Joe Louis vs both Klitschkos

[New England]

this thread is getting good for a laugh

[Spartacus Sully]

Out of interest, just where are you getting all of this detailed info on Louis and Wlad from? Is it just by looking at the respective fight footage? Or were the mechanics of Louis's punches actually analysed at the time? Even in the modern age it's hard enough to build up an accurate model of an athlete in motion, so I'd be extremely interested in seeing how they did the same back in the 1930s.

My own opinions of both fighters, for what it's worth, is that they generate their power in much the same way: text-book punching technique coupled with innate speed, explosiveness, accuracy, timing and the natural body movements spent from a lifetime honing their craft. I certainly don't see this vast difference between the two that you seem to see, and I've watched plenty of footage of both.



I've read you post several times and this conclusion still comes out of leftfield.

Are you sure you're using the correct adjective here? Robotic implies slow, stiff, akward, when you've already said Wlad's motion is fluid and efficient, lacking resistance. Seems like "machine-like" would be a more appropriate tag to me. Perhaps even... "whip-like"? There's clearly some huge kinetic energy being built up there, as you can see from the pics or alternatively just watching a fight/HL of his. He doesn't just stick his arm out or move it in the motion of a punch like, say, Chris Arreola, or even to some extent his brother.



Ah, OK.

I hate to pull this corny old line since we've both been putting a lot of thought and effort into this, but I'm just going to have to agree to disagree on that last point.

I think Wlad is one of the most text-book, explosive and fluid one punch punchers in heavyweight history. Combos? Almost nonexistant. Individuals punches? Sublime. In fact about the only thing he could do to improve his power would be to put more weight into his shots, but that's clearly a tactical and stylistic choice rather than a lack of technique/talent.

Really can't see how you can fault him anywhere else.



Sure. I don't want to clutter up this thread with vids and pics just to debate a relatively quibbling point. The vids are easily available. I will post this one video though, which is fairly short and demonstrative of Wlad's general qualities as a puncher.



You can even hear Merchant waxing lyrical about Wlad's ath...

you can see it in their style, any one can, its quite clear.

ive stated multiple times what i mean by robotic, its unfortunate that you dont understand it and instead choose to put words in my mouth, like slow, stiff, awkward.

I have no need to waste any more time with you.

[them_apples]

they are quite robotic, but in a sense Louis is too.

[Mintcar923]

It's kind of hard to say. Primarily because, we have guys in two distinct era's. I mean, both of these guys outweigh and outsize Joe. However, Joe outshines them easily in the talent factor.

I'm gonna go out on a limb(sorta) and say that Louis would defeat both. I do believe that Vitali would give Joe much more trouble than Wlad. He has a much more awkward style that would definately present lots of problems for Joe. I think he'll have a very hard time being able to hit him for the first half of the fight. But, he'll wear him down gradually with some strong body shots. I'm speculating that he'll catch up with him somewhere around the 9th or 10th in a disappointingly dull fight. TKO for Joe Louis.

As far as Wlad goes he'll have a much more easy time. I'd say the fight would end just about the first time Wlad gets hit with one of Joe's killer bombs. The fight would somewhat resemble Wlad's fight against Sanders. The only difference would be that Joe has much more talent. Fight would last somewhere around 3-5 rounds. Wlad falls victim to the three-knockdown rule.

[nomadman]

you can see it in their style, any one can, its quite clear.

ive stated multiple times what i mean by robotic, its unfortunate that you dont understand it and instead choose to put words in my mouth, like slow, stiff, awkward.

I have no need to waste any more time with you.

I don't know why you're getting defensive/frustrated/whatever. I'm saying I don't understand how any of the above relates to Louis but not to Wlad or vice versa, not that I don't understand your definition in general. "Robotic" is a strong word, and it's hardly ever used in a complimentary manner. It implies stiffness, slowness, akwardness, that's why I asked if you meant to use it in the first place. No putting words in mouths here. Clarification.

What if you heard someone say, "Wow, Tommy Hearns was such a robotic fighter, look at the fluidity of his punches!" You'd scratch your head, right?

[Spartacus Sully]

I don't know why you're getting defensive/frustrated/whatever. I'm saying I don't understand how any of the above relates to Louis but not to Wlad or vice versa, not that I don't understand your definition in general. "Robotic" is a strong word, and it's hardly ever used in a complimentary manner. It implies stiffness, slowness, akwardness, that's why I asked if you meant to use it in the first place. No putting words in mouths here. Clarification.

What if you heard someone say, "Wow, Tommy Hearns was such a robotic fighter, look at the fluidity of his punches!" You'd scratch your head, right?

ok so since your so hung up on robotic, how do you feel about the word mechanical?

[nomadman]

ok so since your so hung up on robotic, how do you feel about the word mechanical?

You can choose whatever word you like. Just make sure it's the right word for what you want to say. Otherwise misunderstandings can occur.

"Tyson was a mechanical puncher."

Hmmm, still seems a bit off to me, but whatever.

[Spartacus Sully]

You can choose whatever word you like. Just make sure it's the right word for what you want to say. Otherwise misunderstandings can occur.

"Tyson was a mechanical puncher."

Hmmm, still seems a bit off to me, but whatever.

Ahhh i get it, your saying that youve completly ignored the several posts i made explaining in what sense robotic represents when in relation to boxing and instead simply rely on what personal feelings the word conjurs up.

since your opinion means just as much as mine, ill stick with robotic, and if you want to know what i mean by robotic read the last several posts ive made.

[nomadman]

Ahhh i get it, your saying that youve completly ignored the several posts i made explaining in what sense robotic represents when in relation to boxing and instead simply rely on what personal feelings the word conjurs up.

since your opinion means just as much as mine, ill stick with robotic, and if you want to know what i mean by robotic read the last several posts ive made.

You wouldn't have had to write any of that stuff in the first place if you'd chosen your words better. Personal feelings? I doubt you'll find a single poster on this forum or any other who uses the word "robotic" to mean what you say it means.

Like I said, stick to using the word however you like, but don't be surprised if you have to write out another series of lengthy explanations to explain your special little meaning to someone else.

"Tyson was a robotic puncher!"

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Spartacus Sully]

You wouldn't have had to write any of that stuff in the first place if you'd chosen your words better. Personal feelings? I doubt you'll find a single poster on this forum or any other who uses the word "robotic" to mean what you say it means.

Like I said, stick to using the word however you like, but don't be surprised if you have to write out another series of lengthy explanations to explain your special little meaning to someone else.

"Tyson was a robotic puncher!"

Yeah, good luck with that.

good, so we agree, the klitschkos are robotic.

theres just something about most of louis's punches that resemble a arrow fired from a bow and something about specifically wlads right hand that resembles a piston.