Joe Louis is sickly overrated

[Elroy1]

The term is properly written Pugilistica Dementia. In a fomer life it was in my line of work.

Everything evolves and what happened in the past will not change...... Rockin'

Well I can't argue with that statement.

Peace!

[- Ram Raid -]

Ray Corso alt!

The same style! . . . .

I envision you munching on your Cheerios, staring blankly at the newspaper's spot the difference puzzle until your breakfast goes soggy and you miss your bus to school. "Every damn morning, both pictures are the same. . . The people who make these things are idiots!"

On the other hand, it is far from inconceivable that you've created an alt and are conversing with yourself.

[Elroy1]

I envision you munching on your Cheerios, staring blankly at the newspaper's spot the difference puzzle until your breakfast goes soggy and you miss your bus to school. "Every damn morning, both pictures are the same. . . The people who make these things are idiots!"

On the other hand, it is far from inconceivable that you've created an alt and are conversing with yourself.

...Yeah right mate!

:blow:

[Monaco Slim]

The thread starter is nothing more than a disrespectful street thug.

[SterlingStained]

The thread starter is nothing more than a disrespectful street thug.

how ironic a alain prost fan calling somebody else a thug.

smdh...........

[soul_survivor]

how ironic a alain prost fan calling somebody else a thug.

smdh...........

I know right

[Greg House]

The 30's - 40's were very stacked as well, compared to this past decade it makes the 30's - 40's where the golden era.

And your argument of weight is flawwed, when smaller guys took on much bigger (Physically) competition and destroying them. Like Louis vs Carnera or Dempsey vs Willard or Ali vs Forman.

You see, this is the problem with some of the users of this forum that put the "old timers" on a pedestal. The 30's and 40's were a golden era compared to this one? Hoy many fights have you seen of all this Hws to claim that? They are all edited, in black and white, terrible quality and is really hard to find some footage of most of those heavyweights but it was a "golden era". "Anybody who was ranked in the top 10 in that era was a great boxer compared to the boxers of today who most of them are bums". Yeah, right..

Then how come the 30's and 40's had tons of lighheavyweights who moved up in weight and manage to be ranked at heavyweight while in this era that kind of achievement is incredibly rare? There's only one answer, kid. It's harder to be a TOP 10 heavyweight today than it was in the 30's and 40's. Those are facts, it's not an opinion. There were more LHW (and middleweights) ranked at HW in the 30's and 40's than there has been in the last decade.


And weight do matter. That it's also a fact. That's the reason why we have 17 divisions. Weight is a big factor in fights and can overcome talent and technique, look at the Gamboa Vs Crawford fight. The bigger they are, the less relevant it becomes but it's still a factor and the difference in weight today compared to the 30's and 40's it's huge. It would be a big factor in a fight.

Also it's actually your argument the one that's flawed. If you think that just because bums like Willard and Carnera (who were considered freakshows in their era) lost to smaller men that means weight is not a factor then you are wrong. I mean if yor are comparing his skills with the skills of people like Wlad, Vitali, Lewis or Bowe then you know nothing about boxing. Also Ali didn't "destroy" Foreman, he took a beating in that fight until Foreman got tired and Foreman wasnt that much bigger than Ali. You should actually watch the fights you mention.

[TheGreatA]

If you truly think that the heavyweights of Louis's era "******", then I would like to know, which heavyweights today possess the defensive skills of Jersey Joe Walcott?



Or the complete arsenal of punches that Joe Louis did?


Skip to 7 minutes

[Greg House]

I just posted so I'm going to assume you are talking to me. In which part of muy post I said "they ******"? I never said that, I just stated facts. I did say that Willard and Carnera were bums, but you didn't post any videos of them. I'm sure you can find some, "anyone" can look good in "highlights videos".

If you read carefully what I'm saying is that they are limited by their size and that weight is a factor. He claim's "today's heavyweight division is bad" and that the 30's were a golden era but I repeat:

How come the 30's and 40's had tons of lighheavyweights who moved up in weight and manage to be ranked at heavyweight while in this era that kind of achievement is incredibly rare?

And I repeat this:

And weight do matter. That it's also a fact. That's the reason why we have 17 divisions. Weight is a big factor in fights and can overcome talent and technique, look at the Gamboa Vs Crawford fight. The bigger they are, the less relevant it becomes but it's still a factor and the difference in weight today compared to the 30's and 40's it's huge. It would be a big factor in a fight.

Joe Louis had great technique but what happens when he faces someone like Vitali and his punches don't have the same effect that they had with all those lightheavyweights and cruiserweights he faced? What happens when is actually someone like Vitali the one who's hitting him back in the chin? P4P Louis was a great boxer, but he would be really small in these day and era. And weight do matter, that's why we have 17 divisions.

[young_robbed]

It's hard to rank the era before by ring IQ/Skill alone, because today is more advance in using different skills and techniques..

No. That is a myth, imo. Athletes today are more athletic, stronger and bigger, yes, but the skills themselves haven't improved by any means. I'd say the art of inside fighting has actually declined. Parrying is also not used as much. In