I don't classify myself as a boxing historian either. but I think its fair to say that a TRUE boxing historian would have to use the same facts listed above unless there is more than us casual fans are aware of. I also think that the testimony of the consensus who witnessed the match bares some degree of weight. My final stance is that I'm in no position to say that Joe Walcott won the fight. But I am also of the mindset that Joe Louis definitely did not BEAT Joe Walcott either, based on the conglomeration of circumstantial evidence above.
Nah. To shut them up we would match Wlad with Sam Langford, knowing that if Sam won they would look absolutely ridiculous, but if Wlad won we would still have a few aces in the locker. If that doesn’t work, just throw Jack Dempsey at him, to keep the conqueror under 190lbs. If all else fails, just send in Joe Louis!
Louis without a doubt as Klitschko's heart, stamina and chin are all too questionable and i don't feel confident in picking him over a fighter who was arguably the best heavyweight of all time. Vlad hits the wall around the halfway point and Louis catches him with a huge combo, it's brutal. Louis KO 6 Klitschko.
people ether blind or are trolling why say this quote joe beat big men why is that quote always said why is never the skill level and movement ever said cause that matters to joe never fought anybody like wlad on a skill level and movement level who was tall and heavy so it doesnt matter who Joe beat he loses this
It is unlikely that you are blind or delusional. It is even more unlikely that a large % of the forum is blind or delusional. Given a choice between the two of those, it is more likely that you are blind than that half the forum is. Far more likely than either option is that either you or half the forum is wrong.
The other way around. Wlad mops the floor with Louis. It would be like a grown up vs a kindergarden kid.