Joe Louis vs George Foreman: Do you agree with this prediction

C'mon, he didn't improve wildly in the 3 months from Sorrell to Frazier in his very next fight.

How would you describe Terry Sorrell's style? Or Clarence Boone's? Joe Murphy Gordwin's?

 

My last sentence was slightly tongue in cheek, John.

On one hand, acknowledging someone is a form of validation. As you allude to though, that can be balanced with the fact that easy pickings can be fun, sometimes.

 

I judge boxers based on what they did in their own era. I rank Louis as he no 2 greatest HW all time behind Ali. And the only reason I put Ali as no. 1 is because of his impact on the sport. Remove that, and I have Louis as no. 1
However, in these H2H scenarios, I do think poorly of Louis. And not only of him, but of most old timers. Boxing has evolved, he couldn't make it with his skillset in a more modern era. Very few from his era could.

 

Louis still had the best combination punching in Heavyweight history. Better than even Tyson or Patersson imo. He is still had a very good competent jab and was proven knock out artist of giants, with the same size of today's big stiff idiots.

 

Oh **** is he one of those guys that are just obvious trolls?

 

I see. You are probably with the majority in the opinion that boxers have improved over time. Usually the reasoning I hear is that athletes have simply become bigger/stronger/faster, so old timers are simply outgunned.

Thinking that Joe Louis is less skilled than someone like George Foreman (who I do view as skilled himself) is odd to me. On a fundamental level, I feel there are not many heavyweights who are better to emulate than Joe Louis (although to utilize his style certain physical gifts would help).

Anyway, just some thoughts. No need to reply if you simply disagree.

 

I suspect so. The vast majority of his posts either denigrate the skillsets & abilities of fighters from long ago eras or are to pick the more modern fighter in a fantasy fight.

Personally, I think the "boxing has evolved, modern fighters would have an advantage over their counterparts from distant eras" viewpoint is defensible (particularly in the post PEDs era, though there are many fine posters on here who would disagree with me on this point), but if WB posted "the purpose of this post is to indicate I think modern boxers are better than their predecessors from much earlier eras", in every post he ever made, his contribution to this site would be virtually no less.

It's boring & when it comes to Joe Louis doing worse than the likes of Terry Sorrell, Clarence Boone & Joe Gordwin, it clearly veers from the defensible to the absurd (and probably trolling, as you allude to).

 

That is why I simply will not engage with the man. Period. I don’t like to block people but I had seen his tripe while searching the archives and there would be nothing but arguing between us if we engaged in conversation or debate and I don’t come here to argue, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. I basically try to state my .02, will defend it to a point but when the discussion becomes circular, I use my stock line “We can agree to disagree, hopefully not disagreeably” and walk away.

I encounter people like him on other sports forums, people who think Kyle Schwarber is better than Babe Ruth.

 

Re- read my post

The last comment of Foreman could ambush him is and always will be a possibility with George...but not necessarily the outcome I expect.

I do suspect that a flat footed stalker like Louis would have trouble with a powerhouse like Foreman but Foreman makes too many mistakes for a fighter like Louis....his biggest mistake is his big slow wide swings

 

I understand your post, I was just noting that George never saw anyone, not even Ali, with the combination of power and precision and finishing ability that Louis had. So it would be new territory for both of them. And I said somewhere in this thread that I didn’t think Louis would have a perfect batting average against George if they fought multiple times.

 

How EXACTLY has boxing evolved relative to Louis?

If an exact replica of Louis turned up in the ring today, fans would be duly awe inspired.

Louis didn’t have to pointlessly jump around like a Jack Rabbit to tick the criteria box for “modern” mobility or movement.

Louis also knew how to parry and slip punches without exaggerated movement that might have otherwise compromised his balance and ability to land beautiful, perfectly leveraged counter punches.

Louis was far more perfectly calibrated and efficient than than to waste energy on superfluous movement - the type of movement that has still seen many a fighter “timed” and knocked out cold.

Louis was admirably economical, as he was aptly described during his career.

Slow, shuffilin’ Joe??, a myth perpetuated and built upon by Muhammad Ali - who only more seriously downgraded the fighters that he actually respected the most. Eg - Joe Frazier.

Man, I’d love a carbon copy of Joe Louis to appear on the scene today.

 

Today’s audiences would probably find Louis boring or not entertaining because there was no flash, no noise, no show, no arrogance, no silliness, etc. … deliberately and by design because of the previous fighter of his demographic who held the title … he simply showed up and ruined people, literally had them begging the referee not to let him hit them anymore. He was a poker faced death, the destroyer of worlds.

 

All true. If that carbon copy did come along they might have to at least persuade him to wear a lights, bells and whistles robot costume for his walk and entrance into the ring.

The weight of said costume and it’s consequential drain on the energy even before first bell could also double as an excuse for any less than stellar performances.

 

A puncher like Louis knocking people out in the fashion he did wouldn't be found boring in any era. He'd be like a breath of fresh air and some might even come to love it.

 

Why does the era matter? Was the air they were breathing different?
Human genetics didn't change in the span of 20 years.

Unless boxing really evolved to the extent that older fighters would be hopelessly outmatched, that simply isn't the case. Boxing did not evolve nearly as much from 1930 to 1970.
Louis was a fossil by the early 1950s and he was still holding a top ranking in the division. That's the same decade Ali and Liston showed up in.

What did Jerry Quarry and Ron Lyle do better than Joe Louis?

You throw vague terms around like "evolution of the sport" but you never point out what that is.

I linked two videos showing that Louis had great footwork and could move but you just ignored them by saying the men Louis fought were unskilled bums. Well that's fortunate because Foreman is not exactly Archie Moore, is he?

The point of those videos was to show that Louis could back up and he was not static. It's right there, undeniable evidence.

And those "bums" were trained by Ray Arcel btw.

Cus D'Amato thought Louis could beat Ali.
Eddie Futch trained two of the world champs of the 70's and he thought Louis was phenomenal.