Joe Louis vs. Wladimir Klitschko.

:good

 

Wladimir has a chin problem, the Brown Bomber was surgical with his fists & deadly in the inside so the hugging will backfire big time.

The good news for K2, is that Wlad iron chinned brother will be tto tall of an order for Joe Louis :bbb

 

Joe Louis had a chin problem unless you forgot.. :yep

 

Whoa...at first I thought Amsterdam was back, until I realized this was just an old bumped thread.

Dude hasn't been on here in 7½ years...unsurprisingly, since just a month after Calzaghe's retirement match. :yep

 

Actually there is a Ted Talk on how Jesse Owens was faster than Usain Bolt.

 

Not as bad as Wlad's.

 

Joe Louis would knock him out in a very tough fight.

Louis KO 8

 

I didn't have time to reply you ignorant fools sooner.

Let's start with some basic facts.

1) Over the last few decades people have become bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic as evidenced by every single sport where it can be measured objectively.

Now ask yourself a simple question. Does being bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic means an advantage in boxing? Yes it ****ing does.

When we look at the heavyweight division you just need to look at the mere fact that they had to raise the limit from 175 to 200.

Now add the fact that the talent pool for professional boxing is much bigger now than it was before the collapse of communism when the likes of Golovkin, Kovalev, Usyk, Klitschko, Lomachenko etc. wouldn't even be able to compete.

So we have a bigger talent pool of bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic people and yet by some logic this era has weaker boxers? Let's face it, there is absolutely no rational argument to support your theories.

2) There was a lot of progress in science and medicine from the times of Louis to modern times, we know more about human body and we can treat injuries better and prolong the careers of professional athletes.

Is physiotherapy important in a sport like boxing where your body gets constantly injured if you train hard? Yes it is, someone who has the right medical treatment will be able to train more, train harder and have a longer career during which he will accumulate more experience. That's why an elite 21st century athlete like Klitschko is still a beast at 40 years of age.

3) Better nutrition and supplements, better training facilities, better strength and conditioning, better knowledge of kinesiology, better equipment, roids etc. Massive improvements in sports science. Allows you to train longer, harder, more efficiently and regenerate your body quicker.

Another simple question: if you train twice a day will you have better boxing technique than someone who trains once a day? Modern boxers can train more and harder than boxers from Joe Louis era which translates to better technique and better boxing.

4) 70 years of boxing tradition from 1940 to 2010, we know more about boxing than we did back then, more styles have been tested, techniques have evolved.

--

Now let's get over some of your pathetic "arguments".

First of all, by your "fighting is fighting, a left hook is a left hook" logic that ignores the importance of nutrition, strength and conditioning, physiotherapy and so on, steroids shouldn't have any effect on boxing. Yet they're banned and rightfully so because they give an advantage, the same type of advantage that modern boxers with modern sports science would have over someone in the 40s: they make you stronger and your body regenerates faster.

Then there's the "they could box 30 rounds" nonsense. Yes they could, for the same reason I can go 10 straigth rounds of sparring in the gym and I'm not in fight shape, but put me there with an in shape quality professional fighter, make it a 10 rounds fight and I will gas because I wouldn't be able to keep up with his pace. Boxing is a game for two, fighters set pace to each other. Boxers from 40s would gas against modern boxers more often than not. They were stiff and slow and fought at snail's pace compared to modern boxers.

The thing with "weaker" and "stronger" eras is a complete BS too. Every era is strong. Every era had top athletes (for their time) competing for titles. Your judgement whether an era is weak or strong is completely subjective and has no rational reasoning behind it.

The talent pool was always big (and it got even bigger after the collapse of communism that's why modern era is even stronger), it's just a question of how this talent rearranges over the divisions. Sometimes you have 1 dominant guy, sometimes there are 3 or 4 dominant boxers in division and sometimes you 10 or more equally talented guys on the top with not much to separate them. The problem is that boxing fans tend to describe eras where there are 3-5 top dominant elite guys as strong while if there is a 1 guy who's dominant he's "beating bums" and if there are 10 elite guys they're all "bums". You concentrate too much on the elite rather than look at the bigger picture. Maybe the entire top 20 of the division is elite in some eras and just make each other look bad when they fight each other and look inconsistent because they lose a lot. As I said, people equate strong eras with dominant 3-5 guys, but maybe the top 50 of the division was worse than top 50 of some other era where there was a dominant champ like Klitschko and those 3-5 guys looked good because they steamrolled through weaker 5-20 ranked guys. Why should we only compare top 5 fighters, let's compare top 50 or top 100 fighters from different eras.

Good example of that is the current HW division. Wilder was criticized for beating bums but now we saw that Duhaupas is an iron chin warrior, Szpilka is not a bad fighter too. We have Klitschko, Fury, Wilder, Povetkin, Ortiz, Joshua, Martin, Glazkov, Duhaupas, Szpilka, Jennings, Molina, Pulev etc. These are all quality fighters and there are plenty of prospects coming up. Match the top 20 of today against top 20 of Ali-Frazier-Foreman era and compare their skills and talent relative to the time (obviously modern HWs beat them head to head most of the time because of the progress of the sport I'm talking about, but we're talking about skill and talent relative to their time) and we'll see that this era is no weaker. Yet people only compare the top 3 guys as if other boxers aren't relevant.

 

You're the one who looks incredibly stupid. I compared athletes from the same sport, you compare athletes from two completely different sports. Well yeah, a boxer would beat an MMA fighter in boxing, I guess Pele would beat Golovkin in football too. What does this have to do with anything? If MMA existed in the Joe Louis times those guys wouldn't have a chance against Stipe Miočić or Overeem. That's all that's relevant here. Just like Joe Louis would get battered by Povetkin.

I gave you a very good example and you couldn't comprehend anything.

This is another ****. People in antiquity ate pure organic food too and average life expectancy was 30 years. There's a lot of garbage in modern diet but the way people idealize the old times it's laughable. Average person today is better nutritioned than people in the past, at least in relatively developed countries.

Do you honestly think that a millionaire athlete like Wlad Klitschko living in the 21st century isn't able to get better food than Joe Louis? He could have guys personally hunting wild animals for him.

Joe Louis was from a poor background and probably severely malnourished for a large part of his life.

If it's all about technique and skill roids shouldn't matter.

 

I mean just look at Joe Louis' physique

http://storage.torontosun.com/v1/dy...97396826574_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=420x

http://rmyauctions.com/ItemImages/000000/304a_lg.jpeg

Compare that to Klitschko who's taller than Louis too:

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Alexander+Povetkin+Vs+Wladimir+Klitschko+Weigh+UuOdFpmXdpEx.jpg

Every single serious modern competent boxer has a better physique than this, including those HWs who're "fat", at least they're fat over a huge muscle mass. Joe Louis almost looks like some "skinny fat" guy.

Now I don't think that a good boxer should look like some Greek god and I obviously don't judge fighters by that but come on... Physique does reflect your training and strength to at least some extent, big ripped HWs like Klitschko are pure functional muscle and not some bodybuilders, that's pure strength and athleticism. I'm sure that if Joe Louis lived today and had modern training he would be ripped too, he doesn't look like he's genetically fat or something. Looking at those pictures though, tell me honestly if you really believe that he would be able to deal with a beast like Klitschko?

 

Ok , its now clear you have severe mental restrictions.

You compared boxing to track running and Football(soccer). How the fuk is that the same sport as boxing???

You didn't give me any example. That is the answer you gave me.

I don't know . You're the retard who just said it , not me.

'Athletes' is a broad term. Why are you calling fighters 'athletes' ??

A boxer is a boxer. A footballer is a footballer. A golfer is a golfer. A runner is a runner....

You compare like to like. If you are talking the sport of boxing, you compare Wlad to Louis . Wlad to Ali. Duran to Mayweather. Cotto to Tommy Hearns. Marco Huck to Marciano.

You don't compare Louis to the 2014 German football team. You don't compare Joe Walcott to Mo Farrah. You don't compare darts to ice hockey.

That is the basis for your entire argument.

Then why was Marciano the greatest conditioned fighter in the history of the sport?

Then why is Wlads major weakness stamina and activity? He can't throw more than two punches at a time. He has to keep a very steady , low out put pace in order to prevent him self gassing out.

Probably?? So really , you are just guessing ? You have no clue whatsoever do you?

 

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Tyson+Fury+Joey+Abell+Championship+Boxing+NBaFm4qTQu_l.jpg


http://e0.365dm.com/15/11/16-9/20/wladimir-klitschko-tyson-fury-boxing_3382815.jpg?20151129013812
http://www.trbimg.com/img-565a618a/...ronan-wladimir-klitschko-bo-002/1050/1050x591



http://www.thefightcity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Corrie-Sanders-knocks-dow-009.jpg

 

You talk nothing but dribble and cant back up nothing.

Name 5 boxers from the 40s who would gas against 5 boxers from today? Put your money where your mouth is.

Don't post anything apart from a list of names.

 

Ok lets do that.

Muhammad Ali >>>> Klitschko, Fury, Wilder, Povetkin

Larry Holmes >>> Klitschko, Fury, Wilder, Povetkin

Gerorge Foreman >>>>> Klitschko, Fury, Wilder, Povetkin

Joe Frazier >>>> Klitschko, Fury, Wilder, Povetkin

Sonny Liston >>> Klitschko, Fury , Wilder, Povetkin

................................................................................................

Floyd Patterson >>>> Martin, Glazkov, Duhaupas, Szpilka, Jennings, Molina, Pulev

Ken Norton >>>>> Martin, Glazkov, Duhaupas, Szpilka, Jennings, Molina, Pulev

Ernie Shavers>>>> Martin, Glazkov, Duhaupas, Szpilka, Jennings, Molina, Pulev

Ron Lyle>>>>>> Martin, Glazkov, Duhaupas, Szpilka, Jennings, Molina, Pulev

 

Guy from 40ths would not stand a change against modern heavyweights