Joe Louis Vs. Wladimir Klitschko

He will TRY to fight him like that, Joe Louis will time him with an awesome right hand and put him to sleep.

 

lol i cracked up

 

If Leapai was smart , he'd step in and out when Wlad goes in for the clinch and catch him laxed up.

Louis wouldn't fall victim to simple **** like that.

 

Boring, laughable nonsense.

If Arreola had beaten Wlad at some point, you'd be telling us how Arreola would have beaten Ali and Louis etc.

 

Stats don't ever allow for circumstances, and are you going to argue that Sanders, Purrity and Brewster were better than Joe?

What about Peter, who he went life and death with?

This was when Wlad was in his 20's, and early 30's.

Yet Louis would have been a walk over?

Who says that Wlad is more skilled?

 

Dino has saved me the time typing out a proper response.

So Wlad did shut Brewster and Purrity down, but then ended up getting knocked out? Great!

How on earth would Mike's only chance, have been that he hoped Wlad would have run out of steam?

We both know two things about Mike.

1. He was never the same guy post prison.

2. He wasn't physically or mentally at 100% to fight Douglas in Tokyo.

No excuses, he was a grown man and he had to take responsibility for his actions.

However, Buster had just lost his Mother, and he had a will of iron and took advantage of a version of Tyson that had hardly trained.

Now you make excuses for Wlad all of the time.

Now a fully fit, focused version of Mike, would have easily have gone through Douglas IMHO.

Now look at Wlad against Peter?

He was supposedly fully fit, and at the peak of his powers.

Yet he was hanging on for dear life.

I'd put a focused 80's version of Tyson up against any version that you wanted of Wlad.

He would have been in a world of trouble.

Also, as Dino has alluded to, Wlad fights nothing like Holyfield.

 

:good

 

To summarize my previous long and rambling post:

A fighter can obviously only show skills against the best of his own era. Louis didn't fight modern superheavies. We can only look at his skills against 1930s fighters. So...

Elroy, perhaps you should post footage with your choices of Louis's most competent opponents. Explain what Louis is doing wrong, and why his skills are rudimentary.

 

I would generally agree.

Boxing has a wide variety of techniques because -- against the best opponents -- fighters need all of those tools. You can see that by looking at the lower weight classes. Fighters there generally are more skilled than the heavies, and the best lighter fighters don't have narrow repertoires like Wlad.

Hearns is, again, a good test case. He fought shorter opponents like Wlad, had a weak chin like Wlad, and even had the same coach. Hearns clinched, yes. But he had a wide repertoire of punches. He threw combinations. He had an uppercut. And he was incredibly talented -- a top P4P fighter. Yet even with all of that, he still couldn't dominate the stacked talent pools from 147 to 168. If he'd been more "minimalist", he would have done even worse.

I do think that you're downplaying one factor, though. Heavyweight has never been a super-skilled division. Just because modern heavyweights can't deal with Wlad's limited game doesn't mean that they're bad. It just means that they share the same limitations that the heavyweight division has always suffered: they're less skilled than their lighter counterparts. Fighters in the 90's and 80's probably couldn't find an answer to Wlad either.

Wlad's game is technically inferior to his lighter counterparts because it's more limited. I think you're right on this point, and Elroy is overlooking the overall logic of boxing technique if he disagrees on that point. BUT! Wlad's incomplete skillset is still far above the heavyweight norm, in the past or now.

 

And yet he destroyed Carnera, a fighter with the same exact style as Vittles Klit. atsch

 

Best right hand of the 1930s? Yes. Best right hand "ever" in boxing? You're completely clueless.

That's like saying a 1937 Ford is the "best automobile ever" :rofl:rofl:rofl

 

I don't understand why you keep repeating this non-sense while urging other posters on the board to keep things "fact based" and "sensible". Carnera's style is NOTHING like Vitali. In fact, I couldn't think of any fighter let alone HW that has a style close to Vitali's as he's a tall counter boxer with a left jab that is thrown from the hip.

Carnera's style is closer to Valuev's, if you wish to make a comparison for argument's sake. But Vitali? :roll:

 

Quite frankly, I think if prime Joe Louis fought prime Andre Ward it's close to a 50%-50% fight. Especially if Louis had the same situation he did going into the Conn fight. In fact, it that were the case, I think Ward would win.

 

All you have to do is watch them fight. Both held their left hand low and tried to work off the jab. Neither had a particularly good defense and preferred to grab and hold on rather than employ slipping or parrying punches to put themselves in better position to counter. Neither worked the body very much. Both had awkward footwork and were uncomfortable being backed up. Both used their size rather than raw skills. Mind you I'm not saying Carnera was better, because I don't believe that at all. But their styles were very similar. And if Louis could do what he did against Carnera it make perfect sense he would be able to do it today albeit with more difficulty.

 

Because why? Do think Ward is on the same level as Conn? And how did the rematch then out when Louis didn't trying and dehydrate himsels so as to not look that much bigger?