This is how you fight a Man who's bigger.

only 15 from me.

 

Tony Galento does a better job slip and countering against Louis and Baer than Haye did. :deal

 

I think the results have to speak for themselves here.

Neither Tyson nor Holyfield ever achieved the level of dominance that Louis did against a world class opponent as big as Primo Carnera or Buddy Baer. Even Tyson at his peak was generaly nulified by oponents in that size range and had to win on the score cards.

No heavyweight since Louis has ever been so destructive against opponents with that sort of weight advasntage.

 

true. louis threw short,more compact punches inside his larger opponents arms. his foot movement, while not as astetically pleasing as tysons, was effective and economic. tyson could be held, leaned on and frustrated. make no mistake: tyson dominated and destroyed many, many bigger men. i just don't see bonecrusher smith, mitch green or james tillis seeing the final bell against louis

 

If you are going to make a statment like this you had better be prepared to back it up.

 

http://youtu.be/j9N72Okb5wU

http://youtu.be/6qEb7rDlQDY

 

Wow. Buddy Baer, who manged to floor Louis takes out Wlad? Baer is as fast, and hit as hard as Wlad you say? When did you start drinking for the 4th of July? Sorry, this is an amazing reach.

I saw some of Louis vs. Carnera posted here. Louis low guard, limited head movement, and predictable slow shuffling feet would be an easy target for Klitschko, who in case you have not noticed is 10X harder to hit than Carnera, and Baer, has 10x the jab, 3x the mobility, 3x the accuracy, never gets caught on the ropes ( where Louis does his best work ) and has far more one punch power.

Louis can't afford to wait around for multiple rounds to take out Wlad or he's going to suffer the same fate that Schemling gave him.

 

Are these really negatives?

1)

This content is protected

- The guy is 6'7. If he goes to the body he has to bend down which puts his opponent in striking range.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I would definitely have to regard lack of an effective uppercut as a serious weakness in a fighter like Wlad.

The uppercut is what is going to bail you out when an offensive fighter does get inside.

 

I agree, generally speaking, a taller fighter should have an effective uppercut.

 

Mendoza,i am a limited drinker in the sense that i only drink anything starting with the letter A . A scotch, A rye, A beer,A bourbon, so when i stated that Buddy Baer hit as hard as Wlad,i state this opinion in a sober fashion. Buddy Baer kod 47 of 58 fights,and could hit hard, and if U look at the Louis fight he was capable of fast flurries, more so than the stiff Wlad.
What the heck have you seen of Buddy Baer that you so dismiss him as being less of a puncher than Wlad ? Two Louis films,that's it right ?
Yes Wlads is harder to hit than Carnera or Max Baer ... So what.?
Carnera though not a good boxer was brave and had cujones, and Max Baer would feast on Wlad, and when Baer was on, he would love to throw those right hand bombs on Wlad as he done on many others. Baer had trouble with movers, but when he tagged you ala Pat Comiskey,he could really hit.
Please don't put Wlad in the same breath with the prime Joe Louis. He would get inside of Wlad ,sooner or later with great speed and leverage, and when Louis hit you, he FINISHED YOU.
I'm ready for my next round of spirits, so good night.....

 

The worst part is that he used to have an excellent uppercut when younger. The re-manufactured Wlad has none of it, tho I saw him loading up for a couple in the latter rounds.