View Single Post
Old 10-09-2012, 04:33 AM   #109
So I can die easy ...
East Side Guru
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,491
vCash: 1337
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Originally Posted by Senya13 View Post
Sorry, but I don't consider Schmeling a great boxer either. Conn wasn't great heavyweight. So we are only left with Jersey Joe Walcott, Louis beat him, but he didn't look impressive at all (true, he was past his prime, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't struggle with Walcott if he were younger).

Claiming that the Klitschko brothers beat only bums has as much weight as making the same claim about Louis' opposition. I actually think they both beat better opposition than Louis did, but that's just my opinion.
Well, I consider Schmeling great (in the Top15-20 sense) but then Louis also lost to him. If an old Louis can beat Walcott than itīs quite save to say a young one would have done the same and looked better. Itīs hard to look impressive against someone like Walcott.
Conn wasnīt a great hw thatīs true but nevertheless he proved to be very good. As was Baer and even others like Carnera, Nova, Bivins, Savold, Lewis, Farr.

To me thatīs by far more impressive than what Vitali did and still quite a bit better than what Wlad did. But you are right in a way. Louis opposition is now blowing away either ones but combined with the number of defences, dominance, variaty of styles and "old age" success he ends up clearly above both and everybody els not named Ali. Wlad should be rated highly as well though, similar to Louis - and Holmes - he has loads of defences against generally average opposition, he also has the dominance and advanced age success. IMO he outranks someone like Dempsey by now - even so I think Dempsey has a fairly good chance of beating him - and warrants a borderline Top10 position.
bodhi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote