Joe Louis Vs. Wladimir Klitschko

It's not that I regard comments such as 'modern day super heavyweights would destroy Louis' as taking something away from Louis so much as I regard it as a downright insult, and an insult to intelligence.

Just yesterday I got to watching Lucas Browne versus Richard Towers. What I saw was an undefeated 6'8" stringbean with a pitter-patter jab, rubbish defence, no power (and apparently no chin) against an undefeated Browne, who apparently thinks steroid muscles and bodybuilder biceps is the ideal physique for a heavyweight.
I thought he looked like a circus freak.
Browne was so slow that it looked like he was punching underwater and he moved less than a Redwood tree in a breeze, showing not the slightest hint of athleticism or skill.

I was actually hosing myself that these guys are termed 'modern day super heavyweights.' And just before you think these guys are nobodies, Browne is ranked 11th by the WBC!
This absolute plonker is on the cusp of a top 10 world rating with a record of
19-0 (17). Jesus H Christ. I can only imagine how bad his competition must have been to get that record.

These are examples of our modern day super heavyweights. So the old-timers are comical by these standards? Are you ****ing high?
Even Carnera looks way better then this overbulked idiot.

Then I see world-rated Tyson Fury (a guy I LIKE) huffing and puffing like an old man with bad posture taking a leisurely stroll down the beach, doing 'push ups' which looks more akin to a form of breakdancing than anything and then getting up and hopping about an inch off the ground, only to flop back down and repeat the process. Hughie Fury looked only ever so slightly better.
And again, I like Fury, he can actually fight and has some decent names on his record. But I also can't deny what my eyes are showing me. I was laughing...what choice did I have?
Again, this is our modern day super heavyweight. He is a world-ranked contender and has a decent chance of becoming a world champion some day.

Is this the point to which 64 years of evolution* has brought us? Really?

You can argue Wlad and Vitali all you want, but what about the rest of these 'evolved' SUPER heavyweights? You can't just ignore the rest of the division.

If boxing evolves on a linear scale as some claim, then where is Wlad's successor? Where is his evolved replacement? Wlad turned pro in 1996. That was 18 years ago, right? Nearly TWO decades have passed since then.
Surely by now we should have seen at least his equal if not his superior? So where is the man?
When you find him let me know because I've given up the search.
Wlad and Vitali if anything, are the exceptions to the rule, not the norm. Had it been otherwise, they would not have ruled the division so so long.

If you ask me, your 'super heavyweight' era is a super heavyweight myth.


* From the time of Joe's retirement.

 

Read my reply to madballster. I get similarly annoyed when the great Louis is deemed not good enough to even be in the same ring as a limited plodder like a Derek Chisora for instance.

If Wlad was a master of the uppercut he would have used it all night against Povetkin, instead of holding on for dear life and jumping on his back, or turning his back and literally running away. (it's on film so don't even deny he did these things.)

I have never even denied that Wlad is good - never - however you seem to be completely oblivious to any faults he may have, and like any fighter, he has them.

Similarly Haye, who may be a good athlete but has the fighting spirit of a goose. I mean, this is a guy who routinely is 'injured' and pulls out of fights and blames losses on an injured toe.
It's not even the 'nutbags' as you so fondly refer to us, that don't rate Haye, it's pretty much everyone.
A quick peek at the comments leveled at him from many people on this forum. You are clearly in the minority with your high opinion of Haye.

 

And Joe Louis was not an exception to the norm (of bums)? That's ludicrous. You're painting the 20s and 30s like talent such as Louis' was abundant. It wasn't. For his era and compared to his peers, Louis was abnormally fast, powerful, could control range, could counter and had an actual defense. His opponents had NOTHING of that. Zero.

We're comparing exceptional fighters of their respective eras, aren't we?

 

Please pull up the quote where I said Louis' era was filled with talent? Even historians would and do agree that the era was not a strong one. Hell, I even went so far as to admit that the video of Galento and Baer is, in my words, indefensible.
So why do you insist on putting words in my mouth now?

My position on Louis was (and is) is that the skills existed in that era, the same skills like we see today. I used Louis as a prime example, because he can clearly be seen on film exhibiting these skills.
This was to rebut the claim you made that 'Louis was 'primitive' and also the claim by you and others that boxing has advanced so much since then.

You can also go on the classic section and find my impressions of Carnera there, which were not favourable at all. It should still be on the first page. I have never deviated one inch from my arguments or analysis of fighters. I'm observing things as honestly as I can.
I don't 'big up' Louis' competition to make him sound or look better than he really was.

It's an honesty that is apparently not reciprocated.

 

Tactical battle? I call it two guys who don't know how to fight. And devastating power? You're having a laugh. No man, I call a spade a spade and they were two **** fighters in a **** fight.
All fights on some level are a tactical battle anyway.

Um. I appraised him against Towers, who is found wanting himself. I DID judge him against the quality of his opposition. Neither Towers nor Browne can fight a lick.
I don't think I need to bore myself watching Browne beating on some stiff with a losing record to get a better feel for him.

Ah, so now you DO admit that fighters today are protected? One loss and they slide down the rankings eh? Yes, precisely. Hence the padded 20-0, 30-0 records we see today.

And yet you're so very quick to judge Louis on the basis of one training video to serve as 'proof' that Louis was primitive? Why didn't you cut Joe the same slack?

Really? Consider that in the near two decades he has been active without apparent successor, 4 Olympics have passed, and tons of records have been shattered in that time.
Yet, we can't even find a heavyweight on the horizon now close to the overall ability of Wlad and Vitali. Nobody, apparently, can beat them.

So this serves to show two things:

1) You cannot compare boxing to other athletic sports
2) Boxing, if it evolves at all anymore, is doing so at a MUCH slower pace than other sports.

How else can we explain that two guys who turned pro the previous century are still easily on top today? (well, until very recently.)
The best sprinters, jumpers etc. from 1996 are not the best today.

We may have to wait 10, 20 or more years. Yes, one day we may find that guy, but it could be a very long time coming.

Why not? Boxing evolves on a continuum scale doesn't it? Could Jesse Owens beat Carl Lewis? Could Carl Lewis beat Usain Bolt? No.

So why do you have doubts that Wlad can beat an older, apparently less evolved Lewis? Do you think Tyson Fury could beat Lewis?
In fact, let me ask you this: who from today does beat Lewis, who turned pro way back in 1989?

 

But do you see all of these qualities in these other fighters too? I mean, does Larry have the defensive mastery of a Byrd, or does Byrd have the power of Tyson? Do you see Wlad's jab on Tyson?

It's impossible. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Haye could not punch in combination like Louis. Vitali did not fire those short 8 inch punches inside. Tyson could not box like Louis and so on.

I am truly surprised that you cannot see any great qualities in Louis, I really am. They're jumping out at me whenever I watch him. He was human sure and didn't look great all the time, but I truly think he was outstanding and not only for his era.

I haven't skirted anything at all. I've addressed it already. All a fighter can do is be judged against the quality of his opposition.
The same argument can be made against Wlad. Would he be so dominant against the stiffer 90's competition? Would he be able to execute that jab and right hand so effectively against tougher opponents?
The answer is probably no. But I'm not about to say that he didn't have the skills he does, or state so boldly that he couldn't effectively use them against better opposition. Same for Louis, or anyone else.
All we can do is judge both Wlad and Louis against the best competition of their era, and the skills they used against such opposition.

 

Here is what I said about Carnera:

"God-awful footwork, and square up when throwing most of his punches. That's why he was off-balance and got hit with the jab so much. He also gave up his reach advantage way too much.
He's not truly awful, but on the other hand, he's raw and crude."

Link:

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=496274


Doesn't sound like I'm exactly giving him major props, does it?

 

So 20 lbs of flab makes Chagg a better fighter than Louis?atsch
Allyou need in this era is to put on weight to be successful?

Why wasn't Haye blown away by Valeuv?
Why wasn't Spinks blown away by Cooney?
Dempsey-Firpo,Willard
Louis- Baer etc etc

 

Had to quote this because it perfectly resembles my feelings on the topic deal:deal

 

Wlad is gonna drop his left hand lower and lower. Wlad's chin and his heart
are questionable. Louis had the power to knockout men of Wlad's size with
equal or greater chin. Louis may get dropped, but Louis has a much higher
ring iq than Wlad, and has held his own against superheavies in the clinch.
Louis will make Wlad look normal, Wlad gets his ticket to bum of the month club.
Louis KO 7. Louis gets dropped 2 or 3 times along the way.

 

You said Chagg would blow away Louis. The only reason being because he was 20 lbs heavier, because he has nothing else on him.

Louis weighed 207 pounds and was 6'2. Thats taller and not much lighter than Tyson. No boxing fan in their right mind would favour Wlad over prime Tyson.

I have no interest in talking size because fights are won on skill and technique , but its all you clowns understand.

Louis circled and had the ring IQ to take Wlads only weapon out of the picture. With just a pawing jab , Louis would be jolting in and out on him with combos so fast men were unable to see them coming.
Too skilled , to powerful and to multi-dimensional. Louis destroyed large targets and Wiliamson showed a bit of latteral movement confused the **** out of Wlad.

You can come back with your size argument all you want. Wlad is on his hands and knees by the 4th.

 

Louis was knocked down and hurt by "Two Ton" Tony Galento. Chagaev who is light years ahead of Galento when it comes to skill and conditioning would blow Louis away.

 

Knocked down is not beat. Louis would decimate any fighter today. FACT! :hey

 

According to these idiots, fighters like Jersey Joe Walcott are "limited plodders who used their heads for defense". Wlad and Vitali WISH they had the footwork, countering ability, and head movement of Walcott.