Joe Louis Vs. Wladimir Klitschko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ9PVZWjUQ8


Could Primo Carnera throw triple hooks like 1:03-1:07 ?

Simply watching this video shows that Klitschko can do what many posters on this thread think he cannot do. Impunes either their ability to observe or their ability to analyze or maybe their knowledge of boxing techniques.

 

Steward turning Klitschko into Lennox Lewis II is the worst thing that could have happened to the heavyweight division. Steward was all for the methodically tearing down an opponent with constant 1-2s and clinches al a Lennox Lewis. Klitschko definitely has/ had the ability to be a 1-2-3X3 fighter ( jab, right and 3 left hooks ) which was far more exciting. Instead of systematically breaking down an opponent over the course of the fight, Sdunek was more like finish the opponent whenever he was hurt whether it was in round 1 or round 12.

 

Okay, so you're making a slightly different claim than I thought you were originally. At first, I thought that you believed that 1930s trainers had a blind spot where big fighters were concerned -- which would explain the skill discrepancy.

Instead, you seem to be saying that Carnera, Buddy Baer, Abe Simon, et al were unskilled because boxing trainers back then were generally unskilled. Those unskilled trainers taught Baer, Carnera, and Simon subpar techniques, and that's why the 1930's giants look bad on film.

So far, so good.

But if 1930s trainers were ALL unskilled, then you'd also expect Louis, Walcott, etc. to be as clunky as Baer, Simon, and Carnera. Which they're not. You may not think much of Louis, but he's a heck of a lot better than the giants. Joe Louis could certainly control range, and demonstrated a comparable technical repertoire to a modern superheavyweight. So why couldn't coaches drill the giants?

Or are you arguing that great boxing trainers back then were so rare that the chances of a "giant" hooking up with a good one was slim?

A small part of the size increase comes from amateur scoring rules. When you switch to a contact-equals-points scoring system, lankier guys get an advantage. (You can see the same process in Taekwondo, "Olympic" style karate, boxing, etc.) Good amateur records get you backing, funding, and experience for when you turn pro -- which means that taller fighters have a leg up right out of the gate.

I agree. It would be sensible to look at the training regimens for different periods in history. Do you have any for modern fighters aside from Holyfield's (which is older, but available here: http://www.sportsci.org/news/news9709/hatfield.html)?

You're arguing that the giants back then received less attention from their trainers than the lighter guys did?

I suppose it's possible, although you'd have to do some fancy footwork with cultural history to figure it out. There's definitely a prejudice against "muscle bound" men in some very early boxing textbooks, like Fitzsimmons'.

My hands are pretty full working on your side of the argument.

With that being said, it would take some digging to find a lot of this stuff. Carnera's original trainer was French, and apparently never taught him to punch with his full weight. Carnera seems to have retained that fault throughout his championship run, although I think he had later trainers. The boxing record of the first guy to teach him was, well, unspectacular. (http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=017597&cat=boxer).

You could probably dig up some information in the Carnera biography released recently. My guess is that Buddy Baer and Abe Simon were trained the same way that Louis, Walcott, and Schmeling were.

If you can find some training regimens that distinguish the old giants from the new ones, that would put another nail in the coffin.

 

Why did Vlad gass-out against Purrity if his modern training is so suprerior??

Carnera threw more punches....moved foreward...was able to get off the canvas numerous times and continue fighting.

The Klits lack stanima and toughness.
Chris Byrd would never make Carnera quit on his stool.

 

Some of the way he approaches his subject are a little weird, but I agree that he's put a lot of decent work into it. Since I'm not a statistician, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

He's stuck using a moving measuring stick, which certainly doesn't help. Talent pools change, rules change, glove sizes change, and training has changed the game enormously. It's like that one guy described ELO ratings in chess -- like trying to measure distance by using a piece of string tied to a cork on a stormy lake. And chess is a lot easier to measure statistically than boxing.

Okay, so you have a couple good sources on weight to start with. I'll take a look at those articles at some point to see how exactly he's demonstrating the correlation between weight and durability. Now let's move on to a few other issues -- dotting i's and crossing t's.

Body? Yes. The padding helps. (Though fat does the same thing -- and neither of us consider Tony Galento or Butterbean model fighters).

Head? Well, that's trickier. Like I suggested earlier, when you're talking knockouts, you're looking at neuroscience. Concussions are a little different, and you can't automatically assume that being 20 pounds heavier makes a huge difference. The studies I ran across a while back didn't show that neck exercise makes much difference.

This is like constructing a building. Set the foundation first -- find the factors that go into a more durable "chin", and then work from there. Preferably sports medicine articles or websites.

Your stats thus far show that bigger fighters get knocked out less frequently. That doesn't necessarily mean that their jaw muscles or cheeks (which honestly sounds a little weird) are preventing concussions

You'd think that, wouldn't you? I mean, it makes sense. A stronger neck should be able to prevent whiplash better. But the studies I remember didn't show much effect, if any.

Yeah, I doubt that there's a study per se. There might be information on likelihood of concussion among people with limited exercise, though.

In any case, the first step is nailing down exactly what reduces the risk of concussion. Once you've nailed that down, proceed from there.

 

Good find. Could you get a link on this, just to make it official?

Two caveats to bear in mind:

1) Amateur boxing is an indicator of how large professional boxing is, but doesn't always travel in lockstep. (This works for BOTH sides of the debate, incidentally. On one hand, pro boxing was bigger than it is now. On the other hand, the amateur talent pool in the 1970s had the Communist countries, while the pros didn't).

2) These stats show that more countries are competing, but don't say as much about the size of the talent pool WITHIN each country.

 

True.

He had one of the worst records of any heavyweight champion. He was also better than his record suggests.

Yes, but I don't think that this necessarily says much about which man is more skilled.

Walcott is clearly a more skilled operator than, say, Max Baer, even though the latter had more success as a pro. Skill and style don't necessarily win you fights.

Opinion. Opinion backed up by evidence, but not a fact.

Walcott teleported to 2014 wouldn't be working in a depression-era manual labor job, either. He'd have a regular strength and conditioning coach, three meals a day, sparring partners, etc. By the time Walcott got consistent backing in the 1930s/40s, he'd already spent a lot of his career as a journeyman.

 

Higher power output. Wlad with 1970s training might still hit like a mule, but he wouldn't have the same firepower in each punch. He'd have a decent punch rate, but it wouldn't do the same cumulative damage.

Modern regimens allowed pre-Steward Wlad to throw all-out power punches for longer than guys like Shavers could in the 1970s -- probably with power similar to Shavers, which Wlad WOULDN'T have developed in the 1970s.

Reverse the training methods, and Shavers wouldn't just hit harder than Wlad -- he'd take your head off.

 

So in 1974 professional boxing champions ( except on rare occasions ) did not have to defend their titles against elite athletes from communist countries, so the "big fish in a small pond" argument applies:huh

 

The fact they are comparing Carnera to Klitschko is reason not to debate them at all because they are not qualified

Let's see some footage of Carnera doing things like thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1OSX8IYdAI


I think Klitschko was better when Sdunek trained him. Notice the difference in two-handed offense?

 

The question really is would Klitschko be able to handle 15 rounds, against a lighter fighter but with a higher work rate and more movement than anyone he has faced? IMO Louis ud or late Ko

 

whereas to the rest of the world reading this, you aren't qualified to read this because you continue to dishonourably put down a HW champion, and you think comparing Klit to another HW champion is some kind of putdown.

 

You didn't watch the video of Louis versus Galento did you?

I'm not convinced that Louis' workrate and movement would be higher than anybody Klitschko ever boxed against.

 

You're comparing an uncoordinated boob with an unearned belt to an actual champion who can string together multiple punch combinations with effect.:rofl

 

You're attepting to claim these guys had foundation level boxing skills. Your analogy is stupid.
Boxers hone their skills by studying former greats like Walcott and Louis. Many modern greats have cited them as an inspiration. There are no HW today with skills and technique on par with Louis and Walcott.

Nobody knows who Wlad is now. He is the HW champ and can't sell PPV and his fights go un-noticed. That is unheard of. The HW division is at an all time low because of Wlad. The division has NEVER been so unpopular. He left nothing to be remembered. The worst HW champ of all time.