Louis's 'bum of the month' club...

[BennyST]

If I had to choose I'd take Louis' physique over Norton and Holyfield everytime.

When you can punch harder, faster, in better combination etc, and carry around less useless muscle meaning you won't get tired as quick, and will feel lighter and less burdened why would you choose theirs?

[sonnyboyx2]

This is with out a doubt a fact. Boxrec does not equal knowledge of a fighter.

yeah your right JAB.. take away boxrec and there would only be a dozen members who frequent this section and it would be without trolling or nuthugging.

[BennyST]

yeah your right JAB.. take away boxrec and there would only be a dozen members who frequent this section and it would be without trolling or nuthugging.

That's certainly not what some would have you believe. According to some around here, you can look at someone's boxrec record and straight away tell if they are a bum or not, even if they were from fifty years ago and you have not heard of a single one of their opponents.

If they have ten or more losses, they are bums without question. No need to even consider anything else.

[frankenfrank]

Try again. Neither Foreman, Holy or Liston have better resumes and Langford was never champion. Strike one!

Foreman did have a better resume : Frazier , Norton , Chuvalo , Lyle , Moorer , Cooney , Qawi and Bert Cooper were better than Louis' opponents as a whole group. Some say he never lost to Briggs , I still didn't watch the fight.
Foreman dominated the seventies.

The problem is people like yourself trying to make Louis' victims whom were ordinary fighters at best superheroes . "Max Baer had an excellent chin and power" is one of those jokes told in all seriousness by these people.
Billy Conn is a top 10 all time LHW is another. Maybe in his time he really was.
People also forget that Walcott was Louis' age , but no argue about Louis being better H2H than Walcott.
And I watched Charles' win over him , so poor and boring showing from both men .

[frankenfrank]

Im only comparing guys they beat: Wlad lost to Sanders
besides, Simon and Peter are similiar builds. Ill maintain that Simon is about the size of Peter
Baer=Tony is fair
Ibragimov is not bigger than Walcott, imo. He may have weighed more, but that was mostly due to him having extra fat. Walcott was a pretty damn stocky guy, he just kept himself in very good, lean shape. Ill go ahead and say theyre about even uf you want.
Schmeling is bigger than Byrd, who himself said multiple times he had to eat his way to Heavyweight
Carnera is bigger than any top ten fighter Wladimir beat. When Wlad beat McCline, McCline was not top ten in the division. Austin and Jefferson certainly werent either. Im doing the top ten thing because it could be misleading...I mean, if someone beat a 7'2 Julius Long...I mean cmon, that doesnt mean much. Although McCline was a decent fighter, so Ill go ahead with you and say that McCline=Carnera.
Im not saying its fair, but you simply cant give a fighter credit for beating someone he didnt, can you?

Heres an important point: You also have to take into account that Louis was actually out of boxing for about 4 years(between 1942 and 1946) because he joined the army. He only had one fight against a nobody during this period. sort of evens things up, doesnt it?
most the guys you just mentioned had a lot of fat on them. The HWs in the 60s were, for the most part, extremely lean and in shape. They didnt have the kind of fat on them that Ibragimov, Povetkin, or Chambers did.

Sam Peter certainly doesnt look very coordinated to me(not more so than the HWs back then) and Arreola getting tattooed by that smaller Quezada guy not too long back reaffirms to me that is skills arent all that either.

a lot of the big guys you named also were never at the top of the division, I bolded them. the guys that have stuck around at the top of the division in the last 5 years are actually smaller ones like Ibragimov, Chagaev, Chris Byrd, James Toney, Povetkin, Adamek, Haye and Juan Carlos Gomez. although to be fair to you, some naturally bigger guys like Liakhovich, Valuev, Maskaev and Sam Peter have also stuck around at the top the division for a while too.

oh yea and I dont mean to nitpick, but I find it pretty impossible that McCline is 6'8, when Ive always read he was 6'51/2 or 6'6, plus the fact that he looked pretty much the same height as Wladimir when they fought.

The marked part made me jump with the reply before finishing the read.
When Wladimir stopped McCline , McCline emerged from a winning streak against Alfred Cole , Michael Grant , Lance Whitaker and Shannon Briggs . Each man except maybe (I watched the fight but forgot) Whitaker was down against him. If McCline was not top 10 at that time , it was only due to corruption . Wladimir did great justice when he chose to fight him , the clear example of fighting the best available and most dangerous. One of Wladimir's greatest wins.

[frankenfrank]

Im only comparing guys they beat: Wlad lost to Sanders
besides, Simon and Peter are similiar builds. Ill maintain that Simon is about the size of Peter

Abe Simon ? he was way bigger than Sam Peter.

Baer=Tony is fair
Ibragimov is not bigger than Walcott, imo. He may have weighed more, but that was mostly due to him having extra fat. Walcott was a pretty damn stocky guy, he just kept himself in very good, lean shape. Ill go ahead and say theyre about even uf you want.
Schmeling is bigger than Byrd, who himself said multiple times he had to eat his way to Heavyweight
Carnera is bigger than any top ten fighter Wladimir beat. When Wlad beat McCline, McCline was not top ten in the division.

Replied alarmingly for the above

Austin and Jefferson certainly werent either. Im doing the top ten thing because it could be misleading...I mean, if someone beat a 7'2 Julius Long...I mean cmon, that doesnt mean much. Although McCline was a decent fighter, so Ill go ahead with you and say that McCline=Carnera.
Im not saying its fair, but you simply cant give a fighter credit for beating someone he didnt, can you?

Heres an important point: You also have to take into account that Louis was actually out of boxing for about 4 years(between 1942 and 1946) because he joined the army. He only had one fight against a nobody during this period. sort of evens things up, doesnt it?
most the guys you just mentioned had a lot of fat on them. The HWs in the 60s were, for the most part, extremely lean and in shape. They didnt have the kind of fat on them that Ibragimov, Povetkin, or Chambers did.

Sam Peter certainly doesnt look very coordinated to me(not more so than the HWs back then) and Arreola getting tattooed by that smaller Quezada guy not too long back reaffirms to me that is skills arent all that either.

a lot of the big guys you named also were never at the top of the division, I bolded them. the guys that have stuck around at the top of the division in the last 5 years are actually smaller ones like Ibragimov, Chagaev, Chris Byrd, James Toney, Povetkin, Adamek,


Haye and Juan Carlos Gomez. although to be fair to you, some naturally bigger guys like Liakhovich, Valuev, Maskaev and Sam Peter have also stuck around at the top the division for a while too.

Haye and Gomez are not small . Haye was 200lbs as an amateur. Remember Ali , a big HW was 178lbs as an amateur , albeit it was at age 18.
Haye barely squeezed himself into 190 lbs and later into 200lbs at the pros .
If CW was available in Ali's days , he would have made it without a problem.

oh yea and I dont mean to nitpick, but I find it pretty impossible that McCline is 6'8, when Ive always read he was 6'51/2 or 6'6, plus the fact that he looked pretty much the same height as Wladimir when they fought.

Actually , in reality , McCline is in no way over 6'4".
McCline is clearly shorter than Wladimir , Whitaker and Grant , whose heights are exaggerated also.

[frankenfrank]

Holyfield
Foreman
Ali
Lewis
Tyson
Frazier

Now you have 6 , not 5.


Have better resumes than Louis .
Louis beat former champs which were smaller than himself ? Tyson beat former champs which were bigger than himself , plus he did it much more convincingly without being decked and humiliated himself.
If Holmes and Spinks don't count for Tyson then Sharkey , Conn and Braddock surely don't count for Louis.
Frazier dominated fighters better than the ones Louis dominated :
Ali , Chuvalo , Quarry , Ellis , Mathis , Doug Jones and Stander are better than almost every opponent Louis ever beat. Even Joe Bugner is about the level of Louis' best opponents he managed to beat not before visiting the canvas himself.

[JAB5239]

Holyfield
Foreman
Ali
Lewis
Tyson
Frazier

Now you have 6 , not 5.


Have better resumes than Louis .
Louis beat former champs which were smaller than himself ? Tyson beat former champs which were bigger than himself , plus he did it much more convincingly without being decked and humiliated himself.
If Holmes and Spinks don't count for Tyson then Sharkey , Conn and Braddock surely don't count for Louis.
Frazier dominated fighters better than the ones Louis dominated :
Ali , Chuvalo , Quarry , Ellis , Mathis , Doug Jones and Stander are better than almost every opponent Louis ever beat. Even Joe Bugner is about the level of Louis' best opponents he managed to beat not before visiting the canvas himself.

Your posts and information are atrocious. I'll be back sometime Saturday night to butcher this garbage, I promise.

[frankenfrank]

Wladimir has actually only beaten 10 top 10 fighters, and the only top 5 guys he beat so far are Chagaev and Byrd. not that its bad, but Louis is a little ahead.

also, a big problem with Wladimir is that he never will fight the other best fighter in his division(his brother). Louis fought the #1 contender multiple times.

there is a huge myth around this whole 'there are huge guys in todays division' thing. Other than the Klitschko brothers and Valuev(who should have lost to 45+ year old Holyfield), who exactly are these huge guys? In fact, in the top 5 there is a Cruiserweight and a Light Heavyweight.
who are the other guys? Chambers, Povetkin, and Boytsov could all be Cruiserweights if they lost weight. Especially Chambers.

whats funny is that in reality Louis beat the bigger men compared to Wladimir. when I say that I mean top guys, btw

Wlad's best wins compared to Louis'(only in size):
Byrd is smaller than Max Baer
Chagaev is smaller than Buddy Baer
Ibragimov is smaller or same size as Walcott
Chambers is smaller or same size as Schmeling
Peter is as big as Abe Simon
Carnera is bigger than anyone Wladimir beat

What you did is comparing Louis' biggest opponents to Wladimir's smallest , very expected in these forums really.
Peter is much smaller than Abe Simon.
But Carnera was no bigger than Jameel McCline.
Hassim Rahman is much bigger than Billy Conn.

But lets rearrange them , to keep it as parallel as possible :
McCline ~ Carnera
Thompson ~ Buddy Baer
Sanders ~ Simon
Puritty > Lou Nova
Brock ~ Max Baer
Brewster ~ Schmelling
Povetkin > Walcott
Ibragimov > Arturo Godoy
Chagaev > Tami Mauriello
Byrd > Conn

All in all , it would be the expected common biased bigotry to claim that the average or the average top Louis' opponent was as big as Wladimir. But you are the common poster here , so it did not come as a big surprise.

[BigStereotype]

Louis is a physical specimen if you're just talking about normal people, but is there anyone who would say that he's more built than Holyfield or Norton. Those guys were freaky ripped. Louis is the greater fighter than either, no doubt. He's the more powerful, accurate, skilled puncher, but I would say that in terms of raw, physical strength, Holyfield and Norton blew him away.