Joe Louis Vs. Wladimir Klitschko

So you're saying Roberto Duran wouldn't be a force today?
Ray Robinson wouldn't be a force?

The fact of the matter is, those guys were far more seasoned than todays fighters, FAR MORE.
And they had renowned trainers all over.

 

I had forgotten about that

With all these new advancments , there isn't a man harder in todays game than Les Ferdinand.

 

Probably Elroy's other alt. atsch

 

Thanks, buddy. I'm happily married since years. If you were mature you'd offer your condolences but you probably haven't tied the knot yet. You'll know when you get there

But in all seriousness, do you really have to substantiate your argument with an ad-hominem attack like that? It makes you look like a rather dumb keyboard warrior.

 

I said that the more decades have passed by the more disadvantaged a fighter would be. Foreman would be a factor today, given that his decade is "only" four decades in the past. Same for Duran.

I would say 2 decades = little to no disadvantage
2-4 decades = slight disadvantage, can be reasonably compensated with difference in skill
4-6 decades = big disadvantage, hard to compensate just through skill
6+ decades = huge disadvantage, next to impossible to compensate, no matter how "skilled" compared to classic peers

The farther out you go the more minute the chances of past athletes become.

 

What about Willie Pep and Ray Robinson?

 

On on earth did they ever manange to fight over 20 rounds of boxing?atsch

 

I have been married 22 years, so don't mind me if I laugh at you. And let me laugh at you, and 'The Others' some more.

This site is filled with posts from you and 'The Others' calling people names over and over. The base of what you say is pure trolling for the most part. And now you cry, because someone puts your arguements, in basic terms. Grow a pair.

 

:good

Is he trolling, or is he an idiot?

I can no longer tell on here.

 

:good

Les was a beast!

I'd have loved him at Sheff Wed.

 

Ha! Possibly.

 

More waffle. You have not pointed out one specific thing at all.

The mere fact that you refer to Louis as a 'plodder' (and something I knew you would say) tells me everything I need to know about your understanding of Louis. In short, nothing.

Watch the first Buddy Baer fight. Where is this 'plodder'? I see Louis dancing on the balls of his feet, jabbing going backwards. How many fighters can fight going backwards? Does Wlad do that?
Once he has the measure of Buddy, he starts coming forward more, standing more flat-footed. He slips a jab and instantly responds with a left hook. He fights at range, he fights inside, ripping shots with both hands. No holding, no fighting at one range only.

Joe was proficient at all ranges, short, medium and long. He could throw every punch in the book, left hook, right hook, right cross, left uppercut, right uppercut, all the same shots downstairs, and with perfect technique and leverage.
That is why he didn't need to hold on like a limpet mine in close. He could hurt you from any range. He could back off and box, or stand and trade inside. He was vastly more complete than Wladimir as an offensive fighter.

Watch the Max Baer fight. Louis is not plodding at all. He is wary of Baer's power and is boxing him, darting in and out occasionally with punches. At one point he throws a lovely left hook off the jab.
Again, once has has a feel for his man, he decides to go to work. Watch as he sits down on his punches and starts to rip lefts and rights into Baer's face, eventually dropping him with a triple left hook.

Please show me today where Arreola, Stiverne, Jennings or Wilder are throwing triple left hooks, hooking off the jab, and throwing short lefts and rights inside with leverage and power. Please show me where these guys have shown an ability to fight going backwards. Show me where these guys (or any other heavyweight today) end a fight with a six punch combination as Joe did to Walcott in his very last fight as champion.
You can't, can you?
It's all on film. There is really no excuse for this level of ignorance anymore

And you have the cheek to call Joe a plodder, then try and big up that fat face-first piece of plodding garbage Arreola? It's mind-boggling!

Holding on like a limpet mine is not a skill. It is not found in boxing's 101 rulebook. Being great at one range and rubbish at any other means that fighter is lacking a complete skillset.

If Freddie Roach, a man who trains modern fighters for a living and does so at the highest level, calls Joe the most textbook perfect fighter he has seen, I know I'm in good company.
I don't even need his validation though, because I can see it for myself on film.
You dismiss what Roach has to say, claiming he is merely paying lip service to an old fighter. If anything Roach would want to promote the evolution of the sport because he is part of the modern era. He trains modern fighters for a living.

Once again Elroy, your knowledge is found wanting. Badly. I will give you credit for attempting (in your own way) to answer the question and did not duck it outright as two other posters have done.

You can ague strength and conditioning and whatnot, but don't tell me for a second today's heavyweights have evolved and pushed on from Joe's skills. It is clearly evident that they haven't.

I will be willing to go through an entire fight or set of fights, frame for frame if neccesary, to prove this.

 

Your arguement lost all merrit when you claimed that Louis would be slower than vlad:hi:

 

90's -

Roy Jones, MAB, Morales, Holyfield, Trinidad, De La Hoya, Pea, Toney, McCallum, Lewis, SSM, Lopez, JCC, Hamed, Nunn, Jackson, G-man, Dariusz M, R Johnson.

80's -

Tyson, Holmes, Spinks, SRR, Hearns, Duran, Hagler, Curry, McCallum, Graham, JCC, Pryor, Arguello, Quawi, Benitez, Gomez, Nelson, Camacho.


I wouldn't say that today's top guys are any better than the above, as a whole.

 

This heavyweight division is terrible.