I think its you who can't read, or if nothing else, can't remember even so much as what you had for breakfast this morning, even when the answer is just the click of a mouse away. No one was saying anything derogatory about you or Wlad. Your first comment was: " He would fit much better into the cruiserweight picture. The bigger sized heavyweights of his era weren't very good boxers" It was basically ignored, and as the rest of us proceded to discuss Louis's chances against today's fighters, you then made a second attempt at wedging your way into the discussion by creating a post that began with this sentence: " It is pointless discussing boxers from the past with most of you guys " I mean really, no one was even talking to you and the only way that you felt you could get a word off, was to start telling us that we were basically impossible to talk to..
I may be the biggest Joe Louis fan on this site. I do have realistic views on his limitations though. I can't speak with an honest tongue and pretend that I think Louis would be able to dominate today's heavyweights. I think that his disadvantages against Klitschko, which seems to be the topic here, are too much to overcome. It isn't fair putting these guys into this sort of matchup. Klitschko fans are made to look like nuthuggers even though they are being rather realistic from what I have read. Those attacking the posters who believe that Klitschko would win really don't have much ground to stand on, and in turn are made to look frustrated and defeated by the way that you choose to go about discrediting our current boxers. I don't think that there is a need to discredit our current boxers. They just aren't as well known as boxers used to be. The talent level hasn't dropped and if you think that it has, I would question exactly how much you actually know about the history of his sport.
Once again... go back and read. Maybe this time you will find more success. Keep trying, that's all you can do.:thumbsup
The skill level of most Heavyweights have dropped considerably, have you every seen a so-called great Heavyweight like Wlad so afraid to step in and go toe to toe with his oppenents? Also can you provide with an example of fighter that was more timid and mentally weak for a supposed elite Heavyweight, I'm all ears.
You aren't being very logical. What is your definition of toe to toe? Since when was going toe to toe with your opponent a prerequisite for being an elite boxer? I see Klitschko stalking his opponents around the ring and pushing the pace of his fights. He normally throws more punches than the heavyweight average. It seems as though you are judging Klitschko's entire career on his last fight, which was just a bad stylistic matchup. I tend to use a more logical approach. Over the grand scale of Klitschko's career he has been accused of being over aggressive at times. Right now in his career he is trying very hard to fight smart, conserve his energy and set up his shots. Where in the past he used to waste shots and wear himself out. I always find his fights exciting outside of the Ibragimov fight. Seeing how he can completely dominate his opponents when he fights smart is a testament to exactly how good he really is. I don't see how that is mark against him. His knockout ratio is fantastic. He doesn't seem timid to me. I think that he approaches the fights like a chess match and moves his opponents into the right position to pounce. It normally makes for a very exciting finish. Ibragimov wasn't interested in making a concerted effort to turn the tables. I don't see why you are always trying to use comparisons to describe how a real champion is supposed to fight. They aren't supposed to be carbon copies of each other, and different boxers have different styles. Ali used to hold, put on boring fights, get close/gift decisions, and was accused of dancing rather than fighting. People would really get on him during his career and discredit him just as you seem to be doing to Klitschko. Time passes and then people get a better outlook at just how good someone really was. More time passes and former boxers seem to be put above any current boxers. It is a cycle that has been repeating for years. During the 90's the division was written off as a joke. Looking back the division wasn't so bad. The only problem was that the best fighters weren't fighting each other enough. 10 years go by and now you have people claiming fringe contenders from the 90's would be unified champs today.
Thats a fair post, but I have been watching Wlad since the late 90's, and he seems to be great when he's doing the punching, but when the tables turn, he panics, clinches, and evetually falls numerous times, great Heavyweights are able to battle back from adversity, not falter when the going gets tough. Even the most timid boxers fought out of tough situations and won, Lewis did against Bruno, Briggs, and even Vitali, and was able to eventually KO/TKO every one of them. You brought up Ali, he took Heavy shots from alot of great hitters and was able to battle back and win, against fighters like Foreman and Frazier. The 90s were a great era, you had many ATG and soon to be Hall of famers fighting all at one time, guys like Bowe, Holyfield, Foreman, Lewis, Tyson, and Moorer, 4 ATG''s and 2 eventual Hall of Famers right there, which is a far cry from what we got now, can you name anyone that you think will be an ATG that's fighting now? I cant, aside from Wlad, I see no Hall of famers either. There's a reason why the 90's were so popular and talked about, the talent and enertainment value was better, unlike now where if you asked the average guy in the street who's Heavyweight champ, they will give 6 or 7 different answers, unlike in previous generations, where your average guy knew who the champ was if asked in the bar.
The average guy on the street in the United States. Let's not speak for the entire world. If you ask the average guy in Europe he knows the answer. You are once again confusing talent, with star power in the United States. Wlad is actually becoming very well known in the states anyways. Just because they were american fighters, and more well known in the states, doesn't mean that they were better fighters. About people knowing who the real Champion was, that is untrue as well. You had Lewis/Bowe or McCall holding the WBC, the WBA being vacant and then held by Seldon/Tyson or Holyfield and the IBF out there with Holyfield/Moorer or Foreman, ect... and then Foreman walking around being called the Linear Champ after being stripped of the IBF Title... then Briggs was the linear champ, Holyfield was a unified Champ, and Lewis was the WBC Champ. It was just as screwed up as it is today. Actually, more people seem to be certain that Wlad is the Champ right now that people were back in the 90's when you had Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson, Moorer, and Lewis, but outside of Holyfield none of them were fighting each other. As far as naming any ATG fighters that are fighting right now.... that is not a question that is asked in the middle of someone's career. It will be much easier to answer this question after their career is finished. What does a boxer have to do to be considered an ATG? If you are doing nothing but bashing the entire division, then in your mind it is impossible to for a heavyweight to be an ATG out of today's group. However, to people who actually consider today's heavyweights to be of good talent... it is just like any other era. People are in this thread talking about Max Shmeling being an ATG. The man had 10 losses and 5 by way of knockout. Even knocked out and outboxed by extremely subpar competition. Much worse than the guys who beat Wlad. People from the past get a pass on those sorts of things... however if Wlad had 10 losses, was knocked out 5 times and outboxed 5 times... he would be absolutely laughed at today. Boxing fans are too fickle nowadays.
First of all, I would like to say that there hasn't been much mudslinging in this thread, except for a few disagreements in terms of how some posters have handled arguments, which really has nothing to do with the actual subject anyway. Secondly, I agree that Joe Louis had some limitations and that the possibility of Klitschko beating him, is not entirely out of the question. As the starter of this thread, I merely wanted to point out that Joe Louis had a style and skill set, along with noticably well developed athleticism that could have made him a great force in today's division. Incidently, I think Louis could have been competitive in any era, and I wasn't implying that this particular time period in heavyweight history was an easy cove for him to gain a title. I also pointed out that if Louis were to travel to this era in an imaginary time machine ( silly as it may sound ), I would not just throw him in with a titlist, but allow him 6 months to train according to modern standards and even have him fight a tuneup against a decent fighter, before challenging the likes of perhaps Peter, Chagaev or Valuev. If things went well, then I'd put him up against Klitschko, which is not a totally unwinable fight for him. Louis had many fine attributes as a champion, and exemplified the very essence of what being a truly great boxer is all about. He had an arsenal that was hands down more refined than any champion I can think of. Every punch the man threw was honed to near perfection, and he is deserving of the title as best combination puncher of all time. As for athleticism, he was about as good looking at 200Lbs as I have ever seen a fighter, except for perhaps Evander Holyfield, who by the way, is commonly rated as either the best or one of the best heavyweights over the last 20 years. With a little bit of modern training and sparring, along with a few easy fights, I can't see why Louis couldn't compete at a reasonably good level today. This is not to suggest that I'd be trying to mold him into something that he wasn't, but rather helping him to become a bit more acclimated with the times. Hopefully, you have a better understanding of why this thread was started, and by the way, I appreciate any insites that you have to offer.
He also knew the answer in 1988 when Mike Tyson was champion, and probably in 1974 when Ali was champion. In 1988, I went to Europe and visited England, Italy, Germany, and France. Everytime the topic of sports came up, so did the names Mike Tyson and Muhammad Ali. I've had similar experiences in Canada and Mexico right around that time. So, to assume that the status of heavyweight champion, was a title that was limited to the United States, and that now, only Europeans are more familiar with it simply because champions live within their borders is falacious. Personally, I think it speaks volumes when America had great fighters and people around the world knew who they were, yet now, the popularity of the current champions is rather limited to the regions in which they either live or fight, despite the vast advancements in internet access, and media outlets that were previously unavailable.......Makes you wonder where the sport has gone...... Another post of yours, built on the foundation of pure assumption.
The post I tried posting was erased for some reason so instead of writting a big post I will keep it short. The Heavyweight division in the 90's were not only more popular, but it displayed more talented fighters. Proof being, Tyson ATG, Holyfield ATG, Lewis ATG, Foreman ATG, Bowe Hall of Fame, Moorer Hall of Fame, not too mention alot talented fighters that gave most of these tough guys trouble in the ring Morrison, Ibeabuchi, Golota, Mercer, Bruno, Mccall, Douglas, and Ruddick. Alot of these guys were household names, I dont know any 2000's fighters that would be considered that. As far as the best the 2000's had to offer, Bryd, Ruiz, Brewster, Rahman, Wlad, Vitali, only Wlad will make the Hall of Fame when his career is over probably, if you feel differently, let me know who you think will make the Hall of Fame of that prodominantly fought during this decade.
I love how you just seduce my words into whatever you want them to be.... and then try to trash on my position (which you just made up). I never said anything to disagree with what you just said. The American boxing public is fickle. Fans from around the world are much more in tune with boxing in america than americans are with boxing outside of America.
I didn't see anything in Wid's post to warrant such a response. You seem to pick out parts of his posts and create an entire post of your own based off of your opinion of what he meant when he typed it, however he didn't really say it himself. Looking over his post, I don't see him making any claims to the contrary of what you replied. Why do create your own theories of his intentions and then lash out at him? You come off as someone who is harboring resentments and can't think correctly. Wouldn't it be easier and make more sense to reply things that he actually typed, rather than trying to start arguments over what you think that he meant?
Lennox Lewis wasn't even considered a real Champion until it was almost 2000. His entire reign as "Undisputed Champion" happened in the 2000's. So, you have.... Lewis, Wladimir, Vitali, Byrd, Ruiz, Peter, Rahman, Ibragimov, Briggs, Chagaev, Valuev, Povetkin, Tua, Brewster, Older Holyfield, James Toney, Roy Jones Jr, Calvin Brock, Tony Thompson, Sanders, McCline, ect... I could go on for a while. You have all of these guys operating in the 2000's in the heavyweight division. Doesn't seem like a weak division to me. Just a lot of talent who for the most part their careers aren't yet finished.
