A peak joe louis vs a peak lennox lewis

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by combatesdeboxeo, Jan 1, 2011.

Page 10 of 16
  1. Muchmoore

    Muchmoore Guest

    I'm not saying that modern fighters are better.

    What I am saying is that they have some advantages over older fighters, just as they have some over modern fighters.

    That is all. What makes this debate tedious is that people think that conceding that modern fighters have any type of advantage means that you are saying that they are better than older fighters.
     
    Muchmoore, Jan 1, 2011
    #136
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    113,035
    Likes Received:
    48,152
    Yeah, this is exactly as I see it.
     
    McGrain, Jan 1, 2011
    #137
  3. Muchmoore

    Muchmoore Guest

    Because they obviously didn't receive or listen to the correct instructions on how to cycle and taking the masking agents that cover them up.

    And to be honest I don't rate any of those three as being smart guys, moreso Toney than the others :lol:
     
    Muchmoore, Jan 1, 2011
    #138
  4. BoxingFanNo1

    BoxingFanNo1 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    11,867
    Likes Received:
    13
    That's kind of my point, guys today don't have to fight 12 times a year, they can conserve and focus on 2-4 fights per year, not fighting 12 times per year kind of backs my argument.



    From the mid 60's to now there are a **** load of fighters I'd pick to beat shop worn Walcott.

    It's not just size but it's a factor, my main basis was Lewis, i.e the 90's, are you saying the 40's was a higher quality than the 90's?



    Prime mid 90's Mercer against the Walcott Louis faced, what, you think Walcott would walk over him? Based on what fight, Simon, Fox, Lazer, Allen, Maxim, Ray, Layne?..... I obviously have Walcott higher on my ATG list but ffs he lost to guy prime Mercer would have chewed up and spit out!!!



    Size plays it's part, come on man, you think those guys would have looked so great facing opposition 6'3+ 40lbs heavier that hit a shitload harder than 99% of anyone they ever faced? Trust me, the way they looked against guys 190lbs and a little over is far different from how they'd look facing 230lb guys who hit like trucks.



    Asthetically Jessie Owens looks better than Bolt on film, Bolts take off and running method is very unorthodox, put them side by side and Bolts hits the shower before Owens crosses the finish line. Drop those guys in the 80's or 90's you think they'd look as good facing guys who hit harder?
     
    BoxingFanNo1, Jan 1, 2011
    #139
  5. DDDUUDDDEE

    DDDUUDDDEE Undisputed Ambien (taker) Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    23
    Hey now, lets not get carried away... James Toney is a boxing scholar.
     
    DDDUUDDDEE, Jan 1, 2011
    #140
  6. Muchmoore

    Muchmoore Guest

    Just like Jesse Ferguson eh :lol:

    I'd be interested in what you determine as Ray Mercer's prime too, if you don't mind. The guy had a weird career.
     
    Muchmoore, Jan 1, 2011
    #141
  7. skidd1

    skidd1 Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jones might be the wrong example since the banned substance he was caught with was in an over the counter supplement"ripped fuel" and wasn't always banned
    Toney..No excuses caught twice .Classic steriod stack to put on pounds without appearing lean
    Mosley... didnt actually test positive but caught up in Balco investigation.The combination of performance enhancing drugs that Conte stated Mosley was using and Mosley admitted too would make a professional cyclist blush
     
    skidd1, Jan 1, 2011
    #142
  8. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    19,229
    Likes Received:
    257
    :good
     
    bodhi, Jan 1, 2011
    #143
  9. BoxingFanNo1

    BoxingFanNo1 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    11,867
    Likes Received:
    13
    That may be true, but Lewis didn't have to, I'm using a direct comparison, the men who actually fought, regardless of circumstance.

    I am constant, at no point have I said adapt those guys to fit into the 90's (ie put on weight, adapt), I'm using a direct comparison, as I'm sure your aware, Holyfield didn't fight at HW at his 190lb CW weight due to the fact that if he did he'd have lost a damn sight more than he did, that's the point, he needed to be 215lbs+ just to compete even with his skills, Bowe I showed him that.

    But I'm not placing them in the others era am I? What you think Lewis would weigh 240lbs in that era? or Wlad 245? I think you'd have to shave more than a few lbs off. Even if they were the same size I'd be willing to bet the muscle-fat ratio of each would be very different. Like I keep saying 'pluck' those guys out from each era and face them off in a timeless place.

    You've lost me here.
     
    BoxingFanNo1, Jan 1, 2011
    #144
  10. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    71,597
    Likes Received:
    27,270
    Probably the smartest thing said in this thread so far!
     
    janitor, Jan 1, 2011
    #145
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    113,035
    Likes Received:
    48,152
    ...how on earth does great fighters sharpening their tools on multiple occasions against other great fighters in any way undermine the notion that these fighters are better? Doing fighting is how you get good at fighting...Burley had more fights with ATG's than modern hall of famers have title defenses...and this is supposed to support your argument?





    Then you haven't watched Walcott properly, and cannot possibly rank Louis as an ATG head to head. Louis went life and death with Walcott. Walcott is the rarest of things above 175, a master boxer.



    Hell yes! Look, the forties included Louis, Willie Pep, Henry Armstrong, Ezzard Charles, Billy Conn, Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, Charley Burley, Archie Moore, Ike Williams...of these, I think Ike Williams is the weakest of the bunch. He has a very, very good chance of beating Duran in my opinion. There are people on this board who would say I should be lynched for saying Williams is the weakest of this bunch. They might point at Marshall. Maybe Jones could beat Marshall at LHW, but he couldn't beat Charles, Moore and Marshall....40's is deeper, better, not really that close.





    :huh No, based on the first Louis fight? This was Walcott's best performance? You seem to think Walcott was done by the time he fought Louis, he was far, far more "done" when he met Simon. Yes, he would crush Mercer - it would be an embarrassment.

    Jesus. What world class slicksters has Mercer beaten? He couldn't even beat Larry Holmes in ****ing 1993 or whatever it was...





    Yes. In determining the overall quality of the opponent.

    Louis utterly destroyed the bigger men he faced. Now you will say those guys weren't as good as the Klitschko's. I agree. But they are about as good, if not better, than Rahman, Mercer ****ing Snowsnoski, (that one was a joke!). This crop of title challangers is horrible, awful, regardles of size. They promised, but did not deliver. I don't see any real reason why Peter, Chagaev (of whom i'm a big fan) or Bruno would do anything for Louis other than be ignored by modern detractors, and it's unlikely any of them hit harder than Max Baer anyway, who got absolutely destroyed by Joe.





    I have no idea why you keep comparing boxing to spriniting, and I think that i f you dropped Burley into the 140lb division in 1990 he cleans up all the way up to 168 depending upon if he crosses swords with one Roy Jones.

    I think Louis dukes it out with Lewis for dominance, and likely comes up on the better end of a 2/3 given that Lewis peaked late in that decade.

    I think that Walcott makes waves at 200 before moving up to do better than Adamek, Byrd, or anyone else before him other than Holyfield.
     
    McGrain, Jan 1, 2011
    #146
  12. BoxingFanNo1

    BoxingFanNo1 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    11,867
    Likes Received:
    13
    Yeah he did, Mercers prime for me was from Holyfield through to Witherspoon, sure he lost 2/3 but looked great vs Lewis, competitive vs Holyfield and even though Witherspoon was years past it he was still a tough old cookie, Mercer made it look easy.
     
    BoxingFanNo1, Jan 1, 2011
    #147
  13. BoxingFanNo1

    BoxingFanNo1 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    11,867
    Likes Received:
    13
    Would you say the average standard of the top 20 fighters at HW is better than 50 years ago though?
    I'm not just talking the top 5, I'm talking in general.
     
    BoxingFanNo1, Jan 1, 2011
    #148
  14. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    19,229
    Likes Received:
    257
    Hell, no.

    Here is what I think:


    http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8576112&postcount=101
     
    bodhi, Jan 1, 2011
    #149
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    113,035
    Likes Received:
    48,152

    I think the 1990's HW's were better than the 1940's HW's in terms of that very top tier. It think that top 20 is a much bigger and tougher call to make. Racial prejudice seems to have made the top 20 in the 1940's a dangerous place. Guys who would arguably have worked their up to a higher ranking were they white could be found lurking at 9 or 12 I bet.

    Very difficult call to make, I would be hesitant. Someone really needs to do the legwork on this one. If I was laying money, blind, I'd lay it on the 90's, but do you know what the quality is between 15 and 20 for HW's of the forties? I don't. I'm not even sure I feel qualified to comment on that level of depth for the HW division in the 90's.

    I do know that Jimmy Bivins is probably better than anyone Mike Tyson beat in the 90's :p
     
    McGrain, Jan 1, 2011
    #150
Page 10 of 16