These two are probably the HWs that comes closest to Louis in terms of all round text book skills and technique, both are very well rounded I would say. But who do you give the nod of these two in this department?
Walcott was not textbook. He was a great fighter but he was a cutie, very unorthodox. He kept his hands low and threw punches from odd angles, but he was great at anticipating, countering, and using the ring to his advantage. Very slick, one of the slickest HW's on film. His hooker-cut counter KO of Ezzard Charles is one of the best KO's of all time. But as to the question, Holyfield was a more textbook boxer.
Yeah, you're probably right, thinking about it. Let's say "well rounded", then. Because they were both almost as good on the inside as on the outside. I should really watch more of Walcott, I think he could become a favourite of mine. The way he decks Louis in the first round in their first fight... absolutely incredible.
Holy was better at using basic skills alot of the times his heart would kick in and he would just abandom them..Walcott was wayyyy slicker.
.............I'd say Walcott. For every, "yeah, but he was so unorthodox" argument you might get, you could just as easily counter with "Holyfield was too porous defensively and abandoned his boxing in favor of a war." In terms of savvy and pure boxing learnedness (is that even a word?), Holyfield can't hold a candle to Walcott.
I think Gene Tunney and Ezzard Charles had better textbook technique/skills than either Walcott or Holyfield. Holyfield had good textbook boxing skills/technique, but with gaps, and had a tendency to abandon it and slug. Walcott was not really so much of a "textbook"-skilled boxer, but in terms of slickness, unpredictability and ring savvy, he's perhaps unmatched in the heavyweight division.
That was my thought, as well. It might have been textbook for the time, but I meant textbook according to modern maxims. But let's not get hung up on "textbook", let's say well rounded or over all skills, or something like that.
Jersey Joe is most def one of my all-time favourite.The man had mad skills.Too cocky by far in the ring tho'...and with HWs,it's suicidal to stand there with your hands down by you stomach... He still outboxed Joe Louis silly...until he got caught.The way he countered Joe was classic...the way he turned as Joe was firing...at the same time unleashing right hand was sheer brilliance.joe never saw it coming before hitting the deck. Jersey Joe was one of the most skilled HWs in history.
When Holyfield is on his toes looking to box, he looks as text book as anybody. His problem is when he plays the roll of the aggressor. He places too much weight on the front foot, and looks more like he's interested in initiating a trade sequence than he is applying effective pressure. This is why he looks so bad when facing smaller fighters that move away from him. Walcott's combinations may not be as pretty to watch as some of Evander's, but few heavyweight's are. Walcott was much more cagey and cerebral in his approach.
Very good point. Holyfield never dominated fighters (Cooper, Dokes, etc.) like he should have. In every fight he had a war, so I agree, Walcott, although pretty unorthodox, was more text book...
Walcott was the antithesis of "textbook" being a slick, unorthodox "cutie". His was an improvised style, not textbook. As for Holyfield, as observed earlier, he was just as likely to abandon any textbook technique he had to brawl and follow his heart. Louis was far more disciplined and textbook oriented than either one of them. There is, however, no comparing Walcott and Holyfield when it came to cleverness, and cunning. Walcott was far wilier and clever than Evander ever was. Textbook discipline is best illustrated by the examples of Louis, Tunney, Charles and at lightheavy, Harold Johnson, Tommy Loughran and Joey Maxim.
