Joe Louis vs. Vitali Klitschko

Please, please, please. Do NOT compare Vitali Klitchko with a BUM like Carnera. It is not necessary. I was trying to be kind to Joe, but since the insults have started, lets continue with them.

Either Klitchko man handles Joe Louis like a fvcking rag doll, because they can. He is intrinsically weak compared to them, they push him off like a fvcking Featherweight, and nail him on the way in with jabs, for a few rounds, then put him on his ass for a Schmelling type KO at their own convenience.

Anything else is sheer fantasy, by OLD fools, and Yank nationalistic dickheads.

 

So nobody can disagree with you Foxy or they must be both insulted or put in those 2 negative categories?

It is basic maturity that people may arrive at intellectually honest conclusions that differ. It is pure intolerance to insist that all who differ with you MUST have deficiencies. It is likely you project your own biased thinking upon others with such a simplistic, negative generational.

As ugly & wrong as those who insist anyone who picks a modern fighter like the K brothers must be similarly prejudiced.

 

You might want to go away and learn who Joe Louis was!

 

its a shame to hear a poster on here speak about joe louis in such a disrespectful sounding way.

 

I see you have this post in another thread too...

maybe you're just trying to get your post count up or something

 

well...fair enough...and you're entitled to your opinion and all.....in fairness to you joe frazier said something similar in an interview few years before he died.
but I dont think either klit beat anyone as good as louis.

 

It seems that most black fighters of this or any other generation are thought of the same way. Elroy and 'friends' all seem to espouse the same beliefs. Of course it all gets denied, and then they give this/these fighters a backhanded compliment, before using the same attack strategy the following day. They all seem to reference that same joke heavyweight blog as well.

 

Elroy my man. You had a discerning post re: the distinction between the effectiveness & endurance of heavily muscled & smaller with more body fat but still very fit men. And now this folly.

You cannot credibly accuse those who favor the old timers as being nutbags when you take the most extreme opposite & absolutist opinions, even to the point of pretending you are being "kind" to say Louis lasts 2 rounds with Klitchko. It is a sign of fanaticism when you even insist on knowing the MOTIVATIONS of your interlocutors & assume they must be in denial to dare to disagree with you. "And deep down, you know he would too", This is an arrogant & extreme hard line divination.

If you wish to be credible even to support your paradigm, rather than drive folks to the oposite camp, you cannot do these things, or exaggerate by saying louyis fought 100 or nearly those many years ago. Details matter.

Also EVERY HW & most great champions are accused of fighting bums. Lewis was particlraly skilled a dispatching giants, & it is much more reasonable to say Vitali would present more problems than them, not that he would crush Lewis. And you cherry picked the little guys, though I am not so sure that Vitali would catch Connso easily. Lewis also foolishly dehydrated for that fight so he would not be seen as beating up a "little guy". Amazing he rallied to win under those circumstances, the pressure he brought forced Conn to fight.

Size is one significant advantage. Yet it has diminishing returns as you go up in weight, & things like speed & endurance tend to dwindle. Lewis fought at ~ 205 in his prime. He was more skilled than anyone on the scene now. It does not make sense to assume that muscle would mean he could not land his great combos, or that bulk necessarily ads much to chin.

 

Louis did not fight bums. UFC champions defend against challengers with defeats on their record because they are largely more evenly matched on the way up like boxers were in the Joe Louis era. Why? Because unlike UFC today boxing in the 1930s was not a small, single circuit of competitors with no alternative but to be evenly matched. Oh no. boxing in the 1930s there wasn't just two or three circuits for a fighter to make a living with there were hundreds of competative circuits. thousands of boxers, hundreds of fight towns, so many that there was no alternative but to be evenly matched and break into each circuit. Hence records we would now regard as bad, but they were all good full time pros.

Today there are less layers to boxing. We have manufactured records where a good prospect cuts his teeth on a bunch of late notice, dissilusioned part timers. Never wasers, dissilusioned has beens. If a fighter today is not a belt holder he is either dissilusioned or being given the build up against those from the ranks of the dissilusioned. Not so with profesional boxing in the 1930s. There was a level for every fighter to make a full time living without being dissilusioned.

Good fighters were ten a penny, so much so that good fighters were called bums just for the sake of making a distinction. Champions and challengers back then fought more real pros. How many real fights have most of klitschkos opponents had against fighters who wanted to win? Who did Manuel charr ever beat? How about the guys Kevin Johnson beat? Are these really solid records?

 

Louis did not fight bums. UFC champions defend against challengers with defeats on their record because they are largely more evenly matched on the way up like boxers were in the Joe Louis era. Why? Because unlike UFC today boxing in the 1930s was not a small, single circuit of competitors with no alternative but to be evenly matched. Oh no. boxing in the 1930s there wasn't just two or three circuits for a fighter to make a living with there were hundreds of competative circuits. thousands of boxers, hundreds of fight towns, so many that there was no alternative but to be evenly matched and break into each circuit. Hence records we would now regard as bad, but they were all good full time pros.

Today there are less layers to boxing. We have manufactured records where a good prospect cuts his teeth on a bunch of late notice, dissilusioned part timers. Never wasers, dissilusioned has beens. If a fighter today is not a belt holder he is either dissilusioned or being given the build up against those from the ranks of the dissilusioned. Not so with profesional boxing in the 1930s. There was a level for every fighter to make a full time living without being dissilusioned.

Good fighters were ten a penny, so much so that good fighters were called bums just for the sake of making a distinction. Champions and challengers back then fought more real pros. How many real fights have most of klitschkos opponents had against fighters who wanted to win? Kevin Johnson? Who did Manuel Charr ever beat? Are these solid records? I think Tony Musto beat more contenders and more real pros than both of them put together.

 

It's very strange that you think that people on this thread/website hate the Klitschkos because of the color of their skin. In fact the people who mainly seem to mention race here, are you and your 'friends' who just happen to be fervent Klitschko supporters.

Unfortunately and strangely, racism/nationalism seems to be highly prevalent among the Klitschko supporters who post here. You and your 'friends' seem weirdly intolerant of others viewpoints, to the point of being truly comical.

People don't hate the Klitschkos, they just don't agree with your rose colored views of them. I think the overwhelming viewpoint, of posters here is that Vitali and Joe Louis, are all part of the same race...The Human Race. The Klitschkos were popular when they fought in the USA. They just don't fight their anymore, so most Americans don't seem to care about them as much. Many sports to follow in the USA, many things to do as well.

I don't know or care where you and your 'friends' are from. but you seem to espouse views of people who have only recently, or in the last few years been given internet access because of poor socioeconomic conditions. Your almost like cavemen being re-awakened...Fascinating

 

hang on a minute...i see what could be happening

we are talking about the same joe louis here...right ?

 

Id give Micheal Spinks a good chance against Vitali. He may not win but it would be very competative.

Byrd after his supposed 'beating' for 10 rounds didn't have a mark, graze, cut, burise nothing on his face. He was as fresh going out of the fight as he was going into it.

 

Or those that choose to insult Klitchko by comparing him to the totally useless Carnera, perhaps?

Funny how insults are a one way street as far as fanboys are concerned.

 

You're still persisting with this idiotic line of thinking? What is it with Klitschko fans? To a man they sprout the same drivel again and again.

Vitali has always been received warmly in the States; look no further than in his fight with Lewis, a black man, who was booed out of the ring while Vitali was cheered to the rafters. He was cheered against Johnson, Arreola and Sanders too.

Wlad yeah...not so popular, but considering his boring style, who can blame them? And besides which, Wlad has plenty of critics worldwide.

I could turn this on it's head and say that the only reason you trash Ali, Frazier and Louis was because they were black. I've heard that Wlad is a big hit on Stormfront. See what I'm saying?