Joe Louis Vs. Wladimir Klitschko

wlad doesnt throw on the inside. he ties his man up so i dunno where this "work him over with left uppercuts" is coming from.

wlad has panic attacks on the inside. dont get me wrong, hes a tremendous boxer. to be a HEAVYWEIGHT and not have a chin and still dominate, thats impressive.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that Frazier would have caused Wlad problems.

But these guys can't see it. They can't see that there's never been truer words spoken, than styles make fights.

They're just blinded by size etc.

The theory seems to be, that Frazier wouldn't have stood a chance, because Foreman blasted him out and Wlad is bigger and more skilled than Foreman was.

 

We've heard it all before.

He would have shut down a prime Mike, just like how he shut down Sanders, Purrity and Brewster?

He went life and death with Sam Peter, but wouldn't have had trouble against a focused Tyson from the mid 80's?

You're dreaming.

With regards to Wlad's skills, why would he clinch guys, if he could showcase all of these great skills supposedly in his locker?

 

i have an equation:

best right hand ever in boxing (Louis) + weak chin (wlad) = louis via KO.

isaac newton would be proud.

 

He's not clinching if he's throwing 'uppercuts and hooks' and he doesn't throw an uppercut.

If Wlad trades with Louis he's a goner on the spot.

 

Aquamarine,

Robbo is still regarded as the greatest ever. The perfect fighter in his prime, with hardly any weaknesses.

Of course I've criticised it.

That wasn't a double hook was it?

It wasn't a double hook off of a jab, or in the centre of the ring, or to the body and then the head, or fighting out of a clinch, or off the ropes etc. That's not my definition of a double hook.

It was a good left hook that he threw. Then he stood over him, and just kept throwing it as he went down.

It's completely different from what I'm talking about.

So what does it say, when this guy has got skills that he doesn't want to use, because he's been stopped before? And what does it say about the state of the HW division, that he can beat all of his opponents by only doing about three things?

Yet you guys are arguing today's fighters are superior and boxing has progressed.

If he fought better opponents, he wouldn't be able to employ those tactics and he'd be in a world of trouble.

No, it was a great shot, but I wasn't sure who it was.

:good

I've seen most of those fights.

I've seen most of those too.

But a great boxer would display his full arsenal of shots, whenever he needed to.

There's no need to clinch a guy, if you can easily outbox him.

I'm not fixated on that one fight.

But people are saying he's still at the top of his game, he'd have beaten Ali, Tyson, Holmes, Frazier and Louis, he's got this fantastic skill set, and he's one of the greatest of all time.

Yet look at what he's just given us?

The Povetkin fight is just one example.

I never said he was a big lump.

I'm arguing against the opinion, that he's this outstanding fighter, that would have beaten Tyson and Holmes etc, with relative ease.

I'm not interested in those fighters.

Wlad is a good fighter, and has skills.

But people here are rubbishing Joe Louis, claiming he'd be easy work, and are trying to tell us that today's HW's are superior.

 

Well I would favour Wladimir in this matchup since Wladimir ls taller, longer reach and uses his jab very well.

However Joe isn't a pushover like some may belive and he will always have a chance. It's still the heavyweight division and one punch can change it all.
I guess that's all.

 

How has he disagreed with my assessment of them?

I haven't even mentioned Vitali, and again, my argument is that Wlad wouldn't have beaten all of these greats with ease.

Mike was just been respectful.

So what?

I think there's enough evidence at hand, to say that Mike in his prime, would have been a serious threat to Wlad.

 

This is just a nothing post.

We could go back and forth like this, taking pot shots all day.

A 19 year old version of Mike going the distance against his 5th opponent, in five months?

So what?

What does it say about Wlad getting knocked out by Puritty, Brewster, Sanders and hanging on for dear life against Sam Peter?

How does that look?

There's no need to take this any further.

 

What's the point in arguing with such an obvious troll as you. I can't believe how many decent poster have felt the need to respond to your obviously made up crap. Your knowledge of Louis is non existent and yet you go on page after page making up whatever the hell pleases you.

You're mental son. :nut

 

You are wrong and again prove you know **** about Klitschko as well as everyone else.

Wlad had no problem with a more elusive southpaw when he beat Chris Byrd years earlier.
Sanders ended Wlad with counters and speed. Tyson had those attributes and then some. Faster handspeed , footspeed - faster head movement than Wlad could throw a jab.
Tyson had one of the best slip the jab and counter with left hooks in history.
Wlads style is made to order for Tyson.

Boxing is geometry. Angles beat straight lines. Wlad can't beat a Tyson with 1-2 punches. It would be a first round ko loss for him.

Holyfield fought extremly dirty and took a past prime Tyson into a dog fight.
He mauled and brawled him and had the chin and stamina to take the risks.

That is how Holyfield beat Tyson. Wlad isn't half the fighter Holy was.

 

Go and get an eye test then. :good

 

so many bitchko biased fans who DNSAB in this thread.

 

If you had a time machine, and you transported a 1930's Joe Louis into today's era, against today's top HW's, why would he be at a huge disadvantage?

 

Unfair to the fearsome Louis but not unfair to this creampuff the same size??
http://cdn2.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/3235905/140329625_extra_large.jpg

And Wlad still had to fight him like this.

http://i0.wp.com/www.boxingnews24.com/wp-content/uploads/wlad001.jpg