What The HBO Joe Louis Documentary didn't tell you
They always focus on his power, but omit that he was a great boxer. He was much more than Max Baer with two hands.
Joe Louis was the quintessential Boxer-Puncher. However, because he had dynamite in both hands and scored some picturesque knockouts, most categorize him as being a catch and kill puncher who always won because of his power. However, there's so much more to Joe Louis the fighter. Fundamentally, Louis was absolutely faultless. He carried his hands high with his elbows in and his chin down. He threw short and concise bombs, and never wasted a punch. He also put together five and six punch combinations with speed, power, and accuracy better than any other Heavyweight in history.
Louis was a stalker who pressured his opponents, but his pressure wasn't overwhelming. While stalking his foe he would inch closer and closer, but he did it in a way that would mislead his opponents into thinking it was safe for them to go on the offensive, just so they could move to one side or the other in order to get away. When his opponent went on the offensive, they played right into Louis' hands. Louis understood that he could tag his opponent harder and cleaner, IF the opponent was coming to him, even IF only briefly. One thing former heavyweight champion, George Foreman, said while providing color-commentary for HBO was, "never follow a puncher." Foreman never spoke truer words, and Louis lured and set his opponent up to follow him when they were getting ready to strike. Due to Louis setting the pace and dictating the ring geography, he maneuvered his opponent to be in range for his explosive combinations.
Most of the time when an opponent came to Louis, it was really a defensive move so they could get away as he stalked them. As his opponent came to him, and tried to lead, Louis would strike with short straight punches. Couple his explosive power with his great hand speed, especially in short burst, and you have one of the greatest offensive fighters the heavyweight division has ever seen.
Over the years it has often been said that Louis was vulnerable to quick footed fighters with lateral movement. Although there is some truth to this, it's not nearly to the degree in which it has been over-stated. This analogy is based mostly because of three fights during Louis' title tenure. His two fights with Jersey Joe Walcott and his first bout against Billy Conn. Walcott had good feet, and moved in and out and side to side doing what was termed the Walcott shuffle. However, his feet weren't what troubled Louis. It was more his head and shoulder feints along with his dips and twist that bothered him. Conn extended Louis to the 13th round. Conn was slightly ahead in the scoring on two cards and even on the other after 12 rounds. It was the lateral movement of Conn that befuddled Louis for a while. This was mainly because Louis wouldn't chase a runner or a mover. He would bide his time and draw them to him. Which is what happened to Conn. In the 13th round, Conn caught Louis and shook him with a beautiful combination as he was lunging in, this ultimately cost him the fight. When Conn saw Louis shook, he went in for the kill, only he was in range for Louis to put him away, and he did.
Throughout Heavyweight history, there may have been a few harder punchers and better boxers than Joe Louis, but he combined them better and more perfectly than any other heavyweight who has yet lived. He could adjust and adapt to any style he was confronted with. It was suicide to move towards him, and it was almost next to impossible to win rounds with steady movement trying to survive him. He was dangerous inside and outside, he could win by slugging and trading, and had the ring savvy to out think and Box his opponent. Joe Louis combined the art of punching and boxing as well as they've ever been combined. He was in fact one of the best boxers, and punchers in heavyweight history.
Labels: Boxer-Puncher, Frank Lotierzo, HBO Documentary, Joe Louis
posted by Frank Lotierzo @ 10:18 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Frank, you mention and argue against the fairly common assertion that Louis was flat-footed and plodding. Two of the most authoritative (in some ways) proponents of that view of him are Ali and Holmes, both of whom seem to believe that they would have used speed and movement and their own deceptive strength to jab him silly and control the ring. Holmes, especially, is very respectful of all-timers he considers excellent boxers, like Ali and Jack Johnson, and he describes Liston as a boxer-puncher he wouldn't want to mess with, and he at least pays lip service to Louis's accomplishments at a time when it was very hard to be a black heavyweight champion, but he lumps Louis with the plodders and swarmers he would confidently pick himself to beat. What do you make of this kind of argument? Is it just the usual all-timer log-rolling for position, have Ali and Holmes gotten Louis wrong, or is there a stylistic argument there worth making and taking on?
Carlo, Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes match-up stylistically better with Joe Louis than any other all-time heavyweight greats. Louis would've been troubled by their jab and movement, just like everybody else was. But Louis was great at parrying and slipping the jab, and he did cut the ring off effectively.
However, Ali and Holmes are the only two movers who would've been capable of scoring while they were moving, instead of just moving to survive. That said, there would be stretches of the fight where Louis would get inside. The question is; could he do it enough to change the fight?
Eventually, Louis would position them where they would need to do more than stick and move. I think Holmes would be more vulnerable to getting beat by Louis, than Ali. On the other hand I can see Holmes beating Louis by a wider margin than Ali.
The reason I say Holmes is more vulnerable to Louis is, he is more likely to get tug with Louis' right hand, (his best punch). Where as Ali is less prone to be nailed with the left hook. Louis would have more problems getting to Ali with his hook, than he would tagging Holmes with his right over Holmes' low jab.
Once inside, I picture Ali tying Louis up and shutting him down. In regards to Holmes, I see him getting in exchanges with Louis trying to fight his way out. IF Larry tries to hook with Louis inside, he'd be asking for trouble, and when he throws the uppercut because he can't use his jab or right hand, he'd be open for Louis short hooks, right hands and uppercuts.
The reason I say Holmes wins by a larger margin on the cards than Ali is, Holmes would have Cooney like tunnel vision and concentration. Ali has never had a fight other than George Foreman where he didn't stray physically or mentally at some point. Ali would be as content shutting Louis down, as he would trying to beat him up the whole fight. Not Holmes, he'd be trying to win every second as long as the fight last.
In closing, Louis is plenty capable of cutting the ring off on a mover. I can't imagine any other boxers/movers being effective on the move. Also, I think Conn's small stature troubled Louis a lot. Actually I think Louis would hit Ali and Holmes more frequently than he did Billy Conn.
I like Ali and Holmes over Louis, but I don't think I'd bet much on either to beat him.
I see what you're saying, Frank. Holmes's confidence about beating Louis was a little surprising to me, especially his dismissal of Louis's jab as "pawing" and easily dealt with. Just to continue the thought, the three guys he identified as big problems for himself were all strong guys with great boxing chops: the young Ali, Liston, and Johnson. Now, I know you're not as high on Johnson as many others are, but it seems as if these three, or this type (if you add Holmes), would be a problem for anybody, Louis included, since they won't let themselves be taken by storm and are unlikely to let themselves be beaten in a war of position. I'll predict that you'd pick Louis to beat up Johnson despite his tricks (and I won't be surprised to see Charles come in to take Johnson's side), but what about Liston?
At the level of accomplishment we're talking about, everyone gives everyone else a tough time, barring flukey sudden endings. I like Holmes over Louis (although I place Louis slightly higher overall) based on his conservatism and paranoia. His suceptibility to right crosses only showed up when he got too relaxed. That wouldn't happen against Louis. I'm convinced that Dempsey, of the all-time greats, would be the one most likely to beat Louis decisively. Louis had trouble with awkward guys and he could be hurt early. Those deficiencies play right into Dempsey's hands. Of course, I pick Liston over Louis, but I pick Liston over everyone. Johnson? I'm not sure. A motivated Johnson might be able to shut Louis down, tying him up as required, wrestling him, out-muscling him, and hitting him with an accumulation of well-placed shots that would finally be enough to take him out late. The other thing worth bearing in mind would be that, against Louis, the handcuffs would be off for Johnson. Jack was a much better puncher than he generally let on.
I could be very long-winded on this retort, but I won't be. I'd favor Ali & Holmes over Louis. I rate Louis about 7-5 over Liston & Foreman. I like Louis over Johnson & Dempsey, but give Dempsey a better chance to beat him than Johnson.
Dempsey had better get him in the first couple rounds. IF not, once Louis drills him inside his wide looping punches, Dempsey won't be bringing the heat nearly as much. IF he does, he'll get stopped sooner. As far as clutch and grab, I only have a big punch versus guys 185 or under Johnson, I wish a fight between him and Louis could be realized. Would love to see Johnson, whose inside fighting was limited to holding with his left hand, and uppercutting with his right, try grabbing Louis and fighting inside. Like Ali, Johnson couldn't really fight inside by letting his hands go, they held and hit, but that's the extent of their in-fighting. Louis beats Johnson, and he beats him convincingly. IF Johnson fights to survive, he might not get knocked out. IF he tries to fight, which at some point he would have no choice to, can you say timber.
Louis, may be vulnerable to Ali, Holmes, Liston and Foreman. However, IF there's one all-time great who Louis would beat, and look like a million dollars doing it as the fight concludes, it's Jack Johnson. In my Opinion.
IF my buddy Charles reads this, the onslaught of Johnson's strength and underrated punching power will be unleashed. Along with his in fighting and positioning guys where he wants them. Maybe against Tommy Burns and Bob Fitzsimmons, or a corpse named James Jeffries. But no way against Louis, circa 1935-39. And yes, even IF he isn't handcuffed. Maybe with a night-stick, mace and a stun-gun, Johnson might beat him, but that's about it.
I won't go through the pointless exercise of arguing ad infinitum with Frank as to Johnson's relative merits. We disagree, and no amount of debate will sway either of us.
But I'm surprised to see Frank picking Foreman, of all people, being one of the guys Louis wouldn't beat. I was just thinking about what an easy fight for Louis Foreman would have been--how, of all the alltimers, George would have been a sitting duck for the kind of sharpshooting that Louis would exercise.
Charles, I think Foreman's freak of nature strength & power, especially in the early rounds, might give him a shot to get Louis. He's just so big and strong, that IF he caught Louis at the end of one of his bombs, he could be in real trouble.
I would pick Louis, but he'd be walking a tight rope early. Actually, I think Louis & Foreman are the two most dangerous fighters in heavyweight history, to attack and bring the fight too.
I can't help but think of Max Baer. The only difference I can see is that Foreman would keep getting up until he was counted out.
Yes, Foreman would get up until he was counted out. The difference I see is, Baer was somewhat intimidated and awed by Louis once in the ring. Foreman wouldn't have been intimidated by him. IF you watch the first round, Baer parried Louis's punches and tried to box carefully. Which was a huge mistake, on many levels. I don't see Baer and Foreman having too much in common, other than power. Only Foreman had it in both hands.
Post a Comment
<< Home