Joe Louis vs. Vitali Klitschko

and you no longer hold any legitimate grounds as a fan of boxing..

oh please 'carnera' what next audley harrison comparisons,the klitoris would annihilate louis.

missmatch of epic proportions.

statements like that are why i refuse to take this site seriously anymore.

 

Comparing legacies and actual abilities then trying to transcend one into the other is not the way that analysis is done. By this logic, the only thing one would have to do is look up ring ratings over the years, and determine who beat more ring ranked fighters, then declare the largest number to the winner.....This is a lazy and inconclusive way to determine how one man would do against another.

Hell, in 1973 George Foreman had beaten absolutely nobody, while Frazier had cleaned out an entire division of its very best talent - including some of the very greatest fighters of all time. Had Foreman never gotten in the ring with Frazier, it would have been easy to say " Joe was more proven against ring ranked opponents while Foreman fought tomato cans, got taken the distance by light heavy Peralta, etc..etc..." The argument does nothing to take into account physical and stylistic comparisons, and frankly neither is much of this debate concerning Louis vs Klitschko.

 

1. Size is not EVERYTHING, but it most definately means SOMETHING. While its not the end all be all, it shouldn't be ignored the way that it so often is on the classic forum.

This works both ways. Louis was heavily favored to destroy a former light heavyweight who hadn't fought in 12 months, only won 4 of his last 8 matches, and was a citizen of Germany fighting on American soil when it wasn't exactly the best time to gain the home crowd's support. He absolutely killed Louis. No excuses, no controversy. Klitscho was actually winning against his conqueror when the fight was stopped, and while that conqueror was past his prime, he was still a top five all time great and a full-sized heavyweight at that. The difference? Louis was given a rematch against the man who beat him.. Vitali wasn't...

 

Again, this is looking purely at legacy and taking nothing else into consideration. Although I run the risk of starting a whole new debate here ( and I don't want to ), Do you not think that Corrie Sanders, Herbie Hide or Sam Peter were at least potentially more dangerous than BRaddock who hadn't fought in two years, was arthritic, had 25 career losses, and managed to deck Louis? Do you think they were potentially more problematic than a shot Jack Sharkey or the crude Buddy Baer who was losing to journeyman right up to the point of facing Louis? This is what I mean about not reading too heavily into legacy.

Common... Are we really going to try and play the green card here? Calling him a two year novice is intentially misleading and you know that as well as I do... Louis entered the pros with a 55-3 amateur record and was professionally managed from the very start - two things that most pros did not have going for them in those days. As a professional, he had already accumulated 27 pro fights including wins over two former champs in their primes, and a handful of respectable contenders. If anyone was at a disadavantage it was Schmeling, who I've already stated was inactive, not indigenous to the division, fighting out of his environment, and not doing too well against the rest of the field. Probably why he wasn't favored against Louis. Lastly, Louis got completely anniolated in that fight. Nothing like this ever happened to Vitali Klitschko.

 

In order to sensibly argue these things, one has to see more of Primo Carnera than simply watching Requiem for a Heavyweight, starring Anthony Quinn and Jackie Gleason!

 

If we were talking about the man on the nights he defeated Max Baer and Art Laskey, then I would agree. But, he was two years removed from those fights, with nothing in between and it wasn't like Louis started off looking pretty against him.

Its innacurate from the standpoint that you used a raw stat to try and associate it with a novice level of experience, when you knew that he was no novice. Such an attempt is misleading in nature, and frankly I think you knew what I meant by it.

After he had already destroyed two former world champs - one of whom had badly beaten Schmeling himself?? Not to mention, how many world champions have won titles with less fights, less experience, lesser amateur careers, and lesser training conditions than Louis had at this junction? Sorry, but I don't buy this approach.

Hindsite tells us this, and do you think that his win over Louis had something to do with it? Take that fight away from Schmeling and there's not a snow ball's chance in hell that he's making no top 20 list...

I agree that Klit could have been fighting better opponents earlier. However, he did fight Chris Byrd with about as many fights as Louis had against Schmeling, and was winning the match handedly, before an injury ( not caused by Byrd ), led to a corner retirement. Say what you will about Klit's toughness or lack of, but it wasn't the same as Louis getting the living crap kicked out of him in one sided fashion. That never happened to Vitali. And as much of a sacrilege as some may find it, I happen to think that Byrd was a comparably good fighter to Schmeling.

 

Braddock and the others would Get knock the **** out if they were fighting 2day! @days fighters r bigger stronger, and faster. Louis could not compete 2day!