Joe Louis vs Derek Chisora (yes really)

I don't think Louis fighting big guys is a very good argument given the quality of these opponents
Look at who Carnera and Simon lost to for example. These guys were getting beaten by some very unimpressive opponents

 

"ShortRound" "NEETzschean" and I forget the other name. That's why I have him on ignore he just spouts nonsense and only favours modern fighters in every instance. He tried to claim Usyk was better than Lewis on his other Alt account, and got laughed off the forum and banned. Only a moron would favour Chisora with his limited ability over an ATG Louis, who has some of the best offensive skills ever for a Heavyweight.

And if people want to use the size argument, didn't Haye who was originally Cruiserweight splatter Chisora in 5 rounds ? Let me guess Haye is a better Heavyweight than Louis right ?

Imagine someone using an argument that Chisora lost about 18 rounds to Usyk, Vitali, as a case that he would beat Louis absolutely laughable 0 IQ logic. He tries to act all intellectual the problem is though hes missing a key ingredient which is common sense.

 

My point is size alone won't do it.
Would you bet big Chisora would beat Buddy Baer?

 

"How is Marciano relevant"

Aside from the fact that he KO'd Louis (as well as Walcott and Charles later) as a prospect who'd never gone past 10 rounds, on only about 5 years of total boxing experience, he's relevant in proving that boxing evolves over time. There are no 5'9, 67 inch reach, sub-190 lbs brawlers around at the top today and there haven't been since the 50's. Thus the heavyweights of the distant past would face massive disadvantages against modern contenders and gatekeepers, let alone champions.

"Your contention that Chisora was"disadvantaged by officiating ",is just that your contention,you have no evidence"

This is like saying "your contention that Lewis was disadvantaged by officiating against Holyfield the first time is unfounded, you have no evidence" or "There's no evidence it was corruption that had Buster and Mike level on points"

I have something called common sense. Anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of boxing knows that A-side fighters will consistently get decisions over B-sides that "could have gone either way" and even sometimes when the vast majority believe that the A-side lost. Eyeonthering and Boxrec support my contention that Chisora was hard done by as a result of partisan officiating. 26 people on Eyeonthering scored Helenius-Chisora (which took place in Finland) and none had the undefeated, highly touted and clear favourite Helenius winning, yet two of the judges did. The majority thought that Chisora beat Whyte 1 and Parker 1, yet the prospect and the former titlist respectively unsurprisingly got the nod over the "gatekeeper/journeyman". Against Whyte in the rematch, Chisora was deducted 2 points for fouls in a rough fight, which may have resulted in him fighting recklessly while ahead on the cards and thus losing the fight. Against German-based Pulev in the first fight in Germany, Pulev was allowed to get away with a huge amount of holding which made the fight extremely difficult for Chisora, despite one judge scoring it in his favour (which is ultimately irrelevant because two judges determine the outcome).

Whether the bias was conscious and intentional, Chisora got the sh*tty end of the stick in those fights from the officials. Had he been an A-side fighter and fought exactly the same opponents in exactly the same way, he'd have at least 3 and possibly 5 fewer losses.

There have been several fights where Chisora was treated generously by the officials (Fury 1, Kabayel, Usyk, Pulev 2) but it didn't ultimately determine anything in most of those cases because he lost three of those four. Pulev 2 was a genuine "could have gone either way" fight but Chisora is 1-5 overall as far as officiating heavily or entirely determining the outcome.

 

"Let me guess Haye is a better Heavyweight than Louis"

Yes dunce. If I'm picking Chisora over the American champion 85 years ago then it's not a stretch that I'd also take Haye, who had a combination of speed and power that was unparalleled by any pre-Tyson heavyweight, while being a big heavyweight (6'2, 210 lbs ripped) in 70's terms.

"0 IQ logic"

Ironic coming from one of the biggest fools on this forum. One so blinkered as to vehemently and consistently assert that 2014 Kiev mayor Vitali could have come out of retirement at nearly 43, more than two years after his 12 round battle with Chisora, to school and stop a 28 year old, 31-0 Wilder. You've got no common sense when it comes to two fighters who are contemporaries with a common pool of opponents, let alone between three or four generations.

 

Marciano beat a washed up 37 years old Louis so Marciano is relevant to this debate? How asinine is that?
No, you have something called condescension which is entirely different! And we are done!

 

The evolution of heavyweight boxing is entirely relevant to this discussion and 50's American national champion Marciano is relevant to that. No one remotely close to his combination of relatively tiny size, direct brawling style and limited boxing experience is beating gatekeeper heavyweights today, let alone becoming a dominant world champion.

It's hard not to condescend to someone who questions the existence of official bias working against a travelling "gatekeeper/journeyman" with five disputed decision losses on his record and only one disputed decision win.