Joe Louis Vs. Wladimir Klitschko

Punch resistance certainly must be somewhat weight-correlated though? Oscar de la Hoya is about as tall as Mike Tyson but certainly Mike could take a heavyweight punch better than ODLH?

Another thing I am wondering is punching power. How well does it increase when bulking up on weight? I know this is just anecdotal and therefore doesn't qualify as good evidence, but we've seen numerous fighters go from being "heavy punchers" in their original weight class who then travel up and notice their devastating punch stayed at home. A good example may be Adamek from LHW to CW and then HW.

Do you know of any studies correlating lean muscle mass and punching (or fast twitch) power of athletes?

 

Yeah, I think it's related to a fighter's "frame", for want of a better term. It's just very difficult to figure out what that is unless you factor out the weight training somehow.

To put it another way, ODLH could bulk up to 200 lbs. like a bodybuilder and munch roids like candy, but he's not going to be a real heavyweight like Tyson. Or take punches like Tyson.

Oh, punching power DEFINITELY is related to lean muscle mass / FT fibers. Tua hit much harder than Frazier, for instance.

But you'll always get exceptions like Foreman, who punched incredibly hard by our standards despite being "small" at 225 lbs. / 6'3".

 

Abe Simon was another likely candidate for acromegaly.

With that being said, although Primo is a trickier case, I still think you can do the 7.9% conversion. HGH makes you bigger, yes, but you can't just wolf it down without a sensible resistance training program and expect to get big.

Primo would have done some weight training as a strongman before he entered boxing, but weight training protocols back then were pretty bad. And there's nothing that I remember reading that suggested Carnera trained with weights AFTER he started boxing, or that he was anything but a conscientious boxing trainer.

Maybe he'd be a couple pounds lighter than 286 today, but he's still going to get really big with a modern S&C coach and modern roids (as opposed to a discontinued training regimen with some old-timey Italian roadside strongmen that he did a couple years before he boxed).

 

If both were the same size, Joe starches Wladimir in under 5 rounds. The problem lies in Wladimir's massive 60-80 lbs weight advantage and the fact that he's still an olymic super-athlete at that size. Its too much to overcome

 

Vlad's size has been overcome before by guys smaller than himself...None nearly as good as Joe Louis.

Size doesn't win fights...skill does.

When will they ever learn:think

 

atsch ****ing stupid ! its not competitive ! JOE doesn't have a chance in hell . the ****ing guy needed pure luck to beat a 165 pounder for **** sake . :deal

 

You're going to have to define exactly what you mean by "skill" here. You seem to be using two definitions interchangeably:

(1) If by skill you mean "Wlad knows exactly how to optimize his advantages in height, reach, and weight to beat modern heavyweights", that's fine. But it's not what most people mean when they refer to "skill". It's basically just repeating your previous arguments about height, weight, and athleticism in another form. Intentionally or otherwise, you're using this argument every time you say "but Louis didn't beat Subpar Fighter X as easily as Wlad could have!" Obviously not. He didn't have Wlad's height, weight, and reach to negate his opponents' offense.

By the first definition, you could argue that Wlad is more "skilled" than Louis, since Wlad's better at flattening modern fighters. But this definition also makes Wlad more "skilled" than Mayweather, since he'd hammer the world's P4P #1 boxer into a vaguely Floyd-shaped stain on the canvas.

(2) If by skill you mean "Wlad demonstrates a wide variety of height-appropriate textbook techniques effectively," which is what most people mean when they say "skill", then you'll have to go back to the films to prove it. (And yes, a tall fighter will have a different skillset than a smaller one. But skilled tall fighters still have a wider repertoire than unskilled tall fighters)

By the second definition, Wlad is less skilled than Tommy Hearns, another tall fighter. Hearns needed to solve similar problems, but he had a wider variety of tools to do it. He had an uppercut, for instance. His boxing was more textbook. He moved better and more fluidly. I prefer this second definition, since it keeps physical advantages somewhat distinct from technical ability.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll be honest: Louis's 1930s opponents were poorly conditioned by today's standards. They were smaller for several reasons. Many of them weren't all that skilled. But Louis himself is undoubtedly a skilled fighter by the second definition.

My recommendation:

You're obviously going to have issues with all of Louis's opponents. To save time, it would be easier if you just confront the critics with your choices of Louis films. That way, you won't be asking them to produce nonexistent footage of Louis fighting modern superheavyweights. Pick the Louis opponents that fit your definition of "good" as closely as possible. Critique ONLY THE SKILLS on display in those films without reference to who would have beaten whom.

Pick footage between Louis's first loss to Schmeling (where he wasn't quite a finished product) and Louis's second victory over Walcott (where he was getting old). Try to get good quality footage. Avoid the Conn fight, because Louis VERY VERY STUPIDLY dehydrated as if he was making weight to make it look "fair".* I also recommend for your own sake that you avoid the Galento fight. You'll only hurt your argument. Sure, Galento landed a lucky punch, but you'll basically be handing Louis the opportunity to demonstrate his skills by teeing off on an untutored fat man (whom YOU WOULD HAVE CHOSEN as his "best" opponent) for 90% of the fight.

Try to find an opponent who fits your definition of "skilled", or close to it. Preferably one who gave Louis technical trouble.




* Why, Blackburn? Why?!

 

This question can't be answered

Different rules
Different gloves
Different scoring
Different nutrition

Etc.....

Might as well ask if a Knight can kill a Samurai

 

Yes.

 

You cannot be more wrong here. Wlad is stronger, more skilled and experienced fighter.

6'6" 245lb vs 6'2" 200lb

combined record (amateur + pro): 195-9 vs 116-7

boxing years: 1990-present (23 years +) vs 1932-1951 (19 years)

 

I'd like to thank you for answering my questions, but you can't expect me to reply to this laughable nonsense.

It's ridiculous.

 

.........:rofl:rofl:rofl
You are one dedicated troll Elroy. You've typed thousands of words on this thread and all of it is complete and utter shite.

To troll to this level is beyond a joke. You've got some obsessional self hate mental issues going on. There must be some OCD in there. :nut

On the other hand if you are being serious ESB needs to contact your mum to alert her that you are a very delusional and dangerous man. :hi:

 

Brian Minto would have been one of Louis' best opponents. Many of Louis' opponents did not have two-handed skills whereas Louis himself had two-handed skills. More or less the one-eyed man ruling the kingdom of the blind. Today, two-handed skills are rather common among top heavyweights.

 

joe louis wins via right hand KO. wlad doesnt have a chin. louis has 1 of best right hand in history and is the best finisher in history. once he lands, its game over.

wlad gonna panic on the inside.

 

Klitschko would clinch Louis and work him over with left uppercuts and left hooks. Of course, you think he can't do that and you also probably don't think that Louis was put on the canvas by a formerly retired, arthritic light heavyweight either.