Joe Louis Vs. Wladimir Klitschko

No doubt Joe was a legendary, all-time great boxer (and man). There is no denying that he will be remembered as a great for decades to come.

What gets me is the idea of some nutheads that if you take athletes from 100 years ago that they'd be competitive with modern day athletes. Boxing is the only sport I've ever come across where some idiots believe people from 100 years back stand a chance against their modern day peers. Does our sport attract some of the least educated fans :think

 

Thank you for showing how completely ignorant you are. My bet is you've never seen Carnera fight. Both him and Vits hold the left hand low, neglected body punching and had difficulty when being backed up. Neither had any defensive prowess besides being bigger than most of their opponents and leaning on them in a clinch and both moved awkwardly. And it funny you claiming Carnera had a "glass chin" when neither Louis nor Baer could keep him down. By the way, Louis and Baer were ranked the numbers one and twenty second greatest p4p punchers by Ring magazine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srrmj6eAFGc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Jhd4CSZoo

Go ahead and watch these video's and tell me I'm wrong about their styles being very similar so I can laugh some more.

 

Its been explained to you time and time again. Boxing is an art form and many of its secerts have been lost down the years. It is NOT purely an althetic sport like the sports you are comparing it to.
You ingnore the posts and continue to post this crap waithout fail.
You failed to answer who from this 'modern era' would beat former champs such as Duran, Robinson, Hagler etc. What trainers today are better than Fuch, Dundee, Goldman?
You are either dumb as pig **** or a troll.

 

They are identical.

 

In a documentary I saw Carmen Basilio stated he never had a trainer until he was well into his professional career.


Supposedly Ali would let his sparring partners punch him in the head to "condition his chin".


The amount of vital ring and gym wisdom had is astounding.

Oh yeah, and women will weaken your legs.


Sports science and medical science have caused boxing to progress just like in any other sport.

 

Great post mate. I enjoyed reading it, and I agree entirely. :good

 

:good

 

Boxing has not progressed as a whole like other sports.

Otherwise, each of today's divisions would be at their strongest, and today's top fighters would be seen as the best ever.

This is clearly not the case, so come back with some sort of evidence and educate us all.

 

:good

 

You have been unable to answer me.

Athletics and boxing are not the same.

If you had a time machine, and brought a marathon runner from 50 or so years ago, and put him in a marathon today, then he'd probably have no chance of winning.

Because sports science, nutrition, training facilities and equipment etc, have helped out athletes a lot.

But you could go back in time and put elite boxers of the past in with today's guys, and not only would they have a chance of winning, they'd probably be the favourites.

All of which makes your argument look silly.

 

Wrongatsch. He let guys punch his body to improve punch resistance. That method is still used today with medicine balls.

No HW today could match Fraizer's pace over 15 rounds.

No HW today could fight into the 26th round under a burning sun in Cuba like Jess Willard and Jack Johnson.

Explain how 'sports and medical science' has progressed boxing?

 

You guessed wrong my friend.

Why would you have made that comment?

If you think that boxing has evolved as a whole, and today's fighters are the best, and today's divisions are the strongest in the history of the sport, then prove it.

Give me some examples.

If boxing has evolved, and it progresses with each decade, then that would mean that today's guys are better than the fighters of the 00's, and those guys were better than the fighters of the 90's etc.

Nobody as of yet, as proven anything to me, as to how boxing has evolved.

The only so called evidence that's been put forward, are track and field records.

So if you've got any evidence, please enlighten me.

 

Thank you for an honest appraisal of Joe. That sort of positive attitude definitely helps when talking about these silly (and ultimately they are silly) mythical H2H fights, because everyone can hopefully stop being so touchy and defensive. :good

The sport has definitely evolved in certain respects. If we look at the heavyweight division, there are more large men than in era's from 50, 60, 70 years ago, no question. I think that there has been a greater emphasis on explosiveness and strength training, which has certainly been beneficial in most respects.
That video you posted of Baer and Galento was indefensible from my perspective. It resembled more a bar brawl than a fight between to upper tier heavyweights, and there is no doubt that if they were contenders in today's era, the boards would be awash with people saying - with every justification - that the heavyweights today suck.

I think boxers from 100 years ago would stand little chance against today's guys. On the other hand that would be 1913/1914 we're talking about, where the skills and techniques that came later were still being developed. By the time the 1930's rolled around, the sport had come on in leaps and bounds from a skills perspective from just 20 years before.

Maybe Louis is a poor example because he was the clear standout heavyweight from the era, but just looking at it from a technique and skills perspective, is there anything that the heavyweights today do that he didn't?
I personally think he looks awesome on film - still to me the best overall puncher I've ever seen at the weight.

If you want to make an argument for Wlad beating him that's cool, and for my money due to his mobility, jarring jab and overall size and skillset he does pose a very formidable ask for Joe who never had quick feet really due to his shuffling style, and would battle to close the distance, all the while having to watch for that ramrod jab and big right hand.

What gets ME upset is this silly talk of Wlad KO1 because...no. Wlad I don't think would approach Louis with the mindset of trying to destroy him quickly. In his championship bouts, he has played it cool and relied on outboxing the other guy and softening him up for later, but he has never waded in looking for an early finish.
Despite being a lot smaller, Louis is a slashing, fast, hard puncher and I think Wlad would be smart enough to know that a 200 lb. fighter of Louis' skill can still put the hurt on a much bigger man. Louis after all, often did. No, not to anyone with the overall skill of Wlad, but Louis could KO anyone if he hit them right.

So for me I think it would be much more of a technical boxing match than most would think.
So yeah, it doesn't bother me if someone picks Wlad to win by stoppage or knockout, but it bothers me when such outright disrespect is shown to Louis.
I guess you could say the same for Wlad though.

 

What are you bringing to the table here?

NOTHING!

If you don't agree with me, and think that boxing has progressed, then try and prove it to me.

What new skills?

There's skills that you don't see as often today, not skills that have been invented.

Have new diets etc, made today's fighters superior to their predecessors?

 

No, I'm asking you to give some insight and some examples, to support your theory.

If boxing has evolved and it does so each year as time passes, then that would surely mean that today's divisions are at the strongest they've ever been, and today's fighters are the best ever.

You seem to be agreeing with other posters, that today's marathon runners are superior to marathon runners from past decades.

I've no problem with that.

But while a sprinter from the 60's etc, would have no chance of beating Usain Bolt over 100-200m, that doesn't mean that a fighter from the 60's wouldn't be able to beat one of today's top guys.

Why is the current HW division regarded as being one the weakest of all time?

We're nearly in 2014.

Do you think that this era of HW's is stronger than the 90's era, that included Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield and Tyson etc?

It clearly isn't.

But if boxing has progressed, and it does so as time goes by, then why isn't it?

I can give you countless examples.

Just because athletes from track and field, have been aided by sports science, nutrition, training equipment and facilities etc, that does not mean that today's fighters are better than their predecessors, and boxing has evolved as a whole.

What do you think would happen if Thomas Hearns, Ray Leonard, Muhammad Ali, Bob Foster, Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong and SRR etc, fought against today's top guys?

Would they have no chance of winning?

It's laughable.