Earnie Shavers V Joe Louis?

Yes there are weak eras and very weak eras. Why do you think all running world records have been smashed beyond belief over subsequent eras. You can point to any factor but they have all been smashed.

Punchers are similarly effected by PEDs, quality of trainer and the number of participants in the sport. Which grew after the 20s and 30s. The boxer of the 70s has advantages in all spheres

 

They all fought way more like Ali than Louis than Ali. They all employed a long jab a counter right and circled. Louis didn't employ these tactics.

Fighting like Ali isn't a disadvantage if you're athletic either.

 

Look at the way Lewis throws a jab.

He holds his hand out, and keeps it close to his opponents face, to reduce the distance of travel.

That does not mean that he was in his prime.

I sincerely doubt that he was the only fighter in history, to peak withing eighteen months of his pro debut!

Charles wasn't in the picture until after Louis retired for the first time, and in any event Louis fought Charles.

Ray lost the series with Walcott, and Walcott rightly got the title shot ahead of him.

Moore was nowhere near the picture when Louis was active.

Godfrey was a has been, and Turkey Tompson was nowhere near Walcott's class.

 

That is a bit like saying that a lion is more like a horse, than it is like an octopus.

In reality, they fought nothing like Ali!

 

So Louis skills are terrible because he didn't fight like Ali? That means that all counter punchers with similar style to Louis are terrible as well...

 

Some people argue that this is mainly down to the change in track surfaces and equipment.

In any event, it is a meaningless comparison.

Boxing is a combat sport, not a track race.

Punching power in mainly a neuromuscular thing.

You are either born with it, or you are not.

I do not think that there were any significant advances in training, between the 1930s, and the 1970s.

If there have been any such advances, then they came later.

There is no evidence that the number of participants in the sport grew after the 1930s, and there is significant evidence to indicate the opposite.

The number of boxing gyms, and boxing shows declined.

 

Which means that 2010s fighters should be clearly better than this "golden era" 1970s guys.

 

Lewis jab was far better and rangier than Louis, it didn't open him for counters

You're apologetic for Schmelling dominating Louis. Louis was near prime for the fight, lose the excuses. Louis also got pretty much shut out by Charles

As for Ray losing to Walcott, so what? He was still better than the opposition Louis faced. As were Charles, Moore, Bivins and Turkey.

 

Moore didn't fight at HW during Louis prime. Not to mention that Louis was basically past his prime after WWII break.

 

This content is protected

This is someone with terrible skills and poor defense...

 

Punching power and 'A neuromuscular thing' is massively influenced by boxing participations, technique and PEDs. Boxing trainers improved after the 1930s, as did PEDs, as did boxing participation

Joe Louis is elite for his time but anyone after his time would be trained to exploit his weaknesses.

 

Sure, because humans were stupid 80 years ago and they didn't train their fighters to exploit Louis weaknesses...

 

He was athletic but that doesn't mean he had good defense and technique because he did not.

 

Well Schmelling did watch Louis tapes and he beat Louis because he identified Louis's faults

 

The number of participants actually peaked in the 20s and 30s. In the late 20s and early 30s there were more active boxers than at any other time in history.