Tommy Morrison vs. Joe Louis

Louis outboxed Walcott in the rematch, outlanded him, outslicked him and stopped him. Joe was way past his best and yet he beat Walcott cleanly in the rematch, despite his reaction time being far worse than throughout his prime.

 

What you guys aren't getting is that he is taking a position that's impossible to prove right or wrong. He claims Louis economic movement only worked in his outdated "trash" era and wouldn't work against modern boxers with good movement.

Since there were (allegedly) no boxers in Louis' era that had good movement, he can argue for another 50 pages claiming Louis would not be able to adjust and win against modern guys. As for Walcott, he will just keep saying the result isn't important since the only time he faced a guy with modern movement he struggled (while sprinkling in other supporting evidence like Walcott simply wasn't big enough/athletic enough or had yet to truly master "modern" movement which he can keep vague and refuse to define).

It's the same type of lazy argument people make when they say the only big puncher Frazier faced was Foreman and he got stopped--therefore Frazier would lose to any other modern big puncher.

The biggest flaw in this approach is that he can't prove his position right either because modern guys do not fight guys who fight with Louis style of movement either. He's basically a hamster in a wheel. You can simply flip it around and claim modern guys would not be able to neutralize Louis economic movement and point out that nobody beat Louis with so called modern movement.

 

In some ways it's worse than that, because unlike "economic movement," the term "modern" he's using has no real meaning that he will commit to. It might as well be the word "blik" or "brillig," or another nonsense word.

In fact, he puts in an extraordinarily large amount of effort into not defining what he's talking about, and refusing to give analysis.

I don't really think it's going to go anywhere, no matter how many pages it goes. The thread, I think, has served its purpose. Whatever needed to be said has already been said.

See y'all later on this one.

 

What? He was away down on points for the re-match with Walcott.

 

Was he? I only watched incomplete version available on YT, but Louis outlanded Walcott in what we have. Outside of flash KD, Walcott didn't look better at all.

I'd like to watch more complete fight if it's available though.

 

The second fight is available in full. Walcott was well ahead. He got cute and was caught.

 

It's not though, please post it here if you can find it.

 

This content is protected

It starts around the 12 minute mark. Not what you asked for but here it is. Walcott up on 2 Judges cards.

 

It's not full fight though. The fight lasted 10 full rounds, which is over 30 minutes of action. We have less than 15 minutes available.

In these minutes that we have, Walcott did more showboating and tried to be more agressive, but his attacks were not effective in most cases. Louis made him miss a lot.

 

facts but you left out jers style wasnt the same he was going toe to toe moving almost the same as joe

you left it out cause like I always say which you know im right and always have been joe moved bad cause the 1st match he looked basic like the rest

 

when trolls post a vid of joe moving like a modern ill argee

 

Not really.

 

In the last 20 years we've had numerous champions/belt holders with numerous styles.

Brewster
Sanders
Peter
Ruiz
Vitali
Stiverne
Wladmir
Martin
Haye
Wilder
Valuev
Parker
Joshua

Out of everyone on that list, the only one remotely similar to Fury is Haye, who had his own unique set of abilities and tricks different from Fury. And none of them fight like Usyk at all.

On this list we have sluggers, pressure fighters, movers, counter punchers, outside fighters, boxer punchers, etc. Other than Wladmir's long reign, the title bounced around quite a bit depending on the matchup.

Isn't it strange for someone to take the position that Louis would absolutely need to have advanced modern movement and use his legs when maybe 3 belt holders in the last 20 years can be described with such vague adjectives? There are quite a few names on the list above who fight fairly flat footed and don't use a lot of angles or upper body movement.

And we haven't even scratched the surface because we can bring up contenders ranked in the top 10 for the last 20 years as well.

 

That's not true, Walcott fought the same fight as in the first one. Louis made adjustments and forced Walcott to engage more, but it wasn't by Walcott's choice.

Louis wasn't more mobile in the second fight, he actually fought more patient fight.

You also fail to see that Louis was way past his prime at this point, yet he beat Walcott twice.

 

your saying it agian it doesnt matter that he won the before matters only and no jers didnt fight the same he stopped moving as much and using angles

I already know joe didnt move more he always fought the same