Louis was more accurate, better timing, better in fighter, more power and more consistant then Evander. His hands were probably faster as well.
I think that statement is somewhat misleading. So do you also believe that Babe Ruth was able to hit some of his homeruns well over 500 feet "without good" bats and with "bad" baseballs? I believe that even with todays modern tracks and modern shoes, Owens would still lose pretty badly against todays Olympic sprinters.
Probably but boxing isn't sprinting. A bad example by Holyfield who should know better, but evidently doesn't.
He would lose but not as bad as you think. Most of the faster times in the last decades have to do with improved tracks and shoes. The rest has mostly to do with chemistry.
One would think that if people run a track for a hundred years, there would always be slight improvement unless the interest in running somehow decreases drastically. This content is protected This content is protected Boxing has a lot more aspects to it than just running straight forward for approximately 10 seconds.
Comparing sprinters from 1930s to sprinters of the late 20th century and beyond is ridiculous because first off that's making a comparison between AMATEURS and PROFESSIONALS. The comparison is just not valid, on that basis alone.
Exactly. What does Holyfield think is the reason behind Louis being so good in rematches? Once he'd had that first fight and figured his opponent out, he was far more dangerous in a rematch in my opinion. Holy has taken too many shots to the head it seems. He's a great, but that is such an idiotic thing to say. Louis would tear him up more like.
Look what Owen is running on in terms of track and footwear aswell. Something as simplistic as running as fast as you can in a trackline can always be improved because it's affectively a science, it's a physically measurable thing and improvements are always being made in terms of science and technology which can go towards that. How in hell is that going to help somebody in the ring however?
To be fair to Holyfield, alot of those quotes in that article I'm sure have been taken out of context. The interviewer conducts his interview within the context of having a long conversation with Holyfield. He then breaks the interview down on paper and writes down specific quotes, but we the reader have no idea within what context of a convesation Holyfield is being quoted from. Holyfield for example may have said those things about Joe Louis, but I'm certain he had alot of nice things to say about him as well. I've heard Holyfield speak of past athletes, and he's a firm believer that the athletes evolve and that present athletes are better than athletes of the past. Dont really think there is anything wrong with that train of thought to be honest.
On the track thing; tracks now are much, MUUUUUUUCH faster, and the shoes are better by a mile. The training has changed there too to a degree, but you put Jesse Owens on these super-fast all-weather tracks, so unlike the cinder tracks they used to run on, and Owens is right there. And yeah; call me jaded, but I believe Bolt is juicing. Not an ounce of proof to support it, but I just think he is. As a fan, I've just seen too much of this kind of thing to believe my eyes anymore.
People rag on Louis about him being slow afoot, until his fists smash into you in rapid fire, and you start getting bounced off the canvas.
I really believe that Louis purposely put on like he was really slow, and easy to attack with speed. But he actually was fast. He wasnt fast at moving around the ring, but if you look at the distance he moves while stepping forward and throwing a punch, its really fast. Also, timing beats speed. And I think Louis could time openings better then almost any other boxer in history. Basically, I think he made it look easy...
Nope, I don't see any chance. The only way he may likely come close is if he were born around the same time as today's track stars. That way his talent can be much better optimised.