Joe Louis vs Cesar Brion II 1951

you think Gibbons was not a good technical boxer? Gibbons came from the St. Paul school of boxing which revolutionized technical boxing. Gibbons was a damn good technical boxer. Even Brennan was a good fighter who utilized a great strategy against Dempsey and was arguably beating him when he was stopped. I dont think Willard is any worse than Lennox Lewis or Vitali Klitchko. Carpentier is admittedly one dimensional and predictable in his style but he was also over matched in terms of size (as was Gibbons).

 

Still, Bivins was a terrific fighter, fast and crafty ... I'd love to see that one ... also the exhibition where Louis flattened Valdez

 

Brion had fast hands and though Joe was not at his best he was a formidable fighter and fought at a fast pace vs a young top quality fighter of the time.

 

The hands low was a hallmark of the St. Paul style and would be for years to come. Watch guys like Lee Savold and even Harry Kid Matthews who were basically schooled in the St. Paul style fighting 30 years later. It was all about economy of movement. They would keep their hands low to invite leads that they could counter. This was all pioneered by Mike Gibbons who was for all intents and purposes Tommy's tutor and chief sparring partner. If you watch the Gibbons-Dempsey fight (and it is admittedly a poor fight after about five rounds or so) you will see that while Gibbons isnt greatly effective, due as you state to his low work rate, Dempsey isnt very effective either. Gibbons minimizes Dempsey's effectiveness despite standing right in front of him for most of the fight. There is a reason why Gibbons who was naturally a good 10 to 20 pounds lighter than Dempsey was the ONLY man to go 15 with Jack. Another thing about Tommy which makes his performance against Dempsey less impressive is that prior to fighting Dempsey, for at least a few yrs, Gibbons had been knocking out second and third raters. The press made a big deal about his knockout record (which was something like 22 straight and even had some decent names on it). Tommy started believing his press shifted more from a boxer to a guy looking for one big shot. This is partially why Greb beat him so easily in 1922, he was less active and looking for the KO and Greb simply able to box rings around him. Physically tommy may not have been ready to face someone like Dempsey in 1919 or so but as far as his skill set is concerned I think he would have been more of a challenge because he was far more of a boxer/puncher.

This content is protected

 

I think Louis looks a good deal better here than in the Agramonte fight , possibly his timing is more tuned in after regular fights ,and he dropped several pounds of surplus from his torso.
As the fight progresses Louis's jab looks swifter, and he throws his right with more confidence and assurance.
Brion is quick handed, and utilises lots of head movement, throws nice counters and has good variety with his punches.He certainly looks better schooled than many of the challengers we have seen lately in the heavy division.
Brion does not look 197 lbs, and appears to lack real power , but a respectable contender and a very good win, for an aging great ex champ.
Prime Louis gets rid of Cesar around the halfway mark,imo.
I noticed in these later fights Louis appears to be adopting a slight crouch at times ,and has his chin tucked further into his shoulder than earlier years.

 

I'm amused by some of the criticism of 1910s/20s fighters here that highlight a "high guard" as some sort of groundbreaking stylistic advancement that ALL later fighters adopted because they were more sophisticated or evolved. And that "low hands" is a sign of primitiveness of technique !
It's such an inane and simplistic critique I'm surprised it's so prevalent, and among some otherwise knowledgeable postors too.

 

Bivins a puncher? I think Louis must have been having a premature senior moment when he said that.

Bivins was not a puncher or very aggressive in the ring. In fact, I think 17 different opponents beat him. Maybe more, I am too lazy to count right now.

 

Do you feel off of this performance against this level of opposition that Louis proved himself ready and capable of fighting a physically prime Marciano ? Who did this fine contender (Cesar) ever defeat that would make you feel this victory by Louis was anything but a win over a fringe contender in a weak era?

 

I'll buy that.

MR.BILL

 

The late 40s/early 1950s was generally acknowledged as a bit of a weak era. Some talent coming through but not many truly developed, and old veterans were dominating. The Charles-Walcott series wasn't exactly thrilling the punters, and Louis was a shell of himself.

Some good fighters were around, and some good fights, but the heavyweight division hadn't really recovered from the war years and the loss of dozens of fight club venues. TV coming in didn't help in that regard either.
I guess it's all relative.

 

I think Rocky was a full level better than any other fighter in his era ... He proved this by the fairly easy way ( excluding the knockdown) that he handled Moore who was making monkeys out of the rest of the division ...while I think his absolute physical prime would have been short because of the brutal style he fought, I'd have liked to have seen him against more challenging guys ... even the 30's pre-Louis, I'd have loved to have seen him against a prime Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer or Carnera ... I've said many times he is one of my top pound for pound heavyweights ever and a top five all time under 200 ... I guess I'm just not satisfied with him being tested life or death ... I guess Walcott 1 was close but Rocky got better as a fighter ...