Joe Louis vs. Vitali Klitschko

Well, then we gotta add Arty Godoy into the mix as well................ Godoy proved rugged and tuff, but also limited in skills.......
:deal

MR.BILL

 

I gotta agree that Joe Louis was usually much better the second time around with an opponent, as was Lennox Lewis yrs later................

MR.BILL

 

It was never a good idea to fight Joe Louis more than once. Joe just kept getting better. Going back to my 10 fights between Joe and Vitali, maybe they would go to Louis by KO10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.

 

OKAY! Will the Vitali Klit detractors give Klit any credit if he parks Chris Arreola like a Chevy Truck, or will they discount that and say Arreola was a tub of goo who had no clue how to fight anyway????

MR.BILL

 

But Janitor, to have a guy like Galento ranked #3 in the world speaks volumes about the division in that time line. Say what you will about the division today, but a guy like Galento would not even be rated.

Louis' fans should be embarrassed that a short over weight guy with skills of a journyeman could catch him, floor him and make those a ringside gasp as if they might witness an upset.

Galento would not win a round vs. Vitali. In fact, I doubt he'd hit him much at all.

 

Indeed. Walcott won more rounds than Louis did in both fights.

Conn was up on the score cards.

Pastor made Louis look really bad in the first fight.

Unlike these three, Vitali hits much harder, has a much better chin, is bigger, stronger, longer, and is an excellent boxer.

Indeed, vitali has the best rounds won to rounds lost ratio in the history of heavyweight boxing. If you really want to peel back the onion, the prime Ali lost more rounds in 64-67' than vitali did in his entire career.

If these guys could out box Louis, Vitlai could do the same.

It is interesting to note that a good minority here like Vitali to win. Such a suggestion years ago would boarder on blasphemy, but thankfully with ready video, and revealing fight reports, fans can make up their own minds.

Louis was a real hero. Those types are never underrated.

 

Thats what they were bartenders and bouncers! As 4 Galento being ranked #3 that goes 2 show u the state of the heay weight division was in the 30's and 40's, a bigger joke then it is now!

 

+ Most of the guys on Louis resume wouldn't be in the top 10! Then again some of this was done during the depression so guys had 2 put food on the table! Ur telling me Braddock could beat Chagev or Sultan. They were a lot more crude and were less experienced then now. So most of them wouldn't b ranked!

 

For me Joe Louis wins this one Vitali has terrible technic and has never fought anyone in Louis class before except for the Lennox fight the only thing that gives Louis a problem is Vitali's size and long jab and chin but I pick Louis's greater class of skills to win this fight by decision or late fight stoppage.

{ I do agree that the heavyweight division in Louis's time was a poor era for the heavyweights but also think Louis was a briilant fighter }

 

atsch:rofl

 

Who's the fool who thinks that a 1951 version of Louis was still good enough to beat Vitali Klit? Mail me the Weed you've been puffing............. The '51 version of Louis was in full swing and training hard, but also faded, balding & slowed to a snail's speed...... I'm sorry, but a 37 year old Klit in 2008 KILLS a 37 year old Joe Louis of 1951...........

MR.BILL

 

Less experienced? Even Braddock had 86 professional fights. Ibragimov and Chagaev have something like 20-30.

Braddock wasn't the greatest boxer who ever lived but he was tough as nails and that goes a long way in this sport. It's one attribute that doesn't "evolve" over the years nor can it be taught to future generations. It's something you either have or you don't.

Take both Ibragimov and Chagaev, put them in a black and white film against Louis and you'd be calling them "bums" too.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

If a guy like Nikolai Valuev can be in the top 10 (top 5 actually) then just about anyone can.

 

So are we to conclude that just because he suffered a cut and a torn rotator cuff in a mere two fights in a career consisting of 40 matches, that the same identical scenario would happen again in multiple fights during the 40's?

Hey!! Let's look at some of Louis's fights-

- Beaten nearly to death by a former light heavyweight who hadn't fought in 12 months, and only won 4 of his last 8 matches.

- Decked by another former light heavyweight who was retired for 4 years, was arthritic, had 25 career losses, and was guaranteed 10% of all Louis's future earnings had he lost.

- Floored by one of the most deconditioned contenders in the history of the sport, who admitadely drank beer, whiskey, and smoked just days before a fight.

- Was throroughly outboxed by a light heavyweight champion who's own mother predicted him to lose, before finally catching him late.

- Was nearly knocked out of the ring by a crude giant who in turn was previously stopped by the feather fisted Gunnar Barland, and outboxed by a journeyman with a record of 7-6-1.

- Was decked a few times enroute to a controversial gift, against a man who at the time was viewed as more or less a journeyman trying to rejuvenate his career.

- Was badly KO'd by a 5'10", 185 lbs contender at age 37 and after at least fighting in 8 tunups, whereas Vitali at the same age, came fresh out of a 4 year layoff and regained a title...

See how selective cherry picking of performances works?

 

If Thomas Farr and Billy Conn could give Louis lotsa' trouble with speed and movement, then I cannot see why a southpaw like Iggy or a good orthodox boxer like Russ Chagaev couldn't at least do the same........ I'm not saying they'd beat Louis, but they'd give him a good go at it in the ring........

MR.BILL

 

Mr.Bill -

your objectivity is refreshing. There is nothing/no one sacred in these comparisons. The times move onward. Some can simply not reconcile themselves to this fact.

That given, I will say there were many factors so differing between the two eras to make this comparison tenuous. Today, big time contenders have extensive amateur pedigree, financial backing, enough income from their fights to only fight sparingly, a team of nutritionalists, strength and flexibility coaches... etc.

Back then, even top ranked fighters often had day jobs, limited amateur experience, and had to fight every month in order to keep their rankings and keep the money coming in. Different times shape different fighters.