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

Are you okay, fishy? Did someone steal your favorite bonnet with frills upon it?

 

I'd be better if you would just admit that you're a bitter old man and failed fighter.

 

FISHY! 'Zat you? You're older than I thought! And almost as big as your hero!

This content is protected

 

Stonehands doesn't seem to like Wlad at all. He might be one of those writers who thinks Wlad skills are similar to the limited Buddy Bear's, or Abe Simon's that Louis fought.

 

Exactly.


Wladimir is a world class boxer and athlete. He's been dominant at every level of boxing and it's ****ing stupid to say he's only good because he's tall.

 

You haven't been paying attention. I don't see what "like" has to do with anything, but for the record I'll repeat that I think very highly of Wlad and appreciate his class, intelligence, conditioning, and yes -even his dominance. I happen to see more vulnerability in him than you and believe that it is unfortunate for us (and for him) that he is not being tested.

 

I think Wlad has improved since his last defeat, and outside of a lucky punchers chance which he limits, he is not going to lose anytime soon.

For a boxing writer, you seem to discount Wlad's skills. Would you say Wlad has a great jab, and right hand? How powerful do you think his hook is? And even at age 35 he still has fast hands.

As for Wlad being tested, I quote Tyson. Everyone had a plan until they get hit. We saw that early in the Chagaev fight, and in round five in the Haye fight. Fighters can't get past Wlad's jab, and fear his right hand. Wlad forces his opponents to temper their enthusiasm in the ring, or suffer the consequences.

 

I don't discount his skills, I just don't overstate them. You, on the other hand, are mesmerized by the point that these contenders can't get by his jab and fail to realize that "getting by a jab" is a skill that these guys just don't understand and don't have. Of course, Wlad's length and timing and power have something to do with it but anyone who tells me that the inability to get by his jab is purely a mark of Wlad's supreme "skill" does not know boxing any better than a casual fan (that's you, Fishy).

Wlad is effective and I'm pretty convinced after watching all of his fights for several years now, that he seems more effective than he is.

Again, he's a tough equation for any heavyweight, but especially for these tenpins today who don't know how to slip a damn jab.

 

Okay, you have a point there. But isn't it fair to say that, in fact, only great or near-great heavyweights probably could have slipped Wlad's jab? You can see Wlad's relative weaknesses (somewhat clumsy, mechanical, psychologically he's a front-runner, etc.) easily enough, but given the near-perfect way that he uses his size to compensate for those weaknesses, I'm not sure that many heavyweights in history really could have slipped Wlad's jab.

Of course Louis would have wrecked Wlad. Sonny Liston would have done the same. Holyfield and Bowe most likely would have beaten him. Frazier probably could have cut him down. But these are all elite guys. I'm thinking it would have taken nothing less than an ATG elite to expose Wlad.

Comments?

 

Good points and I agree more than not. The only qualifier for me would be my high regard for what makes the sweet science sweet -and that is technique and strategy. No fighter is unbeatable and this especially applies to the big boys.

All fighters have a blueprint just waiting to be formed and implemented. I happen to think that heavyweights are easier to figure out than other divisions.

... and so doesn't Archie Moore:

"You're fighting heavyweights, don't forget you're hittin' a stationary target. The fellas I fought, you can't hardly hit 'em. Some of 'em you can't hardly hit with a handful of rice -fellas like Holman Williams, like the Cocoa Kid -'less you plan your punches. 'Fight heavyweights, I don't have any trouble hittin' 'em. Take Bob Baker. They say he was to be one of the best young heavyweights -boxin' style. Time I got through with him he was a bloated, bloody mess. I didn't have no trouble hittin' Nino Valdes and I weighed 196..."

Wait, there's more...

"You'd be amazed the number of champions don't know the fundamentals of boxing. I mean the ABCs of boxing..."

--one wonders what he woudl say about today's heavyweights. I tend to doubt a man with that pedigree would be very impressed with Wlad's technique.

 

I still think you under rate or fail to mention Wlad's skills. We are talking about a 20 year old kid who won the super heavyweight gold medal at the Olympics. Getting past a long jab is not easy. If the fighter has height, speed, accuracy, and power the jab, the task increases in difficulty.

Very few boxers at any weight have the skills to duck or slip a fast jab, and those who can may only do so a few times in the fight! Since you are a trainer, you must understand as you punch up wards you lose what I call your striking distance. Wlad at 6'6" is a high target. In addition Wlad is far from a statue in there. He moves his feet very well, and keeps his right hand in perfect blocking position. Objective analysis would mention these type of things. I just do read this type of stuff from you.

Simply stated Wlad has one of the best jab's of all time. Right up there with Holmes, or Ali, but unlike Ali and Holmes, Wlad is taller, and has a much better right hand and left hook. While I agree Wlad's chin is suspect vs. good punchers ( I think most heavyweights are in the same boat ), he is in fact an offensive juggernaut.

PS: Top defensive heavies such as Chris Byrd were powerless to get out of the way. Keep in mind Byrd at 210 pounds would be a big heavy pre 1960!

 

While I agree Louis was past his best when he meet Charles and Marciano, I think he had something left. Shot fighters do not go on winning streaks and beat other top ten fighters such as Bivins. Jeffries was more out his his prime when he meet Johnson. He had not fought in 5 years and was 80 pounds above his normal fighting weight. Nuff said there. Even if you kick out the Charles and Marciano fight, Louis still 2-2 vs. Schemling and Walcott, and got exposed / embarrassed in many fights where 1 ) smaller men either made him look bad or 2 ) less than skilled fighters floored him.

Don't we all use top 5? I think I said most here think Johnson is better than Marciano. I think Marciano would defeat him but that is a separate thread.

I have seen all the footage which includes most of the rounds. Walcott owns him. Once again, Joe Louis' body language was that of a huge loser before the decision was announced. When the decision was announced Louis received a thunderous boo from the crowd in his home town building called Madison Square Garden where he had a cozy relationship with the match makers judges. I think this is proof enough to know who won.

Galtneo was short, fat, and moderately skilled at best. I would pick anyone in the top ten today to defeat him.

Legitimate challengers? Please! I can deal with top level talent losing to each other, but when a guy has 9 or more losses on his resume, and a few of them were vs. fringe contenders, journeyman, or vs. guys with losing records, sorry to me that says the ranked contenders in the era were sub par.

Only 2 of Louis' 26 title defenses were vs. black men. I would say he did avoid a good amount of black contenders, and many of them were better than the bum of the month lot.

Well, Louis needed the Schemling and Walcott re-matches because he lost both fights. He also needed the Baer re-match due to being floored, and having to win via DQ. Since you are playing the past his best card, it is fair to point out than many thought Schmeling was past his best for the first Louis fight.

Ranked? Someone had to be ranked? Elite? I think Louis fought very few eliete level fighters in their prime.

Can do

I think it would have happened less in Louis' era, and Wlad was moved pretty quickly the way it was. Say what you want about the modern era. There is more power and size today then ever, which only increases the puncher's chance of getting derailed.