Harry Wills vs David Haye

That's cause your a fan of old timers. You're a dreamer, so you can't think logically. If you did you could see that they don't stand a chance against good modern pros. As Pat M once mentioned, most modern pros and top amateurs laugh their ears off when they look at anything pre 1930. Even guys like Marciano look like a joke.

 

So when exactly did boxers learn how to box? When was this magical moment when these jokes became legit fighters?

I mean, does Joe Louis look like a joke to you as well? Or Max Schmeling? Ezzard Charles or Joe Walcott?

 

In the HW division, starting from the late 50's. There are a few exceptions before that time, like Louis.

Charles and Walcott are no jokes, but they are also not big enough to compete with guys like Liston, Ali, Foreman, Tyson, Lewis, Bowe, etc.
And although he's technically ok, Louis is too flat footed. Someone like Ali would dance rings around him

 

But Louis lost to Schmeling, why if he was so bad?

But you act like boxers couldn't box back then, regadless of size.

Funny to say that in comparison to miracle dancers like Ruiz, Ortiz or Miller. Louis would be the fastest HW in today's division.

 

Haye too athletic and explosive. Wills was a standup giant too static for Haye imo

 

Yes. And his fans still make excuses about it

 

"The negro challenger (Wills) when in action assumes the same crouch that Dempsey does when he bores in. He is fast on his feet and shoots in his left or right like lightning from any angle."

Oregonian 11/16/21

 

Well a lot must of changed between 1921 and 1924 when he fought Firpo and Madden. Because that would not be the description I would use

 

More like when Haye beat himself. He was green as **** and punched himself out going for the KO

 

He had a lot of mileage on the clock by the 20's, and yeah, a lot can change in 3 years. It's a significant period of time

 

That's just 1 fight.

Pre 1930, there isn't much quality.
Charles and Walcott are definitely skilled, but as you know, the skilled big guy beats the skilled little guy.

I was comparing Louis to Liston, Ali, Foreman, Tyson,Bowe, Lewis, etc.

 

Joe Louis looked like a man doing another sport compared to his competition in the 30s. I don't have any idea how he lost to Schmeling, maybe he was bored fighting guys who had no chance, maybe that brought him down to Schmeling's level for one fight, who knows, but the second fight with Schmeling shows the real difference between Louis and Schmeling. The first Schmeling fight was a fluke. It is hard to evaluate Louis because his competition looks weak on video. If he had fought a Jimmy Ellis or Doug Jones caliber fighter we'd know more about him, it's not his fault, he fought what was available and he only had the one slip up. Joe Louis doesn't look exceptional compared to more modern fighters, but he was probably farther ahead of the competition in his era than anybody.

 

So Schmeling was a bum who got lucky?

Even at lower weights?

But Louis had quicker feet than Liston, Foreman and Bowe...

 

What Schmeling fights have you seen besides Baer fight? Have you even seen first Louis fight?

 

1. Schmelling was no bum, but not incredible either. He wouldn't stand a chance against the guys I mentioned. If he were to fight Louis 10 times, he'd win 2 max.
2. There were some good boxers at lower weights, but still the level wasn't comparable to the eras that followed. Someone like Mickey Walker stands very little chance against guys like Robinson, Hagler, Monzon.
3. I favor all 3 to beat Louis.