Can Wlad Klitschko beat a lot of old school greats?

Why dont we just measure and weigh "fighters" and scrap boxing entirely, i find all the training, coaching and corner work very time-consuming anyway.

 

and no Dempsey's chin was not more suspect then Louis's. Only the Fripo, Tunney and Flynn knockdowns really count. Sudenberg ones don't

 

This would be a FAIR comparison.

With some alowence beng made for Louis's greater number of fights against ranked oponents.

 

I would dispute the Flyn knockdown as well.

 

You make good points but don't forget Sudenberg was actually a middleweight. I saw the two together back in the 1950's on a show called "This is You Life" where they went over a famous person's life and brought in people from his past. Sudenberg was much shorter than Dempsey and in middle age was not a big man in any way. Dempsey himself may have not weighed much more than 160 lbs at this point in his career. Who knows? And Sudenberg was fighting under the same conditions as Dempsey. He had a big time trainer or high-priced sparring partners or a fancy gym to work out in?

The main point Chris is making, that Dempsey and Louis were at about the same level as far as chin goes, is reasonable off the evidence.

 

that's fair. But when comparing two atg's, how can he seriously consider Dempsey's early fights, when he, like Sudenberg was still learning. It would be fair to say were about even, but Dempsey never even came close to being knocked down anywhere near that many times after he gained more experience. I would have liked to see how many times Louis and other champs would have been floored if they were hit as soon as they got up. I mean had Braddock been allowed to hit Louis as soon as Joe got up (as Dempsey did to his foes and Sudenberg did to him)don't u think he might have suffered three or four knockdowns. It's quiet reasonable therefore to say that some of these knockdowns may have been due to being off balance and being hit back as soon as you get up.

 

My point isn't to denigrate Dempsey. Your points about his early fights are correct, but Louis should not be dumped on because he in fact emerged as a top fighter at 20 and thus was in the ring with top men sooner and also fought top men to a far more advanced age. Why not discount the knockdowns to Walcott and Marciano as they came at an age when Dempsey was retired? I still put Dempsey and Louis on about an equal footing as far as chin goes.

 

that's fair. I also think their chins are close with perhaps a slight edge to Dempsey. I am a big fan of both fighters though.

 

It's true that Dempsey was coming up and perhaps poor. But what about big Johnny? Sudenberg was a middleweight with a losing record that would always remain losing. Louis was never knocked down 9 times by a sub-journeyman middleweight when he was rising through the ranks.

Why exclude this one? You won't see me excluding Louis' knockdowns that came past the age of 32 at which Dempsey retired for good. Put a 32, 35 and 37 year old Dempsey in the same ring twice with a peak Walcott, prime Charles and peak Marciano and i can guarantee you he'll be dumped on his seat often. Should we exclude the Schmeling KD's because Louis was young and facing a top champion two years after turning pro, when Dempsey was being slapped silly by a losing record middleweight?

About the neutral corner rule: you could stay down, take 9 and get up. You make it sound like the guy was still being punched when down. Louis didn't exactly get an 8 count either. For instance, against Galento he was down and less than 2 seconds later they were fighting again.


Louis faced a gigantic amount of ranked contenders yet even if we exclude the Flynn and Sudenberg debacle, wasn't dropped that much more often.
Dempsey was down in 2 and staggered in 4 of his 10 filmed fights. Compare that to Louis' fights.


EDIT: I see Fogey has made a few points that i also typed. Hadn't read it yet.

 

The crucial diference is that Louis had a long amateur career by the standards of his day and was guided from his prodebut while Dempsey was thrown straight into the profesional ranks as cannon foder. His amateur record is effectivley tagged onto the front of his profesional record.

While I have the highest regard for Louis's early opposition I do not feel that the difference can be overlooked.

 

And you're telling me that Dempsey's first opponents were world class? Louis' first opponents were actually pretty decent, not losing record middleweights.

You have a fair point about Louis' amature career, but amature and professional boxing are two different sports.

For instance, Marciano barely had an amature career and was thrown in against undefeated 15-0 and 8-0 prospects yet he prevailed. Compare that with Dempsey vs Sudenberg. Now i don't want to blow this thing out of proportion, but it would be ignorant to completely dismiss it.

 

no doubt that you cant hold dempseys career in the mid teens against him. he was like walcott fighting without food for 2-3 days wondering around as a hobo trying to make a buck and survive. he had no training wutsoever.

 

I don't think it's fair to rap Vlad because of his losses, particularly the Sanders bout. Corrie was a dangerous man to go up against. A good sized fighter with fast hands and a punch to boot. The fact that he was mismanaged is'nt his fault. He would have been a tough go for any HW champ past or present. With that being said I think Vlad would be trouble for any champ past or present as well. We tend to look at the old time fighters through rose colored glasses at times and blow them up to larger than life proportions. That's not diminishing thier accomplishments in any way but rather taking a more objective look at them instead of glorifying them. Take Marciano for example. An all time great, absolutely. But when I think of him vs Vlad, I just don't see how he could possibly reach him let alone beat him. Say what you want about Vlad but the man is no stiff. He can box, punch and move and against Peter, he proved that he can up off the floor against a puncher and come back to win. Marciano's style is wrong for him against Vlad. He would be reduced to lunging against him and that would be dangerous. As for the bigger HW's such as Ali and Holmes, it should be noted that they did'nt look all that spectacular against bigger men who jabbed back at them like Norton, Witherspoon, Williams, Bugner etc. It was all Holmes could do to beat Terrible Tim who had Larry in serious trouble a couple of times as well as Renaldo "Mr" Snipes and Vlad is bigger than and as skilled as both of those men. Holmes and Ali looked thier best against smaller men who came after them ala Joe and Marvis Frazier, Shavers and Spinks so I'm not ready to dismiss Vlad's chances against either of these two ATG's. The same goes for Joe Louis who was decked quite a few times in his illustrious career. If the likes of Tony Galento could drop Joe and hurt him is it too difficult to think that a 6'6" 240 lb modern athlete like Vlad could do it too? I'm a monster fan of the old timers but we can't let nostalgia get in the way of reason. Even if thier not as skilled or as well schooled as thier pugilistic ancestors, we can't ignore the size difference either. Todays athlete is bigger and faster than yesterdays athlete even without performance inhancing drugs. Vlad is a big modern athlete with good skills and he has proven that he can come back from big losses to win. At least give him that. Would he beat all of the all time greats everytime? Of course not. Could he beat them once in awhile? Of course he could.