Classic Poll : Wlad v.s. Louis ...

In my opinion Joe Louis is the best Heavyweight of all time. This is not going to be an easy fight for him. Wald is an expert at using his size and jab to controll the distance. He's not going to get tired even in a 15 rounder and he rarely makes mistakes. Louis is going to have seze whatever mastakes Wald might make, when they happen.

 

"Tedious and embarrassing" are code words for Tedious and Embarrassing. Take them at face value.

Do you think that the trainers for Wlad's last 10 opponent's told them to try to win from a distance? Really? Chagaev, who was a very good fighter, said himself it was impossible to close the distance on Wlad. Haye, who may not have been a great fighter but many really wanted him to be, promised inside action. But as Manny himself said it, Wlad is a very intimidating fighter once you get in the ring with him. After tasting the strength of that jab, these guys revert to plan B. No matter how adept you are at side stepping or slipping (and Chambers, who could aggressively attack was) you still get hit with that thing. It disheartens opponents after a few rounds. All the armchair coaching is not going to change this. I am concerned with results over a period of time, not supposing I can outwit professional trainers or fighters who train 10 hours a day and have known for years that their only goal is to beat Wlad.

And don't paint me as some sort of modern honk. I have great respect and even awe for Fitzsimmons, Langford, Louisa and Marciano specifically... I find faults in Wlad and Vitali, and find neither the most entertaining heavyweight.

 

SEAMUS you Wlad-fangirl. Hepatitis Chagaev sucked cos of his disease. Ruslan looked sick in teh unhealthy ill way. I even heard Chagaev might of had AIDS or at least HIV when he tried to not stink vs Wladdy Klit. Chagaev looked like washed-up ****, badly struggling And really almost losing to tomato BUM Skelton, before teh Wlad fight.

 

Where I come from skills = technique. I'll allow that Wlad shows something akin to Ring Generalship, though his dominance is squarely due to his size and his utilization of his size....

To dominate fighters like Eddie Chambers, Sultan Ibragimov, Sam Peter, Chris Byrd, Ruslan Chagaev, David Haye - not particularly good fighters by any means -- still suggests skill.
Compare to Lennox Lewis - who dominated who that was much better ?
Struggled with a fat Ray Mercer, dominated Tua (who was even more out-sized than Wlad's opponents, and criticised for being just as inept in his challenge), dominated Mavrovic on the score cards (who was Mavrovic), was in a more reckless slugging match with the limited Briggs, most the others you could say he over-powered.

Results and the dominance of the performance speak of skill. Unless you think Lewis's crop were a big step up from Wlad's.
Lewis was almost as boring as Wlad anyway, if we're honest.

Holyfield went to war with everyone, guys like Alex Stewart and Bert Cooper gave him a hard time. I'm a great admirer of Holyfield skill, his ability, his style, everything. But he struggled with some guys who Wlad wouldn't even allow to show their skill.

Wlad doesn't use the same variety as Holyfield or Lewis, but he's mastered what he does use to an extreme degree.
Honestly, apart from the exception of Holyfield and maybe Vitali, Lewis largely feasted on the same sort of "stumblebums" (by your standards) as Wlad does.

Wladimir is a lot more skillful than Primo, not necessarily in his technique, but certainly in the skill it takes to impose himself and control the fight.
Primo did even less well as men who were generally smaller than the ones Wlad fights, again showing that "using one's size" at that level so consistently should not be dismissed as something easy and basic.[/quote]
...though his utlization of his size is based on simple (never said "easy") exercises and basic skill...

...with an assist by a crop of unusually weak contenders in a usually weak division in terms of technique (ie. skill) and conditioning.

(Ding ding ding! There's the final bell!)

 

I take them at no value when they come from. As does everyone else, I imagine.

He had enough trouble doing so against Valuev. Chagaev bob & weaves but doesn't press the attack. He comes from a European school of thought. The most American thing he does is move his head. He tries to slip and counter at a distance. Switch head-movement for glove-blocking and parrying and he's a lot more like Andriy Kotelnyk than Mike Tyson on the surface. He hardly ever pressed Wlad on the backfoot. The same against Valuev, because that's not the fighter he is. He tried out-boxing Wlad, just like he had against Valuev.

When did he say this? Haye promised action. For sure, he did the same against Valuev. Many brought hope into Haye for excitement. Surely his words that Wlad was a comfort fighter that needed to be in an uncomfort zone was dead on. Unfortunately, Haye thought that countering from a distance was the method of putting Wlad in his uncomfort zone. An absolutely nightmare of a strategy to employ. I suppose he thought one punch would rock Wlad. But the predictable right hand over the jab wasn't going to do the task. When Haye feinted, and had Wlad flinching, reacting, and backing up. Haye "faux rushed" only to give up the ground he negotiated. Clearly, he either didn't have the tools to get the job done (Wasn't comfortable pressing). Or didn't employ the correct strategy to beat Wlad.

What Haye did say after the fight was that he tried countering Wlad from a distance.

"I dropped my hands and put my face out for him to really attack me. But he just wouldn't, he didn't give me opportunities to counter him. All that stuff I did in the press was to get Wlad made so he would attack me, but he didn't fall for it. He fought the perfect fight against my style."

Does this sound like a man that tried to initiate a fight? I knew Haye had to attack, and that he would most assuredly lose because he's a more inclined counter-puncher.

Haye didn't try to employ inside action. The only thing embarrassing is trying to claim so.

No, that was their plan A. Was for Haye, Ibragimov, Chagaev, & Chambers. Chambers might be the man with the worst style to have actually tried getting beyond the jab. He's not an inside fighter though, and he didn't have the style or tools. In his fights against Dimintrenko, he was countering him silly. But more so at a mid-range.

He could try

Haye didn't, often. Wasn't his style or mentality to ever capitalize such moments. Sorry you can't see it, you can't see a lot of things.

You couldn't, surely. You act as if these trainers are Gods or something. It's not as if their fighters and their decline of the most apparent techniques and fundamentals isn't most apparent with anybody with eyes. It's not as if these trainers aren't doing everything right. You can't implement something you haven't taught your fighter. Trainers of yesteryear were simply better.

Hardly the way I've painted you. More of a cynic and contrarian in general.

By the way, I apologize for outright saying that I don't think you know what you're looking at. But this discussion was going in a merry go round circle, and it's little frustrating seeing the opposite camp of thought regurgitating the same information as if their was a wall up, disallowing any progression in the conversation. I don't know if it's a breakdown in communication, or a refusal of the other side to analyze the opposing perspective. I feel the other perspective has been heard, and that whatever Stonehands has said has just gone in one ear and out the other.

 

If there is anyone who has zero to add, here it is.

 

If Wald were to win it won't be his size, Louis has fought and beaten big heavys. It would be the way he fights. Cal it booring all you want. It is also very effective.

 

For me, Skill is not the same as technique.
A fighter could learn and use all the advanced techniques, and perfect them, but unless he develops the SKILL to apply those techniques to control and win real fights, he might never be more than a second-rate journeyman.

"Skills" (plural) or "technical skills" - common terminology used around this board - is, I suppose, the same as technique.

Skill (singular) is a broader, and more significant factor. I think it encompasses "Ring Generalship", but isn't identical.

On the other hand, maybe the singular "technique" can be synonymous with "skill" but not with the plurals "techniques"/"skills".

Regardless, by now you should know what I'm getting at. Overall skill is simply the ability to dominate opponents and control the action in a boxing match.

I'm not sure why you think Wlad should be penalized or downgraded in the skill department for using his size, especially since just about every heavyweight (barring one or two) his size in history has failed miserably to do similar.
Also, he's met opponents who match him in size and they end up looking the same way as the smaller ones.

 

I'd prefer him against the Toney who fought Holyfield, not a massive puncher at HW but he could get past a jab and fight inside

 

Hm, Pete, a question. Do you hink that there is a chance that it´s not the lack of trying or lack of skill of Wlad´s opponents but of Wlad´s combination of size, power, speed and, yes, skill - I mean they are basic, yeah, but what he does, he does pretty good - and bad style match-up? Because IMO that´s where Wlad´s dominance comes from.
From his best opponents only Peter was someone who presses the fight. Ibragimov, Chagaev, Chambers, Haye are all counter-punchers. Neither of them are pressure fighters. Do you fault Ali because he didn´t change his style against Frazier or Norton? No, you don´t. Why are you faulting those fighters for not changing their style against Wlad? They did what they are best in and lost. Neither of them is an exceptional hw but any of them would reach the Top10 in any era, perhaps not for long though.
Personally, I like to give fighters the benefit of the doubt, with the exception to the ones I don´t like , and I do that here as well.
Wlad´s not an unbeatable roboter with immense skill but he eats boxers, counter-punchers and unskilled punchers alive. It needs exceptional boxers and counter-punchers to overcome that style advantage. The rest will just lose. On the other hand people who put controlled pressure on him and are skilled and fast and powerful and take some risks will always be his foil.
Wlad´s is an excellent hw. He is very, very good at what he does. He dominates his era. He already is an ATG at hw and in the end the question will only be if he is Top20 or Top15 or perhaps even higher. His resume will never match Ali´s or Louis´ but neither does Holmes´ - and he is often ranked as high as three.

 

I think louis has the best skillset of any heavyweight in history.

His power, movement, awareness, combinations, two handedness and just as important his patience.

He learnt a brutal lesson against max and for the next 13 years noone could touch him. We can argue about his decision over walcott but considering how far removed from his prime he was and the knockout in the rematch I think it can't really be held against him.

I think that early on wlad sets the pace and both are content with that, I think louis will make wlad work hard and over the rounds this will tell. I think down the stretch, especially over 15 rounds, a louis ko victory is inevitable.

If wlad has his stamina, fitness and discipline in check then he could survive and win on points but I think the likelihood favours louis more.

 

Louis by KO on most occassions... I could however see Wlad winning a close UD if he fought a perfect fight & Louis didnt bring his A+ game.

 

Wlad if he were shorter would still have a great jab, and laser like right hand, and lights out left hook. Technical brilliance and skills has nothing to do with size.

Um,. Joe Louis competition for the most part was just as bad, and in some cases worse. Do you want to compare the ring records of their opponents?

Sure, Charles, Marciano, Walcott, Schmeling, and M. Bear ( mostly curisers ) were top guys. Ok--Quick now tell me Joe Louis record vs his best opponents on a fair scorecard, meaning you give Walcott the first fight? Still extrapolating? I can help. Try 3-4 :deal

Let's us not forget that journeyman like Galento put Louis down. A very limited Braddock who had not fought in 2 years did the same. A 168 pound Conn out boxed Louis and GULP even stunned Louis for 12 rounds until taking a silly risk ( something Wlad does not do ). A sub 200 pound Farr traded jabs with Louis all night, also stunning him. :deal

Sure, Wlad has no chance here.

 

Louis was a great finisher and i would imagine Louis stopping wlad but being behind on points at the time of the ten count

 

If I was arguing the case for Wlad winning, I would try to avoid comparing his resume to Louis's, or even saying anything that might invite other people to compare their resumes.

In terms of depth and quality Louis is on a whole different plane. Why do you even do this to yourself?

If we are going to make a big issue about most of Louis's opponents being under the cruiserweight limit, then it can only be observed that Wlad is getting his curent hiatus due to a win over a former cruiserweight (Haye), and that his other most notable win was over a future light heavyweight (Byrd). It is only fair that the argument is aplied both ways.

If you are going to make an issue of Louis being dropped/stunned by various fighters, then you cannot but take into acount Wlad's knockout losses.

People often talk about the old timers being viewed through rose tinted glasses, but it often seems that Louis's magnificent record is viewed through a lens of criticism, that focuses on the tiniest blemishes.

If you have to criticise a champion based on winning efforts where he looked bad then you probably don't have much of an argument.