Because Louis got schooled in the gym by Bettina, said he'd never fight a southpaw and that Bettina "was out" as an opponent after he got schooled in the gym: https://news.google.com/newspapers?...m5YAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BPgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5420,6133112 Future journeyman southpaw Wells KO'd Holmes x2 in the amateurs. Holmes then didn't fight any southpaws in his 75 fight pro career. Is that a coincidence? Probably not but even if we give Holmes the benefit of the doubt, his career record against southpaws was 0-2, he had zero pro southpaw experience and would have had no idea or schooling in how to fight them. Even top heavyweights with a lot of southpaw experience are known to struggle with them. It's a gaping (though to a large extent unavoidable) hole in the records of old heavies.
"who just changes his wikipedia article every 5 seconds because they keep getting debunked" You haven't "debunked" anything, you've claimed that it doesn't matter that objectively records in all sports have consistently been broken because of an article that claims "if x, y and z, Owens would be equal to or faster than Bolt" and the supposed non-importance of athleticism. Eventually you give in and admit that yes, athletes today in say powerlifting or marathon are vastly superior to long gone powerlifters and marathon runners but it doesn't matter because athleticism (and size I suppose) doesn't matter much in heavyweight boxing, like it doesn't in chess! "These are both examples of past prime Ali showing volume levels of Usyk" No they aren't, for a start they were 14 and 15 round fights. And Usyk still throws more in 12 than Ali did in 15, while moving around perpetually. If you want to talk about "past prime", a 42 year old, 267 lbs Thompson broke the punch stat record previously held by Bostice, throwing 1092 punches against Solis 1. Thompson had argued that PED's should be legalised and had popped against Price. If the cardio hasn't improved, why do the numbers keep going up? And why are the contemporary little men still throwing more than the HW's? "Has nothing to do with anything that I said." So you've gone from claiming that Fury is only athletic "compared to the average man, not his peers" to not contesting my claim that Fury is the most athletic boxer of his size (6'7+, 18.5-19.5 stone) ever, therefore in a tiny percentile for athleticism. "He is more reliant on his skill and technique now" He's more dependent on his mass, physicality, durability and power now. "Cardio is important to boxing but we've seen a few fighters achieve success in spite of having poor cardio." 1. They only have poor cardio relative to other elite athletes 2. Poor cardio is a massive weakness at the elite level and will quickly catch up with you. And cardio is one of many athletic attributes that are necessary for boxing! "Judging from your logic; since boxers in 1913 apparently had better PEDs, better training methods, and a larger talent pool, then a boxer from 1908 should never be capable of beating them." If you can't see a meaningful difference in terms of sporting progression between 1913 and 2023, then you are a dunce. "In boxing, you can be an inferior athlete to your opponent but still win through superior fundamentals." This is true in any combat sport. They are still predominately based on athleticism, as well as non-skill factors like size, durability and mental strength. Fury is a terrible example for the supposed non-importance of athleticism because as you've implicitly conceded, he's the most athletic boxer of his size or bigger of all time. There's never been a heavy that size who is that fast, with such quick reflexes (equal to the vastly smaller Ali according to HBO measurement), that agile (far more agile than Wlad, Joshua and even Wilder), co-ordinated, balanced (far more than Wilder), with a fantastic engine (much better than Wlad, Joshua and Wilder) and more physical strength. "Why can't Louis, or others from his era, survive in the modern era?" 1. They're dead 2. It was virtually an American national championship 3. Too small 4. Not athletic enough 5. Not skilled enough 6. They'd have to face styles and body types that they'd be woefully unprepared for as they didn't exist back then
"I am taking Box Rec's stats." You were not very clear. Chisora has been top 5 ranked at heavyweight by Boxrec in 2013 and 2020. "Chisora never fought a current Ring recognized champion" I never said "current Ring champion", I said Ring champions. Chisora six fights against them (Fury x3, Vitali, Haye, Usyk). Holmes, Tyson and Foreman all have five fights against Ring champions. "He was a gate keeper" You don't say! It's also a big reason why he was on the losing end of five contested decisions, rather than consistently given the benefit of the doubt (or even an outright gift) like many politically privileged A-side champions. "Marciano was 5' 10 1/2" . His reach was 68" Depending on the source. He was probably overbilled like most boxers and is often quoted as being 5'10 or 5'9 with a 67 inch reach. If a sub-190 lbs brawler becomes a dominant heavyweight champion like Marciano in the 50's then I will reassess my positions.
I don't, Chris Andre Boxing can verify its existence though. They also measured the speed of Wilder's right hand and found it was faster than Mike Tyson's. I think it was presented by Andre Ward and Kellerman and produced around the time of the 1st Fury-Wilder fight.
Thanks. I tried to track the clips of it down once or twice over the past couple years when I heard about it, but wasn't able to thus far. Maybe I'll take another dive sometime soon. Also, yeah, Wilder can be very fast handed for a man his size. I was watching his Arreola fight recently. Dunno if he matches Tyson, but that jab especially was very quick when he chose.
It's possible that the video was deleted from Youtube. It might be more profitable to contact someone who worked with WBO.
The validity of the men you meet depends on when you meet them .The difference between Chisora's fights and the champions you mentioned is they won some of theirs! Del Boy lost all his! Box Rec's ratings are a joke. Leave out the sarcasm it doesn't impress anyone.
"The validity of the men you meet depends on when you meet them" Ok but I'm not going through all of the Ring champions with a fine-tooth comb to determine how close they all were to their "primes" when everyone fought them. It may well be the case that Foreman, Tyson and Holmes fought them when the Ring champions were further removed from their "primes". I was using a quantitative metric. By the same metric, Holyfield fought Ring champions on seven occasions; one more than Chisora currently, yet the Ring title wasn't on the line in any of Holyfield's fights. "Box Rec's ratings are a joke." Then why did you bring them up in the first place? Think. Obviously Boxrec is not perfect but it's a decent rule of thumb, something to consider at the very least. Trying to design a massive rankings system that includes every boxer as Boxrec does is extremely difficult, they do a pretty good job. "The difference between" Crucial differences imo include Chisora's higher level and more varied opposition than fighters 80+ years ago experienced and the fact that Chisora was consistently a B-side fighter. In H2H fantasy matchups I assume neutral officiating, which favours Chisora and disfavours most champions. "Del Boy lost all his!" Chisora won three fights as the underdog (Scott, Takam, Pulev 2) and is generally regarded as getting the sh*tty end of the stick in three others (Helenius, Whyte 1, Parker 1). He also gave Vitali and Usyk their 3rd toughest and most competitive fights. Jimmy Young had 18 losses, never won a title and only contended once but this doesn't do justice to his ability. If he'd had A-side advantage or even neutral officiating and knew when to retire he'd be regarded as an "ATG". Young was better than Chisora for his era but the principle is the same.
I didn't bring up Box Rec's ratings I referred to their stats of Boxers,as in physical measurements ,not their top ten ,or otherwise positions.Scott ,Takam .and Pulev were no longer ranked so Chisora beating them is irrelevant to this discussion. Chisora never beat a top ten Ring ranked fighter. He may have been unlucky not to get he nod against Helenius,but he did not deserve the verdict in either the Parker of Whyte figh,nor to my knowledge is he regarded to have gotten the shitty end of the stick in those fights. He was, as I said a gate keeper.
"I referred to their stats of Boxers,as in physical measurements ," It's hard to tell because your grammar and exposition are very poor. Fighters are usually overbilled (mainly for commercial reasons) and there are often a range of quoted measurements. On Boxrec Fury is listed as 6'9 but early in his career he was listed in the 6'8 range and Celebheights have him at 6'7.5. Marciano is 5'10.5 on Boxrec and Gelanto 5'9 but in other places they are 5'9 and 5'8 respectively. "Chisora never beat a top ten Ring ranked fighter." I never claimed that he did, I claimed that he beat Scott, Takam and Pulev as the underdog, fought Ring champions on six occasions and lost controversial SD's as the B-side to Helenius, Whyte and Parker. "He was, as I said a gate keeper." I must concede that's a brilliant insight. But leaving aside that he's a 2x title challenger (therefore a contender by definition), being a gatekeeper in this era doesn't mean that he couldn't beat champions 80+ years ago, especially if he wasn't disadvantaged by officiating. I'm aware that Louis was a great fighter in his time and era about 85 years ago in America but no sport is static over time. Hence we don't get 5'9, 67 inch reach, sub-190 lbs scrappers like Marciano as champions anymore, or even gatekeepers. They have been selected out by the evolution of heavyweight boxing.
How is Marciano relevant to a match up between Louis and Chisora? Louis is proven against modern sized heavyweights .Chisora failed every time he stepped up his opposition. Your contention that Chisora was"disadvantaged by officiating ",is just that your contention,you have no evidence that this was the case.