Joe Louis vs. Harry Greb

People who criticize the low guard of the era, often don't understand the fundamentals of boxing stances.

Fighters from Louis's era generally used a low guard, because they fought in an off center stance, which kept you out of the way of the other fighters right hand, and enabled you to evade it with a very subtle movement.

If you use a more central stance, as is commonplace today, then you are thee to be hit unless you keep your hands up.

Even so, there are still fighters with that stance, who have considerable success with a low guard.

 

Awesome ty for the info!

I & others have noticed a tendency towards an 'I hit you then you hit me' approach in today's fight game, whereas older fights seemed to exhibit a bit more blending of offense & defense, perhaps even more extended exchanges between combatants, than what we see generally today. I wonder if the low guard stance was found to be more effective for some in that situation.

 

I thought exactly the same thing - it was about Louis not recoiling his jab back to the defensive position.

However, it is interesting how history allows for neatly packaged descriptions which may or may not be entirely accurate.

I just watched a few rounds of the first Schmeling fight to refresh myself.

McGrain was correct in stating that many held their left as low as Joe did - certainly Max’s own left was held no higher than Joe’s..

My observation, and many might disagree - (which is, of course, cool), is:-

Joe’s left was already in a low position before punching - which is where it returned to after jabbing.

Even though Joe’s left was held low, when he did fire the right, Max only mainly did so I’m counter after Joe jabbed.

When the left was in its holster, readied, albeit low, Max wasn’t shooting the right hand so much - and Joe was also using his right hand to parry.

So, I think Joe’s perceived vulnerability might be a tad inflated - particularly if one doesn’t look from Schmeling’s end and account for how well Max timed his fully loaded counters - which weren’t thrown upon every jab and less so when Joe’s left hand was in the holster.

It was a great strategy on Max’s part - but still anchored in beautifully timed counter, his own courage and durability - since we can see still see that Max copped a good measure of licks himself - others might’ve gone by the way side earlier in the fight given what Max absorbed.

Fast forward to the rematch. Louis left hand was notably held much much higher in readied guard. Max still held his own left where was always positioned.

Even so, before Joe began shelling Max, there was an instance when Joe jabbed and was left open in that moment, Max tried for a big right counter - but it missed and not because Joe’s left was on guard (his jab was just coming back) - but because Joe was just out of range.

 

I onl

I only see Greb listed at a 71" wingspan, but it's a tiny difference.

Conn vs. Greb?
I never thought about that match up, but with Greb's speed & ability to swarm, & Conn not outsizing him in bulk like Tunney (& COnn was past his prime for most of those fights), I do not see how Conn's in & out speed would beat the volume of Greb.
Well he might win, but it does not seem the most likely outcome.
WHy do you pick Conn?

 

Excellent posts.

Kevin and i had an enjoyable debate per Joe Louis' perceived weakness to right hand counters.

He put forth some clips showing Louis getting dropped by Walcott and opined that the weakness was never really shored up. I then put forth multiple short clips from the same fight where Walcott (after dropping him previous) went for the same punch but Joe had instantly adapted and negated the threat thru not only multiple different defensive maneuvers but also counters of the counter. Unfortunately the platform we were whacking the clips on went down sometime later and it was lost.

I saw one "poster" claim the other day that Louis never adapted in fights, only in rematches. Of course that someone just DKSAB.

 

Great post!

 

Fine input!

 

Really? Louis fought with 6-8 once gloves. They were very light, not the standard 12 once gloves today. The extra weight drains a little bit of stamina and offers more protection from punches. Some fighters can get away with low hands, that is true. But they have quick feet, head movement, ducking ability or can lean back and uses the reach like say Ali did. Louis was not a fighter to do this.

As such his defense wasn't good...with the smaller lighter gloves. He was rather open to shots vs skilled men. Schmeling was the same size and he could not miss. Nor could Walcott when he threw punches. Actually Tommy Farr went to town on Louis when he opened up, ad even stunned Louis is round 11 with his jab. Of course we can seen Conn in film too. Unskilled guys like Galento and Baer floored Louis as did medium speed and non power puncher Jimmy Braddock. All guys had less reach or in one cases were equal to Louis. Were was the defense?

Louis did not protect his head or face well. With gloves, his guard, his feet ,or ducking ability.

 

"McGrain, wrote post: Really?" what? I have no idea what you are referring to.

>>> I am saying that the gloves Louis uses were Punchers gloves and landed faster and drained less stamina. Advantage Louis.

McGrain I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you think I think that the heavier gloves make people more tired or something? This part of your post makes no sense to me.

>>Yes


McGrain: This is more rubbish. Most fighters wore their hands low in this era, it doesn't matter what they "had".

>>> some fighters of the times had good defense despite a low guard is what I am saying,

McGrain. Yes, we know. He had no defence. His chin wasn't great. He was slow. He was weak against quick boxers, which somehow inlcudes Godoy. But he was also weak against pressure fighters, which includes Godoy again. Technically he wasn't good because of hand placement.


>> That is what the film says. You can't have it both ways. Either his chin was not strong or his defense left him susceptible to knockdowns. Which is it? I am asking you McGrain because it happed a lot ... and not all the opponents were skilled boxers. This doest not include the times Louis was stunned in film which happen more than once n fights where he did not go down. Lack of defense.

 

How tf am i supposed to answer this question if no footage of Greb exist?

 

It seems like Mendoza got fed up of trashing Jack Johnson so has moved on you Joe Louis. Meanwhile he'll tell you Filip Hrgovic is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

As for lack of defence , whats a jab? If guys wanted to get repeatedly stiffened with one of the best jab ever just to land a single blow , well have at it.
The fights show they all succumbed eventually to Joe's hitting power.

 

Louis defense was as I pointed out. Suspect which is why he has hit that cleanly in fights where he didn't blow out his competition in his era. sometimes less than skilled guy exposed his lack of defense. The examples are numerous. Would he get hit as often today?! Thats an entirely differnet question, not that you are asking this one.

You avoided my question, though and did not even quote it.

" You can't have it both ways. Either his chin was not strong or his defense left him susceptible to knockdowns. Which is it? I am asking you McGrain because it happed a lot ... and not all the opponents were skilled boxers. This doest not include the times Louis was stunned in film which happen more than once n fights where he did not go down. Lack of defense "

Once again McGrain which is it?