Joe Louis Vs. Wladimir Klitschko

Stop being an idiot!

You've asked me if I'm black because I don't agree that boxing has evolved.

I'm not asking you to prove anything, that can't be proven.

I'm asking for an honest opinion, and some examples to support your theory on why you think boxing has progressed.

 

This thread has gone to bollox with fools talking about size and diets.

Louis proved he could destroy guys the size of Wlad so the question is how he would beat Wlad.

Ted Spoon made a great point that if Wlad missed timed a clinch, Louis would put his lights out on the spot.
A lost secert used by guys like Louis and Marciana was - feinting the clinch.
They would feint going in for the clinch causing the opponent to lax up, then would rip in with shots inflicting serious hurt.
That can only spell disaster for a clinching lover like Wlad.
Guys back then, especially Louis were well rounded boxers, had to many tricks up their sleves and too many tools in their box.
Wlad had to flee to Germany and bend the rules to prevent nobodies outboxing him.

 

From a skills perspective, I think boxing peaked several decades ago already. I don't on the whole see any progression at all from a skills and technique perspective.
And as you have said many times now, if boxing were to improve linearly decade by decade, there would be clear and obvious signs of it in each and every division. Unless virtually every boxing pundit, analyst, historian and most fans are completely blind and dishonest, I think it's safe to say it hasn't. Just use the eye test...that should tell you everything.

I do think that in certain ways, boxing training has become more, for wont of a better word, scientific now. Machines such as stair masters and treadmills have made life more convenient...weights and weight machines have replaced the traditional chopping of wood and picking up and throwing boulders and that sort of thing, and have allowed for attention to be focused on specific muscle groups.

There is a greater understanding of the role of proteins, carbs and fats in the diet, and a better understanding of in what ratio these should be ingested.
I think also that recorded data that can be used as empirical evidence of a fighters condition and progress has made it easier to track progress in the gym. That sort of thing was pretty much absent decades ago.

But for all that, it's not like fighters from say, 1950 didn't know how to get in top shape. It may have been less sophisticated to run up a flight of stairs repeatedly as opposed to a machine that can simulate the same thing, but at the end of the day it got the job done.
It may have been crude by comparison to sit down for a lunch of steak, eggs and potatoes as opposed to taking in a protein shake and some creatine after training, but it's still pretty much the same thing ultimately. Proteins are still proteins and carbs are stlll carbs.

So while not being especially sophisticated, old-school training got the job done. Trainers might not have had reams of data to fall back on to tell them when a fighter was in shape, but they knew when their charge was peaking condition-wise. So did the fighter. You just know when you are in top condition. I think sometimes that the instinctive knowledge of the old trainers has been lost today, and trainers are too reliant on some guy with a college degree to tell them when a fighter is in great shape.

 

WTF are you talking about?

I've said that in my opinion, boxing hasn't evolved like athletics, and it doesn't progress every decade like some other sports have.

But instead of you saying "Loudon, I don't agree" and then giving your opinion why, all you've done is asked if I was black for some ******ed reason.

Now, you're just being argumentative.

Nobody can prove anything.

But we know the likelihood of certain things.

There's guys on here saying that a marathon runner of the past couldn't compete with a marathon runner of today. Then they are implying that because of that fact, (which is an actual fact, because of the times recorded) boxers of the past couldn't compete with today's guys.

Which is bollocks!

Today's best guys would find success in other era's and they would beat guys from the past in my opinion.

Likewise, plenty of fighters from the past would beat today's top guys.

Can I prove it? No.

But I know that boxing and athletics are completely different, and they shouldn't be compared.

I think that the 90's HW division was probably stronger than the 80's. But I think that the 80's and 90's HW scene was stronger than today as a whole.

The guys you've mentioned, would have had success in earlier era's in my opinion. But I also think that they would have come unstuck against a good few people too.

I can't be bothered with arguing with you all night.

Nobody can prove anything. But if you don't agree with my opinion, then put forward a proper argument as to why you don't agree with me, instead of saying that I must be black.

If you can't do that, or if you're not willing to, then don't bother responding.

 

better smear Louis with a lot of grease before Grabomir Klinchko smothers him in a bear hug.

 

Great post!

I agree entirely, and I enjoyed reading it. :good

 

Aquamarine,

I didn't say that I could prove anything.

Again, it's you who's jumped in with a ridiculous remark.

BINGO!

There's proof that athletics has evolved as a whole, as each decade passes by.

But as you've just mentioned above, there's no objective way to measure progression in boxing.

SO WHY THE **** DID YOU JUMP IN AND MAKE YOUR REMARK??

I said I didn't think it had progressed in the same way.

Your response was - "You must be black."

Boxing has progressed from M.O.Q. but not in the same way that other sports like athletics have.

That was my point.

There's been no gradual progression in boxing, as in the fighters seem to get better as each decade goes by.

 

This is probably the best way to approach it. I'll point to the Huck vs. Povetkin fight. Huck obviously benefits from advances over the last 70 years, but is about the same size and not as skilled as Joe. He was able to touch up and do damage to Povetkin. Joe, in theory, could probably do the same to a fair number of modern heavies. However it would be hard for him to cross the real estate necessary to be effective against Klitschko. I figure he'd probably get TKO'd later in the fight, the difference in size and Klitschko's mobility, combined with his ramrod jab being the deciding factors.

 

What new skills have been devoloped in boxing in the last 100 years? I can show you several area's that have declined. Time to put up big boy.

 

Ross Puritty, Lamon Brewster and Corrie Sanders all knocked Wladimir the fk out, Corrie nearly comatose him

Yet, Joe Louis, a vicious ATG puncher has no chance? :rofl

 

Lmao!! You're an idiot who cannot supply facts nor back your points which have been systematically destroyed.

 

What new skills were invented in football/soccer since the 1930s? Zero. Yet 1930s football players just like boxers look crude, unfinished, primitive, amateurish. Just like boxing.

Now how badly would a C level team of today demolish Uruguay's world champion team of 1930? :rofl

 

Maidana looks crude and he's a world champ and has beaten boxers who look much less crude. Same with Froch and others.

 

That vicious ATG puncher wouldn't even be a HW contender today if you put him in a time machine. Too primitive, too small, horrible defense. He'd get knocked out by the majority of today's top 50 HWs. In the top 10 we're speaking of huge mismatches. Wlad and other modern day SHWs would absolutely **** him.

 

:rofl

He'd be able to train with a fuller understanding of nutrition and balanced diet, and he'd be more seasoned than ANY heavyweight on the planet.

You're telling me guys like Ibragimov and David Haye could acquire a portion of the heavyweight championship, but ATG Joe Louis could not?
Look at Sam Peter for **** sakes, and Oleg Maskaev.. those guys would've been lit up by Joe.