Joe Louis vs. Wladimir Klitschko.

Foxy, you are quoted as saying your 3 best heavys are ,

Ali,
Louis,
Lewis,

now you are saying that VK would beat Louis easy?

So simple question, where would you rank VK in terms of your top 10 heavys of all time if you rate Louis 2nd as you have claimed?

 

Latineg, that's a good question. I guess it comes down to how much you rate H2H abilities. Louis' resume is stacked so on resume he has to be highly rated

 

then you are just as much a fool, there are plenty of sports where abilities have deteriorated.

YOU just aren't aware of them, because they aren't being sold to you.

 

Louis destroys wlad very quickly. wlad should not get in the ring with anyone who has anything approaching elite boxing ability, he will get hoodwinked within a few rounds.

 

its not.

there are hundreds of sports, both some present and past, archaic or otherwise that have dried up.

you are simply being presentcentric in denying that humans had any activity before your lifetime. its what young people do.

next question.

 

LOL @ HerolGee, still sawing away on his log of Wladimir hatred

 

Delusional boxing nostalgics are so ridiculous. Yeah, an athlete who was in his prime when Hitler was still alive will beat a modern ATG elite athlete like Klitschko who also happens to have a size advantage... Do you also believe that 1954 German football team would beat the 2014 German team or that Jesse Owens would outsprint Usain Bolt?

Advancements in science, nutrition and training have made a great progress in sports. Modern athletes can train more, are stronger and better conditioned than athletes in the past. That's why olympic records are constantly improving.

Wladimir Klitschko would absolutely murder Louis, it wouldn't even be competitive.

 

I think boxing has a lot of nostalgic nerds who enjoy bringing up some random names from the past to look like they have some extra knowledge.

A lot of those sentimental nostalgics also happen to be Americans who're bitter that they have no stars anymore and want to convince everyone that American boxers of the past would beat modern boxers. They can't accept that they never had a heavyweight as good as Wlad.

 

listen dingbat, don't try to represent the OLDER and WISER poster of this forum, you will screw a entire generation if you do :rasta

next question

 

Yo HerolGee,

Wald has pound for pound skills and had the type of jab and power that would give Joe Louis a lot of trouble. He has a big time height and reach edge, and much quicker feet, which would allow him to strike hard and first, and move away before Louis can do much. If Louis comes in close, Wlad owns him badly in a clinch.

But below is How Louis actually did vs the best he boxed. No one here will can dispute the films, or the cards, which in some cases were pro Louis.

BAM.

This content is protected

 

Louis had phenomenal success against big men and SHWs. Klitschko would try wearing him out by leaning on him and clinching. This won't work because Louis would catch Klitschko coming in every time. Louis was the master of the 6 inch punch and would have left Klitschko unconscious in a pool of his own blood.

 

At least tell both sides of each story.

1. Louis knocked him out in the first round of the second fight. For the first fight Louis was neglecting his training and golfing which is believed to have been bad for him as golfing isn't the same movement as boxing. (Read about it in the book his son wrote which included interviews from friends, opponents, managers, trainers, and family of Louis)

2. Louis was far from his prime in both of these fights and knocked Walcott out in the second.

3. Louis was weight drained as he wanted to be the same size as Conn. Louis dominated the second fight and knocked Conn out in 8. Known as "flop of the year". Also if it was 21 rounds all together then you have to give Joe at least 12.

4. Louis was incredibly past prime for that fight and only made a comeback for financial reasons.

 

PED's help too.

 

There are only a tiny handful of historical hw's who maybe edge a prime WK h2h, and Louis isn't one of them.

 

1. Schmeling-Louis and Schmeling fought a combined 13 rounds. Louis won but 5 of 13 rounds, and I'm being generous to Louis. Schmeling was thought to be passed his best for the first fight, meanwhile Louis was coming off his best career filmed performance vs Max. Baer

2. Walcott vs Louis. Both men were the same age in both fights. 26 rounds fought, and an average of 12 of them went to Louis. The first fight was rather controversial and the second one in my opinion had Walcott well out in the lead. But I'm using the judges official cards since we have them.

3. Conn vs Louis. 21 rounds were fought. Conn looked terrible in the rematch and retired the same year, but hey that's part of it as Schmeling was thought to be passed his best in the first Louis fight. The score cards awarded 10 of 21 rounds to Louis on average

4. Charles. This time, it was Louis on the decline. 15 rounds were fought Charles stood right in front of Louis, who was on big time winning streak and still had his jab and power and whipped Louis badly. Louis won three rounds on average and, to be honest, that seems a little high.

Summary. Louis won just 30 of 75 rounds fought. This is just 40% of the rounds fought.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected