Deontay Wilder: I would knock Joe Louis out

Okay, let's go through your examples. First notice - and this is not incidental - that you make no appeal to science at all to show that giving a fighter whisky is a bad idea. You're clearly appealing to what you expect will seem obvious to everyone from the armchair -to intersubjective perceptions - and there is no reason whatsoever to think the perceptions of people in the past the were any less keen than ours. Moreover, I can indeed imagine giving a fighter whisky, to beneficial effect no less. There's obviously going to be a trade-off of benefits and drawbacks, but if this comes in the later rounds when the fighters are largely clinching and infighting, I see no reason why it's far fetched that this cost-benefit-balance could tilt in favor of making the whisky helpful. Your second example is simply disgusting, but not really counterproductive. Maybe Carpantier had a habit off dining on snails, which to my mind is equally disgusting and equally relevant to his boxing ability.

It's true that vitamins and minerals were not understood at the biochemical level until well into the twentieth century, but that does not mean it was not understood that fresh produce was beneficial for health. It was understood that certain foods would prevent scurvy at sea long before the underlying mechanism for this was well understood. In Anna Karanina (which if I recall was published around 1880) one character remarks in passing that hard laborers will become emaciated if not given plenty of meat, and it's clear from the context that this is supposed to be common knowledge. If you read enough classic literature, it gives you considerable insight into the lives of people in earlier times, not the least of which is that they actually ate pretty well if they weren't dirt poor.

"And if they exist on film, then they can be duplicated today."

That's just not how it works in any other art I'm aware of. Fore example, could Bach write a successful work that would exploit the potential a full modern 88 piece orchestra?
Doubtful. Not without taking considerable time and effort to study compositional techniques developed since his death.

On the other hand, is there anyone around today who displays anything remotely approaching his mastery of counterpoint? Not even ****ing close.

 

From experience, beating up drunk guys is not hard. I don't need science to teach me that. Let's leave it at that.

Sigh. Here is an apropos response to "you only have to eat properly". This is a list of recovery techniques (pretty important for a fighter, no?) the majority of which and why they work, would have been unknown between 1910 and 1940. It includes things like:

Acupuncture, stemcell therapy, cryotherapy, prolotherapy, kinesiotape, electromassage stimulation, cold laser, anti inflammatory diets, vitamin c, amino acids, magnesium supplements ... amongst other things.

[url]https://bengreenfieldfitness.com/article/recovery-articles/how-to-recover-quickly-from-workouts/[/url]

"And if they exist on film, then they can be duplicated today."

That's exactly how it works in art.

I'm currently painting horses using grisaille underpainting and other "ancient" techniques. How on earth could this be possible? Oh, thank you, Velasquez and company:

[url]http://www.oil-painting-techniques.com/techniques-for-oil-painting.html[/url]

 

"This is a list of recovery techniques ..."
Okay, I'm about to go to bed so this will be brief. To address just he first two items on your list, I guarantee you stem cell therapy has yet to greatly impact athletic training and performance, and acupuncture is just unmitigated pseudoscience. It's all placebo, there is no trace of any baby in that bathwater, and this is no longer debatable. For example there was one study conducted a few years ago where subjects were intentionally pricked in all the wrong "pressure points" (unbeknownst to them of course) and they reported exactly the same benefits as those who were treated "correctly" (I'll see if I can find it tomorrow.)

"I'm currently painting horses using grisaille underpainting and other "ancient" techniques."

You may be skilled, but - how can I put this gently -you're no Velasquez. I don't know you, but I don't have to.
I can simply assume, safely, that your brushwork has nowhere near the deft virtuosity and economy of means shown in a work like Las Meninas or the "Brown and Silver" portrait of Phillip IV. You may well be able to fully replicate the techniques of a more slick and "finished" painter like Ingres, but frankly this is far less impressive. I can likewise safely assume that if you should attempt to replicate Rembrandt's impasto technique, you'll look like a Rembrandt imitator, just as all the others do (no, Odd Nerdrum is not an exception) but you can sooth your wounded pride by telling yourself that you don't have the right flake white or maroger medium. (Not that your pride should be wounded to begin with, failing to clear so high a bar.)

To name another "polished" artist, I have yet to see anyone fully match Vermeer's subtle lighting techniques to my satisfaction, and even if they had this would still be far less impressive than matching Velasquez, as Vermeer's style leaves far more margin for error and room for refinement. (The closest I've seen, oddly enough, is Gerhard Richter.)

I can almost always tell when a modern picture that looks as if it could bee hundreds of years old has been painted in imitation of a particular renaissance style, even if it's aping the style of a more obscure artist like Del Piombo or Lorenzo Lotto. Latter-day Rubens imitators always look like Rubens imitators, unless they're Delacroix. (Of course, contemporaries like Van Dyck or Snyders sometimes kind of manage to look like him. ) If you show me your paintings (which for all I know are quite good in their own right) I'll be able to tell you who your strongest influences are.
Don't believe me? Let's try it. (If you don't want to I understand, but it could be fun.)

Okay, I've been up all night. I'm off to bed.

 

Fair enough about acupuncture, I'm a skeptic myself, but there are nearly 30 other recovery methods and nutritional techniques mentioned by this guy alone that were unavailable 100 years ago. Point being: modern athletes can train harder and recover faster than their old day brethren.

Well, you could assume that and you'd nearly always be right, since these are la creme de la creme of painters that we're talking about*. The same as you could assume (and nearly always be right) that if I were a boxer studying Louis' techniques I'd still get KTFO by Louis. Because knowing the techniques is not enough to make an ATG.

But ... and this is my point ... those techniques now exist and I'd be able to exploit them. The same as Velasquez could himself, exploit the staggering range of ready-made paints and canvases and textiles for backing and pure gypsum for gesso etc etc to be not only be a better painter but also a more productive one. The paintings would also last longer and be more stable because the paint chemistries and the oxidation of the oils and varnishes has been analysed and understood. No more Leonardo da Vinci painting with his experimental paints that eventually ran like soft toffee.

So yes: a modern boxer, the same as a modern painter, can exploit the techniques of the past and has a better base off of which to build. I now forget what the original point was.

*Also, I'd like to add that the arts don't have nearly the same sort of prestige that they had in say 1400 - 1800 or thereabouts. That's part of the reason why I think modern artists aren't quite as good as they used to be. The advent of modern apparatus like the camera pretty much destroyed the artist as the means of recording life and events and expressing ideas. Also, paradoxically (and this is going to sort of ruin my point, but I guess i have to make it out of honesty) reproductive equipment has eroded the ability of the artist as well. Why waste time practising drawing for hours when you can take a photo, upload the digital abomination, and project it onto a canvas? You're going to get better results in a quarter of the time! Of course, one's drawing skill is going down the crapper at the same time. Yeah, I've also done this.

 

Nice post, btw.

 

Go back to the ignoramus hole from whence you climbed out of.

 

I disagree.
But I'm using perspective and opinions since we can't dig up Louis and see what happens..
#1. Joe Louis up to Marciano era didn't have that mentality IMO (move up for just the money) that's today's era.

I think there is a CW div. because not all 180lb fighters can gain weight. Think RJJ- weighed 190lbs. vs Ruiz...with clothes on & went back down.
Marciano IMO fights @ weight he walks around at.
Looking at Joe's weight and style-
Awesome overhand, right, straight right, left hook, left cross. Gr8 balance & stamina. But what fight(s) does he employ this from the outside?
The fights I've seen of Joe he was an inside technician. Economical with punches, meaning he didn't waste. SO today IMO he'd have a very high connect rate. IF he is fighting inside. But low punch output kinda like PBF's.

I just can't imagine that Max S. could cold-**** Joe with that clean right hand over and over & over, but not Vitali K? Lennox Lewis? Riddick Bowe? These dudes aren't Primo Carnera big without skills. These dudes preface the jab.
From a distance, like Max did. He used his feet to measure Joe, then feinted because Joe kept that left low. How else did Max keep catching him? over & over.
What fight could we find of Joe that he used a jab effectively? By 6th round, Joe was throwing low bows to Max and even apologized, remember? rounds 7-8 I think. My point is..
If Max had him that frustrated, what would a 6'6 Lennox do -who learned from old school Manny Steward; tie the little fella up--if he gets on the inside.

 

Previous post doesn't mean Wilder beats Joe. Rather Today's HWs aren't just bigger and stronger. They don't always fight. Usually they jab from across the ring...how does an inside fighter adjust? Until a skilled 6'2 guy gives the example, we'll never know..

There is no proof of either as none to say Lebron James beats Michael Jordon. Bruno Mars out dances James Brown.

@Mendoza post here states it best:
Jack felt sleighted by this,and began to look at Louis with a more critical eye. Noticing Joe's weakness to a right hand,when he dropped his left,Jack predicted that Max Schmelling would beat him in their first fight.

[url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/why-were-ali-and-johnson-strong-critics-of-joe-louis.365648/[/url]

Time has a way of making good people look great, great people look invincible. There's a reason Joe called many of his opponents, Bums of the month...not because he was a braggart. Joe's lack of great names, or even prime black fighters is no different than Rocky Marciano's lack of great opponents young and prime.
They did great with who they fought. Joe whooped ALL in his era.
No need to guess if Wilder beats him. First he has to beat AJ to prove he is worthy of the name BOMBER.

 

I’m sure you’re right but still it’s best to leave off all time greats who did it in their era.
It’s like comparing Edmund Hillary who was the first to summit Everest to modern climbers with the best gear,both are good in their respective eras.
One thing you can’t deny about boxing though is that the oldies fought for 15 rounds or more,not sure some modern day guys could do that.

 

lmfao

 

And shag the hole in the ozone layer, before smoking a giant sequoia tree, in the post fight parties.

 

Don't think so.

I think it takes Joe a good six to eight rounds to get Deontay out of there.

 

Dirty ****ers, i'd throw the towel in first

 

They used to make little peep holes in the swollen eye lids of fighters so they could see with a razor when the ref weren't looking. That was back in the day though

 

Modern technique, training, nutrition, and science in general is much greater than that of Louis' time.
On the other hand, the talent pool was larger, fighters fought (much) more frequently, times were tougher than that of Wilder's.

If I had to place a bet, it would be on Joe.