Interesting quote on Joe Louis from Billy Conn trainer Johnny Ray

A contrary opinion from a boxing physician of the 1930s :
"The human body was not created to withstand an attack from Joe Louis ".

 

I think the quote makes sense. It's not really surprising.
Almost every challenger was trying to box Louis and keep away from him, and they were having little success. He'd outbox you, and almost certainly KO you too.
On the other hand, he's KO you if you stand and trade with him too, almost certainly ! But there's that chance of getting him first, or taking his game away .... in theory.

The idea that Louis was somehow vulnerable to stick-and-move tactics to get outpointed over the distance is a persistant myth, with nothing much to back it up.
Galento and Schmeling actually had Louis hurt or beat with far different tactics. Even Tommy Farr came at Louis for much of the fight.

Anyway, beating a prime Joe Louis is a hard task. Maybe only four or five men in the whole of history would have a good chance, the rest would be clear outsiders of various degrees.

 

Louis said he made his best fight against Baer. He also said he felt like **** against Conn because he dried out too much to get under the 200lbs limit , concerned about being perceived as the," big bully" in the fight.
Conn fought a smart "in and out "fight, unitl he got too cocky. Others who took it to Joe also had fleeting success, Mauriello, Galento,B Baer etc, but they did not possess Billy's " wheels", and so inevitably ,Joe caught up with them.

 

There was probably more of these similar speculations (ie. a guy who can stand and fight and punch with Louis is the best bet to beat him) at the time, than there was hope for a 'pure boxer' type to better him.
From what I've read, anyway.
Or maybe it was wishful thinking.

The idea that Louis was especially vulnerable to a stick-and-move strategy moreso became popularized and solidified in boxing lore a bit more by Muhammad Ali's "how's shufflin' slow-footed Joe Louis gonna beat me ?" rants.

Obviously, others had noted/speculated such notions before, but there was less hope vested in it at the time, that's for sure. Most commentators figured a 'new Dempsey' (or perhaps a granite-headed Jeffries or a one-punch Sam Langford) was needed to stand up to 'knock Joe Louis dead'.
Of course, MOST of Louis's challengers went in there knowing they were not up to such a task, so caution was often the only strategy left, a natural instinct actually, and in real terms only allowed them to survive as long as possible.

 

Excellent post L. Every great heavyweight would have a "chance" at the Joe Louis of the Max Baer fight. But as you observe that bout I think the chances of success to outbox or outpunch the young Brown Bomber are slim...I have thought a lot on this subject and I think were I a betting man
I would give the best chances to two men because of their great speed and punching power. The young tigerish Jack Dempsey,because of his fast start out of the gate,and the young Mike Tyson because of his great speed and powerful punching. I cannot envision a George Foreman having much of a chance against the much faster trip-hammer punches of Joe Louis. Of course everyone has a chance to hurt Louis ,BUT the Louis of the first Schmeling bout absorbed dozens of murderous right hands from Der Max
and still lasted til the 12th round. Louis at 198 pounds for the Baer fight was never as fast again on his feet...One for the ages.:good

 

There's a subtle but noticeable difference between ones prime and absolute peak.

For Ted Spoons money Joe Louis was at his absolute peak for the last time in the Godoy rematch (1940) when he consummately shredded the Chilean on the back foot. It was the last time he weighed-in under 200lbs, and while a few pounds on a big frame shouldn't count it's interesting to note the sizable clique that believed the Bomber to be at his best when at that specific weight.

Louis himself said he never felt better the night he obliterated Max Baer, and noting the performance it's not a bad shout for his very best.

 

Yes. This fight showed Louis weakness. They were slow footwork, a low guard ( which cost him in the Schmeling match ), and the in-ability to make in fight adjustments. Fighters with good speed and footwork as Conn, Walcott, and to a lesser extent Godoy really made Louis look bad.

But Louis was lucky in the 1st Conn and 2nd Walcott fight as both picked the worst time to slug in a match when they were up on points late in the fight. Their folly cost them a KO loss. Had they moved and boxed, they would have won the decisions. Some might argue that Conn, who staggered Louis the round before should have went for the KO.

The heavyweight division has other fighters who could box and move that were far more durable than Conn or Walcott, but you still see many picking Louis to beat Holmes and Ali. Personally I do not see it.

 

M, you are talking about the Joe Louis of 1941 against Billy Conn to make your case. I am talking about the MUCH faster Joe Louis of his absolute
quickest at 198 lbs of the Max Baer fight in 1935. Louis himself claimed he was never better. Not to be redundant,watch once again the pantherlike
movements of this edition of the Brown Bomber...He was DECEPTIVELY
fast on his feet, and his trip hammer combinations would have stopped much earlier the Billy Conn of 1941, though I love the great Conn...
This Louis stops any boxer after him including any version of Ali, Walcott, Conn. IMO...Nature made the perfect puncher in the "prime" Joe Louis...

 

Right so how can a box-mover not have a style advantage over a stalker? Being a superior class of fighter is an exclusive property altogether, or is that inclusive to styles. That's not the way I look at it.

I also think a swarmer having a style advantage over a box-mover is a misnomer. I think a swarmer holds an advantage over a boxer. A swamer and a box-mover are cease to have stylistic advantages over the either IMHO. Try to think of it in terms of Frazier vs James Toney as opposed to Tunney-Dempsey or Ali-Frazier.

 

I need to review the Schemling-Louis I fight. Did Max really box & move, per se. I thought he stood his ground and backed Louis up on occasion by countering over his jab with the right. Maybe I'm misremembering.

 

(Not that I necessarily believe in, or understand such simple style categorizations, but here goes ....)

... I would actually imagine that a 'BOX-MOVER' does NOT holding an advantage over a 'STALKER' ...

surely a 'stalker' is out there stalking his prey, who is EXPECTED to be on the move.

Generally a stalker seems to be at the advantage because he has 15 rounds to concentrate on capitalizing on openings/mistakes and doesn't need do anything other than stalk and measure his opponent for the kill. He can afford some stale-mate rounds, can even afford to drop a few. He can pace himself and not take too many risks.
The box-mover is under pressure to go in and land punches on the stalker constantly, every minute or every round, to win the rounds and stay ahead on points, while at the same time trying to remain safe from the stalker's measured attacks. It's risky every step of the way.

 

Schmeling didn't move much at all.
If he used "box-move" strategy then I'm even more confused.