Joe Louis Vs. Wladimir Klitschko

It's funny how Klittards make a big song and dance about size and mention a total bum like Sam Peter because he's big and gave Wlad a very tough fight. But bare in mind that while Sam Peter dropped Wlad multiple times and had him running for his life, this is the same Sam Peter who got his head boxed off by a morbidly obese, shot as hell, 40-year-old former middleweight and needed a gift decision to get the win. The reason being that despite being old, fat and small, Toney actually had something modern heavyweights don't - BOXING SKILLS.

Now imagine someone who is naturally bigger than Toney, is prime, in great shape, is hungry, hits harder, is faster and has even more skills and that's what you have in Joe Louis.

 

Actually yes, evolution does mean an increase in absolutes. If you honestly want to believe that some yeoman, which was a profession, is somehow more capable than a modern day soldier you're off your rocker. Just as an fyi, specialized soldiers during Medieval times were practically professional soldiers by today's standards, so the most apt comparison is with someone who is in a modern professional military.

Jim Brown probably couldn't hack it in today's NFL, doesn't mean he wasn't a great running back. Times change, and people become more capable over time.

 

Toney was also roided up to his eyeballs, so yeah, not an apt comparison, unless you're suggest Mr. Barrow had bull testosterone in his system. Regardless, you're missing the point. At no point did I say Peter was more skilled, better or more accomplished than Joe Louis. I said sports don't stand still, and more likely than not he hit harder.

 

it is not an increase in absolutes, and never has been in the existence of the word itself, and never will be. the definition of evolution is specifically those who suit the current environment best will thrive. changes are at the whim of the environment, whether that is a social environment or a natural environment.


you have simply been culturally led to believe that evolution means better performance than the last one. its just better fit to the current environment, and therefore, means it is better than previous by dint of that.

Like I've said previously if absolutes always increased, then how do you explain why a strong full grown adult today struggles to nock a medieval longbow used by 14 year olds.

 

Because what you're saying is BS. Longbows were not the purvey of weekend warriors, they were used by highly skilled professionals. So, once again, the more apt comparison is with professional soldiers.

In every sport athletes have gotten bigger, faster and stronger, why is boxing the only sport that this hasn't taken place in?

 

Louis, is a Legend and Wlad is not for alot of reasons. Louis fought five fighters who were similar size to Wlad. He koed them all. Lamon Brewster waa only slightly bigger than Louis and koed Wlad as was corrie sanders who normally weight 210. Louis Right hand would ko Wlad inside five rounds.!

 

But watch Wlad fight, his skill level simply isn't very good. Povetkin is small, lacks strength and power, is slow, flat footed and generally very limited skill wise, yet Wlad had no answer against him other than to cheat, with the aide of his paid off ref of course.

If he tried those despicable, illegal tactics against Louis and with a neutral ref he would either get KO'd or DQ'd. Wlad is a disgusting cheat (also a PED user) and a poor boxer.

 

its not the same in every sport at all. You just want it to be so, because it fits well with your argument.

 

Except that Povetkin is 6'2" and 230, actually has pretty decent foot speed, good hand speed, has KO'd more than 70% of his opponents, and was the most accomplished amateur super heavy in history.

As much as people don't like it, clinching and mauling is part of the sport and has been for years, including in Joe's time.

 

so you are taking about specialised skills now, rather than actual strength? I thought you were referring to strength, which is why I followed suit with my comparison. of course a soldier today is going to be better with his modern weapons than a 16th century soldier. A medieval soldier would probably shoot his eye out if he tried to use a basic firearm of today. But put Mr SAS in the environment of the 16th century, and hes fcuked.

But I'd like to know why you changed the goalposts from physical strength to 'being a soldier'?

it doesn't matter how you argue it, you will come unstuck when trying to explain how a 14 year medieval marksman can easily string up a longbow in comparison to todays soliders.
And that's because you've not taken into account the environment they are both in - and evolution is about response to the environment.

 

Yep, Louis was not big by todays standard, but he would be big enough, he was 6ft 2" and weighted between 200 and 210lbs at his best and that was without lifting weights and pumping himself full of PED'S like guys like Wlad and Vitali do.

Corrie Sanders only weighed about 220lbs against Wlad yet was carrying a lot of body fat and would be not much more than 200lbs if in proper shape.

People focus too much on body weight.

 

Really, show me where it isn't the case? I mean I guess you're going to say boxing. However, seeing as how it is happening in every other sport I'd say that your position is not supported by what is seen across the broad athletic spectrum.

Look, I really don't care about people's feelings about fighter A or fighter B. I also don't really care about people's subjective beliefs regarding which era was better. I don't like comparing eras because I think comparing eras isn't truly possible. When you're talking about decades of advancements in nutrition and training, massive tangible increases in things like size, strength, speed and power, it makes these types of argument ridiculous.

I'm sure I'll incur some ridiculous ad hominem attack from some here, but you simply cannot make the argument boxing exists in a bubble.

 

How is it about belief that strong adults today struggle with long bows meant for casual use by medieval teens. Its about strength, pure and simple.

Explain how you think belief can string a long bow when your muscles cant do it.

 

Povetkin weighed 225lbs and was fat, he also has a KO% below 70% (unlike Louis who's is about 75%) and against very, very poor opposition that totaled a mere 25 fights over 8 years. The guy was a nobody, oh but he had a distinguished amateur career, well so did Audley Harrison, whoopy sh*t.

What Wlad did that night is not part of the sport, what he did was pathetic and disgusting - flat out cheating because he doesn't have the skills to do anything else. A proper ref would have DQ'd him by the 5 round.

 

No, I am not talking about specialized skills. I am saying that a bowman was a specialist, a military term with which you're clearly not familiar. As such he wasn't a run of the mill peasant with a pitchfork. He was a professional, he trained day in and day out to improve his abilities (accuracy, range) which was achieved by PT. As in he trained on his physical fitness on a regular basis in order to improve his combat effectiveness. There weren't armies of 14 year olds going to battle, unless you're referring to the Children's Crusade.

Until you understand that a bowman, like a pikeman or knight, was a professional soldier and equivalent to a member of the United States or British Armed forces, you simply won't understand what I am trying to tell you.

As for someone from the SAS being SOL in Medieval times, that's absolutely ridiculous.