View Full Version : The Brown Bomber vs Big George.
Shake
08-09-2007, 04:27 AM
Joe Louis against George Foreman. Who takes it?
McGrain
08-09-2007, 04:57 AM
Of all the great big men, none is more obviously made for Louis than Foreman.
Louis KO in one or two.
My dinner with Conteh
08-09-2007, 06:35 AM
Of all the great big men, none is obviously made for Louis as Foreman.
I agree, apart from the chin. Which gives George a shot.
Sweet Science
08-09-2007, 06:50 AM
Foreman's skills would be too crude for Louis. Louis would probably win by KO.
But then again as My Dinner With Conteh says the chin factor could come into play as Foreman was the hardest hitting HW in history.
JohnThomas1
08-09-2007, 07:30 AM
I agree, apart from the chin. Which gives George a shot.
I'd actually give George a big chance in this one. Tho crude and often wide, his aggression, power and sheer strength gives him a chance of overwhelming Joe IMO. Joe had very fast hands but substancially slower feet and style wise would likely be right there. I think this is an absolutely absorbing matchup and i have no disrespect for Joe, i rate him 2.
Shake
08-09-2007, 07:45 AM
My prediction is squarely whoever gets the first big punch in. And despite the speed differential and accuracy differential, it would probably be George. I rate Louis vastly higher in an all-time sense, but head-to-head, put a gun to my head and I say George.
If Louis got into his preferred range I feel he would outpunch Foreman with his devestating combinations. I also feel Louis has more than enough pop to hurt George badly in a matter of seconds. I'm just not sure he can get there before being hurt.
I see Louis slowly shuffling towards George, perhaps extending a jab. I see George shoving, mauling, with those big uppercuts from way back. I'm not sure Louis can deal with that.
I've always considered Louis as somewhat of a Mozart-like figure. I felt he didn't have to train as hard as most or fight as cleverly because he was supremely gifted. In my modest opinion, Foreman might have been too mean for him.
Joe E
08-09-2007, 07:52 AM
Joe would be in danger for the first 5 or 6 rounds.Foreman did hit very hard and Joe was prone to right hands his entire carrer.Joe,if he is on his A game could weather the initial assault with the roundhousing Foreman and fire back with authority 3 to 1.Foreman would begin to gas around the 7th and be all done by the 10th.Thanks.
Shake
08-09-2007, 07:55 AM
I agree that if Joe gets past the first four he wins no question.
janitor
08-09-2007, 09:17 AM
If I were Louis's manager and we needed a big name win then this is a fight that I would be gunning for. If Gene Tunney came knocking on my door in the mean time I would pretend I was not in.
You may form your own opinion of how good a manager I would be based on this.
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 12:26 PM
I agree, apart from the chin. Which gives George a shot.
I disagree. Foreman wasn't much of a one-punch knockout artist, while Louis recovered from better shots that Foreman's clubbing blows, and got off the canvas to win.
In terms of durability, Foreman is going down brutally. His stamina is so suspect it's untrue; he couldn't go 15 rounds with 5 no-hopers (the Toronto Five), even when he had extensive time to recover. He had to get the referee to stop some of the fights before he hyperventilated.
Foreman's poor defense and openess to counters is going to result him in visiting the canvas a lot in this one. As for Louis's footwork, I'd say it was just as good as Young's on the night when Young humiliated Foreman. Young was a mover who (unlike less skilled movers like Ali and Holmes) was great at economising on space. Louis, like Young, was very good on economising on space when on the back-foot.
I think Louis would drop Foreman in the first round, before Foreman does his "dancing elephant" impersonation of Ali for a few rounds. Since Foreman relied on planting his feet to get his power, he's not going to be able to hurt Louis while doing that. Then, as he tires after about round five, he'll start to unload on Louis. Those wild swings of Foreman were a counter-puncher's dream, as Ali, Young and Lyle all showed. Foreman would get bounced off the canvas a few times before the referee mercifully stops the pitiful slaughter.
Louis TKO6.
McGrain
08-09-2007, 12:29 PM
I agree that if Joe gets past the first four he wins no question.
I really don't see any way for George to get out of the second, although if he did I think, in a freakish twist, he might win.
If Joe can't knock George out in the first two with the way he boxes then i've misread one or both and it becomes a 50/50 as far as I can see.
My dinner with Conteh
08-09-2007, 12:31 PM
I disagree. Foreman wasn't much of a one-punch knockout artist, while Louis recovered from better shots that Foreman's clubbing blows, and got off the canvas to win.
He wasn't much of a one-punch artist mainly because he hurt opponents with virtually every shot. What shots did Louis shake off that were better than ones Foreman could produce?
My dinner with Conteh
08-09-2007, 12:33 PM
It's funny how people cannot accept how average Louis chin was. If Patterson went down it was a case of "Oh, paper chin on the deck again", "There goes old canvas back". The fact that he won means nothing, but if it's Jou Louis...."Wow what a comeback..what a man...he'd beat anyone ever".
janitor
08-09-2007, 12:44 PM
It's funny how people cannot accept how average Louis chin was. If Patterson went down it was a case of "Oh, paper chin on the deck again", "There goes old canvas back". The fact that he won means nothing, but if it's Jou Louis...."Wow what a comeback..what a man...he'd beat anyone ever".
The number of times Louis was on the deck has to be judged against the fact that he fought more ranked contenders than any other champion outside of Ali by a ratio of about 3/1.
Also against the fact that he was never actualy knocked out by a single punch but only by a sustained beating over a number of rounds.
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 12:44 PM
Joe would be in danger for the first 5 or 6 rounds.Foreman did hit very hard and Joe was prone to right hands his entire carrer.
I think if anyone is going to be landing right hands, it'll be Louis, who had the faster hands and the better counter-punching skills. Foreman's straight/overhand right, in his prime, was one of his worst punches. It was comparable to Sam Peter's today: a punch that should have been a brilliant punch, but was reduced to just a very hard punch because of lack of technique.
Foreman's best punches were his left hook and right uppercut, both of which are going to result in brutal counter-left hooks from Louis. As McGrain has already noted, Foreman was flawed on every way that Louis could possibly want.
My prediction is squarely whoever gets the first big punch in.
Ridiculous. Both were hit with big punches that floored them, and both got off the canvas to win.
And despite the speed differential and accuracy differential, it would probably be George. I rate Louis vastly higher in an all-time sense, but head-to-head, put a gun to my head and I say George.
If Louis got into his preferred range I feel he would outpunch Foreman with his devestating combinations. I also feel Louis has more than enough pop to hurt George badly in a matter of seconds. I'm just not sure he can get there before being hurt.
I see Louis slowly shuffling towards George, perhaps extending a jab. I see George shoving, mauling, with those big uppercuts from way back. I'm not sure Louis can deal with that.
You don't think Louis can deal with someone throwing uppercuts from way back? I'll tell you how he'd deal with it: triple fricking left hooks, which would drop Foreman.
If Foreman tries to shove Louis, the shorter Louis will just drop under his arms (Louis has a 3 inch height advantage on the inside) and fire uppercut up the middle upon Foreman's exposed chin, just as he did against Buddy Baer. Bye-bye, Big George! :hi:
I've always considered Louis as somewhat of a Mozart-like figure. I felt he didn't have to train as hard as most or fight as cleverly because he was supremely gifted. In my modest opinion, Foreman might have been too mean for him.
You don't think Louis trained hard? He was a much more consistent trainer than the lazier greats of the 1970s. Foreman, Frazier and Ali were all very inconsistent in their weight and conditioning. Louis only came in poor shape once, against Schmeling, and learnt his lesson well. When he can in incorrectly conditioned, as in the first Conn fight, it was due to OVERTRAINING. By the end of his career, when he was still a world-class boxer, Louis relied almost entirely on his conditioning and skill; his power had mostly gone along with his handspeed.
If anyone in boxing relied too much on his gifts, it wasn't Louis. I'd say a brawler who relied on his natural power, strength and chin to substitue for training his skill or conditioning (Foreman) or a dancer who relied on his speed and chin to get him out when he came in disgracefully bad shape (Ali) would be a better example of a Mozart-like boxer. Joe Louis was like Joe Frazier: a man of modest physical talents who, through dedication and love of the sport, became a nearly unstoppable fighting machine.
I'd actually give George a big chance in this one. Tho crude and often wide, his aggression, power and sheer strength gives him a chance of overwhelming Joe IMO. Joe had very fast hands but substancially slower feet and style wise would likely be right there. I think this is an absolutely absorbing matchup and i have no disrespect for Joe, i rate him 2.
Foreman was hardly a swarmer. I'd say the more aggressive he gets against Louis, the quicker he goes. The more times he swings that right, over-extends his jab, swings that left hook with his right low or throws himself along with his rights, the more times he gives Louis an opportunity to starch him.
Remember people: Louis turned Foreman from an underdog against Frazier to a destroyer. It was Joe Louis who told him to use his uppercut, which Foreman had previously underused, to get the win at the Sunshine Showdown. Louis understood Foreman better than anyone else. With Jack Blackburn and the wealth of Foreman footage, he'd go in with a strategy to take advantage of every flaw in Foreman's technique. It'd be a bloody mess that would end with a helpless Foreman laying like a rag-doll on the ropes.
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 12:50 PM
He wasn't much of a one-punch artist mainly because he hurt opponents with virtually every shot. What shots did Louis shake off that were better than ones Foreman could produce?
In other words, you agree he wasn't much of a one-punch knockout artist. Foreman's chances of landing a lucky home-run bomb against Louis are neglible, since no-one ever knocked out Louis with one shot.
Then again, let's not assume Foreman's going to be able to land any big bombs on Louis. The chances are this one won't be long, and Louis is going to be the one landing the combinations.
It's funny how people cannot accept how average Louis chin was. If Patterson went down it was a case of "Oh, paper chin on the deck again", "There goes old canvas back". The fact that he won means nothing, but if it's Jou Louis...."Wow what a comeback..what a man...he'd beat anyone ever".
I suppose people just think that getting up to win is more impressive than getting starched in the first round. :good
Louis too robotic and limited. Foreman KO4 Louis
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 01:14 PM
Louis too robotic and limited. Foreman KO4 Louis
Be more speicifc. What is limiting Louis here- his faster hands, better counter-punching skills, superior variety of punches, better combinations, better defense, better stamina or his better punching technique?
limiting: robotic style,easy to hit,a good jab doesn't stop Big George
George would floor him 4 times before they would carry Louis out on a stretcher.
My dinner with Conteh
08-09-2007, 02:26 PM
I suppose people just think that getting up to win is more impressive than getting starched in the first round. :good
Of course. But every fighter who visits the canvas is apparently 'exposed'... unless it was Louis.
My dinner with Conteh
08-09-2007, 02:27 PM
Be more speicifc. What is limiting Louis here- his faster hands, better counter-punching skills, superior variety of punches, better combinations, better defense, better stamina or his better punching technique?
His paper chin. Specific enough?
janitor
08-09-2007, 04:57 PM
limiting: robotic style,easy to hit,a good jab doesn't stop Big George
If Louis is robotic and easy to hit then you are going to have to invent some new superlatives to describe Foreman.
janitor
08-09-2007, 04:59 PM
His paper chin. Specific enough?
Its funny that you describe Louis as having a paper chin because he was never droped by sombody like Jimmy Young or even Muhamad Ali.
All the fighters who droped Louis were bona fide punchers.
McGrain
08-09-2007, 05:27 PM
I think foreman had a better chin than Louis ever did.
Yeah, probably. He was also much,much,much,much easier to hit.
I do not consider guys like conn heavy punchers!
Conn never dropped Louis. What's your point?
I never truly saw louis absorb as much punishment as foreman did and was still standing.
Foreman probably kept his feet better, Louis' power of recuperation would be better though. Louis fought a couple of rounds against Schmeling (Who hit hard enough to stop an opponents heart) whilst basically unconcsious.
How can you even think that conn (lighheavyweight) and schmeling were harder punchers than ali and young. I think ali hit harder than conn, and i would say young and schmeling are about even!
What is it with the Conn fixation? He would be the lightest puncher that Louis ever fought! Yes, Schmeling's hardest shots would be harder than Ali's and Young's.
However chin and punching power category are the only departments that foreman has a edge.
Yes.
I think Stamina would play a very crucial role in this match up.
Foreman is well behind Louis in terms of stamina, but I think you mean durabilty...
You should go watch some of the shots foreman took against Holyfield, stewart, and moorer. He was still standing at the end.
...because of this.
janitor
08-09-2007, 05:29 PM
[quote=Maurice]I think foreman had a better chin than Louis ever did. I do not consider guys like conn heavy punchers!
Conn never droped Louis. He only stung him.
I never truly saw louis absorb as much punishment as foreman did and was still standing.
I submit that Louis absorbed a worse beating at the hands of Schmeling before going down than Foreman took against Ali.
How can you even think that conn (lighheavyweight) and schmeling were harder punchers than ali and young. I think ali hit harder than conn, and i would say young and schmeling are about even!
Schmeling was one of the hardest punchers of the era. He hit harder than Ali and Young by a big margin not a small margin.
You should go watch some of the shots foreman took against Holyfield, stewart, and moorer. He was still standing at the end. I would bet the house louis would have been outta there. Just go watch the first walcott fight!:deal
Walcott was a much harder puncher than Holyfiels, Stewart or Moorer.
Street Lethal
08-09-2007, 05:38 PM
I picked Foreman inside of 7 rounds. He was big and powerful, his punches were accurate, and he could take a hell of a shot. Louis was a great on offense but weak on defense, and where his head would be is right where Foreman's punches would land. Louis couldn't take Foreman's shots.
If Louis can get past the tenth round, assuming he's fighting the young Foreman, he might have a chance to go the distance. But I think the beating he takes early on will make it difficult to overcome Foreman's lead.
I can't believe that Louis ahead in this fookin poll by KO on Foreman. :patsch
I know the first thing many of you will compare this to is Foreman's fight with Ali, but what other fight can you show?
Do you guys really think Louis would pull an Ali? You really do? OMG,you really do. :silly
McGrain
08-09-2007, 05:53 PM
When i brought up conn's name i meant that he shook louis up, and I DO NOT CONSIDER HIM A HARD PUNCHER!
Proffesional fighters always hurt each other when they hit. Otherwise it would not be possible for fighters like Loughran and Conn to be all time great fighters and undeniablely dominant champions at light-heavy.
In the case of the first schmeling fight, i do agree that Joe did recieve a substantial amount of damage before going down, BUT HE WENT DOWN!
Yeah, Joe went down. Then got back up again. The point that Louis is more vulnerable than Foreman in terms of chin is accepted.
I know the first thing many of you will compare this to is Foreman's fight with Ali, but what other fight can you show? None
Lyle dropped him.
Besides Foreman was never rocked By a light fisted puncher like conn,
He is not fighting Conn. He is fighting Louis. In composite terms he may be the best puncher the sport has ever seen.
and again do not BS and say Conn was a A hard puncher, i can name guys like Pinklon thomas, razor ruddock, and other journeymen that had more power than him.
No-one has tried to say that Conn is a hard puncher. All the guys you have mentioned were harder punchers than him. What Conn was, was a master boxer who feared no-one.
janitor
08-09-2007, 05:53 PM
[quote=Maurice]When i brought up conn's name i meant that he shook louis up, and I DO NOT CONSIDER HIM A HARD PUNCHER!
So what anybody can be rocked by a medium puncher. Its the laws of physics.
In the case of the first schmeling fight, i do agree that Joe did recieve a substantial amount of damage before going down, BUT HE WENT DOWN!
He took a far worse shelacking than Foreman took against Ali before he stayed down.
Unlike Foreman Louis was only stoped by punchers and only after a sustained beating.
McGrain
08-09-2007, 05:53 PM
Do you guys really think Louis would pull an Ali? You really do? OMG,you really do. :silly
Louis certainly wouldn't fight Foreman anything like Ali did. No way.
janitor
08-09-2007, 05:54 PM
Do you guys really think Louis would pull an Ali? You really do? OMG,you really do. :silly
No we think he would pull a Louis and take Foreman apart inside the first five rounds.
McGrain
08-09-2007, 05:56 PM
No we think he would pull a Louis and take Foreman apart inside the first five rounds.
You can make that one for me.
No we think he would pull a Louis and take Foreman apart inside the first five rounds
Brilliant joke or display of complete loss of human sense. :scaredas:
janitor
08-09-2007, 06:02 PM
Brilliant joke or display of complete loss of human sense. :scaredas:
So how exactly do you think Foreman can win?
Louis has never been taken out with a single shot so he is going to have to land on him consistently to take him out. He sure as hell is not going to win by decision.
What makes you think that Foreman has the technique to land on Louis's chin consistently?
janitor
08-09-2007, 06:12 PM
Well.......I think Louis can Ko Big George, but i would think it would be later the fight!
What would be interesting is to see as to how louis would fight the first five rounds, i know he wouldn't rope a dope, but then again how can he slug against a monster like foreman?
Louis's strategy in the early rounds would probably be to fight on the back foot and counterpunch. He would move backwards just enough to keep Foreman walking towards him. Every time Foreman opened up Louis would be looking to fire a combination down the pipe.
If Foreman is prepared to play this game then he would get the worst of it.
McGrain
08-09-2007, 06:13 PM
Well.......I think Louis can Ko Big George, but i would think it would be later the fight!
What would be interesting is to see as to how louis would fight the first five rounds, i know he wouldn't rope a dope, but then again how can he slug against a monster like foreman?
The key for me, is not "how does Foreman consistantly land" it is "how does Foreman stop Louis consistantly landing?" Foreman has below average hand speed, little hip leverage, a reletavley wide arc and whilst he has great cut off footwork he has little in the way of inner footwork (beautifully illustrated by Ali's strategy).
Louis, meanwhile, has near perfect punching arc, great handspeed, great hip leverage, near perfect inner footwork. Foreman can't hit Louis on the chin. But Louis made a career out of trying to get guys onto the front foot against him and here is a guy doing exactly that for free.
Louis KO1 Foreman.
George's great chin might get him out of the first round.
Foreman is the big man i'd be happy to lay my life on Louis taking out. He's the great that is made for Joe.
So how exactly do you think Foreman can win?
:lol:
Same way Schemmling did,for example. But even much more ferocious.
McGrain
08-09-2007, 06:39 PM
:lol:
Same way Schemmling did,for example. But even much more ferocious.
Schmelling did it primarily with smarts and timing.
George has less than a great deal of either.
Schmeling I was not peak Louis in action in my opinion.
janitor
08-09-2007, 06:40 PM
:lol:
Same way Schemmling did,for example. But even much more ferocious.
You could not find two fighters more diferent than Schmeling and Foreman stylisticaly.
Schmeling was a defensive counterpuncher who used his boxing skills to exploit a flaw in Louis's style. Foreman was a crude slugger who would not do anything so subtle.
Russell
08-09-2007, 06:42 PM
I know some fault Louis for not being very mobile.
Extremely accurate, yes. But his footwork in regards to being mobile... Suspect in some peoples eyes.
McGrain
08-09-2007, 06:45 PM
I know some fault Louis for not being very mobile.
Extremely accurate, yes. But his footwork in regards to being mobile... Suspect in some peoples eyes.
Yeah, I think there is something in this, although he proved himself OK against some pretty mobile fighters...as regards this fight though it's not relevant.
It's his inside footwork which is important, and that is close to peerless.
Foreman blasts that mummy out of the ring,period.
Schmeling had a heavy right hand and so had Foreman. Schmeling had a gameplan. Foreman's heavy right hand would land straight on that mummy's chin. Louis jabs wouldn't do shit.
McGrain
08-09-2007, 06:53 PM
Foreman blasts that mummy out of the ring,period.
Of the two, Foreman was more mummy-like as Ali pointed out.
Schmeling had a heavy right hand and so had Foreman.
That is where the similarities end.
Schmeling had a gameplan.
And?
Foreman's heavy right hand would land
Possible if Louis was standing still and not throwing. But Louis's punch is shorter, faster, more accurate and easier to combine with other punches to make combinations.
. Louis jabs wouldn't do shit.
He wouldn't need it. He probablly wouldn't try to use it unless Foreman tried to box which seems a little unlikely.
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 07:02 PM
limiting: robotic style,easy to hit,a good jab doesn't stop Big George
George would floor him 4 times before they would carry Louis out on a stretcher.
A good jab may not stop Foreman, but Louis was by no means limited to being just a jabber. He could lead off of power shots better than almost any heavyweight in history and could counter even the most cautious boxers. Against a wrecking-ball style brawler like Foreman, his only problem would be choosing which telegraphed punch to counter.
Easy to hit? Louis had a very solid defense and better reflexes than Foreman. Out of these two, Louis is by far the superior defensive fighter. Foreman lacks either the speed or volume to find cracks in Louis's defense.
Again, you've failed to define how he's robotic. That said, we have made reductionist progress: first you said he was robotic and limited, now you've combined both of these spurious criticisms into one vague answer.
I again ask- how was Louis robotic? He didn't go in one direction laterally; he didn't have to go either on the back foot or front foot; his punch sequences were varied and eclectic. Louis was robotic only in the same way a swarm of killer bees is robotic (ie. not at all). You never knew what was coming next against a boxer-puncher like Joe Louis.
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 07:04 PM
Of course. But every fighter who visits the canvas is apparently 'exposed'... unless it was Louis.
Just because others are stupid, it gives you no more lisence to be. Paper chin? Don't be willfully obtuse.
McGrain
08-09-2007, 07:04 PM
I again ask- how was Louis robotic? He didn't go in one direction laterally; he didn't have to go either on the back foot or front foot; his punch sequences were varied and eclectic. Louis was robotic only in the same way a swarm of killer bees is robotic (ie. not at all). You never knew what was coming next against a boxer-puncher like Joe Louis.
I like you.
I again ask- how was Louis robotic?
Do you have eyes?
McGrain
08-09-2007, 07:10 PM
Do you have eyes?
This is the shittest post i've ever read.
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 07:10 PM
Do you guys really think Louis would pull an Ali? You really do? OMG,you really do. :silly
Like Ali, he'd fire quick counter-punches. Louis's hands were almost as fast as Ali's, his punchers far harder, and his punch variety/technique far greater.
As Jimmy Young and Ron Lyle showed, you don't have to lay on the ropes to make Foreman look ridiculous. Jimmy Young, on that night, moved only mildly faster than Louis did on the back foot.
What exactly is Foreman going to do? If he punches to the body, he has to lean down at a 90 degree angle. Because of his lack of head movement or peek-a-boo defense, Foreman is going to get NAILED and probably knocked down if he does down to the body against Louis.
Out-jab Louis? Hardly. Foreman's slower handspeed leave him open to a counter overhand right by Louis, and his tactic of sticking out his own right to block jabs is going to get him hit by left hooks.
If Foreman just unloads, he's hitting the canvas FAST. Given the way he swung his punches, he'd practically be head-butting Louis's counter punches.
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 07:12 PM
:lol:
Same way Schemmling did,for example. But even much more ferocious.
Comparing Schmeling's mastery of counter-punching with a windmill like Foreman is insulting to the entire German people. Foreman couldn't throw a right hand with anywhere near the technique of Schmeling until he came back smarter and fatter in the 1980s/1990s.
This is the shittest post i've ever read.
No.
This is
Louis KO1 Foreman.
by far.
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 07:13 PM
Foreman blasts that mummy out of the ring,period.
Schmeling had a heavy right hand and so had Foreman. Schmeling had a gameplan. Foreman's heavy right hand would land straight on that mummy's chin. Louis jabs wouldn't do shit.
Now you're resorting to name-calling. Foreman's overhand right was NOT a good punch. It was telegraphed and clubbing, which is why he never knocked anyone out with it.
Given that Foreman had neither the counter-punching ability nor handspeed of Schmeling, it's ludicrous to imagine him successfully using the same strategy.
windmill like Foreman
That windmill destroyed Frazier big time,my friend.
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 07:14 PM
I like you.
That's an interesting coincidence: I like me as well. ;)
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 07:15 PM
That windmill destroyed Frazier big time,my friend.
Windmills tend to if you rush right into their blades. Louis isn't going to come straight at Foreman open for uppercuts and standing straight in front of Foreman.
McGrain
08-09-2007, 07:15 PM
That windmill destroyed Frazier big time,my friend.
Foreman and Frazier are on different ends of the same scale.
You are now resorting to picking out tiny peices of posts and offering single remarks instead of answering the questions that are being asked of you.
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 07:17 PM
You are now resorting to picking out tiny peices of posts and offering single remarks instead of answering the questions that are being asked of you.
I think he's worked out that he lacks a case. Styles make fights, and a brawler like Foreman is made for a counter-punching extraodinare boxer-puncher like Louis.
instead of answering the questions that are being asked of you.
DON'T, I repeat, DO NOT ask any questions!
Because I don't have to respond to someone who argues a KO1 by Louis. Simply ridiculous and totally dreamland.
McGrain
08-09-2007, 07:26 PM
DON'T, I repeat, DO NOT ask any questions!
Because I don't have to respond to someone who argues a KO1 by Louis. Simply ridiculous and totally dreamland.
Well I wasn't actually talking about the questions that i've asked you.
As far as my position goes i've laid it out in detail (unlike you), you can read the details at any point and refute them as it is so clearly easy to do.
Louis too robotic and limited. Foreman KO4 Louis
I have to change a bit:
Foreman KO2 Louis
McGrain
08-09-2007, 07:59 PM
Did Joe Louis knockout Ezzard Charles a naturally 160 pound man when they fought?How long did it take him to knockout Billy Conn another 160 to 170 pound man?Could Billy Conn punch at his own weight class?No seeing the fact he only had 11 knockouts in 70 wins.Was either Charles or Conn bigger than Foreman or stronger?
Why are you sourcing slick pure boxers (at heavywieght) and how they did against Louis? Men who came to run - specifically to box and run - rather than fight like Foreman would?
The man fought losers.
For the record, you think that Louis' career(definded by victorys over more former and future champions than any other career if i'm not wrong) was carved out against "losers"? Really?
Joe Louis wasn't quick on his feet so he couldn't outbox Foreman.
He wouldn't try.
Louis style is to come forward and that is the same style Foreman has.
Well you clearly know nothing about Louis.
If Louis came foward he would be knocked out quick
Why? With a shorter arc, better follow through, better combo's, quicker handspeed, more accurate punching, why, would Louis, as opposed to Foreman, be knocked out quick?
if Louis tried to box he would be knocked out quick.
Yeah. But he wouldn't.
You people really need to stop beating off these old time fighters acting like they were unbeatable.
Thanks. Thanks for the advice. And also for lupmping everyone who picks Louis into a group together without taking any time at all to find out about where we stand as individuals.
Bummy Davis
08-09-2007, 08:11 PM
Foreman a wide swinging slugger vs Louis a sharp shooting strait down the pike perfect combo puncher, I think Louis takes him out before 5-6 rounds if he fights behind the jab and down the PIKE
Joe Louis wasn't quick on his feet so he couldn't outbox Foreman.
He wouldn't try.
Now pulling an Ali then? Nah,Foreman wouldn't have Schemmling's gameplan and Louis wouldn't pull an Ali.
Oh,wait,so he counters with his quick and huge hands just like he did to Walcott. Yes,that he will do. And then he knocks big George out of his shoes. Brilliant.:happy
The Kurgan
08-09-2007, 10:36 PM
Now pulling an Ali then? Nah,Foreman wouldn't have Schemmling's gameplan and Louis wouldn't pull an Ali.
Oh,wait,so he counters with his quick and huge hands just like he did to Walcott. Yes,that he will do. And then he knocks big George out of his shoes. Brilliant.:happy
Two awful and new assumptions here-
1) There are two things a boxer can do: boxer, or be Ali.
2) What happened in Louis's fights with Walcott, when he was past his prime and facing a boxer that was nothing like Foreman, is relevant.
Basically, and I mean this in the strongest sense, both of these assumptions are stupid.
Street Lethal
08-10-2007, 01:02 AM
The poll results are interesting. Proof that the majority is often wrong.
NickHudson
08-10-2007, 01:46 AM
I have little doubt that peak Louis annihilates the post-Zaire, tentative, and burst bubble Foreman. Foremans performances against Lyle and Young just did not resemble the wrecking machine who 'knew' no-one could stand up to him.
On the other hand, the pre-Zaire monster has a reasonable chance IMO (I give him a reasonable chance against anyone except prime Ali), but I wouldn't be feeling confident betting either way.
Does anyone feel Louis might be psyched by the awesome physical stats, mean attitude and raw strength of prime Foreman? If there is any psyching going on I suspect it would favour Foreman? I mean, Foreman manned up very well against Frazier who had an incredible aura and resume at that time (undefeated champ, recent brutal win over Ali etc...). Louis never had to face someone like Frazier so I guess it is hard to say how he would feel psychologically going in against Foreman.
My dinner with Conteh
08-10-2007, 03:03 AM
This is the shittest post i've ever read.
No. This is...
I like you.
My dinner with Conteh
08-10-2007, 03:10 AM
So how exactly do you think Foreman can win?
It's simple. Some people fancy George to land one or two clumsy bombs against a champion a bit suspect in the chin dept. Nothing to do with strategies or technigue. Louis wasn't as easy to hit as some Pro-George's are made out, but he wasn't too difficult either. It's not rocket science, you're over-analysing statistics. Foreman will come lower than all the Top 10 if we're looking at categories- he'd come below Frazier too. Of course, breakdown the nuances of styles can lead to a definite conclusion. However, in boxing (of all sports) just being great in one category, in this case power, can overcome other fundamentals, especially when the esteemed opponents has only one (or two) weaknessess- this being a tender beard.
My dinner with Conteh
08-10-2007, 03:13 AM
Its funny that you describe Louis as having a paper chin because he was never droped by sombody like Jimmy Young or even Muhamad Ali.
All the fighters who droped Louis were bona fide punchers.
Jim Braddock's a bonafide puncher now is he? :lol:
Foreman was downed largely due to stamina issues, we all know that. Louis was dropped by THE MONSTER HITTING Braddock in the first, when he was fresh as a daisy.
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 05:04 AM
Foreman was hardly a swarmer. I'd say the more aggressive he gets against Louis, the quicker he goes.
I'd hardly say the Foreman of Frazier and Norton doesn't put on severe pressure with his size, strength and awesome power either. The man could shove strong guys around as if they were nothing.
I'd say the more aggressive he gets against Louis, the quicker he goes. The more times he swings that right, over-extends his jab, swings that left hook with his right low or throws himself along with his rights, the more times he gives Louis an opportunity to starch him.
Foreman has one of the great chins and has a definite advantage there. Regardless of what some seem to think this would be the most dangerous opponent Joe ever fought.
Remember people: Louis turned Foreman from an underdog against Frazier to a destroyer. It was Joe Louis who told him to use his uppercut, which Foreman had previously underused, to get the win at the Sunshine Showdown. Louis understood Foreman better than anyone else. With Jack Blackburn and the wealth of Foreman footage, he'd go in with a strategy to take advantage of every flaw in Foreman's technique. It'd be a bloody mess that would end with a helpless Foreman laying like a rag-doll on the ropes.
I still see it as 50-50. As for Joe telling Foreman to use the uppercut vs Frazier, how simple is that? Boxing 101 has told us to use uppercuts vs swarmers forever and a day. I'd hardly say this is compelling evidence Louis knew Foreman better than anyone.
McGrain
08-10-2007, 05:22 AM
Jim Braddock's a bonafide puncher now is he? :lol:
I would say so...he certainly did the damage at light-heavy,he's got an absolute shit-load of first round KO's...at heavy he's obviously not the same man but he could certainly still bang with the right.
Do you consider him light hitting?
McGrain
08-10-2007, 05:44 AM
No. This is...
Don't be sad...I like you too.
Shake
08-10-2007, 05:56 AM
Jim Braddock couldn't dent a milkbox at heavyweight. Not at the level we're talking about.
janitor
08-10-2007, 06:14 AM
[quote=My dinner with Conteh]It's simple. Some people fancy George to land one or two clumsy bombs against a champion a bit suspect in the chin dept.
But Louis took shots from punchers like Foreman. Somtimes he braced himself and shrugged them off. Somtimes he was knocked down and got op without taking a count.
I repeat.
THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON TO ASUME THAT LOUIS COULD BE TAKEN OUT BY A SINGLE PUNCH FROM FOREMAN OR ANYBODY ELSE.
janitor
08-10-2007, 06:15 AM
Jim Braddock couldn't dent a milkbox at heavyweight. Not at the level we're talking about.
Actualy contemporaries disagree with you. Louis himself for example said that Braddock was the hardest puncher he faced outside of Baer and he had fought a good few punchers by this stage.
janitor
08-10-2007, 06:18 AM
[quote=My dinner with Conteh]Jim Braddock's a bonafide puncher now is he?
Yes.
He is sure as hell more of a puncher than Jimmy Young and probably Muhamad Ali too in terms of raw power.
Foreman was downed largely due to stamina issues, we all know that.
Do you think there won't be stamina issues against Louis if the fight goes beyond six rounds and Foreman is geting countered every time he breathes?
janitor
08-10-2007, 06:19 AM
[quote=KTFO]Schmeling had a heavy right hand and so had Foreman. Schmeling had a gameplan.
Yes but Foremans only gameplan would be to wail away on Louis and hope he wen't down.
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 06:36 AM
[quote]
Yes but Foremans only gameplain would be to wail away on Louis and hope he wen't down.
Well i can hardly see him dancing around slipping punches and countering a la a heavyweight version of Wilfred Benitez, or establishing a fast pace dominated by a jab and Holmes like lateral movement before he came on strong thru the championship rounds (11-15) showing enormous reserves of stamina to outpoint a tiring Joe Louis :)
Given what i have read and seen i will make Joe a conservative 7-5 fave. If odds were made before Foreman had lost to Ali i know Foreman would have led the betting.
This is a fight i'd travel to see.
janitor
08-10-2007, 06:42 AM
Given what i have read and seen i will make Joe a conservative 7-5 fave. If odds were made before Foreman had lost to Ali i know Foreman would have led the betting.
This is a fight i'd travel to see.
Sounds like it might break all pay per view records then.
At least your prediction avoids you loosing significant face whichever way it turns out.
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 07:03 AM
Sounds like it might break all pay per view records then.
At least your prediction avoids you loosing significant face whichever way it turns out.
It'd break records alright. Put it this way - i would hate to have my life hanging on this fight.
Shake
08-10-2007, 07:53 AM
[quote]
Yes but Foremans only gameplan would be to wail away on Louis and hope he wen't down.
It might work!
fists of fury
08-10-2007, 08:04 AM
I can't explain my selection logically because most indicators point to a Louis win, but I can *visualise* Foreman overpowering Louis.
It's just a gut feel rather than anything based on analysis or data.
janitor
08-10-2007, 08:07 AM
[quote=janitor]
It might work!
Yes but it is exactly what Louis will expect and prepare for so its dollars to dounuts that it wont work.
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 08:31 AM
[quote=Shake]
Yes but it is exactly what Louis will expect and prepare for so its dollars to dounuts that it wont work.
Plenty prepared for it but failed. Foreman would prepare for exactly what Joe was bringing to the table as well. Both were predictable in their style, Joe with more skill, Foreman more physically brutal.
janitor
08-10-2007, 08:47 AM
[quote=janitor]
Plenty prepared for it but failed. Foreman would prepare for exactly what Joe was bringing to the table as well. Both were predictable in their style, Joe with more skill, Foreman more physically brutal.
Even if I agree that Louis was predictable which I don't I doubt that Foreman would change his style significantly. Louis on the other hand would be looking to draw up the Foreman clinc.
The best way to look at these match ups is to imagine that you are each fighters trainer trying to prepare them for the other.
As Louis's trainer the strategy almost writes itselyf and it is only a matter of polishing it off.
As Foremans trainer what the hell can I suggest?
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 08:55 AM
[quote=JohnThomas1]
Even if I agree that Louis was predictable which I don't I doubt that Foreman would change his style significantly. Louis on the other hand would be looking to draw up the Foreman clinc.
The best way to look at these match ups is to imagine that you are each fighters trainer trying to prepare them for the other.
As Louis's trainer the strategy almost writes itselyf and it is only a matter of polishing it off.
As Foremans trainer what the hell can I suggest?
Foreman's style and strengths made for a simple strategy. In his first career he took you head on and pitted his strengths against whatever you brought to the table.
The Kurgan
08-10-2007, 09:17 AM
Does anyone feel Louis might be psyched by the awesome physical stats, mean attitude and raw strength of prime Foreman? If there is any psyching going on I suspect it would favour Foreman? I mean, Foreman manned up very well against Frazier who had an incredible aura and resume at that time (undefeated champ, recent brutal win over Ali etc...). Louis never had to face someone like Frazier so I guess it is hard to say how he would feel psychologically going in against Foreman.
Louis faced far more impressive physical specimens (Buddy Baer, Primo Carnera... Max Baer was just as muscular as Foreman) and wasn't intimidated. In fact, Louis was NEVER intimidated or psychologically broken, which is more than one can say for Foreman.
Louis is the one with the superior spiritual strength here. It's going to be Foreman trying to stare down an emotionless destroyer and failing. In many ways, it's Frazier-Foreman in reverse.
The Kurgan
08-10-2007, 09:22 AM
I'd hardly say the Foreman of Frazier and Norton doesn't put on severe pressure with his size, strength and awesome power either. The man could shove strong guys around as if they were nothing.
Still not a swarmer. In both the Frazier and Norton fights, he advanced flat-footed and pretty tentatively until his opponent was hurt. Foreman was a classic slugger, which was Louis's favourite style to face.
Foreman has one of the great chins and has a definite advantage there. Regardless of what some seem to think this would be the most dangerous opponent Joe ever fought.
I disagree, but I understand you have your axioms that are mentally hard to deviate from. Foreman may have the better chin, but as Wladimir Klitschko proved against Sam Peter, a chin is only a factor if it's hit. Foreman's style means that he's going to be hit far more than Louis, and given that Lyle was able to put Foreman down, Louis (one of the hardest hitters of all time) can definitely bounce Foreman off the ground like a yo-yo.
I still see it as 50-50. As for Joe telling Foreman to use the uppercut vs Frazier, how simple is that? Boxing 101 has told us to use uppercuts vs swarmers forever and a day. I'd hardly say this is compelling evidence Louis knew Foreman better than anyone.
People didn't rate Foreman's uppercut at the time. His best punch was considered to be his left hook. Indeed, most people thought that (given Ali's experience with uppercutting against Frazier) Frazier was the last person to use an uppercut against. Louis saw things in Foreman that no-one else did; THAT'S what proves he understood Foreman better than anyone.
janitor
08-10-2007, 09:30 AM
[quote=janitor]
Foreman's style and strengths made for a simple strategy. In his first career he took you head on and pitted his strengths against whatever you brought to the table.
This is all verry well if he matched up well stylisticaly but in this case we seem to have an awfull stylistic match and no aparent answer for it.
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 09:39 AM
Still not a swarmer. In both the Frazier and Norton fights, he advanced flat-footed and pretty tentatively until his opponent was hurt. Foreman was a classic slugger, which was Louis's favourite style to face.
Well i never actually said he was a slugger, not even close.
I disagree, but I understand you have your axioms that are mentally hard to deviate from.
I was kinda thinking we both did :lol:
Foreman may have the better chin, but as Wladimir Klitschko proved against Sam Peter, a chin is only a factor if it's hit. Foreman's style means that he's going to be hit far more than Louis, and given that Lyle was able to put Foreman down, Louis (one of the hardest hitters of all time) can definitely bounce Foreman off the ground like a yo-yo.
Given Foreman's chin and heart i really don't think Joe is getting out without some kind of chin check. Remember too lesser punchers than George put Joe down, and i don't quite share your view Joe isn't getting hit here. Lyle was a fair hitter, and even more compelling is that George's reputation had already been shattered, both in his own mind and the mind of his opponents.
People didn't rate Foreman's uppercut at the time. His best punch was considered to be his left hook. Indeed, most people thought that (given Ali's experience with uppercutting against Frazier) Frazier was the last person to use an uppercut against. Louis saw things in Foreman that no-one else did; THAT'S what proves he understood Foreman better than anyone.
I find it impossible to fathom most people thinking Frazier was the last person to use uppercuts against. The difference between Ali's ower and George's was monumental, a clean uppercut from George could spell the beginning of the end for Frazier.
Nemesis
08-10-2007, 09:46 AM
John, I am intrigued by the female in you avatar, prey tell?
janitor
08-10-2007, 09:49 AM
Given Foreman's chin and heart i really don't think Joe is getting out without some kind of chin check.
I agree.
Personaly I think he will pass the chin check. Again as his trainer I would tell him to batten down the hatches and prepare to take a few bombs to land his own counters. He did it against Max Baer. It is not a problem with the right preparation.
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 09:55 AM
John, I am intrigued by the female in you avatar, prey tell?
file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/John/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[Only registered and activated users can see links]
:D
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 09:55 AM
Tell me she's not awesome and i will call you all sorts of happy happy names
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 09:56 AM
I agree.
Personaly I think he will pass the chin check. Again as his trainer I would tell him to batten down the hatches and prepare to take a few bombs to land his own counters. He did it against Max Baer. It is not a problem with the right preparation.
You could well be right but i just can't stop thinking Foreman has a good punchers chance.
Nemesis
08-10-2007, 10:07 AM
file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/John/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[Only registered and activated users can see links]
:D
I could be retarded here but is here name natalie Gulbis?
Google time :good
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 10:11 AM
I could be retarded here but is here name natalie Gulbis?
Google time :good
Mate, she won her first big tournament about a week ago, she's the Kournikova of golf. I think i love her, actually i know it!
:yep
The Kurgan
08-10-2007, 10:19 AM
Well i never actually said he was a slugger, not even close.
I never said you did.
I was kinda thinking we both did :lol:
There is this axiom that you can't trade with Foreman and win. Louis could do so.
Given Foreman's chin and heart i really don't think Joe is getting out without some kind of chin check. Remember too lesser punchers than George put Joe down, and i don't quite share your view Joe isn't getting hit here. Lyle was a fair hitter, and even more compelling is that George's reputation had already been shattered, both in his own mind and the mind of his opponents.
Lyle was a fair hitter, but nowhere near as hard as Louis. Foreman could possibly knock Louis down, but given that Foreman never knocked anyone out with one punch and given that Louis was never knocked out except with rounds upon rounds of warfare, it's hard to imagine a situation where Foreman can KO/TKO Louis.
Reputation and intimidation wouldn't be very relevant to this fight. I don't think either of them can intimidate the other.
I find it impossible to fathom most people thinking Frazier was the last person to use uppercuts against. The difference between Ali's ower and George's was monumental, a clean uppercut from George could spell the beginning of the end for Frazier.
Foreman, like Ali, had long arms which supposedly would retard his ability to uppercut properly against Frazier, since he'd have to load up more and thus leave himself open to the left hook which Frazier used to turn Ali's legs to jelly. Louis was aware that Foreman's uppercut could be very effective against Frazier.
Consider this- if you were back in December 1972, training Foreman, with no knowledge of the future, would you want him loading up with uppercuts against Frazier? Foreman's team didn't, until Joe Louis set them straight hours before the fight.
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 10:36 AM
I never said you did.
True but the convo twisted and it seemed like you thought i was implying Foreman was a swarmer. I meant swarmer last post, not slugger sorry.
There is this axiom that you can't trade with Foreman and win. Louis could do so.
Maybe, i am still not convinced Joe faced dangers of the ilk of Foreman. Most rate him top 10, what top 10 ATG punchers did Joe face?
Lyle was a fair hitter, but nowhere near as hard as Louis. Foreman could possibly knock Louis down, but given that Foreman never knocked anyone out with one punch and given that Louis was never knocked out except with rounds upon rounds of warfare, it's hard to imagine a situation where Foreman can KO/TKO Louis.
Solid post, but strange things can and do happen. Again, i still don't think Joe ever faced such a stoppage threat as George. I guess it depends how you rank George compared to Joe's opposition. I compare him above all.
Reputation and intimidation wouldn't be very relevant to this fight. I don't think either of them can intimidate the other.
Inside the ring they could.
Foreman, like Ali, had long arms which supposedly would retard his ability to uppercut properly against Frazier, since he'd have to load up more and thus leave himself open to the left hook which Frazier used to turn Ali's legs to jelly. Louis was aware that Foreman's uppercut could be very effective against Frazier.
Consider this- if you were back in December 1972, training Foreman, with no knowledge of the future, would you want him loading up with uppercuts against Frazier? Foreman's team didn't, until Joe Louis set them straight hours before the fight.
Foreman could actually land uppercuts from quite a distance. If memory serves me right he dished a few up from long distance in this fight.
mr. magoo
08-10-2007, 10:40 AM
Maybe, i am still not convinced Joe faced dangers of the ilk of Foreman. Most rate him top 10, what top 10 ATG punchers did Joe face?
It should be noted that Buddy Baer is commonly rated as an all time great puncher. He was 6'6 1/2", and weighed sometimes as much as 250Lbs, plus had 45 knockout in 50 wins. Louis also faced Marciano who is another all time great rated puncher.
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 10:53 AM
It should be noted that Buddy Baer is commonly rated as an all time great puncher. He was 6'6 1/2", and weighed sometimes as much as 250Lbs, plus had 45 knockout in 50 wins. Louis also faced Marciano who is another all time great rated puncher.
I've seen Baer, i rate Foreman a far better fighter. You will notice that i said top 10 ATG, fighter not puncher. Shavers hit huge and was physically imposoing too but was beaten by most every top fighter he faced. Marciano cleaned Joe up, tho he was past it. Even so Marciano isn't going to quite generate Foreman's power IMO.
janitor
08-10-2007, 10:54 AM
OK I will try another tack.
I would be more concearned about matching Louis with Joe Frazier than George Foreman.
Anybody agree with me on that or strongly disagree for that matter?
mr. magoo
08-10-2007, 10:55 AM
Not that it's a big deal, but this is actually what you said
Maybe, i am still not convinced Joe faced dangers of the ilk of Foreman. Most rate him top 10, what top 10 ATG punchers did Joe face?
mr. magoo
08-10-2007, 11:00 AM
OK I will try another tack.
I would be more concearned about matching Louis with Joe Frazier than George Foreman.
Anybody agree with me on that or strongly disagree for that matter?
I would agree
Frazier had more hand speed than Foreman, as well as most of the people Louis ever faced. Additionally, Louis was often suseptible to getting hit with the left hook, and Frazier was historically one of the division's best left hookers. Lastly, Frazier was a shorter swarmer type, which gave Louis trouble such as the Marciano's and Galento's. Foreman, however more closely resembled the likes of Max Baer and Buddy Baer whom Louis typically ate for breakfast.
McGrain
08-10-2007, 11:01 AM
OK I will try another tack.
I would be more concearned about matching Louis with Joe Frazier than George Foreman.
Anybody agree with me on that or strongly disagree for that matter?
Yeah, I totally agree. Frazier would make a lot more trouble for Joe.
Shake
08-10-2007, 11:24 AM
About Galento -- I saw his fight with Joe Louis, and mister Galento was not technically refined. I'd go as far as saying that he brings far less to the table than Foreman. Basically all he had going for him was lunging in with big, hard shots -- and Louis, in my opinion, didn't do any of the things you guys suggested. I did not see a man calmly firing counters off the back foot. I saw a man backing up, getting caught, and getting roughed up near the ropes.
I'm of the opinion that George would shove and advance and make Louis fight going back in a way he wasn't comfortable doing, George would come in with big shots, and catch him. I see this as a realistic possibility.
In my mind, if Louis could stand inside of Foreman, in his preferred range, his shorter, more accurate shots in combination could make quick work of Foreman despite his chin -- I've seen Foreman react when hurt and I've seen Joe Louis finish.
This fight would be over within three rounds. Either way. But my money's on George.
janitor
08-10-2007, 11:38 AM
About Galento -- I saw his fight with Joe Louis, and mister Galento was not technically refined. I'd go as far as saying that he brings far less to the table than Foreman. Basically all he had going for him was lunging in with big, hard shots -- and Louis, in my opinion, didn't do any of the things you guys suggested. I did not see a man calmly firing counters off the back foot. I saw a man backing up, getting caught, and getting roughed up near the ropes.
Gallento is a bad analogy. He was a verry short heavyweight who fought out of a crouch which is a style that always troubled Louis (see Godoy I). He also did some work on the inside.
Foreman is more of a stand up long range slugger in the mould of Max Baer. The kind of fighter Louis feasted on and did exactly what we have described against.
Shake
08-10-2007, 12:01 PM
'Crouching style'? I'll be honest and say I don't think much of Tony Galento at all. He's fat, short, fights almost on his ankles to then suddenly leap forward (a technique soon incorporated into gyms everywhere) and has no standout abilities except for the power of his punch. He's just a streetfighter.
Considering how much flak fighters like Sam Peter and James Toney get for entering the ring out of shape, it's surprising Galento gets any respect at all. I have to be honest, I had a much higher opinion of Louis before seeing this fight. Nowadays I believe he was a born fighter who didn't have the personality to match his talents. He seemed childlike in some ways.
Anyway, that was a bit rambling, I personally don't see Louis not folding under the kind of pressure George brings if Galento gave ghim trouble. It's not the crouching style -- it's Louis on the ropes, he seems uncomfortable, he seems to want some time to pick his shots. Once Foreman has him in reverse, he'll have authority.
janitor
08-10-2007, 12:14 PM
[quote=Shake]'Crouching style'?
Galento came in with an extremely low crouch. Watch the early rounds. He later got excited and abandoned his bob and weave aproach with well known results.
I'll be honest and say I don't think much of Tony Galento at all. He's fat, short, fights almost on his ankles to then suddenly leap forward (a technique soon incorporated into gyms everywhere) and has no standout abilities except for the power of his punch. He's just a streetfighter.
Esentialy yes he is crude but he is crude in a way that incorporates some features that Louis had trouble with eg crouch left hook etc. He is more a crude Frazier than a crude Foreman.
Considering how much flak fighters like Sam Peter and James Toney get for entering the ring out of shape, it's surprising Galento gets any respect at all.
He got as much flak and more in his own day. Today people can look back on it lightly of course but his trainers wrung their hands and wept.
I have to be honest, I had a much higher opinion of Louis before seeing this fight.
He did actualy pound Galento into a bloody mess if you didnt notice.
Nowadays I believe he was a born fighter who didn't have the personality to match his talents. He seemed childlike in some ways.
In some ways he had the perfect personality for a fighter. No imagination and totaly detatched from what he was doing to his oponent. You could call it childlike but there are few things more terifying than a child with absolute power.
Anyway, that was a bit rambling, I personally don't see Louis not folding under the kind of pressure George brings if Galento gave him trouble. It's not the crouching style -- it's Louis on the ropes, he seems uncomfortable, he seems to want some time to pick his shots.
It is a totaly difernt kind of pressure. Foreman is a long range slugger. The kind of pressure fighter Louis ate.
What Louis didnt like was pressure on the inside. That is when he starts to look uncomfortable.
Once Foreman has him in reverse, he'll have authority.
Once Foreman has him in reverse he will be digging his own grave. He will be walking forward into Louis's combination and giving him pleanty of room to set up his counters.
Louis was never happier than when an oponent was coming towards him. Foreman wont need to get Louis in reverse because Louis's plan would be to shuffle backwards just enough to keep Foreman coming forward.
mr. magoo
08-10-2007, 12:15 PM
'Crouching style'? I'll be honest and say I don't think much of Tony Galento at all. He's fat, short, fights almost on his ankles to then suddenly leap forward (a technique soon incorporated into gyms everywhere) and has no standout abilities except for the power of his punch. He's just a streetfighter.
Considering how much flak fighters like Sam Peter and James Toney get for entering the ring out of shape, it's surprising Galento gets any respect at all. I have to be honest, I had a much higher opinion of Louis before seeing this fight. Nowadays I believe he was a born fighter who didn't have the personality to match his talents. He seemed childlike in some ways.
Anyway, that was a bit rambling, I personally don't see Louis not folding under the kind of pressure George brings if Galento gave ghim trouble. It's not the crouching style -- it's Louis on the ropes, he seems uncomfortable, he seems to want some time to pick his shots. Once Foreman has him in reverse, he'll have authority.
I agree with your analysis of Galento being an out of shape street fighter as opposed to being a true world class contender. I disagree, however that Louis's poor performance against Galento should be used as a measure when comparing him to Foreman. I would rather use the Max Baer and Buddy Baer fights to draw my conclusions than just one lackluster performance against a pretender.
Max and Buddy were not exactly in the same class as Foreman in my opinion, but they bore far more similarities to George than Galento did. Both Guys were well over 6 feet tall, and Buddy was on average, 245 Lbs at 6'61/2. Both guys hit like trucks, and from what I understand used similar tactics ( again I feel George was better ). Nevertheless, Louis typically destroyed these types of fighters. The problem with fighters like George, Buddy and Max, is that they left themselves open, and were often made to pay for their offensive mistakes.
This is not to say that Louis would beat Foreman, nor that I would even pick him, but I'd prefer to make my preditions based on Louis's performance against the Baer bros. Rather than Galento or anyone else.
Shake
08-10-2007, 12:18 PM
I agree with your analysis of Galento being an out of shape street fighter as opposed to being a true world class contender. I disagree, however that Louis's poor performance against Galento should be used as a measure when comparing him to Foreman. I would rather use the Max Baer and Buddy Baer fights to draw my conclusions than just one lackluster performance against a pretender.
Max and Buddy were not exactly in the same class as Foreman in my opinion, but they bore far more similarities to George than Galento did. Both Guys were well over 6 feet tall, and Buddy was on average, 245 Lbs at 6'61/2. Both guys hit like trucks, and from what I understand used similar tactics ( again I feel George was better ). Nevertheless, Louis typically destroyed these types of fighters. The problem with fighters like George, Buddy and Max, is that they left themselves open, and were often made to pay for their offensive mistakes.
This is not to say that Louis would beat Foreman, nor that I would even pick him, but I'd prefer to make my preditions based on Louis's performance against the Baer bros. Rather than Galento or anyone else.
You might be right. The last fight I've seen of Louis is the one against Galento. I'll go and re-watch the fights against Max and Buddy to refresh my memory of what a good Louis could do to bigger men. I'm actually not sure I've ever seen his match with Buddy Baer.
Quick Cash
08-10-2007, 12:19 PM
Neither fighter exhibited anything close to special in terms of defensive prowess in their primes, let's be honest; both are susceptible of getting hit from time to time. However, Only one of these men established a reputation of being an inaccurate slob in the ring: Big George. It's laughable to me how some here claim that he was somehow efficient with his punching technique when he hopelessly was not.
It's true, sooner or later Louis may be liable to get caught with a lucky bomb, but it is my opinion that if he should find his feet, he would face minimum follow-through from George.
Here, I thought it best to illustrate the scenario with the use of youtube:
George Foreman vs Luis Faustino Pires 1971
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
See?
Oh man, I crack up everytime I see this. Pay close attention at around 1:14 for pure comedy :D
mr. magoo
08-10-2007, 12:22 PM
You might be right. The last fight I've seen of Louis is the one against Galento. I'll go and re-watch the fights against Max and Buddy to refresh my memory of what a good Louis could do to bigger men. I'm actually not sure I've ever seen his match with Buddy Baer.
I've never seen either of his two fights with Buddy Baer either, although Buddy From what I understand, was similar to both Max and Foreman. I'll check youtube to see if these fights are available. Apparently, Buddy Floored Louis in the first match, but fell victom to Joe in only one round in the second fight.
Quick Cash
08-10-2007, 12:27 PM
In the event that George does floor Joe Louis, I believe it would be very temporary (provided it is just the one shot that I am imagining and not a sustained beatdown, which I cannot see George dish out anyway).
When he gets up it'll be the same old story, operating inside those wild, clubbing blows, disrupting the momentum before they hit their mark. Now, George might have the chin to survive this (I personally don't believe so), but after maybe the 9th or the 10th it won't matter.
janitor
08-10-2007, 12:31 PM
You might be right. The last fight I've seen of Louis is the one against Galento. I'll go and re-watch the fights against Max and Buddy to refresh my memory of what a good Louis could do to bigger men. I'm actually not sure I've ever seen his match with Buddy Baer.
If you want to see Louis look bad watch him against a fighter who uses a low crouch and aplies inside pressure like Godoy or Gallento.
Wan't another fighter who is not an all time great who would make him look bad?
George Chuvalo.
If you want to see Louis look unbeatable then watch him against a big hitter who trades with him at range like Max Baer, Lou Nova or Buddy Baer.
Shake
08-10-2007, 12:32 PM
Well, despite the knockdown, I believe I've made a complete ass of myself with the comment pertaining to Louis folding under pressure. :) I did not expect him to be this calm and collected while being walked down.
How was Louis at taking damage? Not the chin, but say, clubbing shots to the arms and body? I can't recall a time when he had to endure that. If there's no example, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say his ability to endure a war was fitting of the champion he was, but it'd be nice to have some footage.
mr. magoo
08-10-2007, 12:42 PM
Well, despite the knockdown, I believe I've made a complete ass of myself with the comment pertaining to Louis folding under pressure. :) I did not expect him to be this calm and collected while being walked down.
How was Louis at taking damage? Not the chin, but say, clubbing shots to the arms and body? I can't recall a time when he had to endure that. If there's no example, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say his ability to endure a war was fitting of the champion he was, but it'd be nice to have some footage.
I just started a thread entitled B. Baer compared to G Foreman. I posted youtube links with footage of both. If you get time check it out, and maybe we'll even get a discussion going :good
My dinner with Conteh
08-10-2007, 02:05 PM
I would say so...he certainly did the damage at light-heavy,he's got an absolute shit-load of first round KO's...at heavy he's obviously not the same man but he could certainly still bang with the right.
Do you consider him light hitting?
I don't give a fuck if he knocked out 100 light heavyweights. It's funny, my original post mentioned that "he may have hit hard at light heavy" and I was curious to which Einstein would say something like you have above.
janitor
08-10-2007, 02:10 PM
I don't give a fuck if he knocked out 100 light heavyweights. It's funny, my original post mentioned that "he may have hit hard at light heavy" and I was curious to which Einstein would say something like you have above.
Braddock could hit. He was a wrecking machine at light heavy and even at heavyweight he scored a good few knockouts in the first two rounds despite chronic hand problems.
My dinner with Conteh
08-10-2007, 02:15 PM
[quote]Do you think there won't be stamina issues against Louis if the fight goes beyond six rounds and Foreman is geting countered every time he breathes?
Why are you trying to make your own arguments? Of course, if it goes past six he's doomed. Maybe if it goes past 3 he's doomed. But there's a good chance it won't.
My dinner with Conteh
08-10-2007, 02:16 PM
Braddock could hit. He was a wrecking machine at light heavy and even at heavyweight he scored a good few knockouts in the first two rounds despite chronic hand problems.
He wasn't a big hitter at top level heavy. Of that there's no doubt. Foster was a much bigger hitter than Braddock at 175- didn't make much difference against the Ali's and Frazier's.
DocDevil
08-10-2007, 02:17 PM
Louis was incredible,but George hit harder than anyone that Joe fought,including the guys that knocked him down.If Joe makes it to the fifth,he wins,otherwise Blackburn is is standing over him with the smelling salts.
My dinner with Conteh
08-10-2007, 02:18 PM
I just started a thread entitled B. Baer compared to G Foreman. I posted youtube links with footage of both. If you get time check it out, and maybe we'll even get a discussion going :good
Foreman's a much bigger hitter than Baer regardless. Oops, no wait. Baer fought Louis. He must have been a far bigger hitter. In fact, I've read many an expert list their all time punchers- the list usually goes:
1. B. Baer; 2. Shavers, 3. Foreman, 4. Tyson, 5. Liston. :good
janitor
08-10-2007, 02:24 PM
[quote=My dinner with Conteh]He wasn't a big hitter at top level heavy. Of that there's no doubt.
I would suggest that if those who fought him beleived that he was a big hitter at heavyweight then there is a great deal of doubt about what you are saying.
Foster was a much bigger hitter than Braddock at 175-
What makes you so sure. Braddock was knocking out much better oposition than Foster and unlike Foster he did carry his power up to heavyweight.
didn't make much difference against the Ali's and Frazier's.
Well Ali said that Foster had him out on his feet but who is he to argue.
janitor
08-10-2007, 02:26 PM
Foreman's a much bigger hitter than Baer regardless. Oops, no wait. Baer fought Louis. He must have been a far bigger hitter. In fact, I've read many an expert list their all time punchers- the list usually goes:
1. B. Baer; 2. Shavers, 3. Foreman, 4. Tyson, 5. Liston. :good
I don't think that any puncher in history can be verified to have hit harder than either of the Baer brothers.
Once they get beyond a certain point eg Baer, Foreman, Shavers all you can say for sure is that they are definitely among the A teir.
Do you think there won't be stamina issues against Louis if the fight goes beyond six rounds and Foreman is geting countered every time he breathes?
......with what weapon?:huh
janitor
08-10-2007, 03:36 PM
......with what weapon?:huh
Well all of them actualy.
Every combination in the book.
My dinner with Conteh
08-10-2007, 03:38 PM
[quote]
I would suggest that if those who fought him beleived that he was a big hitter at heavyweight then there is a great deal of doubt about what you are saying.
What makes you so sure. Braddock was knocking out much better oposition than Foster and unlike Foster he did carry his power up to heavyweight.
Well Ali said that Foster had him out on his feet but who is he to argue.
So, Braddock hit harder than Foster then?
ps. Ali talked up loads of fighter he was that kind of guy. Your knowledge of him is obviously quite poor if you take everything he said at face value.
My dinner with Conteh
08-10-2007, 03:38 PM
I don't think that any puncher in history can be verified to have hit harder than either of the Baer brothers.
So historians rate Baer up there with Foreman? Nah, not quite.
Every combination in the book.
What combo exactly?
guilalah
08-10-2007, 03:46 PM
Shake comment #6 said
I've always considered Louis as somewhat of a Mozart-like figure. I felt he didn't have to train as hard as most or fight as cleverly because he was supremely gifted.
Mozart was unfathomably gifted and studied music very thouroughly. You don't do what he did without both.
janitor
08-10-2007, 03:50 PM
[quote=janitor]
So, Braddock hit harder than Foster then?
I don't know to be honest.
I know that coming into the Loughran fight Braddock had a rep similar to Foster at light heavyweight.
I also know that there is strong circumstantial evidence that he caried it up with him.
Now you know as much as I do.
My dinner with Conteh
08-10-2007, 03:54 PM
[quote=My dinner with Conteh]
I don't know to be honest.
I know that coming into the Loughran fight Braddock had a rep similar to Foster at light heavyweight.
I also know that there is strong circumstantial evidence that he caried it up with him.
Now you know as much as I do.
So Braddock took his punch up to heavyweight...or do you really mean 'Cruiserweight'? Please don't answer "No technically they were heavyweights", you get the jist.
janitor
08-10-2007, 04:00 PM
What combo exactly?
The fact that you can ask that question shows how little you apreciate Louis's talents.
He somtimes threw every combo in the book in the space of a single round and in a totaly unpredictable sequence.
What combination?
If Foreman leaves an opening then he could honestly get anything.
My dinner with Conteh
08-10-2007, 04:03 PM
What combo exactly?
Oh come one mate, if there was one thing Louis could do it was fight offensively. He was one of the very best proper and complete punchers of all-time, p-f-p too....that chin was dodgy nevertheless. :good
janitor
08-10-2007, 04:04 PM
So Braddock took his punch up to heavyweight...or do you really mean 'Cruiserweight'? Please don't answer "No technically they were heavyweights", you get the jist.
Yes lets say he carried his power up to cruiserweight then. Say that Louis got knocked down by say David Haye while slightly off ballence.
Henry Cooper was a cruiserweight and he subjected Muhamad Ali to a much more serious knockdown.
My dinner with Conteh
08-10-2007, 04:10 PM
Yes lets say he carried his power up to cruiserweight then. Say that Louis got knocked down by say David Haye while slightly off ballence.
Henry Cooper was a cruiserweight and he subjected Muhamad Ali to a much more serious knockdown.
My point being that Foster generally had to hit much bigger men when he stepped up. Of course, a Cooper-type could get the odd huge punch and deck a top calibre opponent but he wouldn't (and didn't) do it consistently against much bigger and stronger men at the highest level.
The fact that you can ask that question shows how little you apreciate Louis's talents
What talent exactly?
The talent to let your jab hang down or kissing the canvass?
janitor
08-10-2007, 04:45 PM
My point being that Foster generally had to hit much bigger men when he stepped up. Of course, a Cooper-type could get the odd huge punch and deck a top calibre opponent but he wouldn't (and didn't) do it consistently against much bigger and stronger men at the highest level.
I could name a few cruisers who did consistently decked the heavyweights and even superheavys.
I guess Louis himself was a cruiser when he fought Braddock so he is excused for being knocked down.
When his body weight went over the 200lb mark he sudenly became a heavyweight monster and started demolishing the likes of Buddy Baer and Abe Simon who would have stamped on the cruiserweight Louis.
that chin was dodgy nevertheless.
indeed.:yep
mcvey
08-10-2007, 04:58 PM
I think if anyone is going to be landing right hands, it'll be Louis, who had the faster hands and the better counter-punching skills. Foreman's straight/overhand right, in his prime, was one of his worst punches. It was comparable to Sam Peter's today: a punch that should have been a brilliant punch, but was reduced to just a very hard punch because of lack of technique.
Foreman's best punches were his left hook and right uppercut, both of which are going to result in brutal counter-left hooks from Louis. As McGrain has already noted, Foreman was flawed on every way that Louis could possibly want.
Ridiculous. Both were hit with big punches that floored them, and both got off the canvas to win.
You don't think Louis can deal with someone throwing uppercuts from way back? I'll tell you how he'd deal with it: triple fricking left hooks, which would drop Foreman.
If Foreman tries to shove Louis, the shorter Louis will just drop under his arms (Louis has a 3 inch height advantage on the inside) and fire uppercut up the middle upon Foreman's exposed chin, just as he did against Buddy Baer. Bye-bye, Big George! :hi:
You don't think Louis trained hard? He was a much more consistent trainer than the lazier greats of the 1970s. Foreman, Frazier and Ali were all very inconsistent in their weight and conditioning. Louis only came in poor shape once, against Schmeling, and learnt his lesson well. When he can in incorrectly conditioned, as in the first Conn fight, it was due to OVERTRAINING. By the end of his career, when he was still a world-class boxer, Louis relied almost entirely on his conditioning and skill; his power had mostly gone along with his handspeed.
If anyone in boxing relied too much on his gifts, it wasn't Louis. I'd say a brawler who relied on his natural power, strength and chin to substitue for training his skill or conditioning (Foreman) or a dancer who relied on his speed and chin to get him out when he came in disgracefully bad shape (Ali) would be a better example of a Mozart-like boxer. Joe Louis was like Joe Frazier: a man of modest physical talents who, through dedication and love of the sport, became a nearly unstoppable fighting machine.
Foreman was hardly a swarmer. I'd say the more aggressive he gets against Louis, the quicker he goes. The more times he swings that right, over-extends his jab, swings that left hook with his right low or throws himself along with his rights, the more times he gives Louis an opportunity to starch him.
Remember people: Louis turned Foreman from an underdog against Frazier to a destroyer. It was Joe Louis who told him to use his uppercut, which Foreman had previously underused, to get the win at the Sunshine Showdown. Louis understood Foreman better than anyone else. With Jack Blackburn and the wealth of Foreman footage, he'd go in with a strategy to take advantage of every flaw in Foreman's technique. It'd be a bloody mess that would end with a helpless Foreman laying like a rag-doll on the ropes.
Louis didnt overtrain for the first Conn fight he was sensitive that Conn,really a big middleweight would be conceding poundage ,{Conn actually weighed 169 for the fight],so Louis resolved to come in under 200lbs which he did,{199 1/2],he acheived this by drying out and taking no liquids,Joe said he felt like shit when he got into the ring and his less than stellar performance reflected it.
Nemesis
08-10-2007, 04:58 PM
Jim Braddock's a bonafide puncher now is he? :lol:
Foreman was downed largely due to stamina issues, we all know that. Louis was dropped by THE MONSTER HITTING Braddock in the first, when he was fresh as a daisy.
He was early on in his career as a light heavyweight, he had a great right hand which accounted for many early round KO's, which once he broke it and couldnt afford to get it fixed (in the midst of the wall street crash which hugely affected him), meant he could barely use it and then preceded to go on a run of something like 28 wins and 23 losses
mcvey
08-10-2007, 04:58 PM
I think if anyone is going to be landing right hands, it'll be Louis, who had the faster hands and the better counter-punching skills. Foreman's straight/overhand right, in his prime, was one of his worst punches. It was comparable to Sam Peter's today: a punch that should have been a brilliant punch, but was reduced to just a very hard punch because of lack of technique.
Foreman's best punches were his left hook and right uppercut, both of which are going to result in brutal counter-left hooks from Louis. As McGrain has already noted, Foreman was flawed on every way that Louis could possibly want.
Ridiculous. Both were hit with big punches that floored them, and both got off the canvas to win.
You don't think Louis can deal with someone throwing uppercuts from way back? I'll tell you how he'd deal with it: triple fricking left hooks, which would drop Foreman.
If Foreman tries to shove Louis, the shorter Louis will just drop under his arms (Louis has a 3 inch height advantage on the inside) and fire uppercut up the middle upon Foreman's exposed chin, just as he did against Buddy Baer. Bye-bye, Big George! :hi:
You don't think Louis trained hard? He was a much more consistent trainer than the lazier greats of the 1970s. Foreman, Frazier and Ali were all very inconsistent in their weight and conditioning. Louis only came in poor shape once, against Schmeling, and learnt his lesson well. When he can in incorrectly conditioned, as in the first Conn fight, it was due to OVERTRAINING. By the end of his career, when he was still a world-class boxer, Louis relied almost entirely on his conditioning and skill; his power had mostly gone along with his handspeed.
If anyone in boxing relied too much on his gifts, it wasn't Louis. I'd say a brawler who relied on his natural power, strength and chin to substitue for training his skill or conditioning (Foreman) or a dancer who relied on his speed and chin to get him out when he came in disgracefully bad shape (Ali) would be a better example of a Mozart-like boxer. Joe Louis was like Joe Frazier: a man of modest physical talents who, through dedication and love of the sport, became a nearly unstoppable fighting machine.
Foreman was hardly a swarmer. I'd say the more aggressive he gets against Louis, the quicker he goes. The more times he swings that right, over-extends his jab, swings that left hook with his right low or throws himself along with his rights, the more times he gives Louis an opportunity to starch him.
Remember people: Louis turned Foreman from an underdog against Frazier to a destroyer. It was Joe Louis who told him to use his uppercut, which Foreman had previously underused, to get the win at the Sunshine Showdown. Louis understood Foreman better than anyone else. With Jack Blackburn and the wealth of Foreman footage, he'd go in with a strategy to take advantage of every flaw in Foreman's technique. It'd be a bloody mess that would end with a helpless Foreman laying like a rag-doll on the ropes.
Louis didnt overtrain for the first Conn fight he was sensitive that Conn,really a big middleweight would be conceding poundage ,{Conn actually weighed 169 for the fight],so Louis resolved to come in under 200lbs which he did,{199 1/2],he acheived this by drying out and taking no liquids,Joe said he felt like shit when he got into the ring and his less than stellar performance reflected it.
mcvey
08-10-2007, 05:30 PM
He was early on in his career as a light heavyweight, he had a great right hand which accounted for many early round KO's, which once he broke it and couldnt afford to get it fixed (in the midst of the wall street crash which hugely affected him), meant he could barely use it and then preceded to go on a run of something like 28 wins and 23 losses
Good post Braddock was a known puncher at LH and a respectable one at Heavy he could bang a bit with his right but hand injuries hampered him.
If Foreman tries to shove Louis, the shorter Louis will just drop under his arms (Louis has a 3 inch height advantage on the inside) and fire uppercut up the middle upon Foreman's exposed chin, just as he did against Buddy Baer. Bye-bye, Big George!
Top comedian! I laughed tears. :rofl
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 06:25 PM
Not that it's a big deal, but this is actually what you said
Oops, i meant ATG top 10 fighters who also had a punch.
JohnThomas1
08-10-2007, 06:28 PM
I don't think that any puncher in history can be verified to have hit harder than either of the Baer brothers.
Once they get beyond a certain point eg Baer, Foreman, Shavers all you can say for sure is that they are definitely among the A teir.
Even if so there is a cavernous gap between the class level of Foreman and Baer.
Ted Spoon
08-10-2007, 07:14 PM
Foreman had a solid foundation, but his one stand-out feature in this match-up would only take him through more hell. Ted Spoon has estimated that there is a 87.789% chance George would lose.
Joe Frazier simply marched into the tornado, and Ken Norton did not have the tools to diffuse the tornado…
Joe Louis had the crunching counters, conventional defensive ability, but most importantly, that icy composure to shuffle near Foreman and keep him in stylistic limbo, not sure whether to be a tornado or a measured, ‘Jimmy Young-like’ breeze.
Louis would stop a Foreman advance with a crunching counter, stare at him, and keep him doubting himself. Short punches would blast the chin that took a step too close, and well-locked elbows and arms would pick off the wild ones. He'd force him into making mistakes and then punish whenever he could with both hands as he shuffled closer to his degenerating foe.
When Max Bear took a knee against Louis it was a, later self-admitted, waving of the white flag. Similarly, Foreman would find himself in between a ring and Joe Louis with nowhere to go but down.
Foreman had a solid foundation, but his one stand-out feature in this match-up would only take him through more hell. Ted Spoon has estimated that there is a 87.789% chance George would lose.
Joe Frazier simply marched into the tornado, and Ken Norton did not have the tools to diffuse the tornado…
Joe Louis had the crunching counters, conventional defensive ability, but most importantly, that icy composure to shuffle near Foreman and keep him in stylistic limbo, not sure whether to be a tornado or a measured, ‘Jimmy Young-like’ breeze.
Louis would stop a Foreman advance with a crunching counter, stare at him, and keep him doubting himself. Short punches would blast the chin that took a step too close, and well-locked elbows and arms would pick off the wild ones. He'd force him into making mistakes and then punish whenever he could with both hands as he shuffled closer to his degenerating foe.
When Max Bear took a knee against Louis it was a, later self-admitted, waving of the white flag. Similarly, Foreman would find himself in between a ring and Joe Louis with nowhere to go but down.
Nice rainbow-journalism.
Nice rainbow-journalism.
Double post.
mr. magoo
08-10-2007, 08:09 PM
Foreman had a solid foundation, but his one stand-out feature in this match-up would only take him through more hell. Ted Spoon has estimated that there is a 87.789% chance George would lose.
Joe Frazier simply marched into the tornado, and Ken Norton did not have the tools to diffuse the tornado…
Joe Louis had the crunching counters, conventional defensive ability, but most importantly, that icy composure to shuffle near Foreman and keep him in stylistic limbo, not sure whether to be a tornado or a measured, ‘Jimmy Young-like’ breeze.
Louis would stop a Foreman advance with a crunching counter, stare at him, and keep him doubting himself. Short punches would blast the chin that took a step too close, and well-locked elbows and arms would pick off the wild ones. He'd force him into making mistakes and then punish whenever he could with both hands as he shuffled closer to his degenerating foe.
When Max Bear took a knee against Louis it was a, later self-admitted, waving of the white flag. Similarly, Foreman would find himself in between a ring and Joe Louis with nowhere to go but down.
This is a reasonably good analysis of what MIGHT happen. Let's take a look at what resembles a better look at reality, however.
George Foreman weathered the storm of punchers, as well as a pontoon boat would weather the boredome of an afternoon of sitting on a calm lake, with nothing to do but cast a line into the water, prepare an easy lunch, and read the latest addition of Lame ass magazine.
Of the great punchers that he faced, Foreman Ko'd all of them, and most of these guys were pretty well reguarded. Joe Frazier was an all time great puncher, with possibly the best left hook ever, ( a tool that often troubled Louis. ) Foreman absolutely devoured Frazier, the way that a retired salesman might enjoy eating a tuna fish sandwitch.
In George's 81 pro fight career, he was only stopped but once, against what many consider to be the greatest fighter of all time, and largely due to exhaustion, rather than beig bested. What's more, his biggest achiles heel was a man who preffered to box his way to victory, rather than punch out a win. A man of Louis's profile, who was floored by the likes of Galento, Schmeling, Walcott and Baer, Bore no such description.
:good
McGrain
08-10-2007, 10:52 PM
I don't give a fuck if he knocked out 100 light heavyweights. It's funny, my original post mentioned that "he may have hit hard at light heavy" and I was curious to which Einstein would say something like you have above.
Calm down! Jesus, i've never treated you with anything but the upmost respect and have no idea what i've done to deserve being talked to in this tone.
Anyway. As you so snotily pointed out your post had two parts. So did mine. I claimed that Bradock hit a bit at Heavyweight in adition to his LHW banging. Here's my position, if you're interested.
As i'm sure you know Braddock had terrible hand trouble. In his fight with Levandonski in '33 Braddock was already on a fierce slide. Having broken his hand some three times already he broke it again in round 1 - but badly this time. Heart that he had he fought on, dropping a ten round decision using only his left.
He was around 40-20 at this time.
Not that Braddock knew it, but my opinion is that the seeds of his greatness were planted here. After the Levandonski fight, Braddock had no money for anything other than a consultation - he was told he needed surgery, and nothing else would do. Of course he couldn't afford it. Braddock re-broke his hand less than six weeks later knocking down Stillman in the first round. Stillman got back up and won a ten round decision. Best thing that ever happened to Braddock.
Skip ahead a couple of months and a couple of loses and Braddock beats Kennedy leading with the left, and for the first time. He abondend his lauded right becaus he just couldn't trust it any more.
More losses and more breaks, but when Braddock retired he got what most fighters take for granted now - a years lay of. He spent near to 12 months working on the docks - using only his left arm (his right was crushed and arthritic). When Braddock came back to the ring his right was healed for the first time in years and his left was vastly improved.
As you may know he took the match with contender Griffin on two days notice. He won by 3rd round TKO using mainly the right. He punched his way to victory at heavy for the first time.
In his next fight he took on the great, the all time great, John Henry Lewis at heavyweigt and became the first man to drop him ever, at any weight. I think i'm right in saying that Lewis had one of the busiest careers of anyone ever. In that time, the only other man to drop him would be Louis. He punched his way to victory.
Next up was #1 ranked heavyweight Lasky. Braddock absoultley battered him. He punched his way to victory despite being seriously outweighed. And he used his left a great deal in this fight according to what I have.
Braddock outboxed Baer. That fight doesn't help my case for Braddock as a puncher. But it's this guy who dropped Louis, not the 40-20 guy with the busted right and the underdeveloped left.
In my opinion there is no bigger difference between peak and trough in terms of ability for any HW champ ever - and the guy who finally got the rest his right hand needed by retiring was a different fighter than the one who retired, not to mention a serious puncher. I think Braddock is amongst the most underated ever at the weight. As a puncher too, apparently.
Louis picked him as a heavy puncher, as Janitor pointed out. I don't know what Farr said, but i bet it wasn't "he doesn't dent a milk carton at this weight" or some of the other bullshit that is in this thread.
Bill1234
08-10-2007, 11:37 PM
Foreman was the hardest hitting HW in history.
After Shavers.
But anyway, if Louis survives the first 3 IMO he would start to take control, but the first 3 rounds would be REAL tough for Louis because of his chin.
NickHudson
08-10-2007, 11:48 PM
Reading a couple of these Fantasy match-ups recently has made me wonder if we inadvertently favour 1 punch KO artists more so than skilled accumulation type boxers.
When we do the analysis we imagine each man on his best ever night, and this means we start thinking things like 'imagine if Marciano lands the right that destroyed Walcott and so on...'
I am sure none of us would wish that kind of punch on our personal favorite, no matter how sturdy his whiskers are.
The point I am making is, no matter how beautifully you box, over the course of 15 rounds you are bound to get nailed a few times. You don't want it to be Tysons, Foremans, Listons, or Shavers best punch that hits the sweet spot.
Do you think a tournament setup favours the pure boxers and a one-off best night the punchers?
My dinner with Conteh
08-11-2007, 06:07 AM
He was early on in his career as a light heavyweight, he had a great right hand which accounted for many early round KO's, which once he broke it and couldnt afford to get it fixed (in the midst of the wall street crash which hugely affected him), meant he could barely use it and then preceded to go on a run of something like 28 wins and 23 losses
I realise this. I never said he couldn't punch at light-heavy (it would be nice if people paid attention).
My dinner with Conteh
08-11-2007, 06:15 AM
Louis picked him as a heavy puncher, as Janitor pointed out.
Well he's hardly going to say "Jim's punches couldn't break an egg but because my chin's shit I went down anyway" is he. :huh
McGrain
08-11-2007, 06:18 AM
Well he's hardly going to say "Jim's punches couldn't break an egg but because my chin's shit I went down anyway" is he. :huh
No.
What about the other guys he kicked the shit out of on his comeback, going to dismiss that too?
My dinner with Conteh
08-11-2007, 06:19 AM
No.
What about the other guys he kicked the shit out of on his comeback, going to dismiss that too?
He was a fair hitter in the days of the 185 pound heavy. That is all.
McGrain
08-11-2007, 06:24 AM
He was a fair hitter in the days of the 185 pound heavy. That is all.
Actually for most of his career he wasn't.
But against Farr (207), Louis (195) Baer - who also expressed admiration for Braddock's power (210), Lasky (200), Lewis (176) and Griffith (185) he proved himself a puncher.
The average here is a lot higher than 185 i would think (though maths isn't my strong suit).
I think you are confusing Braddock pre-retirment with post-retirement, or taking a sort of average over his career as regards his power. Have another look.
janitor
08-11-2007, 06:35 AM
Even if so there is a cavernous gap between the class level of Foreman and Baer.
In terms of power I don't beleive there is.
Some historians regard Max Baer as the hardest punching heavyweight champion ever. You simply don't get a significantly better test of your ability to take a hard shot than that.
My dinner with Conteh
08-11-2007, 06:40 AM
Actually for most of his career he wasn't.
But against Farr (207), Louis (195) Baer - who also expressed admiration for Braddock's power (210), Lasky (200), Lewis (176) and Griffith (185) he proved himself a puncher.
The average here is a lot higher than 185 i would think (though maths isn't my strong suit).
I think you are confusing Braddock pre-retirment with post-retirement, or taking a sort of average over his career as regards his power. Have another look.
He didn't really hurt Baer or Farr badly. The other three you mentioned average at around 187 so I think you're way off mark. By the way, virtually every top heavyweight has some knockouts- you could look at Tony Tucker's or even Bugner's CV and say "Wow, he stopped some guys on his way up". Big deal. Ali's record of stopping havyweights is a lot better than Braddock's, a superior level of chin he knocked down also- and he wasn't a particularly big hitter. But he outshines Jim in this dept. No doubts there.
I can only summise that perhaps you dreamt about Braddock being a big punching wrecking machine and can't fathom if it was real or not.
My dinner with Conteh
08-11-2007, 06:41 AM
In terms of power I don't beleive there is.
Some historians regard Max Baer as the hardest punching heavyweight champion ever. You simply don't get a significantly better test of your ability to take a hard shot than that.
Just becuase you fight a huge puncher, doesn't mean you take his best shots. I never thought Ali took Liston's best for example.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 06:45 AM
In terms of power I don't beleive there is.
Yes but that is my exact point. Class wise there is. Earnie Shavers hits as hard as anyone, but when he stepped right up the opposition was too good. Foreman however had many more talents and assets and made his mark at the top, dramatically at times. Lets call Shaver's your Baer.
Bottom line - Foreman is much much more dangerous than the likes of Shavers and Baer.
janitor
08-11-2007, 06:48 AM
Well he's hardly going to say "Jim's punches couldn't break an egg but because my chin's shit I went down anyway" is he. :huh
It is interesting to note that he said that Braddock and not Schmeling who had knocked him out was the second hardest puncher he ever faced after Max Baer.
You can spin it however you want. The guys who knocked Louis down Schmeling, Braddock, Galento, Baer, Marciano were all punchers. If you have dozens of fights against ranked contenders instead of a handfull like George Foreman then you are going to get droped and rocked by guys like these.
janitor
08-11-2007, 06:49 AM
Just becuase you fight a huge puncher, doesn't mean you take his best shots. I never thought Ali took Liston's best for example.
Louis took a few flush right hands from Baer. He just battened down the hatches and took them.
McGrain
08-11-2007, 06:50 AM
He didn't really hurt Baer or Farr badly.
Yes he did hurt Baer badly, buckled his knees I think in round 5. Baer admitted as much and Braddock admitted to being stunned himself, and partly blamed this for his failure to follow up. This was inspite of a boxing strategy that he adopted specifically for the fight.
The other three you mentioned average at around 187 so I think you're way off mark.
If you're not going to dispute it are you going to restore Baer to your calculations? Or continue to leave him of for the sake of convenience?
By the way, virtually every top heavyweight has some knockouts- you could look at Tony Tucker's or even Bugner's CV and say "Wow, he stopped some guys on his way up".
We are not talking about the way up. We are talking about the hardest fights Braddock had at heavy. The best fighters he ever took on. Can't you see the difference? Really? Losing decision after decision before his rest, failing to ko guys over and over again and then decking quality fighters on his comeback? Including iron chinned Lewis? It's as plain as day that he is a different prospect power wise.
Big deal. Ali's record of stopping havyweights is a lot better than Braddock's, a superior level of chin he knocked down also- and he wasn't a particularly big hitter. But he outshines Jim in this dept. No doubts there.
I've said it before but I will say it again as clearly as I can - I am not talking about Braddock's career. I am talking about Braddock after his comeback. Everything you have said above is true and irrelevant.
I can only summise that perhaps you dreamt about Braddock being a big punching wrecking machine and can't fathom if it was real or not.
I've never called him a wrecking machine. Those are your words, interesting choice.
I consider the Braddock that took on Baer a big puncher.
janitor
08-11-2007, 06:52 AM
Yes but that is my exact point. Class wise there is. Earnie Shavers hits as hard as anyone, but when he stepped right up the opposition was too good. Foreman however had many more talents and assets and made his mark at the top, dramatically at times. Lets call Shaver's your Baer.
Bottom line - Foreman is much much more dangerous than the likes of Shavers and Baer.
While Foreman as you say had many aditional talents over Baer or Shavers I am not sure that the execution if a single punch was one of them.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 07:00 AM
While Foreman as you say had many aditional talents over Baer or Shavers I am not sure that the execution if a single punch was one of them.
Foreman is much more of an offensive threat due to his better overall package. My meanderings have never claimed he punches harder with a single punch than Baer or Shavers nor claimed Baer wasn't a big puncher. Boxing is full of massive punching guys who didn't have the class to take the belt, some didn't even fight for it. Shavers and Baer are two perfect examples of monster punchers of their day who didn't have what it took to win the title. John Mugabi, same boat. Miranda from the modern day i follow with interest.
McGrain
08-11-2007, 07:02 AM
Foreman is much more of an offensive threat due to his better overall package.
I think speaking generally you are right.
But for me both Baer and Shavers would pose a greater threat to Louis than Foreman. Everything about Foreman boxing just screams "wrong" for Joe Louis I think.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 07:07 AM
I think speaking generally you are right.
But for me both Baer and Shavers would pose a greater threat to Louis than Foreman. Everything about Foreman boxing just screams "wrong" for Joe Louis I think.
I would debate heavily that Foreman is infinitely more dangerous to Louis. What does Shavers do better than Foreman? Foreman matches his power, both have ordinary stamina, both a bit slow and wide, Foreman has better timing, uses his strength better, overall better two handed attack, better jab, and perhaps most important of all, a FAR better chin. Shavers with his highly suspect chin is far more suited to an early night vs the Bomber. Louis only need land a good'un or two. Not so vs Foreman, he's far more likely to survive and remain dangerous.
My dinner with Conteh
08-11-2007, 07:07 AM
It is interesting to note that he said that Braddock and not Schmeling who had knocked him out was the second hardest puncher he ever faced after Max Baer.
Ha ha, I was waiting for that useless old chesnut. Fighters hardly ever say the guy that starched them was the biggest hitter- i thought you'd know that- and they always say the guy they hammered was the top whacker. I could give you a million examples (but I'm off to the match in 10 minutes and I couldn't be arsed anyway), so i'll give you last one I read, just this week: Henry Clark said the hardest puncher was not Shavers (who blasted him out), not Liston (who minced him) or even Foreman (whom he sparred with) but...Eddie Machen and guess what? He just happened to beat Machen. :lol:
My dinner with Conteh
08-11-2007, 07:10 AM
We are not talking about the way up. We are talking about the hardest fights Braddock had at heavy. The best fighters he ever took on. Can't you see the difference? Really?
Two questions. Play 'yes' and 'no'.
Was Braddock a ko artist at top level heavyweight?
Did Braddock punch harder than Ali?
Remember, 'yes' or 'no'.
My dinner with Conteh
08-11-2007, 07:12 AM
...and by the way, what difference does it make if we did include Baer in the 'averages'? :huh
McGrain
08-11-2007, 07:19 AM
Two questions. Play 'yes' and 'no'.
No.
Was Braddock a ko artist at top level heavyweight?
No.
Did Braddock punch harder than Ali?
I can't anwer this with a yes/no. What I will say is that Braddock's hardest punch (overhand right) was harder than Ali's hardest punch (...overhand right?).
My dinner with Conteh
08-11-2007, 07:22 AM
Well the fact you have some doubts says it all becuase Ali wasn't a big hitter. He was a fair puncher- probbaly like Braddock, but nothing more. Right, I bid thee farewell, because:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
:good
McGrain
08-11-2007, 07:23 AM
...and by the way, what difference does it make if we did include Baer in the 'averages'? :huh
You have excluded Baer from your calculations regarding the average weight of the fighters that Braddock Ko'd or hurt because you felt that Braddock hadn't hurt him.
I disagreed.
Given that you calculated Braddock's average opponents weight post-retirement as 186 i'm going to assume that including Baer (210 ish) would lift that average.
Not that it really matters, apart from Baer Lewis would be the hardest to drop and was the lightest.
McGrain
08-11-2007, 07:26 AM
Well the fact you have some doubts says it all becuase Ali wasn't a big hitter. He was a fair puncher- probbaly like Braddock, but nothing more.
I don't have any doubt that Braddock's hardest punch is harder than Ali's hardest punch. I thought I made that part clear.
My point was that your question is far to complex for a yes no.
Ali may have had a harder jab for example.
Enjoy the game.
Just rewatched Foreman/Ali,Young,Morrison and boy,how he beat the shyte out of those guys although he lost.
No chance Louis would survive this kind of punishment more than 2 rounds. :smooch
McGrain
08-11-2007, 07:35 AM
Just rewatched Foreman/Ali,Young,Morrison and boy,how he beat the shyte out of those guys although he lost.
How do you score Foreman-Ali?
Nemesis
08-11-2007, 07:36 AM
I realise this. I never said he couldn't punch at light-heavy (it would be nice if people paid attention).
no need to be condescending, that just happened to be the first page I looked at in this thread
McGrain
08-11-2007, 07:39 AM
no need to be condescending, that just happened to be the first page I looked at in this thread
Yeah, it's good to talk!
How do you score Foreman-Ali?
Irrelevant. Louis wouldn't have Ali's chin and gameplan. Therefore RIP Louis.
McGrain
08-11-2007, 07:42 AM
Irrelevant.
Of course, because he got stopped. I was just wondering because you just watched it.
Although i agree that Ali took some hiding (though nothing that clean - it was the shots to the body that made him miserable later) I think he was ahead on the scorecards.
janitor
08-11-2007, 07:44 AM
Foreman is much more of an offensive threat due to his better overall package. My meanderings have never claimed he punches harder with a single punch than Baer or Shavers nor claimed Baer wasn't a big puncher. Boxing is full of massive punching guys who didn't have the class to take the belt, some didn't even fight for it. Shavers and Baer are two perfect examples of monster punchers of their day who didn't have what it took to win the title. John Mugabi, same boat. Miranda from the modern day i follow with interest.
I see what you are saying though Baer might argue that he did have what it took to win the title.
janitor
08-11-2007, 07:45 AM
Just rewatched Foreman/Ali,Young,Morrison and boy,how he beat the shyte out of those guys although he lost.
No chance Louis would survive this kind of punishment more than 2 rounds. :smooch
If Morrison could take a given amount of punishment then Louis could take it blindfolded.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 07:48 AM
I see what you are saying though Baer might argue that he did have what it took to win the title.
Shavers prolly would too. At the end of the day both were short of the pinnacle.
Mate i'm not one to detract from Joe Louis i think he's an astonishing fighter, i'm just fighting for George's side here as i think he's being sold a little short. IMO he definitely has his physical chance in this one.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 07:49 AM
If Morrison could take a given amount of punishment then Louis could take it blindfolded.
The punches very likely to knock a fighter out ones that he doesn't see coming and isn't mentally prepared for. I think the blindfold therefore means Joe will be taking a wee nap.
janitor
08-11-2007, 07:51 AM
The punches very likely to knock a fighter out ones that he doesn't see coming and isn't mentally prepared for. I think the blindfold therefore means Joe will be taking a wee nap.
I was talking metaphoricaly.
I think you would agree that Louis was a lot more durable than Morrison.
McGrain
08-11-2007, 07:51 AM
Mate i'm not one to detract from Joe Louis i think he's an astonishing fighter, i'm just fighting for George's side here as i think he's being sold a little short..
You are always playing devil's advocate JT you mado.
Leaving it be for a moment, give us a brief overview of how you see the first round going, assuming they both use standard (ish) plans?
janitor
08-11-2007, 07:52 AM
Shavers prolly would too. At the end of the day both were short of the pinnacle.
But Baer actualy did win the title to give him his due.
Of course, because he got stopped. I was just wondering because you just watched it.
Although i agree that Ali took some hiding (though nothing that clean - it was the shots to the body that made him miserable later) I think he was ahead on the scorecards.
Are you blind? I wrote "although Foreman lost". Ali took the beating of his life and won because of Foreman's exhaustion and Ali's ability to absorb punches. I can't see Louis pulling an Ali nore pulling a Morrison. Louis chin was suspect,plain and simple.
McGrain
08-11-2007, 07:55 AM
Are you blind? I wrote "although Foreman lost". Ali took the beating of his life and won because of Foreman's exhaustion and Ali's ability to absorb punches..
What the hell are you talking about?
I'm not attacking you or arguing with you about Louis/Foreman, I was just asking you, as a fresh pair of eyes who just saw a fight I am interested in, how you scored the fight?
If Morrison could take a given amount of punishment then Louis could take it blindfolded.
I hope you are aware of how often Louis got floored.....? Foreman's power would be too much for Louis' chin.
janitor
08-11-2007, 08:05 AM
I hope you are aware of how often Louis got floored.....? Foreman's power would be too much for Louis' chin.
I am well aware of how many times Louis was droped. It partly reflects the fact that he fought dozens of ranked contenders rather than just a handfull like Foreman.
Do you know how many times Louis was taken out with a single punch?
Never.
mcvey
08-11-2007, 08:05 AM
I hope you are aware of how often Louis got floored.....? Foreman's power would be too much for Louis' chin.
Louis was floored a lot ,but kod only twice,once when he clearly underetimated his opponent,and that took twelve rounds of continual heavy right cross bombardment,andonce when he was no longer "the Brown Bomber",,and he was kod by a brutal punching Marciano,I think Louis,s chin ,though not in the Ali class ,may have been a bit better than people appreciate.
McGrain
08-11-2007, 08:08 AM
Louis was floored a lot ,but kod only twice,once when he clearly underetimated his opponent,and that took twelve rounds of continual heavy right cross bombardment,andonce when he was no longer "the Brown Bomber",,and he was kod by a brutal punching Marciano,I think Louis,s chin ,though not in the Ali class ,may have been a bit better than people appreciate.
This is a cracking post.
People sometimes fail to understand that a less than iron chin is only one part of the KO puzzle.
How hard is a guy to hit?
How are his recuperative abilities?
How are his instincts if he can get up?
Has he trained for survival?
Most of all, what is he giving of? The hardest guy to knock out is the guy who has just knocked out you. People often forget about offence as defence despite that fact that it's become cliched.
Louis was floored a lot ,but kod only twice,once when he clearly underetimated his opponent,and that took twelve rounds of continual heavy right cross bombardment,andonce when he was no longer "the Brown Bomber",,and he was kod by a brutal punching Marciano,I think Louis,s chin ,though not in the Ali class ,may have been a bit better than people appreciate.
How would he wonderfully do that against THE Foreman?
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 08:16 AM
You are always playing devil's advocate JT you mado.
Leaving it be for a moment, give us a brief overview of how you see the first round going, assuming they both use standard (ish) plans?
Yeah, love it hahaha.
Mate i can't choose between them let alone give a decent rendition of the first round lol. I do know Joe's slashing combinations will be most dangerous, but he'd best not get careless or let George get off unpressured because if Foreman seriously hurts him his chances of survival are less than vs any fighter prior.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 08:20 AM
But Baer actualy did win the title to give him his due.
True but the hows and why's and who's don't really excite me. It was an opportune time IMO.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 08:22 AM
Are you blind? I wrote "although Foreman lost". Ali took the beating of his life and won because of Foreman's exhaustion and Ali's ability to absorb punches. I can't see Louis pulling an Ali nore pulling a Morrison. Louis chin was suspect,plain and simple.
I think McGrain just wants a rough idea of how you were scoring the fight. Did you or did you not just watch it??? It's not hard.
janitor
08-11-2007, 08:26 AM
How would he wonderfully do that against THE Foreman?
Well lets look what it actualy took to put him away. Max Schmeling was a heavyy puncher and a good boxer yet it took him 12 rounds and 57 overhand rights to put Louis away.
Rocky Marciano is regarded as one of the most formidable punchers in heavyweight history yet it took in eight ronds of consistent punching to put away a decrepit and heroin adicted Louis.
So no I don't thiink Louis is just going to crumble when Foreman hits him.
I think McGrain just wants a rough idea of how you were scoring the fight. Did you or did you not just watch it??? It's not hard.
The scoring is irrelevant because the outcome and gameplan is important. Foreman KO2 Louis
Rocky Marciano is regarded as one of the most formidable punchers in heavyweight history yet it took in eight ronds of consistent punching to put away a decrepit and heroin adicted Louis.
Now could we say then that Marciano beat up old washed up men and wasn't the legend many are talking about?
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 08:43 AM
The scoring is irrelevant because the outcome and gameplan is important. Foreman KO2 Louis
Nobody said it was relevant, the man just asked a simple question. I get the impression he doubts you just watched all these fights, as i now do.
:hey
robert ungurean
08-11-2007, 08:47 AM
Joe Louis by mid to late KO.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 08:51 AM
Now could we say then that Marciano beat up old washed up men and wasn't the legend many are talking about?
"The passing of the torch" has long been an immense historical happening, Ali - Holmes, Marciano - Louis, Tyson - Holmes etc. I'd hardly use it to degrade Marciano that's for sure.
Nobody said it was relevant, the man just asked a simple question. I get the impression he doubts you just watched all these fights, as i now do.
You can believe what you want. Even if it was that Louis was the greatest and would KO Foreman in first round. It's sheer nonsense.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 08:58 AM
You can believe what you want. Even if it was that Louis was the greatest and would KO Foreman in first round. It's sheer nonsense.
Mate you've got paranoia problems
:blood
I'd hardly use it to degrade Marciano that's for sure.
But you use it to diminish Foreman's power.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 08:59 AM
But you use it to diminish Foreman's power.
When might i have done that?
:lol:
Mate you've got paranoia problems
Huh? What?
Do you have logical problems?
janitor
08-11-2007, 09:02 AM
Now could we say then that Marciano beat up old washed up men and wasn't the legend many are talking about?
Wherever you rank Marciano and his oponents his credentials as a puncher are prety solid.
When might i have done that?
:lol:
Did I say Foreman KO2 Louis? Oh, little mistake, I meant Louis KO2 Foreman.
:patsch
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 09:04 AM
Huh? What?
Do you have logical problems?
Tell me again where i used Marciano to diminish Foreman's power?
:lol:
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 09:08 AM
:lol:
Did I say Foreman KO2 Louis? Oh, little mistake, I meant Louis KO2 Foreman.
:patsch
Hey, whatever you're on i'll have a pound of the stuff!!
:nut
Did I say Foreman KO2 Louis? Oh, little mistake, I meant Louis KO2 Foreman.
Just a joke. I thought you have some sense of humour. Someone who uses Marciano to discredit Foreman must have some sense of humour.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 10:42 AM
Just a joke. I thought you have some sense of humour. Someone who uses Marciano to discredit Foreman must have some sense of humour.
I don't even think you know who posted what
:lol:
I don't even think you know who posted what
Really? :think
If so,who cares? Y'all are the same bunch of clowns.:yep
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 11:06 AM
Really? :think
If so,who cares? Y'all are the same bunch of clowns.:yep
At least we have enough brainpower not to doublepost every other attempt
:lol:
My dinner with Conteh
08-11-2007, 12:55 PM
I think he was ahead on the scorecards.
Are you just assuming he was ahead? The reason I ask is that i've been after this info for years? I still can't find it. :huh
janitor
08-11-2007, 05:22 PM
Are you just assuming he was ahead? The reason I ask is that i've been after this info for years? I still can't find it. :huh
Without seeing the score cards I am sure that Ali was ahead. I don't see how it could be scored otherwise.
NickHudson
08-11-2007, 06:11 PM
I agree this is the fairest way of looking at it.
It is certainly going to take a pretty impressive, sustained beating to keep prime Louis down.
One thing, in the head-to-head fantasy matchups the prime ATGs are normally unbeaten, which gives them a great psychological edge. Louis is one of the few who would have a devastating loss already on his record.
To his great credit, his career shows he responded brilliantly to this setback, but I wonder whether it would sow some seeds of doubt against a wrecker like Foreman?
Well lets look what it actualy took to put him away. Max Schmeling was a heavyy puncher and a good boxer yet it took him 12 rounds and 57 overhand rights to put Louis away.
Rocky Marciano is regarded as one of the most formidable punchers in heavyweight history yet it took in eight ronds of consistent punching to put away a decrepit and heroin adicted Louis.
So no I don't thiink Louis is just going to crumble when Foreman hits him.
McGrain
08-11-2007, 06:28 PM
Are you just assuming he was ahead? The reason I ask is that i've been after this info for years? I still can't find it. :huh
Yeah, basically i've scored it and re-scored it and come to the conclusion that you could defend scoring every round for Ali, though that isn't the way I have it.
But the real score cards seem actually to be lost to us. Weird and crucial peice of the puzzle to have slipped through the cracks.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 08:15 PM
Are you just assuming he was ahead? The reason I ask is that i've been after this info for years? I still can't find it. :huh
I found this post ages ago elsewhere from a guy that seemed to know what he was on about
After 7 rounds the official scorecards read: 69-66, 70-65, and 70-61 (not a mistake) All in favour of Ali.
I've emailed the guy in hope of getting his source.
McGrain
08-11-2007, 08:22 PM
I guess 70-61 is a defendable position IF you score the round with the KO.
Let us know if you hear.
JohnThomas1
08-11-2007, 08:32 PM
I guess 70-61 is a defendable position IF you score the round with the KO.
Let us know if you hear.
Will do mate, i'm sure the guy is still active. 70-61 is 7 rounds to Ali, two by 10-8. Freaky score buy hey, we've all seen this stuff before hahaha. Chuck Hassett 118-111 Holmes - Witherspoon.
groove
08-12-2007, 07:57 AM
Well what Foreman did to Frazier who was undefeated was probably one of the best performances of all time. I rate is far greater than what Tyson did to Berbick. Frazier was great, Berbick wasn't. That Foreman then went on to destroy Norton, another very good fighter who had a win over Ali. That Foreman has a great chance in the first 4 rounds against any Heavy in history. Frazier had been down before in fights but always got back up to win. Unfortunately for Frazier, when he went down against Foreman he kept going down. The look on Frazier face tells it's own story. He had never felt that kind of power before in a ring. He was shocked to the core. If Louis can survive 4 rounds then i believe he will win. Louis' slow feet is bad in this match-up. The kind of fighters that gave Foreman trouble were the ones that moved. If Louis tries to slug it out early i think Foreman's greater power will prevail. The uppercut would be the important punch. If Louis get to close Foreman will just push him away and will be looking to score that uppercut as he did so effectively against Frazier and Norton. Ali leaning back and using rope-a-dope helped him as Foreman couldn't use his uppercut effectively. That's why he was hitting Ali in the ribs. Ali was protecting his middle from any uppercuts.
McGrain
08-12-2007, 08:02 AM
That's a good post Groove and I agree with you that Foreman's win over Frazier is a big one.
Two things though; Frazier just isn't the same fighter after what Ali did to him in I. Secondly, possibly no champion has ever underprepared so thorougly relative to the quality of his opponent - this is because nobody knew how destructive Foreman was. Frazier really genuinly though he would breeze it.
Frazier just isn't the same fighter after what Ali did to him in I.
:rofl :patsch :spliff
JohnThomas1
08-12-2007, 08:19 AM
That's a good post Groove and I agree with you that Foreman's win over Frazier is a big one.
Two things though; Frazier just isn't the same fighter after what Ali did to him in I. Secondly, possibly no champion has ever underprepared so thorougly relative to the quality of his opponent - this is because nobody knew how destructive Foreman was. Frazier really genuinly though he would breeze it.
You know i don't think i go for this theory, on both fronts. Frazier won the fight vs Ali and was the harder hitter. Frazier went on to get wiped by Foreman where'as Ali beat the man convincingly. Ali took more punishment than Frazier in their fight, obviously. He also started fighting 5 years earlier and was certainly no younger. Yeah Ali could take phenomenal punishment but so could some other greats. Hearn's, Duran and numerous others came back from debilitating ko's let alone a gruelling decision loss. If Joe had some other heath stuff going on then so be it, everyone's got their probs. As for taking him too easy, well that's part of being a great champ. No chance whatsoever of a Hagler doing something like this. Bottom line for me - Joe was made for George.
My dinner with Conteh
08-12-2007, 08:38 AM
I found this post ages ago elsewhere from a guy that seemed to know what he was on about
After 7 rounds the official scorecards read: 69-66, 70-65, and 70-61 (not a mistake) All in favour of Ali.
I've emailed the guy in hope of getting his source.
I don't think these are legit. I've actually read that Foreman was ahead somewhere but again no official cards. 70-61 is an embarrassment. 4-2-1 to Ali is about right.
My dinner with Conteh
08-12-2007, 08:39 AM
Without seeing the score cards I am sure that Ali was ahead. I don't see how it could be scored otherwise.
That's not the point. I have more material on Ali then possibly anyone on this forum, yet cannot find anything with the scorecards included- or even who the judges were that night.
My dinner with Conteh
08-12-2007, 08:40 AM
I guess 70-61 is a defendable position IF you score the round with the KO.
It isn't.
My dinner with Conteh
08-12-2007, 08:43 AM
That's a good post Groove and I agree with you that Foreman's win over Frazier is a big one.
Two things though; Frazier just isn't the same fighter after what Ali did to him in I. Secondly, possibly no champion has ever underprepared so thorougly relative to the quality of his opponent - this is because nobody knew how destructive Foreman was. Frazier really genuinly though he would breeze it.
I don't think Frazier thought he'd breeze it at all. Foreman was always touted as the 'man most likely'. Indeed, just a week after the FOTC, George was featured on the cover of Boxing New with the headline 'The face that haunts Frazier'. Almost two years before his title shot.
janitor
08-12-2007, 08:56 AM
I don't think Frazier thought he'd breeze it at all. Foreman was always touted as the 'man most likely'. Indeed, just a week after the FOTC, George was featured on the cover of Boxing New with the headline 'The face that haunts Frazier'. Almost two years before his title shot.
Hmmmmmm. Given the competition that Foreman was fighting at this time I have a hard time imagining Frazier being particularly haunted.
Everybody who called the fight for Foreman did so with the benefit of hindsight.
My dinner with Conteh
08-12-2007, 08:58 AM
Hmmmmmm. Given the competition that Foreman was fighting at this time I have a hard time imagining Frazier being particularly haunted.
Everybody who called the fight for Foreman did so with the benefit of hindsight.
That's as maybe but they still regarded him as the next heavyweight champ (other than if Ali retained it). The general feeling was that he wasn't ready at that time- and of course punters are going to pick an undefeated champ who'd recently beaten Ali, that was logical.
JohnThomas1
08-12-2007, 09:00 AM
I don't think these are legit. I've actually read that Foreman was ahead somewhere but again no official cards. 70-61 is an embarrassment. 4-2-1 to Ali is about right.
You may be right, but we've seen as bad worse than the 70-61 in big fights so it's certainly not impossible especially given Ali's popularity over there and the wave of public support.
Sam Dixon
08-12-2007, 10:24 AM
That's not the point. I have more material on Ali then possibly anyone on this forum, yet cannot find anything with the scorecards included- or even who the judges were that night.
I just stumbled onto your post here, and while I can't confirm the scores posted to be accurate (I have read those before too), I can offer this little tidbit on them;
"Most, including the two judges and the referee, gave Foreman no more than one round." - Associated Press, Nov 5th, 1974
McGrain
08-12-2007, 06:34 PM
I just stumbled onto your post here, and while I can't confirm the scores posted to be accurate (I have read those before too), I can offer this little tidbit on them;
"Most, including the two judges and the referee, gave Foreman no more than one round." - Associated Press, Nov 5th, 1974
Wicked Sam, cheers, that's a start eh?
I also feel it's hard to give Foreman more than the one round.
McGrain
08-12-2007, 06:38 PM
You know i don't think i go for this theory, on both fronts. Frazier won the fight vs Ali and was the harder hitter. Frazier went on to get wiped by Foreman where'as Ali beat the man convincingly. Ali took more punishment than Frazier in their fight, obviously.
No, I don't think this is right, I think i'm right in saying that Frazier connected less than Ali did.
But regardless, it was Frazier who slept that night upon a bed of ice in hospital, Frazier who was in and out over the next couple of months (and would have been "in" entirely if it were up to his doctors.
It is said that Frazier nearly died.
He's since admitted that there "may have been something in {the rumours that he was not the same fighter after Ali I}", something he denied for years previously.
As for taking him too easy, well that's part of being a great champ. No chance whatsoever of a Hagler doing something like this. Bottom line for me - Joe was made for George.
Yeah, I agree with this.
McGrain
08-12-2007, 06:48 PM
That's as maybe but they still regarded him as the next heavyweight champ (other than if Ali retained it). The general feeling was that he wasn't ready at that time- and of course punters are going to pick an undefeated champ who'd recently beaten Ali, that was logical.
"They" (pundits magazines whoever) may have, i'll take your word for it.
But I doubt it would have mattered to Joe who was on the front of what magazine.
Joe himself concerning the time after Ali I: For the first time in years I was not cosumed by boxing. I felt free to lay back and have some fun.
He was definitely taking it easier in training and he was definitley seeking out a lower calibre of opponent.
Joe is also pretty explicit about the cataract on his left eye getting worse.
Finally, here's what Joe had to say about Foreman himself and how he was percieved in the run up to their first fight: As a result of his feeble opposition, his record was seen as a work of deception by boxing insiders, including quite a few of the boys in the press.
It should be said to balance this that Frazier always denied underestimating George Foreman, but i've always felt that the thing didn't read like that. I feel that between what his first fight had taken out of him and his eye trouble, Joe himself felt he wasn't the same fighter and was taking what he saw as easier fights, keeping Ali on hold.
People may have seen George as champ in waiting, perhaps they even saw him as an ATG in waiting, but Frazier sure as shit didn't.
My dinner with Conteh
08-13-2007, 07:16 AM
It should be said to balance this that Frazier always denied underestimating George Foreman, but i've always felt that the thing didn't read like that.
Seems to me that anything Frazier said in relation to not taking George seriously is treated as gospel but when it's reported that he actually rated George you'll "read it differently". You're doing a pretty good job of late of becoming one of the most biased posters on this forum. Good for you.
ps. who cares if he didn't take Foreman seriously anyway (I bet he took him more seriously than Stander or Daniels) and I bet he probably took him as seriously as Liston did Ali or Foreman did Ali or Willard did Dempsey or Walcott did Marciano or Norton did Holmes or......
McGrain
08-13-2007, 07:35 AM
Seems to me that anything Frazier said in relation to not taking George seriously is treated as gospel but when it's reported that he actually rated George you'll "read it differently". You're doing a pretty good job of late of becoming one of the most biased posters on this forum. Good for you.
Fuck you.
I raised Frazier's claims about taking Foreman seriously specifically to provide balance to what I wrote and then offered my opinion on it. Most guys - most guys who post here - fail to provide proper balance to their arguments at all, just offer their opinions.
I've had a couple of people compliment me on my objectivity and I'm proud of that because it's important to me.
You're the first guy stupid enough to think that offering an opinion on the counter argument that most guys don't even bother to present when laying out their argument is bias. Good for you.
ps. who cares if he didn't take Foreman seriously anyway?
What, who cares in an argument about the value of Foreman's win over Frazier? Is that your question you idiot?
It impacts the value of the win that's why I care. Though if you can be bothered go back and read my original post where I admit the win is huge anyway and compliment Groove on the post that started all of this.
Boxing is a composite sport. Frazier is an idiot for taking Foreman slightly more lightly than he should have.
But if you go back and pay attention to what was orignally said i called Frazier on underestimating Foreman "relative to the quality of the opponent".
My dinner with Conteh
08-13-2007, 07:46 AM
I've had a couple of people compliment me on my objectivity and I'm proud of that because it's important to me.
I thought you were too. Initially.
You're the first guy stupid enough to think that offering an opinion on the counter argument that most guys don't even bother to present when laying out their argument is bias. Good for you.
You're one of many people who seemingly start to spend time on looking for why their favourites lost. The best one of all that regularly gets churned out (by others) is the "Hearns at 145" chestnut. Jesus tonight.
Are you interested in, say, Mathis's condition before the Frazier fight...or Ellis'...or Quarry's.... probably not...or Valdes' against Liston...or Westphal's. No. The 'training camp didn't go well' only seemingly applies when the guy your prefer lost. Oh, and you've read one book about Sonny Liston it appears and treated everything in it as sacrosanct. You want to believe that Braddock was a big hitter at heavyweight just becasue he floored Louis. Just par for the course on this forum. T'is sad really.
McGrain
08-13-2007, 07:57 AM
You're one of many people who seemingly start to spend time on looking for why their favourites lost.
Of course.
Do you think Frazier is my favourite fighter or something?
Are you interested in, say, Mathis's condition before the Frazier fight
Yes. What do have to say about Mathis' condition before the Frazier fight?
The 'training camp didn't go well' only seemingly applies when the guy your prefer lost.
Generally speaking this is the case, yes. Ali was not alone in thinking that hard fights were won as much in training as in the ring. What is your point?
Oh, and you've read one book about Sonny Liston it appears and treated everything in it as sacrosanct.
Why on earth are you saying this?
If you're talking about my feelings on Liston-Ali being thrown you have some work to do my friend. Possibly you've not bothered to read everything i've wrote about it. But i've dismissed a great deal of what was in Night Train - thanks - and picked up loads of other bits and peices over the years from sources as varied as Mafia, Ghosts of Manilla and - if you can beleive this - i've seen the fight.
Most of what I feel about Lison-Ali was laid out in my back and forth with Chris some months ago. If you'd bothered to read that you wouldn't now be opening your mouth and spewing total BS.
Most of all I love how you've brought this up about two months after we had quite a nice wee discussion about it just because we've fallen out over something else.
Women quite often do that when they're in the huff.
You want to believe that Braddock was a big hitter at heavyweight just becasue he floored Louis. Just par for the course on this forum. T'is sad really.
I laid out a detailed argument concerning my position. You failed to engage with any of it and instead tried to trap me in a question about ALi's power. I may be wrong about Braddock. You failed to show it so completely i'm astonished you've brought it up here.
Failing to proove your point, or really engage with the opposing point and STILL bringing the argument up later because it still bothers you is also something a grumpy woman might do
:lol:
Feeling hormonal?
JohnThomas1
08-13-2007, 08:01 AM
I cannot believe nobodies picked Big George by decision!!!
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.