I am a Louis fan, own 10+ of his fights. I have seen all of his filmed fights with the exception of the Uzcudun match which unfortunately does not show a clean KO punch on film. I think Louis throws great combinations, has great hand speed and hits with power. I just don't see Louis as Superman defensively or in terms of durability, and feel his competition was mostly suspect. Care to disagree and we'll see where the " ownage " is My favorite fighter as a kid was Ernie Shavers. Now watch this...He had a suspect chin, cut easy, and had limited stamina. Want More? I am a Wlad fan, and think his chin is suspect too. My point is there is a difference between rooting interests and being honest. Who do you think won Louis vs. Walcott I?
True. But like Unforgiven I was thinking we are taking since Wlad´s "comeback" at the Top from 2004 onwards. If we include the time before Tua deserves to be there no doubt. I think Byrd would still be a better one. True. Hope it will happen. You think? Hm, I don´t agree. One win over one of the best contenders doesn´t make you one of the best hws of the decade. It´s a stretch. Jones was however the second best of 2003. Yeah, there was a misunderstanding. :thumbsup Yeah, same here. I think Povetkin will win too. He isn´t really better but Ruslan isn´t the same he was 3-5 years ago. Povetkin would then have Chambers, Byrd and Chagaev under his belt. Granted, two of them would have been past it, but that´s still three former Top5 hws. More than any other fighter but Vitali could claim right now.
Louis is a HW, Klit(s) are S-HW. when comparing the great HWs to the giants of the last 25 years this is a serious consideration!
Yeah, I must be missing them too. The Haye fight was the first heavyweight title fight I've watched in two years, and I regretted wasting my time.
"Think"? I know who won it. Louis won it. Two thirds of ringside reporters saw it for Walcott. One third saw it otherwise. One third of officials saw it for Walcott by the closest of margins. Two thirds saw it for Louis. I have highlights of the fight, I find them almost impossible to split in most of the rounds outside of 1 and 4. You yourself have actually provided a close scorecard once I adjusted it for your mistakes. It's nothing like the robbery you consistently made it out to be. And louis himself thought he had won it, whatever your deductions about his "body lanaguage." "I thought I won the fight but i'm disgusted with myself. I was second rate." The Telegraph Herald also reported that Louis was "disconsolate for not having knocked [Walcott] out." Not because he thought he had lost the fight. In this fight, officials were scoring both rounds AND points. Walcott won on points. He won in the supplementary scoring system. But inspite of the fact that he was gathering more points, he was losing rounds due to his tactics. That is, Walcott was losing rounds in spite of the fact that he was gathering points. To a modern "viewer" this is frustrating - but the rules of the time stressed aggression and the vagueries of "making the fight" far more completely than they do today, whatever Sports commentators might say. Viewed through a modern prism I would conceed that based on the evidence the fight could be seen as a bad decision. However, utilising the rules of the day, the result is explicable. I don't see any reason to view it through a modern prism. I also think labelling it an "ownage" is downright dishonest, especially when the card you yourself have produced contradicts this view. Manny Seamon put it best: "[Walcott] fought the fight like was the champion, not the challenger. You don't win the title running away." Of the writers polled at ringside, 20 thought Louis won but thirteen disagreed. Of these, some had it a draw, some had a win for Louis. The fight as seen by the press was far from utterly convinced. If you want me to speculate based upon all this information, my final answer to your question would be this - I suspect that Walcott deserved the nod. He didn't get it in a close and confusing fight. There was a rematch. The matter was settled.
I think you're talking about rankings again. I'm satisfied that Jones was better than many of the challengers Wlad has faced, and some of the ones he didn't - I'd certainly say he is better than Ruiz, who would be top 12 for the decade.
I'm defending no one. Like pretty much everyone here Mendoza seems capable of defending himself. I am pointing out the facts on one specific point. I stopped reading the thread a long time ago. My whole point was trying to see who felt Joe Louis could not compete with Wlad , not split hairs proving who was right ... helps me understand the mind set of many regulars ..
Nah, not really, I just think Jones didn´t prove himself enough to be called one of the best of the decade. Ruiz, for example, despite losing to Jones proved himself much more during that time. If you say Jones had the ability to have a very good chance against any hw of the decade not named Lewis or Klitschko I´d agree, even so I think someone like Chagaev, Ibragimov or Lhiakovich would have knocked him out too. Anyway, Ruiz Top12? So, you´ve got a ranking for the decade? Care to share it?
Yeah, it just seems odd to post footage in apparent support of that fantasy...we all know what actually happened, obviously (that was kind of the point). I think that Jones was one of the best fighters to compete at HW that decade. No, just a ballpark, he could as easily be 13 or just inside a top 10 I suppose.
That reference picked itelf. Mike Katz I am not; though I am a counterpuncher, so try keeping that in mind next time.
The novelty of respecting (and defending) Wlad Klitschko is wearing off for me. In other words, I'm to go back to acknowledging he's just big moose - as was Lennox Lewis. They may be the best of the last 15 years, but Dempsey and Louis would have ripped them to pieces. And that's all we need to know here on ESB classic.
