I'm probably gonna catch some flak for this, but to me Louis almost seems like the first modern HW (Tunney deserves a mention, though). Up until his era many boxers even at the elite level look terribly crude by today's standards, but after Louis they look a whole lot better. Guys like Willard, Firpo, Carnera and Baer wouldn't be near the elit level today IMO - they were far too lacking in fundamentals. But from ca 1940 onwards it looks a lot better. Not even Marciano looks nearly as crude as those mentioned. He was awkward, but effective. Guys like Walcott and Charles looks a lot slicker even than anything seen in the HW-division in recent times.
I do agree with the basis of this post, modern fundamentals essentially started from 1940s onwards. However I think the first heavyweight to use modern punching techniques and fundamentals was jack dempsey. I think he was way ahead of his time with his combination punching, head movement, footwork, and punching technique. but joe louis defintley progressed it.
BIG DEE HERE= SUZIE Q, Your thing on fundamentals is wrong very wrong as I had to fight my father when I was 15 years old. We went out back with 10oz AAU fight gloves from 1948. Yes they were horsehair padding and knocked the hell out of you. My father was born in 1919 and learned his boxing from his Great Uncles who was born in 1896 and 1898. They lived out on the family farm during the GREAT DEPRESSION on the 1930s while my dad was a street kid from Columbus, Ohio fighting the other kids off of his street corner to sell his newspapers. This was a almost daily occurance as if you didn`t defend your corner you lost it and was unable to sell your papers. He did have 5 amatuer fights going 5w 0L 4KOs before having to leave to go live out on the farm. Its where he met my mother in 1932 and were together untill she died in 1970. I ran my mouth off to him when I was 15 years old and I thought that I was to damn good for the old man at the time. I was 6' 0" and 135 lbs my PAL record was 22w 1L 16 Kos when I was stopped from fighting by my mom amd dad after I was KOed in the third rd on a fight. They found my brain was to close to my skull to take the extended punishment. I could take a great punch but the told my parents that the way my head was I would have ended up punch-drunk by the time I was 35 years old. Anyway he took me out back and decked me 7 times bloodied my nose and mouth. Generally gave me a boxing lesson and I was the best around where I lived at my age and even older guys I took apart easily. Dad boxed in the old style like you guys seem to think is crude. Right hand open facing me about chin level and left hand held open about 3" lower, out in front of his chest. I fought in the so-called modern way hands up in front of my face with the hands clinched. He blocked everything I threw at him, Jabs, hooks, right hands. It didn`t matter what I threw he either blocked or slipped them and believe me I tried to nail him with every punch. Then he unloaded on me bouncing me off the ground 7 times. I got up from every Knock-down up I looked like hell after it was over. The only comfort I received from my Mom was next time don`t run off at the mouth unless you can back it up. I friend of my fathers was a fighter from the 1950s and two of the toughest steet fighters from where I grew up started a fight with him at the local VFW post as they were both in their 20s and he was in his 40s. The one hit over the head with a full beer bottle (Budweiser long-neck) splitting his scalp 2" long and the blood just flowed everywhere. I stated to get up to go help him and my dad said just sit down you`ll just get in his way. I quickly found out what he meant as he took them both apart in short order. Putting his back against the wall with his hands up in font of his face like Ali`s rope a dope. They came at him and he KOed both of them with punches of remarkable speed and power for a man in his 40s. He was a roofer by trade and was stonger than hell. he was a Middleweight when he fought and in his 40s he didn`t go much over 170 to 175 he was always in outstanding condition. He was a fighter of those days when they fought crudely and was taught to fight by those guys who you guys say were crude fighters with on fundamentals. How do you think every generation learns to fight, it`s by the old-timers who came before. Gene Tunney sparred with James J. Corbett in the 1920s and quickly found out he was something to deal with. Tunney said he learned more in their sparring than he learned in his first 20 fights as Corbett was an old man but trying to catch him was very hard as he was tricky as hell. DON`T COUNT THE OLD TIMERS OUT JUST BECAUSE THEY FIGHT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY I FOUGHT SOME OF THOSE OLD MEN LIKE MY DAD AND THEY WERE DAMN GOOD.
Interesting anecdote, Big Dee. To me, the fact your old man got the best of you tells me more about his superiority as a fighter than the superiority of his style, but it is valuable that you, as a young modern-style lion, found him impenetrable. As you say, the old timers were in no way bums, particularly because they fought often. And excellence comes by actually doing. It is compelling that observers who saw Johnson, even after some 60 years, never considered him anything but one of the greatest fighters to lace up the gloves. Talk of "evolution" and modern-day "superiority" vis-a-vis the past began around the 90s (with the advent of steroid-inflated specimens), but I see no such thing, as the fundamentals have always been the same, though with different emphases over the ages. Steroid power is prized today; cardio conditioning and litheness were sought for the first 100 years or so of Queensbury. But throughout the fundamentals are essentially unchanged. And Jack Johnson was a master of the fundamentals. This is why he emerged from among all the extraordinary black fighters of his era to be, not an also-ran, but a man with a standing that, coming from a time of extreme prejudice, could not have been fabricated by sycophants, but could only have been forged with the backing of actual greatness. Yes, in spite of his infuriatingly arrogant attitude, he was accorded his due and given a ranking that only the truth could back up. Now, when I see Johnson on film, I see just why. Perhaps not evident at first glance due to the film's age, but I most certainly see a great: he had an excellent jab, proper and fleet footwork, fast and accurate single punches and combinations, a huge uppercut, a great feinting game, judgment of distance, great grappling ability and, yes, kayo power. He didn't always display it all at once, but this is because of his idiosyncratic way of coasting and doing as he pleased. He knew himself the master, and that was enough. Plus he feared no man and boasted superb psychology. Jack Johnson was truly a giant.
Louis was also born around 1919 and learned his boxing from guys born around 1900. But fighters active before, say, 1920, learned their stuff from guys from the 1800's and it was mostly bareknuckle based style: few jabs, few combinations, a lot of wrestling, hands low, etc. Another thing: your father was 29 when he sparred you at age 15. Of course he kicked your ass. Unless you're Mike Tyson, a 15 year old is puny compared to a matured 29 year old man at (or in that time, slightly past) the peak of his powers. You would be surprised how memory alters things. Obviously you were hugely impressed because you were such an inferior fighter compared to him in every way. That doesn't necessarily mean he had modern technique. I did very much enjoy reading your story though. If you have more, make a new thread on it. I'm sure other people are interested as well. Gotta love those old sadistic times, though. I could never knock down my 15 year old son now, let alone 7 times!
In what fights can i see him utilizing an excellent jab? I think i have all filmed fights of his and never does he really jab and move. The best i can see is jab and hold, but i wouldn't really call that an excellent or authoratative jab.
A keen student of boxing had these observations to make about Louis and his chances aganst other heavyweights. Louis is too good to be true,and he is absolutely true.In comparison with past fighters I have seen ,I beleive he would beat Dempsey on the best day Dempsey ever saw." "Louis punches faster,and he has a perfect defence against a hooker,and Dempsey was the greatest of the hookers,and never anything else.Langford was much too easy to hit to beat Louis." "Johnson ,at his best would outbox Louis ,as he is today,and I beleive,beat him on points.nobody hit Jack solidly for twelve years,Louis is a much more perfect fighting machine,but Johnson was a size larger and the greatest and stongest boxer,probably ,that ever lived." "Right now,I believe Tunney at his peak would have the best style to beat Louis.Tunney had the perfect left hand,a complete defence against a left or right hook,and a beautiful right hand counter that traveled along the shortest distance between two points" The man who wrote those words ,boxed Young Ahearn daily in the gym ,sparred with Tunney and Tom Heeney ,and went to many big fights at the old "Garden". His name? Ernest Hemingway.
Well, you cannot have Jack Johnson without an excellent left jab. First, "jab and move" was not exactly Johnson's style; rather, it was founded on his well-placed stance from which he shot out the left and, yes, usually allowed himself to fall into the clinch, because, depending on the opponent and the moment, that was part of his style, as he was adept at getting blows in on the inside. I see at least two versions of the Johnson jab: the springing way-from-behind jab and a swift, solid shoulder shot that clearly snapped back the heads of surprised foes: watch, frame by frame, his work early in Round 11 against Tommy Burns, how he dominates Ketchell with the jab and his picture-perfect left jab on Frank Moran, also in Round 11. The precious little we have of Johnson agrees with the testimony of history. Johnson did everything well. The evidence is there. By the way, notice the powerful right crosses that did in Jeffries and his proper leverage in flurrying to destroy Burns, not to mention the huge uppercut inside. The left hook seemed way too wide as a single blow, but I think he uses it better in combination.
It's very clear from the films how vastly different Louis and Johnson are. I'm not saying Johnson, with his skill and talent, couldn't have become a great modern fighter, but that style he fought with would not have made it against Louis. Louis' combinations look just like those of modern (in this case by modern I mean today's) fighters, and perfectly delivered, textbook actually. And this has nothing to do with steroids. Why did you bring steroids up in a discussion of Joe Louis? And confidence would not have helped Johnson in this matchup. It only helps when other things are equal. First round KO for the Brown Bomber in a "time machine" fight.
I whole-heartedly disagree. This is pure nostalgic sentimental hogwash. With the rise of boxing clubs throughout the US, boxing advanced by leaps and bounds as youngsters were groomed and instructed from a very early age. The germ of the Corbett and Johnson style was refined and perfected. Interesting thought, but in the end too fantastical for me. There are too many millions on the line even in today's game for an unorthodox but effective fighter not to be noticed. Byrd- for example- was considered a bit unorthodox in his prime and got paid. Ruiz, also. I do not think I am dismissing Johnson's chances because does not fit some template, rather because his skills are undeveloped compared to Louis'. I do not dismiss the past. Rather, I judge within context. Johnson was a pioneer and an excellent fighter for his times, despite the sundry questionable performances. I would not ask a Model T to outperform a Lexus but I still respect the importance of the former and its relative excellence in its time. Firstly, Denver Ed Martin is nothing more than a name seen as a victory on better known fighter's ledgers. Big guy but history affords him nothing but a footnote. Per Willard, Johnson did not "deal" with him so well. I do not disrespect these fighters. They fought in different times, without much of the historical importance we see in the sport, without great concern over blemished records or knockouts. I believe, rather, many fought merely to put a meal on the table. Later, we come back and try to pick up the pieces and make sense of their careers and abilities. For all we know, Johnson threw many of his fights, or his opponents threw them, as per a contrivance to swindle the gambling set. This is where I truly disagree. The remarks of someone of the same era as Johnson I see as being highly suspect. Surely, we all know the phenomena "back in my day, guys were tougher"... It occurs in almost all sports. I think we have hashed and rehashed this truth many times on this board. Ted knows boxing, no doubt. I have enjoyed your posts on this board for the past several years. And we are discussing many great unknowables here. I merely offer my counters and opinions based purely on study of the available materials. Louis beats Johnson rather handily.
Jack Dempsey brought nothing new to the fight game. He was just a heavyweight who did what Terry McGovern and Jack Dillon did before. Sam Langford was better all round if smaller. Frankly I wonder if John L Sullivan wasnt in Dempseys league as a puncher.
I think you are wrong here. You see Corbett and Johnson as the pioneers of modern boxing and they honestly only applied what had gone before. Jem Mace is the real father of boxing technique as we know it today.
Sentimental hogwash. You have no idea what Jem Mace brought to the sport. Nor do I. And yes, I have read innumerable pages on ol' timey fistiana. Please.
Johnson was very good at countering with his right uppercut. I think he would have beaten Louis by decision. Louis had trouble with slick counter punchers, Walcott, Charles, Schmeling, Conn, etc.
BIG DEE HERE= Where do you get my father was 29 yrs old as he was 50 when he kicked my ass in 1970. As I was born in Jan. 1955. He toook my ass apart and just before he was strick down by a stroke he told me that the proudest moment of his life as my being his son was when I got up thoses 7 times when I could have just laided down but that didn`t and got up to trake more of it. Dad said after that he knew that I would make it in life rich or poor. I looked at him and asked after all the sports growing up your proud of me taking an ass whipping and he said ya your damn right. MY OLD MAN WENT THRU HELL IN WWII WITH THE 14TH AF 23rd FG 76 FS IN KUMMING CHINA. ( FLYING TIGERS ) WENT OVER WEIGHING 168 CAME BACK WEIGHING 119LBS MY GRANDMOTHER WALKED RIGHT PASSED HIM AT THE TRAIN STATION AND DIDN`T KNOW WHO THE HELL HE WAS.