Balance: Napoles & Louis

Another Wylie video here:

http://www.thefightcity.com/practical-precision-jose-napoles-joe-louis/

Louis balance always seemed to be a problem when he fought someone decent...

Had balance problems against a 170 pounder once I believe..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Louis balance always seemed to be a problem when he fought someone decent...

Had balance problems against a 170 pounder once I believe..

Louis had superb balance - he found Conn in the end.

He was one of the most technically adroit heavyweights of all time - perhaps only Liston pips him in that regard.

It's not the greatest video this one haz. I'm not saying our fellow north easterner doesn't know his onions, but are they really the best clips he can find to show footwork. The napoles opponent was knocked off balance in the instance he slowmo's so hardly show casing the bad footwork he's accused of at the point shown, and in the Louis clip, the opponent (max Baer) had just got up from a knockdown so was pretty groggy... And even then Louis takes an air shot and spins himself round showing awful balance.

Not taking issue with his concept, just a lazy choice of clips in my opinion.

I'll leave it to fingers or someone with a better technical understanding of the sport than me for a technical analysis, but guys with the shuffle style footwork might be economic, well balanced and well set, but they can tend to move in straight lines and sometimes be predictable with it.  Are we saying that rigo, mayweather, Leonard don't have good footwork because it's not like joe louis'?

Anyway, all good to stimulate debate, keep em coming.... I'm sure this won't degenerate into another Louis spat

milkyboy wrote:It's not the greatest video this one haz. I'm not saying our fellow north easterner doesn't know his onions, but are they really the best clips he can find to show footwork. The napoles opponent was knocked off balance in the instance he slowmo's so hardly show casing the bad footwork he's accused of at the point shown, and in the Louis clip, the opponent (max Baer) had just got up from a knockdown so was pretty groggy... And even then Louis takes an air shot and spins himself round showing awful balance.

Not taking issue with his concept, just a lazy choice of clips in my opinion.

I'll leave it to fingers or someone with a better technical understanding of the sport than me for a technical analysis, but guys with the shuffle style footwork might be economic, well balanced and well set, but they can tend to move in straight lines and sometimes be predictable with it.  Are we saying that rigo, mayweather, Leonard don't have good footwork because it's not like joe louis'?

Anyway, all good to stimulate debate, keep em coming.... I'm sure this won't degenerate into another Louis spat

Good post! I thought the same about the Louis clip. Rigo moves around the ring superbly well (anyone who can outbox a guy way taller than him from the outside is doing something right) but his footwork let him down for the knockdown (first one - second looked more of a push).

I don't think anyone's knocking the guys you mention (Mayweather no longer has good legs mind you) - think he was denigrating that shuffle business.

Mayweather and Leonard used to move beautifully. The likes of Chavez and Golovkin use a more subtle style which is equally effective.

He'd have been better off slowing this down:

https://youtu.be/K3PpR12yaRs

Can't watch the videos for the time being, but will just give my two pence worth in the meantime.

Don't think there's much debate about Napoles' feet. He was well-suited to his 'Mantequilla' nickname and his ability to hunt down the likes of Cokes (that first fight is absolutely stunning from Napoles, well worth checking out) and Charles, slipping shots by mere inches on his way in and still being in position to counter despite being almost exclusively on the front foot was pretty remarkable.

I can't find any real issue with Louis' balance, but his footwork can definitely divide opinion. See, I think you can have good footwork in close-up situations, but that's different to actually being mobile. Louis had the former, but wasn't the latter at all and wasn't adept at chasing guys who were fleet-footed. Fortunately for him, that kind of description hasn't applied to all that many Heavyweights. Against the likes of Baer, Schmeling etc you can see that he was good at making small adjustments when he had his guy where he wanted them (at close quarters) and where he could let go with big exchanges, measuring his man and taking that half-step back before letting a hook go, but when there was space between him and his opponent he could look pretty shuffly, predictable and basic from the waist down.

Technically I think Louis was outstanding, but I put that more down to his accuracy, hand speed, temperament and power than his balance and footwork. It's interesting that Louis' merits, both in terms of his record and his skills, tend to polarise so much. I tend to fall in the middle on both fronts, effectively. I enjoy watching his fights, always have, and will always be quick to praise the ability he had, but at the same time there's a tendency from the real Louis die-hards to (in my opinion) overstate just how brilliant he was in all departments, perhaps as a retaliation to them not liking the fact that Ali is better know, generally ranked as the greater fighter and would be most people's pick (I imagine) in a hypothetical match up between the pair.

In terms of record, it was exemplary and only Ali betters it as a Heavyweight - but let's be honest, if he'd have campaiged in another weight class there's no way in a million years he'd be gatecrashing the same amount of historians' pound for pound top ten lists as he does today. It's treated as a sign of disprespect towards Louis (or a byword for knowing nothing about boxing) when his record is scrutinised against those of other greats, whereas all you're really doing is taking an objective view of things.

88Chris05 wrote:Can't watch the videos for the time being, but will just give my two pence worth in the meantime.

Don't think there's much debate about Napoles' feet. He was well-suited to his 'Mantequilla' nickname and his ability to hunt down the likes of Cokes (that first fight is absolutely stunning from Napoles, well worth checking out) and Charles, slipping shots by mere inches on his way in and still being in position to counter despite being almost exclusively on the front foot was pretty remarkable.

I can't find any real issue with Louis' balance, but his footwork can definitely divide opinion. See, I think you can have good footwork in close-up situations, but that's different to actually being mobile. Louis had the former, but wasn't the latter at all and wasn't adept at chasing guys who were fleet-footed. Fortunately for him, that kind of description hasn't applied to all that many Heavyweights. Against the likes of Baer, Schmeling etc you can see that he was good at making small adjustments when he had his guy where he wanted them (at close quarters) and where he could let go with big exchanges, measuring his man and taking that half-step back before letting a hook go, but when there was space between him and his opponent he could look pretty shuffly, predictable and basic from the waist down.

Technically I think Louis was outstanding, but I put that more down to his accuracy, hand speed, temperament and power than his balance and footwork. It's interesting that Louis' merits, both in terms of his record and his skills, tend to polarise so much. I tend to fall in the middle on both fronts, effectively. I enjoy watching his fights, always have, and will always be quick to praise the ability he had, but at the same time there's a tendency from the real Louis die-hards to (in my opinion) overstate just how brilliant he was in all departments, perhaps as a retaliation to them not liking the fact that Ali is better know, generally ranked as the greater fighter and would be most people's pick (I imagine) in a hypothetical match up between the pair.

In terms of record, it was exemplary and only Ali betters it as a Heavyweight - but let's be honest, if he'd have campaiged in another weight class there's no way in a million years he'd be gatecrashing the same amount of historians' pound for pound top ten lists as he does today. It's treated as a sign of disprespect towards Louis (or a byword for knowing nothing about boxing) when his record is scrutinised against those of other greats, whereas all you're really doing is taking an objective view of things.

I think his accuracy and power were a direct result of his fantastic balance. There haven't been many heavyweights better at shifting their weight onto their front foot when punching (Holyfield was excellent also).

I've been (perhaps overly) defensive regarding Louis in the past. That isn't anything to do with Ali (who has the better record and who I think would have won a head-to-head) - more the fact that some posters talk about him as though he's a poor man's Jonathon Banks.

And I'm pretty sure an undisputed lightweight champion who reigned for the length of time Louis did would be equally as revered. It was an outstanding championship tenure.

Not sure about that, Haz. Louis was the only fighter drawing million dollar gates in his pomp, the first to do so since Dempsey - another Heavyweight champion. A year or so after Louis retired (1953, I think), the Associated Press named Dempsey as the greatest fighter of all time, ahead of guys such as Robinson, Armstrong, Greb etc, all of whom who boasted records that stood Dempsey's on its head. Up until around that point, it was the norm for whoever the Heavyweight champion was to be referred to as the greatest fighter in the world, regardless of how good the lower weight classes were. The Heavyweight division (and its crown) still held a prestige and glamour which saw it dominate the landscape and as such guys like Louis, Dempsey and Johnson all get inflated pound for pound rankings, in my opinion anyway.

They may not have racked up the same numbers as Louis in terms of title defences, but I'd put his ligher contemporaries (primes might not have ran exactly side by side, but you get my drift) such as Ross, Charles and Pep all ahead of him when it comes to their body of work across their careers. However when it comes to the opinions of the hoary old list compilers, Louis out-ranking those kind of names is pretty common.

I have to say the only place I have seen Louis' merits polarizing opinion has been on this website, nowhere else. Every other forum I read Louis is regarded as a lock in Top 10 P4P ATG and the greatest puncher of all time. The only anomaly is on 606v2.

Part of what makes us the greatest, most knowledgeable forum in the whole wide world, Strongy!

As I said above, Louis out-ranking all but maybe two or three names on a regular basis is common in most places, but I maintain that if those people were asked to formulate a proper argument as to why Louis should be considered a greater overall fighter (fighter, not figure) than someone like Benny Leonard, Barney Ross, Pernell Whitaker or Willie Pep, guys who make some people's top tens but aren't absolute guarantees, they'd struggle. If we're going on historical significance to the sport, his deeds as a man, helping to break down barriers etc then there's no question, but outside of that I don't think it's clear by any means.

Louis is clearly a greater fighter than Wladimir whichever standards or paramaters you judge them by - but I'd contend they're not judged by the same standards, and that's the thing. Certainly Louis wasn't crucified for his frequently over-matched and undeserving opponents during his title reign the way Wladimir is now. Had Wladimir and Donaire been around in the thirties / forties and peaking at the same time (as they have done in recent times, for all intents and purposes) then even at the height of his powers I doubt Donaire would have been ranked as the better fighter with a more impressive CV - fastforward to a time when there's a general apathy towards the Heavyweight division and we've embraced the smaller guys a bit more, and you'd probably have been laughed off this forum a couple of years back if you ranked Wlad higher than Donaire pound for pound.

As I said, I don't think there's much doubt that being a Heavyweight at a time when the division was the one dominating the share of money, TV and radio coverage in the sport helps his status. Magnificent fighter but I think he, along with a few others, gets quite a bit of protection when it comes to having his record picked apart or when the all-time greats are being evaluated. Louis was a fantastic fighter but in around 130 years of gloved boxing is it really that fanciful (or disrespectful / ignorant towards Louis) to argue that there have easily been at least ten men who have been better when you combine who they've beaten, the skills they possessed, the disadvantages they made light of, their ring IQ, how they've performed against the best fighters they've faced etc?

To value Louis people must first begin with his offensive skills which are second to no fighter.  His KO punch in both hands at short range is unequalled in the sport.  People talk about Louis' economical footwork, how many of today's fighters can stay within punching range and not get hit when on the offensive.  We have seen Floyd Jr stand in range in recent fights as his legs are aging and he is shipping an awful lot of punches, this given I have read in many 606v2 lists that Floyd is a greater fighter than Ray Leonard.  Not everything written around here makes sense. I have read Joffre being ranked as high as 7th while Louis is ranked 25th.  How does that make sense?

Joe Louis is the text book on offensive fighting and that is his genius.  At 14 stone he also felled fighters the size of Wlad and many of his best opponents are too easily dismissed around here.  Louis still has the stat records all these years later and he was fighting a much higher caliber of opponent than Wlad is today.

It is easy to pick on a fighters perceived weakness but I feel we need to be more generous in assessing his best attributes.

Louis was a fantastic champion for his era and is top 2 (though a million miles from Ali)

On a head to head basis at least a half dozen guys could beat him in my opinion.

Who?

Ali? Foreman? Lewis? Vit? Holmes? Liston?

TopHat24/7 wrote:Who?

Ali? Foreman? Lewis? Vit? Holmes? Liston?

You read my mind, also could pick Tyson.

I think louis vs Frazier is a pick em.

Strongback wrote:I have to say the only place I have seen Louis' merits polarizing opinion has been on this website, nowhere else. Every other forum I read Louis is regarded as a lock in Top 10 P4P ATG and the greatest puncher of all time.  The only anomaly is on 606v2.  

Not my experience. He is usually top 10, but is frequently 10-20 in the lists I've seen posted. I'd say on average he's in the top 10, but not a lock in. As for pound for pound greatest puncher? Well that will be the ring list from the early 2000s where you had to dead for fifty years to make the top 10?

Louis was a fearsome puncher but the idea that he's the nailed on p4p biggest puncher in history in the minds if all but a misguided few on here is fanciful.

As it goes I think its tough for heavies to make p4p lists, as they don't have the weight jumping opportunities afforded to others. I also think p4p lists across the ages, take the thankless task of comparing eras and weight classes and make it exponentially more impossible by comparing the two. Its just a bit of fun/pub talk and its all just personal opinion.

Whichever, your points are just to imply that anyone who doesn't have Louis nailed on top 10 p4p, must be an idiot. I'd say I've seen plenty of people who's opinion I respect, have Louis top 5 p4p.. And others who I respect having him 10-20. And I've seen plenty of idiots on other forums who have him top 10, fighting for space with Calzaghe and Tyson. It is what it is.

He was a great fighter, one of the greatest ever... Just like a bunch of others of various sizes over the last 120 years or so.

Klitschko has only recently established himself as the best heavyweight in the world - the majority of his title reign ran alongside his brother's. Louis was the man for more than a decade - how many other, lighter weight fighters ever achieved that?

Louis had excellent footwork. He was beautifully balanced and always in a position to punch. While he didn't motor around the ring like Ali, he also didn't leave himself as wide open (which cost Ali dearly once his reflexes dulled). Much is made of the Conn fight on here (way too much) - even Ali would have struggled to catch up with Conn (who was incredibly quick on his feet for a heavyweight). Ali and Foreman struggled with Jimmy Young lest we forget.

I think Louis's ring IQ is completely underrated: the way he set up his knockouts and cut off the ring is almost certainly less flashy than a shuffle or a bolo punch - but far more effective.

And had Donaire and Klitschko boxed back in the day, we'd have had the luxury of not feeling the need to discuss the wretched P4P nonsense (a silly byproduct of diluted world championships)!

Strongback wrote:To value Louis people must first begin with his offensive skills which are second to no fighter.  His KO punch in both hands at short range is unequalled in the sport.  People talk about Louis' economical footwork, how many of today's fighters can stay within punching range and not get hit when on the offensive.  We have seen Floyd Jr stand in range in recent fights as his legs are aging and he is shipping an awful lot of punches, this given I have read in many 606v2 lists that Floyd is a greater fighter than Ray Leonard.  Not everything written around here makes sense. I have read Joffre being ranked as high as 7th while Louis is ranked 25th.  How does that make sense?

Joe Louis is the text book on offensive fighting and that is his genius.  At 14 stone he also felled fighters the size of Wlad and many of his best opponents are too easily dismissed around here.  Louis still has the stat records all these years later and he was fighting a much higher caliber of opponent than Wlad is today.

It is easy to pick on a fighters perceived weakness but I feel we need to be more generous in assessing his best attributes.

If Klitschko had established himself as top man 10 years back and had been setting fire to opponents in the manner he did the last guy - I'd have no issue ranking him alongside Louis.

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:I have to say the only place I have seen Louis' merits polarizing opinion has been on this website, nowhere else. Every other forum I read Louis is regarded as a lock in Top 10 P4P ATG and the greatest puncher of all time.  The only anomaly is on 606v2.  

As for pound for pound greatest puncher? Well that will be the ring list from the early 2000s where you had to dead for fifty years to make the top 10?

.

I think there were quite a few current fighters on that Ring list Milky, even Hamed.


A couple of years ago McGrain named Louis as the Greatest Composite Puncher of All Time.

http://www.boxing.com/the_15_greatest_composite_punchers_of_all_time.html


As a package Louis' technical prowess, punch variety, speed, power, combination punching and finishing is unequalled.

As an offensive puncher Louis had it all. It's the basis of who he was as a fighter.

If Louis is such a machine, then why did he struggle with Conn?

Could you see Tyson or Foreman struggle with a little guy still at the light heavy limit?

AdamT wrote:If Louis is such a machine, then why did he struggle with Conn?

Could you see Tyson or Foreman struggle with a little guy still at the light heavy limit?

Foreman struggled with Jimmy Young. The weight gap between Foreman and Young (16 lbs) wasn't that far away from Louis and Conn (25). Ali struggled with Doug Jones (who weighed 188).

Conn - a guy Matt McGrain rated 27th all time - was unusually quick for a heavyweight. Louis, also, possibly didn't take the fight as seriously as he might.

AdamT wrote:If Louis is such a machine, then why did he struggle with Conn?

Could you see Tyson or Foreman struggle with a little guy still at the light heavy limit?

Joe Louis KO'd Billy Conn. Just thought I'd mention it.


Check out this video of Big George from the 39.30min mark.

Fair enough but Ali wasn't exactly a fearsome puncher or the champ at the time.

Foreman was mentally not the same fighter that brutalized Frazier vs Young.

Strongback wrote:

AdamT wrote:If Louis is such a machine, then why did he struggle with Conn?

Could you see Tyson or Foreman struggle with a little guy still at the light heavy limit?

Joe Louis KO'd Billy Conn. Just thought I'd mention it.


Check out this video of Big George from the 39.30min mark.

Can't see the video at work.

Will watch it later

Tyson did struggle with someone as unremarkable as Douglas - would Louis have?

And Foreman struggled with Young (losing to him).

ffs Douglas is a 6 foot 4 heavyweight, not a light heavy!

How do you think Louis would do against Tyson?

Be honest with your answer.

AdamT wrote:ffs Douglas is a 6 foot 4 heavyweight, not a light heavy!

And Valuev is/was a 7 ft+ heavy, did that mean he was any good.......??!

TopHat24/7 wrote:

AdamT wrote:ffs Douglas is a 6 foot 4 heavyweight, not a light heavy!

And Valuev is/was a 7 ft+ heavy, did that mean he was any good.......??!

Billy Conn doesn't see past the first round against Tyson!

Strongback wrote:To value Louis people must first begin with his offensive skills which are second to no fighter.  His KO punch in both hands at short range is unequalled in the sport.  People talk about Louis' economical footwork, how many of today's fighters can stay within punching range and not get hit when on the offensive.  We have seen Floyd Jr stand in range in recent fights as his legs are aging and he is shipping an awful lot of punches, this given I have read in many 606v2 lists that Floyd is a greater fighter than Ray Leonard.  Not everything written around here makes sense. I have read Joffre being ranked as high as 7th while Louis is ranked 25th.  How does that make sense?

Joe Louis is the text book on offensive fighting and that is his genius.  At 14 stone he also felled fighters the size of Wlad and many of his best opponents are too easily dismissed around here.  Louis still has the stat records all these years later and he was fighting a much higher caliber of opponent than Wlad is today.

It is easy to pick on a fighters perceived weakness but I feel we need to be more generous in assessing his best attributes.

Louis was 6'2 and weighed 200lb in his early reign and c 205  generally in his prime. That wasn't small for his era. Taller but not significantly lighter than punchers like Frazier, shavers, Tyson, who all felled a few trees decades later. Ali himself was sub 210 for a fair few of his earlier title fights. The giants louis knocked out... Carnera, buddy Baer, Simon? Hardly a who's who is it?

Here's the ring 100.
Http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_100_Greatest_Punchers_of_All-Time!

First living fighter at no. 9, my bad.

The mcgrain piece got debated at length on here I think? His definition of composite being, more a mix of skill and power. On that basis lewis is certainly right up there. On one punch power... I think Braddock said max Baer hit harder than Louis, just Louis hit him hard and often, which probably is a fair analysis of one punch power v 'composite'.

AdamT wrote:How do you think Louis would do against Tyson?

Be honest with your answer.

Hard to say as Tyson, particularly in his three years as champ, never fought an opponent as good as Louis. Prime confident Tyson could knock anybody out early on but if Louis connected, and he had the accuracy, it's a totally different fight.

Douglas was very good Toppy and that night he was brilliant, he'd have wiped the floor with Conn.

Too much with regards to Louis is taken as gospel and unquestionable, he was a superb fight but not beyond criticism.

AdamT wrote:Fair enough but Ali wasn't exactly a fearsome puncher or the champ at the time.

Foreman was mentally not the same fighter that brutalized Frazier vs Young.

So you're happy to mitigate Ali and Foreman's performances but not Louis's?

Was Louis mentally there for Conn? I highly doubt it. Got him in the end, though. And then beat him again.

Conn was a 170lb fighter. I can't accept struggling against a fighter of that weight when you weigh over 200 and have power.

I have never used Louis losses against him because everyone losses.

Ooh I say... need to really find that popcorn emoji. Wait till Truss gets here!!

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

AdamT wrote:ffs Douglas is a 6 foot 4 heavyweight, not a light heavy!

And Valuev is/was a 7 ft+ heavy, did that mean he was any good.......??!

Billy Conn doesn't see past the first round against Tyson!

Absolutely ............

Conn nearly beats Louis.................Spinks wins by decision....

What happened to Spinks again.....

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

AdamT wrote:ffs Douglas is a 6 foot 4 heavyweight, not a light heavy!

And Valuev is/was a 7 ft+ heavy, did that mean he was any good.......??!

Billy Conn doesn't see past the first round against Tyson!

And?

You're confusing your own rhetoric.

Point is, pretty much all heavyweights had 'lesser' oppos against whom they struggled at some point.

Louis struggled with (but ko'd) Conn.
Foreman struggled with and lost to Young.
Tyson struggled with and lost to Douglas.

Even the greatest struggled with and lost to quite a few (albeit, in Norton & Frazier, better fights than Conn, Young & Douglas).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Douglas was very good Toppy and that night he was brilliant, he'd have wiped the floor with Conn.

Too much with regards to Louis is taken as gospel and unquestionable, he was a superb fight but not beyond criticism.

What, like he did with 'Mike White', Jesse Ferguson and Tony Tucker??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

AdamT wrote:ffs Douglas is a 6 foot 4 heavyweight, not a light heavy!

And Valuev is/was a 7 ft+ heavy, did that mean he was any good.......??!

Billy Conn doesn't see past the first round against Tyson!

Absolutely  ............

Conn nearly beats Louis.................Spinks wins by decision....

What happened to Spinks again.....

At what point of being KTFO does it constitute 'nearly beating' the guy who's just splattered you??

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:To value Louis people must first begin with his offensive skills which are second to no fighter.  His KO punch in both hands at short range is unequalled in the sport.  People talk about Louis' economical footwork, how many of today's fighters can stay within punching range and not get hit when on the offensive.  We have seen Floyd Jr stand in range in recent fights as his legs are aging and he is shipping an awful lot of punches, this given I have read in many 606v2 lists that Floyd is a greater fighter than Ray Leonard.  Not everything written around here makes sense. I have read Joffre being ranked as high as 7th while Louis is ranked 25th.  How does that make sense?

Joe Louis is the text book on offensive fighting and that is his genius.  At 14 stone he also felled fighters the size of Wlad and many of his best opponents are too easily dismissed around here.  Louis still has the stat records all these years later and he was fighting a much higher caliber of opponent than Wlad is today.

It is easy to pick on a fighters perceived weakness but I feel we need to be more generous in assessing his best attributes.

Louis was 6'2 and weighed 200lb in his early reign and c 205  generally in his prime. That wasn't small for his era. Taller but not significantly lighter than punchers like Frazier, shavers, Tyson, who all felled a few trees decades later. Ali himself was sub 210 for a fair few of his earlier title fights. The giants louis knocked out... Carnera, buddy Baer, Simon? Hardly a who's who is it?

Here's the ring 100.
Http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_100_Greatest_Punchers_of_All-Time!

First living fighter at no. 9, my bad.

The mcgrain piece got debated at length on here I think? His definition of composite being, more a mix of skill and power. On that basis lewis is certainly right up there. On one punch power... I think Braddock said max Baer hit harder than Louis, just Louis hit him hard and often, which probably is a fair analysis of one punch power v 'composite'.

I was making the point Louis beat fighters as big as Wlad.  

I never said Louis was the biggest puncher of all time, I said he was the best puncher of all time. There is a difference.  I have never suggested he had a single shot with more power than Shavers.

The focus of my posts has been on Louis' technical genius as a puncher so I think you have muddied the milk on this one.


The Ring list is The "Greatest" Puncher of all time and not the hardest/most powerful puncher of all time.

There are fighters in the Top 20 that were current at the time. There is a need for some historical context and guys fighting currently will generally be judged down the road.  The fact the names at the top are there up to 100 years later must give some credence to their position.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

AdamT wrote:ffs Douglas is a 6 foot 4 heavyweight, not a light heavy!

And Valuev is/was a 7 ft+ heavy, did that mean he was any good.......??!

Billy Conn doesn't see past the first round against Tyson!

Absolutely  ............

Conn nearly beats Louis.................Spinks wins by decision....

What happened to Spinks again.....

At what point of being KTFO does it constitute 'nearly beating' the guy who's just splattered you??

Please....

That your best answer?

Did Louis struggle with Conn more or less than Ali did with Norton, for example??

Did he struggle more than Foreman did against Young??

I've seen the fight and Conn explained it on video............."Back up, make him follow you and then punch straight so you get there first....No roundhouses"..

Not that you would have seen the video as you don't go back further than 2010 which is why you should read instead of posting...

Conn wobbled him and got caught going for the finish.......Even Louis told him he threw away the title...

Spinks was a better more awkward fighter than Conn and at 205+ when he outboxed Larry ......Of similar size to Louis...who weighed 199 for Conn.

Conn was a fighter of his time..............Gets murdered off a 220 pound Tyson..

It's a bit like when Don Curry was out boxing Mike McCallum.............................................................................................................. and then got his head separated from his shoulders in the 4th.

Never forget Curry was winning that fight. Lotto punch.

Strongback wrote:It's a bit like when Don Curry was out boxing Mike McCallum.............................................................................................................. and then got his head separated from his shoulders in the 4th.

Never forget Curry was winning that fight. Lotto punch.

Yep.......Next !!

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:To value Louis people must first begin with his offensive skills which are second to no fighter.  His KO punch in both hands at short range is unequalled in the sport.  People talk about Louis' economical footwork, how many of today's fighters can stay within punching range and not get hit when on the offensive.  We have seen Floyd Jr stand in range in recent fights as his legs are aging and he is shipping an awful lot of punches, this given I have read in many 606v2 lists that Floyd is a greater fighter than Ray Leonard.  Not everything written around here makes sense. I have read Joffre being ranked as high as 7th while Louis is ranked 25th.  How does that make sense?

Joe Louis is the text book on offensive fighting and that is his genius.  At 14 stone he also felled fighters the size of Wlad and many of his best opponents are too easily dismissed around here.  Louis still has the stat records all these years later and he was fighting a much higher caliber of opponent than Wlad is today.

It is easy to pick on a fighters perceived weakness but I feel we need to be more generous in assessing his best attributes.

Louis was 6'2 and weighed 200lb in his early reign and c 205  generally in his prime. That wasn't small for his era. Taller but not significantly lighter than punchers like Frazier, shavers, Tyson, who all felled a few trees decades later. Ali himself was sub 210 for a fair few of his earlier title fights. The giants louis knocked out... Carnera, buddy Baer, Simon? Hardly a who's who is it?

Here's the ring 100.
Http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_100_Greatest_Punchers_of_All-Time!

First living fighter at no. 9, my bad.

The mcgrain piece got debated at length on here I think? His definition of composite being, more a mix of skill and power. On that basis lewis is certainly right up there. On one punch power... I think Braddock said max Baer hit harder than Louis, just Louis hit him hard and often, which probably is a fair analysis of one punch power v 'composite'.

I was making the point Louis beat fighters as big as Wlad.  

I never said Louis was the biggest puncher of all time, I said he was the best puncher of all time. There is a difference.  I have never suggested he had a single shot with more power than Shavers.

The focus of my posts has been on Louis' technical genius as a puncher so I think you have muddied the milk on this one.


The Ring list is The "Greatest" Puncher of all time and not the hardest/most powerful puncher of all time.

There are fighters in the Top 20 that were current at the time.  There is a need for some historical context and guys fighting currently will generally be judged down the road.  The fact the names at the top are there up to 100 years later must give some credence to their position.

well i don't have the article to see their entry criteria strongy, but yes i'm confused.

So 'greatest puncher' is the greatest fighters who can also punch? greatest 'composite' punchers? Greatest technical fighters who are hard hitters? Or is just plain old Greatest fighters, because lets face it, all fighters punch (except audley harrison and david haye if he's fighting wlad) irrespective of how hard they hit.

There was silly old me, thinking with george foreman and earnie shavers in it and a whole bunch of sluggers, it was a list of who hit the hardest. I'm not really sure how you differentiate between boxing technique and power when defining best puncher (clearly there'a something ok with your technique if it delivers maximum power). And I'm not entirely sure where the line between composite puncher and heavy handed boxers is, but if its mcgrain's definition of composite puncher you're adhering to, as i said earlier, no issue. Louis certainly had a deadly attacking arsenal.

Anyway I'll let the louis/conn kerfuffle run its natural course

Re lists, they always seem to have a mix of old favourites and flavours of the month... who slip down over the years.

TopHat24/7 wrote:That your best answer?

Did Louis struggle with Conn more or less than Ali did with Norton, for example??

Did he struggle more than Foreman did against Young??

Again I must state, Norton was a monster of a man, not a 170lb fighter.

Don't know why Ali keeps getting dragged into this. Louis is nowhere near the level of Ali.

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:That your best answer?

Did Louis struggle with Conn more or less than Ali did with Norton, for example??

Did he struggle more than Foreman did against Young??

Again I must state, Norton was a monster of a man, not a 170lb fighter.

Don't know why Ali keeps getting dragged into this. Louis is nowhere near the level of Ali.

You mean the little 200 pounder with the incredible skill and balance who got squashed of the one dimensional Schmelling, wobbled off a 170 pounder and decked off two ton Tony !!

Wouldn't be pushing the monster Foreman back and owning him with his jab for six rounds until he landed the Coup de grace ??????

Well I never....

Same guys on here that back Louis, blast Floyd.

Floyd has met much tougher challenges than Louis plus he hasn't been decked by nobodies or outboxed by midgets

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:That your best answer?

Did Louis struggle with Conn more or less than Ali did with Norton, for example??

Did he struggle more than Foreman did against Young??

Again I must state, Norton was a monster of a man, not a 170lb fighter.

Don't know why Ali keeps getting dragged into this. Louis is nowhere near the level of Ali.

Doug Jones weighed 188 lbs - Ali (Clay as he was then) struggled mightily with Jones (and Young) way more than he did monsters like Foreman and Norton.

Ali might be the greater fighter but the gap isn't as great as you imagine.