Sorry, but I don't consider Schmeling a great boxer either. Conn wasn't great heavyweight. So we are only left with Jersey Joe Walcott, Louis beat him, but he didn't look impressive at all (true, he was past his prime, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't struggle with Walcott if he were younger). Claiming that the Klitschko brothers beat only bums has as much weight as making the same claim about Louis' opposition. I actually think they both beat better opposition than Louis did, but that's just my opinion.
boxers arent just muscle machines and usian bolt doesnt need to have more courage or more cunning than any ordinary man can have to run really fast
Well, I consider Schmeling great (in the Top15-20 sense) but then Louis also lost to him. If an old Louis can beat Walcott than it´s quite save to say a young one would have done the same and looked better. It´s hard to look impressive against someone like Walcott. Conn wasn´t a great hw that´s true but nevertheless he proved to be very good. As was Baer and even others like Carnera, Nova, Bivins, Savold, Lewis, Farr. To me that´s by far more impressive than what Vitali did and still quite a bit better than what Wlad did. But you are right in a way. Louis opposition is now blowing away either ones but combined with the number of defences, dominance, variaty of styles and "old age" success he ends up clearly above both and everybody els not named Ali. Wlad should be rated highly as well though, similar to Louis - and Holmes - he has loads of defences against generally average opposition, he also has the dominance and advanced age success. IMO he outranks someone like Dempsey by now - even so I think Dempsey has a fairly good chance of beating him - and warrants a borderline Top10 position.
Wlad would have destroyed Dempsey inside of 3 rounds...Wlad is just to big, strong and in too phenomenal shape for Jack to stand a chance..It woold have looked ike a HW fighting a WW. Amd hes not in my top 5.
Yes you can, you'd be hard pressed to find an expert from the 11 years Louis was hw champ even going into the ali years who did not believe Joe Louis was the greatest. Several major bozing publications have him listed as such. There has not been a fighter since Mike tyson to unify the belts, there hasn't been a fighter since lennox lewis "In 2005, Louis was ranked as the #1 heavyweight of all-time by the International Boxing Research Organization,[3] and was ranked #1 on The Ring's list of the 100 Greatest Punchers of All-Time.[4]" wiki And bum of the month club was because louis was fighting so often against guys ranked in the top 10 that he was making them look like bums. but those bums had comparatively more skill than anyone around today and anyone who is in doubt just watch the films. And I can't think of any other heavyweight champion who went 61 fights before incurring their 2nd loss. http://coxscorner.tripod.com/louis_ibro.html Explains why louis was so damn good Espn rated him #1 in 2007, Big book of boxing read poll rated him #1 in 78,John durant rated him #1 in 76, in 75 nat loubet rated him #1, world boxing rated him #1 in 74. Louis fought every contender and beat 6 world champs, he fought all the best fighters of the 30s, 40s and 50s. I don't see weak competition, and his only 3 losses are to top champions of those eras, and none in his prime, 2 came when he was too old and should have stopped fighting but was in irs trouble, and the other b/c he was drinking too much bubbly and he avegened it with a round 1 ko. The only fighter he may have never beat was possibly marciano,and I see no shame in that, he was up on the score cards in round 8 of 10. PS, there is a reason why that fight was scheduled for 8 and not 10 rounds, it was well known Louis could not fight 12-15 rounds and marciano only agreed to it to help out louis.
Now vlad beat dempsey, ha ha ha, people do not understand, Vlad is facing grossly underwhelming competitors who lack hand speed, power and do not know how to get past a jab. Basic boxing skills. The few who do know how to get past his jab simply are either too fat, too slow, or just too unskilled to hit. Dempsey would draw Vlad's lead,jump inside and knock him out with a right in round 1. There is a reason big tall guys like 6'6 were never win much in the hw division untilthe 90s. A moderately skilled guyunder 6'3 can hit a better skilled tall guy (6'6 and up) 5-6 times before he can counter with short shots, and its the short shots that knock guys out not these big wide shots from outer space. You have a huge decline in skill,then of course, the biggest guys like valuev and klitscko will rule because with equal skill (low), speed (slow) talent (low), footwork (low), head movement (low) then the taller guy dominates because all he has to do is jab the short guy all night long.
Go watch lomachenko and see what happens to tall guys, they are just a big target who,have 1 arm, cannot hit back, big target, slow hands, have predictible punch patterns, you fight Klitschko, u know he is going to jab, if you can't slip the jab and hit him with hooks and overhand shots and work him on the inside your either slow, have a **** trainer or are a **** boxer. For a tall guy to be successful he use to require comparatively more skill to make up for this.
You´ve got some right and wrong points. Yes, Dempsey beats Wlad but not because of his lack of skill, speed or anything but because, as you pointed out Demspey knows how to get past his jab, would be more aggressive than anyone Wlad fought and put him into "panic mode" which will end in him getting knocked out. Wlad is very skilled albeit limited in what skills he uses. His simple style serves him very, very well and the majority of hws in history would not get by his jab, close enough to hurt him and even less would be able to get off before getting clinched or able to avoid clinching alltogether. I wouldn´t pick more than about a handfull to beat him. Dempsey is one with a very, very good chance due to his style advantage, but Wlad´s combination of size, speed (and he is quite fast, look at his fight with "Fast" Eddie Chambers, he didn´t look any slower), power and skill makes me quite unsure about that one.
Your post could've been taken seriously until this. It's these kinds of posts that create disdain towards the "old timers" among modern fans, utterly clueless criticism of current boxers mixed with excessive praise for any past fighter regardless of their true ability.
"Boxers" are not limited to heavyweights. You should have clarified that you only meant the greatest heavyweight. I repeat my question, are you an expert on 1930-1940s heavyweights to claim they were called bums unfairly? They were called that by people who lived there and saw the fighters he beat in multiple other bouts. They were called bums because many of them were worse than mediocre. Even the best ones were average when compared to best fighters in other weight divisions, excepting Conn and Walcott.
Having been in the ring with the Klitschko bros and many of the best of the 90's, Wladimir is easily in their class. Easily. The best favor anybody could do a Klitschko is take them lightly. Massive mountains of muscle with incredible range, educated jabs, boa constrictor strength, and in Wlad's case, concussive power? Yeah. Easy night. I had this boxing thing all wrong, those guys were pussies! Few short shots in between their straight punches, and thy'd have just fallen down. Man oh man. Wasted opportunities, I tell ya.
I reckon they're on 'roids though. What you thin Magna? I know you've trained with Wlad and I hope I'm not putting you in a bad position but my drawing on any sessions you had with Klitschko would you say anything else points to that?