Joe Louis Vs. Wladimir Klitschko

Black and white stats never allow for circumstances. Remember that.

 

louis will obviously be stronger. just as bronko nagurski was stronger than any running back now. idiocy at its best.

 

Bremen, I really wish you'd stop posting irritating nonsense. For instance, in that photo it doesn't look like Joe is even flexing.

Besides which, the look of a fighter can be totally misleading. Look at Corrie Sanders...a long torso, shortish legs, absolutely no muscle tone or definition anywhere, no giant muscles popping out at all...I'm being dead serious when I say he looks more like a golfer than a boxer.

If you look at someone like Tony Tubbs, you'd think he was a fat, slow slob, but he was a skillful boxer with fast hands.

Look at Michael Grant...a massive athletic looking man that you'd think would crush anybody, and he was a bust. You just can't tell just by looking at someone what you're going to get. The physique of a fighter does not prove his worth as a fighter.

If you want to call Wlad stronger then fine, Wlad is stronger. If you want to call Wlad more skillful, then that is a much more debatable topic.

As for records or stats, again you can post whatever you want that suits your argument.

Joe was 26-0 (23) in title fights by the time he retired as champion.

Wlad is currently 16-0 (12) in title fights. (I discount the bogus WBO strap since Lennox Lewis was the real champ.)

Joe scored 5 first round knockouts in title fights. Wlad has scored nil.

So as you can see, stats can be made to prove whatever suits your argument.

 

For once you and I agree on something.
Carnera was maneouvered into a title shot by some shady underworld guys who saw his monstrous physique and knew they could make money from him almost as a freakshow.
I think his KO of Sharkey was probably legit, but several of his wins are questionable.
Strong as he was, poor Primo was not a natural fighter, and he was considered a poor fighter by contemporary writers and reporters of the day. Film of him is not complimentary in the least.

But one still has to give him his dues...he had a heart as stout as English oak and he was an honest trier. He had no idea of what was transpiring behind the scenes with his managers.
He didn't sell his title cheaply and he went out on his shield. To top it off, he was a kind and decent man outside the ring. That deserves respect.

Oh yeah, and Carnera is another example to show that physiques and big muscles count for nothing in this sport, and how misleading it is to judge a fighter on appearance.

 

I agree; the Heavyweight division has got worse and worse. I think some of the 80's and 90's guys were pretty good and would decimate today's pretenders.

Also, Holyfield had lots of trouble with old timers Foreman and Holmes. His phenomenal conditioning and modern nutrition should have meant Holmes would be easy pickings, but of course he wasn't. Foreman repeatedly hurt Holyfield and would have crushed him like Norton in his prime. Yet Lennox Lewis couldn't hurt Holyfield half as badly as Big George did? Go figure!

The talk of evolution in sports seems to make sense, but there are anomalies; What about the West Indies fast bowlers of the 70's and 80's? Or Aussie Jeff Thomson, who is still considered the fastest of all? They would still be lightning quick today and Louis would still be devastating in today's boxing.

I honestly believe the size argument is over done. And the "why do we have weight divisions, then?" one is garbage. The real giants in history haven't been the greatest fighters in history or Valuev, Simon and Fury would be the superstars of boxing. Size is a factor, for sure and would obviously be a problem for former greats, but it always was!

Buddy Baer gave Louis trouble with his size and strength in their first fight, but Louis eventually destroyed him. I am not saying Vlad is not a better fighter than Buddy, but the sizes are very similar and the commentator on the fight says "they look like fighters from different weight divisions!". Class, power, variety and speed can overcome brute strength.

 

Nice line, but no evidence for rebuttal of our theories. Why did you change your name from Glover, Elroy?

 

By the same token though, I would also advise people to watch more fight film from back in the day. Not just watch it, but study it. A lot of the subtleties are lost on grainy B&W film, and it's not as easy to pick up on certain thing as it is watching a fight in full HD.

 

no they haven't,

but your theories started off decimated.

and then you came along dug them deeper still. You apparently enjoy digging a hole on atomic bomb test sites and living in them with glee.

 

Look at this beast

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...NuHTpMwHHZ05WWyexx3t7xW1h5bbQ1Bq9D8FEYnr4D-Nw

 

A beast is what he was. Why the sarcasm?

 

Nah.

 

So Sanders would of been the undisputed HW champion in the 60s and 70s because be blew out Wlad?
Snaders wasn't a anywhere near a great boxer and would of been beaten by the second raters of former era's.

Lennox Lewis told Sanders how to beat Wlad. He gave him a gameplan and Sanders got the job done in two rounds because Wlad was not hard to figure out.
He his predictable , repetitive and can't adapt.
The most cunning and smartest fighters of all time with great trainers like Blackburn and Dundee in their corner would have Wlads every move figured out before they even stepped in the ring. Once the fight got going Wlad would be out of his depth worse than he was against Sanders.

 

Explain in boxing terms to this forum how Sanders would of beaten Foreman?

 

Ron Lyle out boxed and stopped Shavers who was better than Sanders and was a harder hitter. Ron Lyle also hit harder than Sanders.

 

h2h I can't see much hope for Louis, out gunned.