Joe Louis v Sergey Kovalev????

:good

 

B Baer and Galento were pretty average in terms of skills, yet each had Louis down. Kovalev is much harder to catch and won't be a stiff with little defense for Louis to treat like a punching bag.

It would be better to compare and view how Louis did vs boxer mover types, and as I stated he often struggled or did not look good vs that type of fighter.

 

:rofl

 

My sentiments exactly.

 

Why are they meaningless? Louis fought plenty of guys Kovalev's size or smaller ( Use Kovalev's weight at the night of the fight ) and struggled in some cases. KO1 you say?!

People picking Louis early should consider the men Louis fought under 200 pounds that either made him look bad, or had controversial decisions.

Scheming 193 pounds TKO WIN over Louis

Braddock 197 pounds, off for two years he floored Louis and took another round.

Pastor. 179 pounds. Lasted the distance and made Louis look bad.

Conn 174 pounds, ahead after 12 rounds, and stunned Louis.

Walcott 194 3/4 pounds arguably beat Louis and floored him twice.

Charles, 184 pounds. Although Louis was passed his prime for this fight he lost it badly, didn't seem to have the power to hurt Charles. Charles, by the way, was down 30 times in his career. Few know that quick fact.

I would say Kovalev is better than Braddock, Pastor, and Conn as a heavyweight for sure. I would say he hits harder than most of the men on the list as well. He's an underdog for sure, but based on ring results, a surprise can happen

 

oh no, kovalev, good as he is, is getting picked apart by the greatest HW ever.

back in the day, kovalev is (now,if you get me) at the point where he would be on the verge of moving up and getting a title shot at hw, but hes not quite there yet. Frankly hes not worth mentioning in the same breath as JL yet.

 

Yes it was. Please let me know if you want the score cards of sub 200-pound men who did rather well vs the bomber.

 

Better translated, I was going to post it anyway, and you didn't want to debate anything in the thread that I wrote.

But I'll throw you a bone if you care to comment. Do you think the scoring in the Louis vs Charles fight was fair? One judge gave Louis five rounds!

You don't need to reply, but I'll be surprised if you could admit it wasn't!

 

Why is it meaningless? Kovalov is untested, never pushed, never taken a one punch KO artist punch and he is doing anything with the very best Joe Louis who no one argues is top 2 greatest hwt of all time? Very flawed logic void of true understanding of boxing history. This is even weirder than looking at bouts where Louis was way past his prime and extrapolating anything of value from it. Weird

 

I will try to sneak this wisdom into my everyday conversation.

 

"logistics" atsch:rofl:good

 

I like the anecdote. It made me laugh. :good

I'm really not that bothered that Bernard was a champion when he fought Kovalev. Sadly, it means nothing in today's era. David Lemieux was a champ when GGG fought him. Likewise, Wilder's now the champ for having beaten Stiverne. But it's really not that impressive. Most of the titles were vacant against average opposition. I like Bernard, and I've got an enormous amount of respect for his longevity. But let's not get carried away about him beating Cloud, Murat and Shumenov, even though he was 50 years old.

How can you say that one of the greatest HW's of all time in Joe Louis, wouldn't have been able to have landed a glove against the recent versions of Bernard? It's nonsense. If Kovalev had stepped on the gas pedal earlier, he'd have been out of there. A 50 year old version of Bernard couldn't have done anything with a peak version of Louis. He'd have just been in survival mode.

The most recent versions of him aren't good enough to beat elite fighters who are at the top of their game.


:good

 

will you quit with the fat people argument!

if you go into a match with joe Louis carrying excess fat you aren't improving your chance, you are ruining them by ruling out your chance of lasting the distance with poor cardio!