Joe Louis vs. Vitali Klitschko

and you believe Farr had 79" , right ?
great sources ya got there.

 

Perhaps he does. He certainly has wide shoulders and seemingly abnormally long arms.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Either way having any source is better than having none, like you don't.

 

Well I guess that Louis wasnt so small that his detractors don't feel the need to try to make him smaller than he actualy was.

 

Joe's measured reach was 76". It reads as 76" in every publication I have, and I have a considerable number of those. I also noticed the 76" measurement for Joe listed at the Boxing Hall of Fame on my last visit there. Dempsey's was listed at 77".

 

hitting low may be a great tactic against vitali for rocky ,it may make vitali angry enough to forget the jab and brawl and trade or he may just demand that the ref DQ'S rocky

 

True :huh

 

Personaly I value your input to this forum.

You have accused people who differ with you of being delusional old fools on this issue and others, but you have also shown integrity when the shoe was on the other foot.

Sherlock Holmes needs his Moriarty after all.

 

Who are you to say that just because the training techniques are 'different', that means they are better ?? I'd say that the older fighters in the most part had far more stamina, had far more heart, had far more ability and were a million times better than modern day fighters .... Theres only Floyd Mayweather who could survive of the modern era against the guys of the past .....

Boxing doesnt evolve, training methods are not better, they are different but in no way better ....

THE SPORT OF BOXING DOES NOT EVOLVE LIKE OTHER SPORTS .. FACT :nono

 

Yes it's downright insane to imagine the training techniques have improved over the past 100 years, and of course the fighters where a million times better they where olympian gods for christ sake...

I'd say boxing evolves just like every other sport does it's just not something you can meassure as easily as some others and the results aren't as obvious.

This is my opinion and I'm entitled to it so turn off caps and relax.

 

I dig this forum, agree or disagree with some of the participants. I do prefer those who have actual analysis or real life experience ringside or in the ring to back up their proclamations. I don't think much of the rigid, reactionary, unimaginative orthodoxy which would state Joe Louis will forever be the greatest heavyweight of all times by any standard or context imaginable. That is just intellectually repellent. Also, I don't think much is really explained or gained by arguing over two inches of a man's physiognomy. In fact, I don't really want to tell you what I actually think of such arguments. (And a boxer closes the distance not with a couple inches of extra reach but with things like footwork, hip turn and timing....)

Unfortunately, I am in the process of starting a business and am busy as all hell. It ain't often I'll be able to add much for a while, so there should be more of the comfortable, reassuring agreement that many would prefer.

Cheers.

 

Sports can evolve. But they can also devolve. By the 1970s, boxing had evolved substantially from where it was in the 1920s, even the 1950s. Today, it has devolved. Fighters today look a lot like fighters from earlier periods. In a few generations it will be evolve again. Whether it ever gets to where it was in the 1960s-through mid-1980s I don't know.

 

Is there another sport you think has devolved since the 1970's? Could it perhaps be that the sport has devolved in certain countries while it has blossomed in others? It certainly has not devolved in the former USSR, Great Britain, or in Mexico or the Philippines. Meanwhile, gyms in the USA have shut their doors. This movement among nationalities is much like the successive ascensions among ethnicities in US boxing throughout the 20th century.

 

first off all i totally agree with you that the old fighters are tougher and more stamina and so on but..........
you're last line is a ly...........
every sport evolve.. people get faster. whatever the cause for that may be that is a FACT. look at athletics for example..

 

It's evolving in the former USSR, for example, in the heavyweight division, but relative to US boxers in the 1970s, it is at an earlier stage, and thus represents a de-evolution in the division overall. This is because professional boxing is only a recent development with the fall of state socialism. Eastern European boxers did not start at the high level US boxers achieved during the goldern era. Thus they have a lot of catching up to do. However, because talented US heavyweights are rare these days, which reflects the long decline in the sport in the United States, the Eastern European heavyweights are competitive. If these boxers had shown up in the 1970s - say the Soviet Union had collapsed in the 1950 - they would have had their clocks cleaned by the crop of US heavies during that time. However, Eastern Europeans would be much further along by now. It depends on when different nationalities hit the sport relative to what's happening in the more developed parts of the world.

 

I disagree. The 70's weren't that deep in heavies and even the top end was way over-rated. Ali was on a slide all decade, starting below his best and making the title he held a farce after 75. Frazier peaked in 1971. Foreman was great but definitely beatable by a well schooled boxer, a proven fact. By the time you get to Norton, Quarry and Young, you are about guys who would have major problems in the 2000's.