Joe Louis Vs. Wladimir Klitschko

Steroids, manufactured feild conditions, lighter, stronger equipment. All these things give the false appearence of better athletics. That fighter had to fight more often and many time hurt also gives a false impression compared to todays manufactured and glossy records.

 

Joe Louis would've smashed Oleg Maskaev and Sam Peter into next week.

 

To primitive? Lol, once again you've shown how ignorant you really are of this sport.

 

Freddie Roach, Eddie Futch amongst other HOF trainers have said he's the most brilliant heavyweight they've seen technically, yet.. he's too primitive for this keyboard warrior?

 

Obviously these guys know more than revered trainers. Why they're posting here instead of training todays youth is beyond me.

 

:good Just my opinion...

 

Using athletics results as a barometer for boxing progression is ******ed, and completely ignores the evolution of track and field from an amateur sport dominated by collegiate athletes to a lucrative, professional sport.

Prior to the 70s when the amateur restrictions started to be eroded, the average age of the 100m winner at the Olympics was under 22, with no winner over the age of 25.

The likes of Hayes and Owens never came close to reaching their full athletic potential, and would almost certainly have set more impressive figures had they extended their careers past their early 20s.

When you also factor in the differences in tracks and equipment, the effective gaps between different generations are nowhere near as big as the numbers suggest. Bolt aside, the rest of the 100m final at London would struggle to go sub 10 on the track Hayes ran on in Tokyo. Owens' winning long jump leap in 1936 would narrowly have missed out on a medal in 2012.

A much better athletic gauge are US collegiate records, as they are broadly comparing like with like. Performances have plateaued in most events since the 70s and 80s, and there are many records that still date back to that era.

The trend is of course that athletes in all sports (including boxing) are getting bigger and stronger, but not as dramatically as some like to think.


Back on the subject, prime Wlad is a very difficult match-up for Louis, and he would find it difficult to establish his jab which is where most of his best work came from. If Louis landed on Wlad he could take him out easily, but it's easy to see Wlad breaking him down from range and tying him up when they get in close. The Wlad of the Sanders fight is probably in a world of trouble though.

 

Louis's power would put Wlad out for the count of 10!

 

Well, objectively, Louis' style isn't suited for today's boxing, if that's the thing you're trying to compare.

If you watch any of Louis' fights, you'll notice that he moves very slow and not just that, his movement (and generally the movement of boxers from that time) is very bad by today's standards. His defense wouldn't do him any good if he was to fight today either. He constantly stands opened and even then he got hit a lot, despite very low activity of boxers from Joe Louis' time.

Of course, I'm saying all of this from today's perspective, back in the day those things weren't much of flaws as they would be today.

As for the straight comparison with Wladimir Klitschko, just by looking at them you should notice that they should never be put in the same weight class. The difference in size, height, reach, strength, muscle and weight is too big to even talk about it at the championship level. I won't get into any analyzing of the fight because boxers from different eras shouldn't be put into the hypothetical match-ups in my opinion. It's an unfair comparison to begin with, because the boxing of 1940s isn't the same thing as the boxing of today.

 

Cheers, Loudon.
I hate the disrespect shown by some on here. I agree that the greats transcend eras andthe fact that the likes of Billy Conn are pronounced amateurs shows a lack of knowledge and class.

These same people laud Chisora and Haye! At least the Klitschkos have been dominant and consistent and as such I give them credit. The same goes for Mayweather. There are those that belong, and those that don't.

 

Holy **** are you kidding me , this forum has lost all credibility!

 

:good

 

Louis's power is overrated. Boxer used 4-6oz gloves at that time. Punches were quicker and harder to block so there was more knockouts during that time. Put them both in modern 10oz gloves and it would be target practice for Wlad who has 5" height and reach advantage

 

More ignorance. It has been conclusively proven that there is almost no difference between the power of a punch with an MMA glove and a boxing glove.
This was tested with Bas Rutten. It's on youtube.

 

It can't lose what it never had.