Joe Louis vs Derek Chisora (yes really)

It's possible that the video was deleted from Youtube. It might be more profitable to contact someone who worked with WBO.

 

What other accounts ?!?

 

The validity of the men you meet depends on when you meet them .The difference between Chisora's fights and the champions you mentioned is they won some of theirs! Del Boy lost all his!
Box Rec's ratings are a joke.

Leave out the sarcasm it doesn't impress anyone.

 

"The validity of the men you meet depends on when you meet them"

Ok but I'm not going through all of the Ring champions with a fine-tooth comb to determine how close they all were to their "primes" when everyone fought them. It may well be the case that Foreman, Tyson and Holmes fought them when the Ring champions were further removed from their "primes". I was using a quantitative metric. By the same metric, Holyfield fought Ring champions on seven occasions; one more than Chisora currently, yet the Ring title wasn't on the line in any of Holyfield's fights.

"Box Rec's ratings are a joke."

Then why did you bring them up in the first place? Think.

Obviously Boxrec is not perfect but it's a decent rule of thumb, something to consider at the very least. Trying to design a massive rankings system that includes every boxer as Boxrec does is extremely difficult, they do a pretty good job.

"The difference between"

Crucial differences imo include Chisora's higher level and more varied opposition than fighters 80+ years ago experienced and the fact that Chisora was consistently a B-side fighter. In H2H fantasy matchups I assume neutral officiating, which favours Chisora and disfavours most champions.

"Del Boy lost all his!"

Chisora won three fights as the underdog (Scott, Takam, Pulev 2) and is generally regarded as getting the sh*tty end of the stick in three others (Helenius, Whyte 1, Parker 1). He also gave Vitali and Usyk their 3rd toughest and most competitive fights. Jimmy Young had 18 losses, never won a title and only contended once but this doesn't do justice to his ability. If he'd had A-side advantage or even neutral officiating and knew when to retire he'd be regarded as an "ATG". Young was better than Chisora for his era but the principle is the same.

 

I didn't bring up Box Rec's ratings I referred to their stats of Boxers,as in physical measurements ,not their top ten ,or otherwise positions.Scott ,Takam .and Pulev were no longer ranked so Chisora beating them is irrelevant to this discussion. Chisora never beat a top ten Ring ranked fighter. He may have been unlucky not to get he nod against Helenius,but he did not deserve the verdict in either the Parker of Whyte figh,nor to my knowledge is he regarded to have gotten the shitty end of the stick in those fights.



He was, as I said a gate keeper.

 

"I referred to their stats of Boxers,as in physical measurements ,"

It's hard to tell because your grammar and exposition are very poor. Fighters are usually overbilled (mainly for commercial reasons) and there are often a range of quoted measurements. On Boxrec Fury is listed as 6'9 but early in his career he was listed in the 6'8 range and Celebheights have him at 6'7.5. Marciano is 5'10.5 on Boxrec and Gelanto 5'9 but in other places they are 5'9 and 5'8 respectively.

"Chisora never beat a top ten Ring ranked fighter."

I never claimed that he did, I claimed that he beat Scott, Takam and Pulev as the underdog, fought Ring champions on six occasions and lost controversial SD's as the B-side to Helenius, Whyte and Parker.

"He was, as I said a gate keeper."

I must concede that's a brilliant insight. But leaving aside that he's a 2x title challenger (therefore a contender by definition), being a gatekeeper in this era doesn't mean that he couldn't beat champions 80+ years ago, especially if he wasn't disadvantaged by officiating.

I'm aware that Louis was a great fighter in his time and era about 85 years ago in America but no sport is static over time. Hence we don't get 5'9, 67 inch reach, sub-190 lbs scrappers like Marciano as champions anymore, or even gatekeepers. They have been selected out by the evolution of heavyweight boxing.

 

How is Marciano relevant to a match up between Louis and Chisora? Louis is proven against modern sized heavyweights .Chisora failed every time he stepped up his opposition.
Your contention that Chisora was"disadvantaged by officiating ",is just that your contention,you have no evidence that this was the case.

 

I don't think Louis fighting big guys is a very good argument given the quality of these opponents
Look at who Carnera and Simon lost to for example. These guys were getting beaten by some very unimpressive opponents

 

My point is size alone won't do it.
Would you bet big Chisora would beat Buddy Baer?

 

"How is Marciano relevant"

Aside from the fact that he KO'd Louis (as well as Walcott and Charles later) as a prospect who'd never gone past 10 rounds, on only about 5 years of total boxing experience, he's relevant in proving that boxing evolves over time. There are no 5'9, 67 inch reach, sub-190 lbs brawlers around at the top today and there haven't been since the 50's. Thus the heavyweights of the distant past would face massive disadvantages against modern contenders and gatekeepers, let alone champions.

"Your contention that Chisora was"disadvantaged by officiating ",is just that your contention,you have no evidence"

This is like saying "your contention that Lewis was disadvantaged by officiating against Holyfield the first time is unfounded, you have no evidence" or "There's no evidence it was corruption that had Buster and Mike level on points"

I have something called common sense. Anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of boxing knows that A-side fighters will consistently get decisions over B-sides that "could have gone either way" and even sometimes when the vast majority believe that the A-side lost. Eyeonthering and Boxrec support my contention that Chisora was hard done by as a result of partisan officiating. 26 people on Eyeonthering scored Helenius-Chisora (which took place in Finland) and none had the undefeated, highly touted and clear favourite Helenius winning, yet two of the judges did. The majority thought that Chisora beat Whyte 1 and Parker 1, yet the prospect and the former titlist respectively unsurprisingly got the nod over the "gatekeeper/journeyman". Against Whyte in the rematch, Chisora was deducted 2 points for fouls in a rough fight, which may have resulted in him fighting recklessly while ahead on the cards and thus losing the fight. Against German-based Pulev in the first fight in Germany, Pulev was allowed to get away with a huge amount of holding which made the fight extremely difficult for Chisora, despite one judge scoring it in his favour (which is ultimately irrelevant because two judges determine the outcome).

Whether the bias was conscious and intentional, Chisora got the sh*tty end of the stick in those fights from the officials. Had he been an A-side fighter and fought exactly the same opponents in exactly the same way, he'd have at least 3 and possibly 5 fewer losses.

There have been several fights where Chisora was treated generously by the officials (Fury 1, Kabayel, Usyk, Pulev 2) but it didn't ultimately determine anything in most of those cases because he lost three of those four. Pulev 2 was a genuine "could have gone either way" fight but Chisora is 1-5 overall as far as officiating heavily or entirely determining the outcome.

 

"Let me guess Haye is a better Heavyweight than Louis"

Yes dunce. If I'm picking Chisora over the American champion 85 years ago then it's not a stretch that I'd also take Haye, who had a combination of speed and power that was unparalleled by any pre-Tyson heavyweight, while being a big heavyweight (6'2, 210 lbs ripped) in 70's terms.

"0 IQ logic"

Ironic coming from one of the biggest fools on this forum. One so blinkered as to vehemently and consistently assert that 2014 Kiev mayor Vitali could have come out of retirement at nearly 43, more than two years after his 12 round battle with Chisora, to school and stop a 28 year old, 31-0 Wilder. You've got no common sense when it comes to two fighters who are contemporaries with a common pool of opponents, let alone between three or four generations.

 

Marciano beat a washed up 37 years old Louis so Marciano is relevant to this debate? How asinine is that?
No, you have something called condescension which is entirely different! And we are done!

 

The evolution of heavyweight boxing is entirely relevant to this discussion and 50's American national champion Marciano is relevant to that. No one remotely close to his combination of relatively tiny size, direct brawling style and limited boxing experience is beating gatekeeper heavyweights today, let alone becoming a dominant world champion.

It's hard not to condescend to someone who questions the existence of official bias working against a travelling "gatekeeper/journeyman" with five disputed decision losses on his record and only one disputed decision win.

 

Good read

 

Louis would eventually batter him.