Joe Louis replaces Frazier vs Muhammad Ali 1971

I accept your concession that Blackburn wasn't on the level of Futch. I offered you an opportunity to expand on the premise that Blackburn would come up with a strategy that Futch did, and as expected, you had nothing to offer. That didn't surprise me, but what did was, you comically comparing what Norton did to Ali, and how Louis would implement the same strategy, with not proof to back up said premise. Which is exactly why many, including me, laughed at such a notion. 6 pages later, we're still laughing at your "theory"

 

Missing the point, moving the goalposts & red herring all rolled into one. The question isn't whether Louis can throw a jab, or a cross or any basic punch like any other professional. The question also isn't, did Louis do more things better than Norton, that is an irrelevant supposition and weak extrapolation on your part. This isn't about the sum of the parts, this IS about the specific parts. Just because Louis can throw a jab, and so can Norton, and Norton beat Ali with the jab, therefore Louis can beat Ali with a jab. It's bordering on idiocy to advocate this line of thinking. Norton went about the jab differently, threw it differently, and his movement pre jab and post jab were very different. That is why the comparison is silly, they're whole style was nothing like each other, and that includes how they jabbed. Tyson does more things better than Oliver, therefore he should be able to easily replicate what Oliver did to Lewis.... Oh wait.... Newsflash, styles make fights, and Norton wasn't a carbon copy of Louis, not even close.

 

You seem to have a very idiosyncratic definition of "concession". You also did not paraphrase my position correctly. My position this that, so far as I can see Louis does literally everything at least as well or better than Norton -some things far better. If this premise is accepted, it has the necessary logical consequence that it's possible - possible - that Louis could potentially employ any strategy Norton did and do so at least as successfully. This carries not the slightest implication that Louis would in fact attempt the same strategy as Norton.

As for Blackburn vis a vis Futch, you simply rephrased your assertion without introducing any new content. I said that if - if - Futch is a superior trainer to Blackburn, this is far from obvious (at least to me) and this drew no response other than repetition and ridicule.

 

That's an illogical premise to make sometimes when discussing boxing, and this is one of those times. Holyfield also did virtually everything as well, or better than Oliver McCall, but he still lost to Lewis twice, while McCall beat him. We can cite numerous other examples of somebody being better in virtually every area than another fighter, but having worse results against a common foe. Point being, what Norton did, and how he fought, was exclusive to Norton. Joe didn't set up his counters the same, nor did he move in and out the same. Nor did we ever see Louis jab as much as Norton did in those fights... like ever. Who cares what strategy Louis could apply, that has zero relevance to any logical conclusion to be drawn. If my uncle had to boobs, he'd be my aunt. If Golota fought Tyson the way Buster did, he likely would've beaten him that night, but guess what, he didn't, and that is the point here.

Okay, so you're still parroting this theory that Blackburn was as good as Futch. Okay, let's start here, Frazier, Norton, Holmes and Arguello... now Blackburn.. ready, set, go...

 

I can't tell if you are an idiot or a troll!

Actually I don't think either of those things. In fact, I probably agree with you result to the extent that anyone can predict how greats separated by generations would perform against each other. However, I do think it is unfair to compare a fighter from a point in time against another fighter's career. Everyone has bad or relatively bad nights. The Joe Louis who faced Max Schmeling was markedly different then the version who faced Billy Conn. It some ways it is similar to politics in that the one with the less accessible record fairs better than one whose every move can be fly specked.

 

I suppose Blackburn's most famous pupils, other than Louis would be,Sammy Mandell ,and Bud Taylor.

 

Very briefly worked with Walcott and then took on Louis instead. Don't recall him working with Ray. Point being, Futch is the better more accomplished trainer.

 

Mannie Seamon trained Louis and Robinson.
He also trained Carnera, but we don’t say that out loud here.

 

Frazier applied so much pressure and didn't allow Ali to really rest at any point was a huge factor. Joe Frazier moved in very fast and he made Ali expend a lot of energy. To quote Archie Moore " Joe Frazier attacked Ali`s throat like a Pit Bull dog"!

Had it been another style of fighter Ali would have been able to possibly rest from the outside with his jab and pick his spots. Make no mistake about it the Ali from March 8th 1971 would beat a lot of other great heavyweights.

 

He worked with Walcott but not for long, Mr Barrow came along.

 

This wasn't adressen to me, but I still have to say that Norton cut off the ring much, much better than Louis. And this was a big factor as to why he was so difficult for Ali.

He also had an awkward style that gave Ali fits. Louis had a much more straight up style.

 

FOTC Ali would not want to be on the outside with Louis he went to the ropes with Frazier because he didn't trust his legs or stamina,he would do the same with Louis, but with a different ending.
Louis hit harder than Frazier and with more speed and accuracy, and he did itincombination with both hands,plus he had an all time jab.The Ali of the Williams fight,or the prime Ali we never saw would outspeed Louis the FOTC version would get nailed imo.
Yes he would, but he was not the best version of Ali.

 

Disagree here, Ali went to the ropes because of the pressure of Frazier, and he couldn't keep running from him, while still expecting to keep power in his punches to slow him down as the fight progressed. So you're right about his legs there. Against Louis, who is very meticulous and more plodding, Ali wouldn't need to go to the ropes at all, nor do I think he would. He'd simply box form the outside and use his jab and cross to dictate the fight at range. Being faster of punch, and movement would allow him to dodge most of the telling blows Louis would throw. I see no reason why, Ali would be force to go to the ropes, Louis was content to box in the center of the ring, slowly walking down his foe and looking for counters. That is in stark contrast to the pressure Joe put on Ali that night, and he had to go there. Just my view, and maybe your right, but I guess I see it differently :shrug:

 

There is no mention of Mannie Seamon training Robinson on either Box Rec or in the biography Pound For Pound written by Herb Boyd and Ray's son. Here is the list of the fighters he is associated with.

Ted (Kid) Lewis

• Joe Louis 42-51

• Lee Oma

• Leo (Kid) Roy

• Pete Sanstol

• Primo Carnera

• Billy Conn

• Maxie Rosenbloom

• Johnny Wilson

• Benny Valgar

• Leach Cross

• Tod Morgan

• Johnny Ertle

• Henry Hank - Fight with Gene Armstrong