Marciano In Tyson's Era

Marciano did face a 6'2 fighter with a very good jab in joe louis. He did show he could adjust to a fighter like that.

 

Joe Louis was 6'2 214lb and had a ramrod jab. Marciano looked fine in there. Don't try to tell me Thomas Tubbs Williams etc had more skills than a even a 37 year old Louis, because they didn't.

 

Here is what Rocky in his prime would look like against the 1980s big heavyweights with the ramrod jabs. Louis certainly had a comparable skillset and jab to the 1980s heavyweights, unlike willard firpo and morris who couldn't fight there way out of a paper bag.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVHNlm9MHPM[/ame]
I think Rocky does a fantastic job bobbing and weaving in his crouch slipping that powerful elegant left jab


Checkout 7:55 very impressive stuff by Marciano. My god did those historians underrate his defense back in the day.

 

IMO prime Louis did not have a particularly great jab, thudding but not a fast raptor range controller. He also didn't typically use it to control distance, it was usually a set up shot. Which is why he didn't boss smaller men with it typically throughout his career.

This Louis was pretty far gone he had lost allot of speed and couldn't pull the trigger or see the openings any more

Still Louis won about 3 rounds and made Rocky quite silly with his jab now you mention it

Stylistically he's a different kettle of fish to a 6'5 82inch reach of Tucker with lots of lateral movement to keep range

 

That's a stretch. Joe Louis was a shell of a shell of the fighter he once was. I will state emphatically that Thomas and Tubbs had far more skill and mobility than a 37 year old Louis.

 

What the **** can we expect next ? "Tyrell Biggs was technically better than Joe Louis" ?
"Jesse Ferguson was a level above Archie Moore" ??
"Berbick had better footwork than Walcott" ???

Jokers to the front, clowns to the left. This thread. atsch

 

You seriously think a 37 year old Louis had the jab or mobility of Thomas or Tubbs? Really?

I'm sorry the ancient cruiserweights of the 50's don't stack up to the real heavyweights in their primes from the 80's and 90's. And if you want to make the argument that it is even physically possible for them to do so, please point me to the analogous 180-190 pound fighters who were ruling the roost in the division during the 80's and 90's. You have the occasional one-off like Spinks and Jones, Jr. who with clever match-making absconded with a title for a few minutes. But overall, they don't exist. Holyfield, at 6-2 1/2 with a 78" reach was a legit heavy in making. He did not peak out at 190, nor could he have maintained that weight long.

Now, let me hear more about how genetics have changed so drastically over the 2 generations that separate these era's. That was giving me a good chuckle.

 

Louis' control of distance, right hand, combinations, and general ability to pull the trigger at that point, as well as footwork were awful.

 

What's this about Thomas being mobile and slick ?
Thomas was 29, fighting like he was 39. His jab was just heavy, not particularly quick and snappy. He got hit quite easy. He'd looked laclustre against Berbick and had followed up with three fights against nobodies in which he impressed everyone as being "washed-up".
And how can you say he had far more skill ?
You say, " I will state emphatically that Thomas and Tubbs had far more skill and mobility than a 37 year old Louis."
Skill, like what ?
As for Tubbs, his run up to the Tyson fight was quite unimpressive too. His conditioning a joke, and a feather-duster hitter.
I'll concede he had fast hands and he could pull out cute moves. Not much good when you can only do it for a round in a 15 round fight though.
Tubbs had looked bad against Wimpy Halstead and Mike Jameson, for chrissakes. I can't remember which, but one of them decked him.
What was a 1950 - '51 Joe Louis doing so awful to put him beneath these mediocrities ?

 

Here is Joe Louis in 1950 around the same time

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRsAbgV3tdk[/ame]

I heavily disagree with your above statement. Sure against Marciano or Charles he didn't look like a great fighter, but put him in with your average contender, and he looked devastating still at 37.

Louis left jab, left hook, ring savvy, fundamentals, technique, skills, defense were still outstanding. He was also a big man.

 

I just re-watched Tubbs and Thomas, particular the versions Tyson fought. They looked aging, weathered, and there jabs did not have any more steam or snap on them than old Joe Louis' did. I also watched there fundamentals, and I didn't see them do anything in the ring that Joe Louis couldn't do. A 37 year Louis was still a very hard fighter to outpoint .

A shell of Joe Louis stills looks as impressive as a past his prime Pinklon Thomas. Where is this 'Far more' skill that tubbs and thomas displayed? as far as im concerned, Louis was the better technical fighter, and seemed far more active with his jab than they did

 

why you quoting Louise Redknapp songs, bro?

 

Seamus,


1980s fighters didn't do anything better than the 1950s fighters did. 1950s heavyweights had excellent head movement, upperbody movement, slick footwork, high gaurd, powerful jabs, combination punching. Don't confuse the 1950's heavyweights with the heavyweights from Jeffries era.

 

Ummmm no, Louis was in with plenty of average contenders pre-Marciano and he did not look devastating, he scored something like 2 KOs in 10 fights. He didn't have the reactions to punch when he'd see the openings, thats a shot fighter.

 

Berbick lost to S.T.Gordon.
Smith dropped the decision to Marvis Frazier.
6'5 Tucker was lucky to get the win against 5'9 Orlin Norris.
Are these really the crop of "Super heavy monsters" you want to claim superior to "1950s cruisers" who went by such names as Walcott, Charles and Moore ?

At 35 years old it was Larry Holmes who lost to the 199 pound Michael Spinks. Careful matchmaking ? Maybe. But also the number 1 heavyweight of the era, arguably.
Tyson fought a 38 year old Holmes !