"JESUS, ****ing CHRIST To all the Waldo nuthuggers out there, who in the **** has Wladdy beaten to make you think he would KO the greatest HW champ of all time? Sam Peter? Chris Byrd? Give me a break. Can all who voted for Wladdy by KO please reveal themselves so I can, for future reference, note that you are ******ed morons who dont know ****." Atleast they are full-grown heavyweights unlike Joes opponents.
they probably seen more of JOES fights then you since most of them know how to use YOUTUBE ! :deal And no rational person would pick JOE to beat VLAD based on what is SEEN !:good
I could understand him being a little heavier because of supplements, steroids and the birth of fast food, but why would he be almost 3" taller?
I cant believe louis has gotten 95 votes:nut. wlad would KO the old timer inside 5. louis against haye/mormeck etc... would be more appropirate in this era anyway. there's a difference of what? 40 pounds in weight and 8 inches of height? thats against a skilled big man to boot. people voting louis, probably believe pac wins against hatton too. or are among the "jack johnson KO's tyson" crowd in the classic forum:yep.
Pac has a much better shot against Hatton then Louis would against Wlad. Louis would have a punchers chance. But the problem is, there is absolutely no basis for saying Louis hit anywhere near as hard as Sanders or Brewster. Think about it this way, Imagine Brewster and Sanders were allowed to fight in the cruiserweight division and keep their size. Jesus Christ, opponents would be getting killed and they would be the greatest things since sliced bread. Point being, Louis's punching power was never tested against true heavyweights and neither was his chin. This is actually like putting Cotto at WW against today's Kelly Pavlik :deal Only Wlad would have a much greater size advantage then Kelly would.
i agree Beware. against this type of heavy, the smaller louis would'nt be as effective as he was against men, more or less the same size in the 40's. people voting louis, either they think wlad is some sort of chump with **** skills, or louis is some sort of pugilistic deity. i'm not slighting louis btw, i recognize his legacy, achievements and merits. is it because he's a great oldtimer that he gets a lot of sympathy votes? we've seen film of both guys, why not just base it on what we see there? look at film and forget you're watching the great joe louis, and judge how he matches up with wlad on film. wlad's monster reach alone poses a extremely huge obstacle for louis. at the end of that reach is also one of the best heavy weight jabs. i'd love to hear how louis solves that. wlad probably makes louis's knees buckle with a jab alone, never mind knocking him out with a right. how would a small man like louis do in the clinches against a goliath who outweighs him by 40 lbs? if you say anything other than wlad would outwrestles him, then you need to sit down and take risperidone cause your delusional. if louis stepped out of a time machine and fought wlad, this would be like the proposed de la hoya-pac fight. fish nets outweighs pac by 15 lbs, and is taller by 4 inches or so. everyone agrees fish nets wins on the basis of being the bigger man. however in this fight wlad outweighs louis 40 lbs, and is taller by 5-6 inches, yet people still pick luois to win:nut atsch. the only way you could favor louis, is if wlad is a total **** fighter (of which he is not). for some reason boxing seems to be the only sport that does'nt evolve for these guys. bunch of bert sugars we got here.
good post mate...this is what i was trying 2 say...do u think a 40's wlad comin outta 'russia' is gnna beat joe...then bring joe 2 this time...by the time he got in the ring they woulda put 20pounds on him...who wins=who the fuk knows but id rather have my money on joe in either of these 2 mythicals...:good :bbb