Joe Louis Vs. Wladimir Klitschko

Thank you. Much appreciated. :good

That's a shame, since your talent for stirring up controversy was an asset to the Classic forum. It's too quiet there these days. We need new perspectives. But yeah, I can see your point.

I'm going to have to get going soon, but one additional wrinkle for you first:

From the studies I've seen, you can't improve an athlete's resistance to concussion with weight training. Footballers have tried this for years, and it doesn't really work. But there does seem to be some correlation between height / size and durability.

If -- as we both suspect -- the old timers were "naturally" larger than they ended up in the ring (thanks to poor training), then they might have had heavyweight caliber chins after all. They'd lack modern fighters' strength, punching power, and perhaps even durability against body punches, but they may have the same concussion resistance.

So Louis, Walcott, etc. might not fold like deck chairs to the first punches Klitschko lands after all.

 

Marciano beats LaStaza half to death and goes the distance with a guy as a 20 fight prospect , and to the Klittards that equates to a loss against Joe Calzaghe:rofl

 

Joe Louis... in two rounds!

 

LaStarza, Wlacott, Conn, Charles, Moore all beat Joe handily.

If you think Marciano was 'just a punch' you haven't a clue.

 

Not like deck chairs, but like LHWs or CWs would slowly crumble when the punches of a 245 SHW hit home.

 

Thank you.

Average height in the United States today is between 5'9" and 5'10". It might be a bit higher or lower in Europe, depending on the area.

The sources I've been able to dredge up on human height in 1930s America -- the talent pool Louis fought against -- hover around 5'8". Maybe a little shorter, maybe not. Human height in the United States has basically stagnated since the 1970s. It wasn't much different in the 1930s.

If today's talent pool is significantly taller, then the increase would've had to have come from Europe. There, average human height has increased, though not as much as you suggest. (see, e.g., http://privatewww.es***.ac.uk/~hatton/Tim_height_paper.pdf).

...And that's an interesting result, by the way. You really have to wonder whether American heavyweight dominance in the 1930s-1970s came from more or less modern average heights. (Which throws a wrench in the old-timers' arguments and the pro-modern arguments.) Now that the advantage no longer holds...

This is an interesting theory. To prove it, you'll have to show some evidence that modern trainers are better at teaching large men than 1930s trainers were. Quotes from trainers in the 1930s and now, examples of improved teaching techniques for big men, etc.

Posting videos of skilled big men today wouldn't cut it, either. You've proposed a very specific cause-and-effect relationship. You need some equally specific proof.

Like I said, it's an interesting theory. Show me some convincing evidence and I'll support it.

Do list them, then. The mechanism behind preventing concussions doesn't seem to be mastered, from the bits of literature I've seen.

Sports science people have tested the relationship between increased weight / neck strength and preventing concussions for a while. Studies have differed about how effective it is. And that applies to neck plyometrics (to stop whiplash) as well as strength training.

But it's been a while since I looked at the issue. If you can post a source showing correlations between added weight (look at both "natural" and weight-trained mass) and the ability to resist concussions, that will go a long way to proving your point.

Agreed.

This is a problem, though. You've half-completed an intriguing theory based on aggregate data, but instead of finishing it, you go back to the single example of Wladimir Klitschko. An appeal to common sense.

But old-time fans have their own version of "common sense". And it isn't delusional, either -- it just emphasizes different things. You look at size as the most important determinant, all else being equal. They point to activity levels, a certain type of skillset, an era's perceived competitiveness, "toughness", "grit", etc.

You clearly want the other side to listen to you. (You might be willing to insult them back, but I don't think you're just trolling). So finish your argument. Dot the i's and cross the t's. It's a clever line of debate to take, but you need to stick it through.

You're dancing around with a jab right now. An insult here, a boxrec stat there. And it's not winning the fight with the old-timers. Sometimes, you just need to dig deep, find the right sources, and go into Joe Frazier mode to finish it off.



So, some stuff that would be nice:

1) Show that modern trainers are better at training big men. Preferably with quotes / examples from 1930s and modern trainers. Explain which training methods have improved.

2) Get a handle on how much the talent pool has increased in size (and what the talent pool IS -- how many guys are in it).

3) Some averaged data on contenders' heights in the 1930s and 2000s would be nice.

4) Post some sources about the relationship between human height/weight and concussions. Try to find sources that include both "natural" sizes and sizes that have been augmented by weight training. If possible.


Any of these things would help. And it'll take you a LOT less time in the long run than trying to argue one tiny point at a time. The more you get, the tougher your arguments will be to refute.

 

Its already been argued and destroyed that today's heavies are not better, only bigger. Just be cause nuthuggers won't accept it doesn't make it any less true.

 

:deal Anyone who thinks Walcott would have a chance against Wlad needs their head examined:

This content is protected

 

Speaking of talent pool:

1974 Word boxing Championship: 274 boxers from 45 countries participating.
2011 Word boxing Championship: 685 boxers from 127 countries participated.

 

bowe, lewis, k bros prove big men are superior.

You need to be at least 6'5

 

You think beating somebody on size is an achievement? Walcott shat more skills in one dump than Wlad has shown in his whole life.

 

Without guys like Louis and Walcott , boxing wouldn't exist today. Fact.
These are the guys who will always be remembered.
Wlads memory will be brushed under the rug , much like Ottke before him.

 

Holyfield, Sanders, Brewster, Byrd, McCall and Brahman.....none are 6'5" and all have wins over the fighters you named. Another stinky opinion flushed down the toilet.

 

I think he's a big boy and knows what he meant. Stop trying to change another persons words because you're common denominator has been proven wrong again. You guys are all morons who will do anything to hold on to your crazy misconceptions.

 

Wlad would try to dry hump Louis into submission.

Joe would just throw a left hook and Wlad's glass face would cave in.