Joe Frazier vs Joe Louis

[Dr. Z]

So you have no proof that any contenders from Louis era wouldn't be contenders today? That's what I thought. And you obviously didn't read your own link. "In professional fights, all competitors up to welterweight will use an 8 oz glove. Everyone in higher weight clases should use the 10 oz glove."

You really just like to talk to hear yourself, don't you? It is your opinion no contenders from that era would be contenders today. It's a FACT that professional heavyweight fighters wear 10oz gloves. How are you coming with those excuses for Vits not seeking a rematch with Byrd?

Okay Cowboy, you are aware that no less authority than Ring Magazine called the 1930's the worst heavyweight era ever? That was who Joe Louis fought.

My post stands that he used lighter gloves than modern heavyweights! The glove size can vary on the system modern guys fight in.

When did Byrd ( not the right thread for it ) offer a re-match? How about never! If he did, please provide the link.

In the meantime please either accept or refute the following points made on Louis fighting weak opposition AND factually being way down on points vs the best five men fought in Scheming, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano.

I've got some popcorn waiting for you to reply ...

[JAB5239]

Okay Cowboy, you are aware that no less authority than Ring Magazine called the 1930's the worst heavyweight era ever? That was who Joe Louis fought.

My post stands that he used lighter gloves than modern heavyweights! The glove size can vary on the system modern guys fight in.

When did Byrd ( not the right thread for it ) offer a re-match? How about never! If he did, please provide the link.

In the meantime please either accept or refute the following points made on Louis fighting weak opposition AND factually being way down on points vs the best five men fought in Scheming, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano.

I've got some popcorn waiting for you to reply ...

Your point of him being down lacks context. You forgot to mention in all but one of those fights he was past his best. You also didn't mention he won all but two of those. And I never argued they didn't wear smaller gloves back then. I was just correcting an error in a long line of errors by you. Especially considering YOU posted the link to it and wanted me to read it. As far as Vits not rematching Byrd goes, you got nothing left on that whether it's this or any other thread. As far as the Ring goes, you can say they called it the weakest era, that's their opinion. But Louis, Charles, Walcott and Marciano all rank in the IBRO all time top 20 with only the 70's and 90's having more entrants in the top 20. Personally, and it's a matter of opinion, I say the Wlad era is the weakest.

Just noticed you said the 30's was the worst boxing era. The bulk of Louis fights was in the 40's. Another quote by you that lacked context.

[Willie Pep 229]

This is just how I remember it . . .

In the 1960s, Flyweight to Lightweight fought with six ounce gloves. Welterweight and above fought with eight ounce gloves.

Then sometime in the late '70s through the 1980s six ounce gloves disappeared for the lower weights and LHW and HWs began to use ten ounce gloves. Sometimes even 12 ounce gloves for HWs.

P.S I don't know if the really little guys are still using six ounce gloves, maybe. But Featherweight and above have moved to eight ounces and HWs never seem to use smaller than ten ounces.

[JAB5239]

This is just how I remember it . . .

In the 1960s, Flyweight to Lightweight fought with six ounce gloves. Welterweight and above fought with eight ounce gloves.

Then sometime in the late '70s through the 1980s six ounce gloves disappeared for the lower weights and LHW and HWs began to use ten ounce gloves. Sometimes even 12 ounce gloves for HWs.

P.S I don't know if the really little guys are still using six ounce gloves, maybe. But Featherweight and above have moved to eight ounces and HWs never seem to use smaller than ten ounces.

An interesting article....

https://www.secondsout.com/columns/t.../boxing-gloves

[Dr. Z]

Your point of him being down lacks context. You forgot to mention in all but one of those fights he was past his best. You also didn't mention he won all but two of those. And I never argued they didn't wear smaller gloves back then. I was just correcting an error in a long line of errors by you. Especially considering YOU posted the link to it and wanted me to read it. As far as Vits not rematching Byrd goes, you got nothing left on that whether it's this or any other thread. As far as the Ring goes, you can say they called it the weakest era, that's their opinion. But Louis, Charles, Walcott and Marciano all rank in the IBRO all time top 20 with only the 70's and 90's having more entrants in the top 20. Personally, and it's a matter of opinion, I say the Wlad era is the weakest.

Just noticed you said the 30's was the worst boxing era. The bulk of Louis fights was in the 40's. Another quote by you that lacked context.

Um, the bulk of Joe Louis fights were in the 1930's. You can take my word on it or you can look it up, cowboy.

The was something called WW II that ran for the USA form 1941-1945.

Louis record should be 1-3 vs Marciano, Charles, and Walcott. Yes, they were top guys in the 40's and 50's but the days if sub 200 pound heavyweight are mainly a thing of the past.

No re-match link for Vitali? Vs. Byrd or Lewis? Not his fault.

Wlad's s opponents beaten > Louis.

[Ascended]

Um, the bulk of Joe Louis fights were in the 1930's. You can take my word on it or you can look it up, cowboy.

The was something called WW II that ran for the USA form 1941-1945.

Louis record should be 1-3 vs Marciano, Charles, and Walcott. Yes, they were top guys in the 40's and 50's but the days if sub 200 pound heavyweight are mainly a thing of the past.

No re-match link for Vitali? Vs. Byrd or Lewis? Not his fault.

Wlad's s opponents beaten > Louis.

Wlads amateur opponents are way more advanced then 70s let alone novices from 30s-50s

[Willie Pep 229]

Um, the bulk of Joe Louis fights were in the 1930's. You can take my word on it or you can look it up, cowboy.

The was something called WW II that ran for the USA form 1941-1945.

Louis record should be 1-3 vs Marciano, Charles, and Walcott. Yes, they were top guys in the 40's and 50's but the days if sub 200 pound heavyweight are mainly a thing of the past.

No re-match link for Vitali? Vs. Byrd or Lewis? Not his fault.

Wlad's s opponents beaten > Louis.

Just for the record. Louis fought to the spring of 1942. In fact Louis had a total of 13 fights between 1940 and 1942.

Not sure if that's relevant but then again I don't think the fact that he fought in the 1930s is relevant to his greatness either.

Maybe Ring Magazine claimed the 1930s were the weakest period but the statement has two qualifications.

1. It is just an opinion by men looking into the past. Something that should always be taken with a grain of salt. Contemporaries always either praise or bash the past with a bias.

2. Joe Louis destroyed his opponents knocking out five former world HW champions. When a man is that dominant does it really matter what Ring Magazine thinks about the period?

[JAB5239]

Um, the bulk of Joe Louis fights were in the 1930's. You can take my word on it or you can look it up, cowboy.

The was something called WW II that ran for the USA form 1941-1945.

Louis record should be 1-3 vs Marciano, Charles, and Walcott. Yes, they were top guys in the 40's and 50's but the days if sub 200 pound heavyweight are mainly a thing of the past.

No re-match link for Vitali? Vs. Byrd or Lewis? Not his fault.

Wlad's s opponents beaten > Louis.

Louis came up in the 30's, his prime was '37 to '46 with the bulk of his best comp coming in the 40's. You can take my word for it or look it up yourself. Who says that should be Joe's record, you? Your opinion means little here, and it's in the record books. Live with it because you will never change it. Why do I need to post a link of Byrd looking for a rematch in a fight he won? Is this your go to know that you're out of other excuses?

Wlad opponents beaten over Louis? Lmao.....stop making a mockery of yourself already!!

[Ascended]

Just for the record. Louis fought to the spring of 1942. In fact Louis had a total of 13 fights between 1940 and 1942.

Not sure if that's relevant but then again I don't think the fact that he fought in the 1930s is relevant to his greatness either.

Maybe Ring Magazine claimed the 1930s were the weakest period but the statement has two qualifications.

1. It is just an opinion by men looking into the past. Something that should always be taken with a grain of salt. Contemporaries always either praise or bash the past with a bias.

2. Joe Louis destroyed his opponents knocking out five former world HW champions. When a man is that dominant does it really matter what Ring Magazine thinks about the period?

Everything you said is correct for his era Louis was amazing

[Ascended]

Of course you're not going to answer, because it completely undermines you whole ridiculous argument. Especially the ludicrous assertion that lateral movement has somehow evolved. It's impossible to name fighters with the exact flaws you have named because not every fighter shows those exact same flaws in ANY era. But the fact is that fighters had and will continue to have flaws in all era's. Joe Louis is about nearly as perfect fighting man you will ever see. But even he had flaws. There is no such thing as a perfect fighter. Chew on that a bit.

Impossible you say They don't fight from range much; they leave themselves open a lot. A lot of times, they will just throw themselves into the body and not protect themselves. They use mostly counters when up close; the lateral movement is very basic; they don't seem to be able to punch from range while doing it smoothly; they have to stop then punch most of the time; and their feet are mostly tiptoeing. And a lot of times they wait for the person to hit them, standing right in front of their opponent