Why are you showing me this Bullitt? I'm a big fan of Joe Louis infact he is my favourite heavyweight of all time, iv'e seen pretty much every video there is to see of Louis on the net. I don't understand why you are arguing with me when we both agree Louis beats Wlad the modern strength and conditiong and nutrition i mentioned did not mean that it would improve his skills or techniques in the ring but make him more powerful, heavier and better conditioned to actually compete physically with todays big heavyweights. For example look at Holyfield's strength and conditioning regime which took him from being a 190lbs cruiserweight to being the very muscular 215lbs heavyweight that beat Tyson twice.
It's widely accepted that modern heavyweights often come into their prime in their 30s. Such was the case with Wlad. His stamina isn't poor at all. He gassed throwing inhuman amounts of powershots against Purrity and Brewster. He hasn't shown signs of stamina issues since and has maintained very high punch output consistently. You're full of ****. How many times have you been banned before?
Depends on their development. Technical prime, which is of extreme importance in boxing, doesn't have to correlate to physical prime.
Why do modern heavies gas so early and easilly if these "modern training techniques" are so effective???? You gotta answer that one:deal There are only a handful of modern heavyweights that are even in shape....pizza hut is their primary nutrition...:rofl Building muscle is nothing new.. Actor Robert Taylor put on 20lbs of muscle back in the 30's................so what?? Ali went from 175 to Heavy.....dispite not having all these "modern training techniques"...he never tired...threw punches all night... slipped punches all night....and got off the canvas if need be.. BTW Joe Louis was a MODERN BOXER Don't believe me.........................watch this.............watch it all.......... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R78hdxpRfws
I was satisfied rolling through this thread. This is what most fans ignore. That picture is not a prime Louis. Loved this... I think he's got plenty of all of that, more than Wladimir does of each. Good points at least though. I agree. Primo, Baer, Baer X2, Gelento, Simon X2 are his "big" opponents, which I think makes a good case for him as he dispatched them pretty well. Yeah, I assume this is prime vs. prime. If it's not, than the Louis from the Walcott fights stops the Klitschko from the Sanders and Brewster years in 1-3 rounds, and if it's prime Louis (Carnera-Schmeling II) vs. prime Wlad (Peter-Chagaev) than I'd pick Louis to stop him around the 5th. This. And he would. Hahahah This pretty much.
Vlad gassed because he can dish it out but he can't take it:deal Louis could get off the floor and continue thumping....Vlad....not so much Vlad has shown signs of bad stanima MANY many times since Brewster.... C'mon now... Face it Vlad is a lumbering mediocre...predictable...FRAGILE giant....fighting in a ****-poor heavyweight era:hi: Joe had a bum of the month tour Vlad has a bum of the month CAREER At least Joe didn't get KTFO on his bum campain:rofl
So your theory is that any fighter better than Ross Purrity and Lamon Brewster will beat a prime Wlad. I wonder why he hasn't lost in a couple years then. All these bums he fought must be worse than Brewster and Sanders :shock:
No. He gassed because was overexerted himself, then he got taken out because he couldn't take the punches being thrown at him. Wlad always attempted to continue. He tried to keep fighting, but his recovery (and resistance) was poor. His heart, on the other hand, cannot be questioned. This suggestion that he's shown signs of poor stamina many times post-Brewster is just utter nonsense. Back it up. Or just ignore that part because I already know you can't possibly back it up.
I totally misread what you were saying. I thought you were saying Morphy with today's training would be Anand. Obviously an 1860s Morphy would be trounced by Anand (and probably every other modern GM): I wrote all this crap, on that assumption (don't want to waste it, haha): While I agree what Morphy was leagues ahead of his peers, it's still a little pointless trying to imagine what he would be like in the modern age. His career was very short, and with much fewer high pressure games than the modern age. The attributes that the two eras tests is similar but not identical. He may be able to succeed purely on natural talent in the relatively crude era he came from, but to succeed in the modern era of chess requires a dedication far beyond that required 150 years ago. He may simply not have had the desire to accumulate the base knowledge required to compete (which his 2 year career suggests may have been the case). In that case he would consistently come out of the openings with poor positions, and his opposition would be much better versed in the open game so he would have much lower chances of a tactical edge making the difference, and the nuances of strategy would make the difference in a lot of cases. He may well be one of the most talented players in his era, but that guarantees nothing if he is transported 150 years later. Incredible dedication is part of the whole package required, and I'm not convinced he would have enough of it in the modern age.
Correct, the rules haven't changed much at all, so comparison becomes much easier. Also, with the advent of readily available (and incredibly strong) chess computers it is possible to very quickly see how many games in those days were full of what modern GMs would consider blunders. Even though Morphy was far ahead of his peers, his games were far from perfect. Some of them were very visually pleasing, but the only reason he had so many open tactical games was because the relatively poor standard of play of his opposition allowed him to capitalize like that. Morphy was probably one of the best ever in terms of pure talent (at least being so far ahead of the curve has to suggest that), but like I said in my previous post, that does not guarantee that he would succeed in the modern game (if he had been born recently) due to the emphasis on different required abilities changing. Some recent GMs, if born in the 1830s, may well have achieved the same. Especially tactical masters like Tal etc.. who would have excelled in a time where most top level games were still decided on fairly major tactical mistakes. So, I always take it with a pinch of salt when people claim ATG status for people very early in the development of a sport/game.
If Wlad lived in the times of Joe he wouldn't stand a change with his weak ass chin. If Joe lived in this generation and would be as talented as he was in his 'original' times it'd still be Joe I guess. Wlad is weak.