture yeh, that makes sense lol

Nothing can be further from the truth ,in saying Rocky beat a much diminished Louis whose reflexes had reduced his right hand to an ordinary punch this takes nothing away from Rocky he had to overcome the old champ and he did so, cleanly ,honestly and regretfully.
Again another perfect example of your bias is showing, first off, you missed that easily seen combo, then you state the obvious and swear you are making points. Louis still had power, the reflexes were not the same but really who really has the same reflexes at 37 that he had in his 20's. The topper is giving a off handed compliment and qualifying it by including,
"much diminished Louis whose reflexes had reduced his right hand to an ordinary punch". Louis still had power, he threw both hands, and he used what he had, fighters you must know make adjustments as they age. But I guess you dont.

It epitomises the very essence of boxing,"The King Is Dead Long Live The King".
Louis, like Archie Moore still beating contenders at an advanced age does not signify he was still a great fighter it just illustrates how excellent he was when prime!
Again making an obvious point, which nobody contradicts or contradicted.

If you want to play some more leave the door open.

 

PB=peanut butter, which is an odd choice for breakfast, next time try a South Texas breakfast taquito, much better.

 

Refresh your memory go back and read my previous posts, but I believe you gave some lame answers not proving anything, but if you want another go please do answer them again. What I cant understand is the love you professed to have for Louis, instead of honoring the man you are trying to say, everything negative to try to convince people he had no power, basically fought one handed, and didnt throw any right crosses. I look to honor these guys not to put them down, this is all you come up with, "yes but he didnt throw right crosses, he couldnt put away a guy who was easily dropped. Jeez isnt it enough, that he won and that he went down pitching, when he did fight a leading contender, honor that instead of trawling for anything negative which you and your huggee seem to be about.

 

I put PB on then Marmite which you may not be familiar with, its a yeast extract.

 

Why do you persist in implying I and Seamus are close? Trawl our posts and you will see the truth,we disagree fundamentally on many points particularly on Jack Dempsey and Jack Johnson! I'd like to think there may be a mutual respect between us but that may be just from my side .

 

You have a fixed idea about my posts and I'm too tired and too old to try and change it,truth be told I just don't care enough about your opinion and I don't mean that insultingly. I'm 68 for F888's sake! Why would I give a ******'s f*ck what you or anyone else thinks of me?

 

Mc, Just so you know, I dont feel or think anything towards you, good, bad, or indifferent. I respond to your posts, and only your posts as you do mine. I thought that was how you play on this forum. Why not just post stuff to honor these men, and not try to find fault in them, they are human just like the rest of us. I react to the posts, especially people who are forever finding fault or something negative to say. Like that great Los Angeles philosopher said, "Cant we just get along". and talk boxing.
I remember well how a former poster who has since passed away, was crucified and people who knew he had cancer and that he didnt have long to live, wished him dead, he was my friend, his name was Greg Luland. That's wrong, certain people on this forum are just keyboard bullies, and pile on that shouldnt be allowed but it is, so if I see an opening to question them I will take it and respond in kind.
About shamo, you mentioned him in one of your last posts.
Anyway, you proved nothing in your ramblings except that you read too many articles and you pick and choose whatever suits you to make a point, and those I responded to. The 8 guys Louis fought pre-Marciano, were decent opposition, the kind of opponents that someone looks to fight himself into shape with. There was only one I would say was a gimme, and even he had a very good result in fighting a draw with a rising young contender, 4 months prior to meeting Louis. So, ok lets leave it there. I am off to watch the Mexican fights just in time.

 

D1234, can you please learn yourself how to use the quote function? It's too much of a pain in the ass to answer your inanities in the format you present them.

 

Marciano = Calzaghe, same difference... And that's that I'm Irish-Italian, mostly Italian...

 

Not really, if you try real hard it will come to you besides your responses will come as silliness. And really it's just an excuse on your part to use a new word you found in your thesaurus/dictionary. I am sure a scholar such as yourself can figure it out. Not too complicated try or if you really cant, post a reasonable question and I will answer it, that's not hard now is it. You will answer with articles anyway, like the Rice article.
My responses are quite clear. A hint, the silliness I am responding to is in BOLD, my responses are not in bold. See it's not as difficult as you seem to think.

 

When we did our thread about a third fight between Louis and Walcott, I was surprized to find that a lot of people think that this version of Louis could have beaten Walcott at the time.

I personally disagree with them, but if I am wrong in this, then we would have to regard this as a big win for Marciano.

We should be talking about how he beat Walcott, Charles, Moore, and a very dangerous version of Louis, as opposed to Walcott, Charles and Moore.

It would also strengthen the case for him being able to take punches from bigger heavyweights.

 

But having seen what was left of Louis I don't think it strengthens the case.
Marciano may have been able to weather the artillery from quality super heavies, but will never know.