Who in history would beat Vitali Klitschko?

He can't. I picked several of the best contenders and journeymen from both decades. Almost any name I didn't include would have similar resumes or even worse.

 

Ikeabuchi, Golota, Tubbs, Page, Dokes, Weaver, Ruddock, old Foreman, Tua etc.

 

That's exactly what it is. They are obsessed with size and intimidating appearances. They're some of the same type of posters who were swearing Joshua would have destroyed Tyson or Holmes about 6 years ago.

When people like White Bomber, Money, or Clenelo Alvarez automatically pick guys like Martin, Areola, or Chisora over Louis h2h, they're basically admitting that they either think they're more skilled than Louis or that they think their size and strength would overcome any deficiencies in skill. They are saying that 2nd and 3rd rate big men who aren't even cutting it in a watered down era with 4 belts are leagues ahead of any of Louis opponents based on 1 or 2 mediocre wins over mediocre opponents.

 

Tubbs, page, Dokes, weaver, and Foreman were champions.

 

Were you at one perhaps married to Vitali? Hell hath no fury like a...uh, you know.

 

I can't see any of them, including the champs, getting past Louis.

 

I can already see how he'd argue for each of them

Tubbs: bigger and faster than Walcott who gave Louis hell and nearly beat him. Tubbs had more advanced modern technique. Would box circles around Louis.

Page: could do everything Louis could do but better. Taller and stronger and hit harder and way more durable boxer puncher.

Dokes: was too tall and fast for Louis. Would throw dozens of blistering combinations and win a wide decision or stop him with an accumulation of punches.

Weaver: way stronger than Louis from lifting weights and using modern training. Had late round power and insane determination. If a fat bum like Galento can drop Louis with his hook, Weaver would brutally knock him out with his hook.

Foreman: way too big and powerful for Louis who had slow feet. Louis would have no choice but to engage him up close and gets pulverized by the jab and knocked out with the first serious punch.


And then of course *insert bold statement about how each of these guys would beat every single opponent Louis beat*.

 

Those sound like good arguments.

Might not agree with all of them. But reasonable at least.

 

They're all surface level, basic ABC logic you can use for literally any boxer.

I can do the exact same thing to make a case for Louis beating every single one of them by cherry picking the worst moments in all their careers.

 

So what ?! They were contenders at a point in time. There were more belts in that era than in Louis's (when there was only 1), so of course more contenders are gonna be champs.

 

Literally everyone was a contender at one point in time. Hoylfield, Lewis, and Tyson did not debut as champions.

A contender means someone who is attempting to become a champion. Once you win a championship, that's it. There are no higher aspirations or goals. You're no longer a contender, you're an elite amongst the elite.

Your claim that Louis wouldn't be a contender in recent decades is bizarre when guys like James Tillis, Tex Cobb, Bert Cooper, Chris Areola, Dominic Breazeale, Charles Martin, and David Price have been contenders, gotten top 10 rankings, and fought for championship belts.

Just admit you hate Louis simply because he was an old school fighter.

 

I would favor a prime Holmes over him. Ali at his quickest.

 

This is a great point for those who always prefer more "modern" or larger fighters.
"James Tillis, Tex Cobb, Bert Cooper, Chris Areola, Dominic Breazeale, Charles Martin, and David Price".
We could add many others: some of these guys & others (Weaver, Berbick etc...) were also only slightly heavier & at most as tall & long as Louis.

How can a great or even the greatest of old HWs not even be a contender in modern times, when guys clearly not as skilled, & sometimes around the same size, be World Class fighters, contend for the title, & sometimes go the distance or make it a close fight?!?

When you consider that Louis or any boxer will have stylistic advantages against some guys, & examples like Tillis who only won 1 of the last 5 before battling at least an almost prime Tyson & ran him close....
To think someone like Tillis, 42-22-1, would likely beat Louis-fuhgettibout that he was not at all large nor had any stylistic advantage-or that The Brown Bomber could never have been at his level during or after his time is virtually....

Clinically, perhaps criminally, Insane.

Oh I found this now-here is an account of the Tyson-Tillis fight where Quick purposely violates a bunch of boxing orthodoxy & still makes it more than competitive. In fact....

Stamina issue
After extensive medical examination, Tillis' strange recurrent fatigue midway through fights was found to derive from a severe allergy to the classic fighter's diet of milk and eggs. A doctor provided Tillis with a more suitable diet, in the training for his upcoming fight with Mike Tyson, a red-hot prospect with a 19–0 (19 knockouts) record. Tillis appeared to be a new man, as he exchanged with Tyson and gave the future two-time champion a very tough fight. Although ultimately outpointed, he was the first person ever to take Iron Mike to [url]the distance[/url]. Surprisingly, Tillis' heart and will to fight has been questioned quite frequently by boxing analysts, even his co-manager Beau Williford told to the press the night before the fight considering that James was on a three-times-in-a-row losing streak, that his professional career as a boxer would be ended most likely if stopped by Tyson. Trainer [url]Angelo Dundee[/url], who worked with Tillis for the Weaver fight and some subsequent fights, finally gave up his job, he said: "James had no spirit to fight." In the pre-fight interview he told the ESPN staff that he found that spirit. To prove Dundee was wrong, Tillis violated almost all the Dundee "No-Nos" in the Tyson fight:[url][2][/url]

• Fought out of the squared-up stance, instead of the closed sideways stance.
• Sometimes fought with both hands down.
• Switched to southpaw and back to orthodox.
• Lead with his right hand.
• "Left-hooked with a hooker."
• Got tangled in wild exchanges.

Culminative moment of the fight came at 2:45 of the fourth round, when Tillis charged at Tyson with a leaping left hook, missed, and went off-balanced while pivoting on his left foot. Tyson slipped the punch and promptly switched to orthodox, throwing a leaping left hook of his own that landed right to the Tillis' chin, Tillis went down immediately. Tillis got up quickly at the count of "Two." That was the only knockdown during the entire fight, it cost Tillis a point, and subsequently a round on all the three judges' scorecards, and eventually the fight, which otherwise would have been ended a draw.

Initially, the crowd was rooting for Tyson, but in the later rounds it turned somewhat against Tyson due to him being unable to knock Tillis out, and after the ring announcer Paul LeFlore announced the judges' decision, pronouncing Tyson as the winner by a unanimous decision, the crowd booed wildly when referee [url]Joe Cortez[/url] raised Tyson's hand. Being interviewed by the [url]ABC Sports Network[/url] staff, Tyson himself said he just "fought a guy who was up for this fight, in the greatest shape in his life."


Yet Louis could not possibly be competitive either in this day or with Louis?!?
GC, feel free to use any of this for your hypothetical new thread!
Maybe extremists on all sides (like oldsters who insist that size & competition never mean anything) can finally reform & admit that they were highly biased---> & completely wrong.
This is worth a separate thread with many other examples, & you are just the man to do it!

 

It really is worth it's own thread. I'm flattered by your confidence that I can come up with something that really takes a deep, analytical dive on this subject. I had been cooking up something while bored at work and the Tillis/Tyson bout is worth going over.

 

Not at all. You have provided no strength standards.

Here's the actual definition of a giant. [url]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/giant[/url]

"1 : a legendary humanlike being of great stature and strength
2a : a living being of great size
b : a person of extraordinary powers
3 : something unusually large or powerful"

There is nothing unheard of about being 6'7 250 lbs. Sure it's far from typical but it is not legendary or unheard of in the slightest. Just look at NBA players. In the heavyweight division, being tall and weighing around 250 is pretty common now days. Vitali doesn't stick out in the context of a sport as a "giant" which is what we are discussing. The context of the sport.

So in other words you're saying that Vitali isn't a modern giant? Sweet I agree.

That's grasping at straws at this point. "Vitali isn't tall, he's VERY tall!" Come on man lmao

TLDR, of course 6'7" is rare. However within the heavyweight division it is not a giant.

Amongst the general population sure. Amongst the strength training community and athletes in general that lift weights it's not. Do you realize Alan Thrall is actually considered pretty average or even weak considering how long he had been lifting at that time and his bodyweight? You should check out the reddit sub r/weightroom and take a look in the daily threads. You'll find plenty of guys posting their training logs and will realize just how easy it is to surpass whatever strength standards you seem to have.

This is all made up "bro science" you have crappy life time numbers because you don't program your training properly. It's still not too late for you to get strong. Every healthy man is capable of potentially squatting 500 lbs.