Is Joe Louis technically unevolved, or is he up to modern standards?

Could a relatively small HW like Louis deal with Vitali Klitschko ??

IDK, could a chubby, non punching LHW like Chris Byrd cope with Vitali ??

 

Sorry, I assumed from the title that it would be a dull, pointless thread, so I didn't bother weighing in. What does "technically unevolved" mean? Who's ever suggested that Joe Louis is not "up to modern standards"?

He certainly wasn't some kind of perfect, infallible fighting machine but he had great punching mechanics, if that's what you're asking. Light years beyond a Jim Corbett, for example...

 

Louis's technique was perfect, better than any modern heavyweight. From his jab, to his laser straight right hand, to his short,powerful hooks and uppercuts with either hand. No telegraphing his punches, he wasn't using uppercuts from long range that are easily countered if the opponent is well schooled (As I've seen Wilder and Joshua do often, it says so much about today's competition.) His biggest weakness were his feet and a suspect chin. But his arsenal of punches are still the best in heavyweight history.

 

I thought JL was incredible when I saw the highlight videos on television when I was younger. Then Youtube came along and I saw his opposition fight. The Baers, Braddock, Carnera, Galento, etc. look so unimpressive/inept that it's hard for me to assess JL. That's why I try to stay out of JL discussions. Some posters have strong feelings about JL and I have no intention of denigrating JL, but it's hard to discuss him without mentioning his lack of good opponents. The ones I have seen are at best, "unimpressive."

It's not his fault, but his best competition came later in his career (Charles,Walcott,Maricano). He was 2-2 against that group and some say he should have been 1-3. mrkoolkevin summed it up well, JL was "Light years beyond a Jim Corbett, for example..."

 

I still don't know what you mean by "technically unevolved compared to modern fighters." Can you explain?

If you can show me anything I've written that appears to be inconsistent with my post in this thread, I'll gladly try to explain it. Pretty sure you're arguing against a strawman though.

EDIT: Wait--are you referring to the posts where I shared my working theory that Ali helped revolutionize the way heavyweights use jabs? If so, I stand by that. Probably applies mostly to big guys who have size advantages over their opponents though.

 

Without them following your logic, do you feel like successfully proving any agenda?
General Problem of Induction is something 16 year old kids are aware of today. Do you honestly don´t know or pretend PatM, mrkoolkevin or others trapping into this nonsense?

Just for you: Lets assume reznick sees a black swan (and having seen a swan in a long time). What does reznick conclude? Sure, all swans must be black now, like Joe Louis! Because he has seen a single black swan. That swan was definitely black as night. Righty right: All swans are certainly black. Lets open up a thread and prove something!

What kindergarten is this?

What about @Pat M s evaluation about the other swans next to Louis? Did he tell they were black as Louis too?

 

I may be the only person who finds this question interesting, but if there's a genuine difference of opinion on good technique between coaches in Louis's time and ours, how can we determine who's right?

It's not like the rules are vastly different. And the two eras didn't fight each other.

I guess the modern side would have to appeal to a larger talent pool and the intuitive idea that skills don't degrade over time.

I guess they could also point out that guys like Galento and Baer don't exist today, so the standards must have improved. (Assuming Baer and Galento also had terrible technique by their own era's standards, which I think they did.) But again, that doesn't help the 70s much, where we had Foreman's technical awfulness.

 

Not sure I follow...

 

I'll use a concrete example.

Louis's stance is a little narrow and square by today's standards.

Imagine that the following hypothetical discussion occurs:

Modern Person: "Louis's stance is too narrow and square. Modern coaches agree that the stance should be wider and more side-on."

Old Timer: "Modern fighters' stances are too wide and too side-on. Coaches from Louis's era agree that his stance was perfect."


Assuming that such a difference of opinion actually existed, which era's coaching opinions would you accept as authoritative, and on what basis?

 

It's hard to generalize or speak in absolutes about things like this. I guess it depends on whether and how you differentiate between technical evolution and tactical evolution (my thinking on these distinctions has been evolving ). All things considered, I guess boxers of the 1930s look fairly modern in terms of what I consider "technique."

 

Those guys didn't just come later in his career, they came wh enough he was suffering from brain damage.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/joes-reflexes-for-the-first-walcott-fight.605873/

 

You appear to be using the term "evolved" to mean "improved." If so, say improved. Evolution simply means adapting to suit an environment. In that case every successful fighter that ever fought was "evolved."

 

They're both right. Trainers train fighters according to the standards of their time. If fighters in-fought and had success with that style over others then it's correct for a trainer to emphasise in-fighting if he wishes his protege to have success. If, on the other hand, fighters rely on out-fighting and clinching in close then it behoves trainers to focus on that aspect.