Sanders' power was less important than the fact Wlad couldn't see the punches coming. That and you've got no basis for definitively stating that Louis did punch harder. Do you know their respective psi's? The exact amount that the differences in the gloves affects damage caused? We're purely talking power, not the amount Wlad would be hit in either fight.
And Brewster?? Buster Douglas?? Point is these modern heavyweight lost to some less than spectacular opponents. they're being over-rated. Also there have been many fights where the less technically sound fighter wins. I'm not saying Louis beats all the modern heavyweights. But most of them are **** by modern technique standards. Like fat versions of Louis.
Why we don't know who punched harder...it would be hard to argue that Louis wasn't the superior puncher. For that matter, It would be hard to find any heavyweight who was better puncher than Louis.
Exactly. By modern technique standards. Not by 40s technique standards. If Louis was born in 1960 and taught a relatively modern game (especially defensively), no doubt he would obliterate all of todays heavyweights. including Wlad. But if you're going to have a inter-generational comparison, it shouldn't be with the caveat that the fighter from the previous generation gets all the advantages of the newer generation.
The question was stupid! Both Wolcott and Schmeling were knocked out many, many, many, times. Wladimir has KO'd many fighters who had never been stopped before. Wolcott and Schmeling wouldnt even be HW's today.:deal :yep
Absolutely agree. I also think there shouldn't be the belief that everything improves over time therefore all modern boxers >>> all previous era's boxers. Especially with todays heavyweights.
I had a reply typed out, but then realised I'm putting irrelevant emphasis on the difference between 'better' and 'harder'. Meh.