Joe Louis has the best record in HW world title fights... Right? Wrong!

You guys have it wrong. You are now days clearly in the realm of what is describes as "old time nutbags". I think most sober ppl these days "WITH PLENTY OF BOXING KNOWLEDGE" would agree that the guys your talking about would be banged out in an easy nights work Mr. Powerpuncher.

And as for you Spicoli, I wonder why Haye might be more hesitant than Marciano appeared to be. Take a look at the guys Haye fought and then look at the guys Rocky did. Rest my case. And David Haye didn't have to risk as much regardless because he knew how to box, Marciano barely did.

I would like to see how confident Marciano would be were he to have fought Wladimir Klitschko instead of Haye, ha. We all know what would happen there. Rocky would be knocked out with the first connected jab. Fact!

Audley Harrison would have dominated the Marciano era. I'm positive of THAT!

I have another test, which I've performed numerous times to my expected affect.

Take a woman, or a child or somebody else who knows nothing at all of boxing. Coach them not at all. Put them in front of an olden days championship fight, then put them in front of a modern championship fight, and ask them to honestly tell you which set looks better?

Almost all say the same thing. The old guys look weak, slow and unco. The new guys look fast, strong and crisp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

I have another test, which I've performed numerous times to my expected affect.

Take a woman, or a child or somebody else who knows nothing at all of boxing. Coach them not at all. Put them in front of an olden days championship fight, then put them in front of a modern championship fight, and ask them to honestly tell you which set looks better?

Almost all say the same thing. The old guys look weak, slow and unco. The new guys look fast, strong and crisp.

---

Could be the recording technology of the time.
Current Heavyweight Title holder Vitali Klitschko is the same physical size and fights virtually the exact same way as Big Jess Willard from about 100 years ago....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srrmj6eAFGc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2avGXM0Dhw

^ About 4:48 of the Willard clip for a better closeup of Big Jess...

Y'know, I pressed play on both of them at the same time, it's really quite remarkable just how similar Vitali Klitschko and Big Jess Willard fought.

They fight tall, both hands down at the waist, pawing with the jab, an occasional straight right, and tie up and hold whenever the man gets in close.

Quote:

---

Y'know, I pressed play on both of them at the same time, it's really quite remarkable just how similar Vitali Klitschko and Big Jess Willard fought.

They fight tall, both hands down at the waist, pawing with the jab, an occasional straight right, and tie up and hold whenever the man gets in close.

---

And another smart ass is born! LOL

I think I could find more fitting comparisons than that.

I guess you can find shit looking clips of fights in any era.

So much for that argument lol, well done Bradlee!... Asshole!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

And another smart ass is born! LOL

I think I could find more fitting comparisons than that.

I guess you can find shit looking clips of fights in any era.

So much for that argument lol, well done Bradlee!... Asshole!

---

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...oad/BowLge.gif


Gotcha !

:laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgqXePuEnzc

:rocks:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

You guys have it wrong. You are now days clearly in the realm of what is describes as "old time nutbags". I think most sober ppl these days "WITH PLENTY OF BOXING KNOWLEDGE" would agree that the guys your talking about would be banged out in an easy nights work Mr. Powerpuncher.

And as for you Spicoli, I wonder why Haye might be more hesitant than Marciano appeared to be. Take a look at the guys Haye fought and then look at the guys Rocky did. Rest my case. And David Haye didn't have to risk as much regardless because he knew how to box, Marciano barely did.

I would like to see how confident Marciano would be were he to have fought Wladimir Klitschko instead of Haye, ha. We all know what would happen there. Rocky would be knocked out with the first connected jab. Fact!

Audley Harrison would have dominated the Marciano era. I'm positive of THAT!

---

can you find me any boxing historian or expert that thinks like you? thats an honest question because i would be very interested in finding someone that has studied boxing for a living and thinks that haye would beat louis. again, i understand on the internet it may sound sarcastic, but im serious. if you could find some sort of expert on boxing that agrees with you, i would love to see it.

I am surrounded by people who discuss boxing current and serious all the time. And I assure you most guys would agree that Haye would destroy Louis. It could not really be otherwise, just look at them.

Boxing historians opinions are not worth a drop of piss in the dessert when it comes to these matters and I'm not sure these so called "experts" on such matters are more equipped to draw any conclusions than what I am.

I think you'll find there is a very large "status quo" in line with your thinking around the gyms and forums but you will also find that there is a very large and ever growing number of "realist" fans like myself who happen to study the fights and the facts and look at it purely for how it really is without bias and influence. That is what makes an "expert" not writing a "back in my day book".

Futhermore your opinions are predominant only in America, and to a lesser extent Britain, and are pretty much frowned upon elsewhere (in Europe and Australia) which is a coincidence since most of these guys you are trying to save are "good old American heroes".

What you have to understand is a lot of these "experts" are "expected" to make such claims, for the several obvious reasons why they would want to promote the glory of the past. And the worst of all is the "old time historian".

I can think of some and there are articles on the internet but let me present to you Evander Holyfield. He was "told" to say that his era couldn't hold a candle to previous but went against the script mid interview and said what he really though. Respectfully of course, but pretty much admitting that he'd have smashed Louis!

David Haye is virtually the slickest HW we've had to date. Some of the best reflexes ever seen. He has problems against hard punchers with great delivery skills.

Louis couldn't land shit on Haye that would be worth anything. Were they to fight today, Haye would dominate him and knock him out.

Any so called "expert" must know this. If they really do their research properly and really reach an alternate conclusion, then they are either no expert at all... Or they are lying!

Regarding sports, Boxing is unique.

For example, despite a much larger global population, there was more Boxing matches per year that now during the mid to late 1920s(Dempsey), early 1930s, and the mid to late 1940s(Louis).

Early records are incomplete, but there is stats that over 27 thousand pro bouts did happen in 1931.
Nowadays, despite a much larger global population, we have about 20 000 pro bouts per year.

In the early 1980s Golden Age (Hagler, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, Duran), there were about 12 to almost 15 thousand pro bouts per year.

The point is Joe Louis ruled the roost for 12 years and 25 Title defenses when there was far more Boxing than now, and what Joe ruled over has now been broken up into 2 weight classes.
1946 (Louis/Conn) has over 28 thousand matches that year.

David Haye is a world class fighter and has accomplishments, but they pale in comparison to the Great Joe Louis' accomplishments.

I think Joe Louis is the most fundamentally sound Heavyweight Champ in Boxing history.
Physically, they're about the same size. Louis carried his power late into fights, didn't gas out.

Haye is not very slick at all. He has very fast hands though.
With a better Coach to refine him for the top levels, Haye could have added more tools to his arsenal, the potential was there. Like how Roach refined and developed Pacquiao further. Like what Emanuel Stewart was able to do for Lennox and Wladimir. In Haye's entire career, he hasn't fought anything like what Joe Louis was.

With the exception of Chisora, all David the Fucking Sissy Haye's opponents were in their late 30's with many recent loses on their records. How can you consider him ELITE when he's fighting over the hill bums who have lost 2, 3 or 4 of their most recent fights?!!!

You are possibly the biggest idiot to have posted on Saddo's -- save for the racists and homophobes. Congratulations @Max Power... You're in tremendous company. You MORON!

Complete rose-coloured glasses I'm afraid. Joe Louis demonstratably has trouble slipping punches. David Haye vs Wladimir Klitschko, made the long range, fast and accurate Wladimir miss all night, only 25% punch accuracy from the champ!

Haye barely sustains any damage whole career, Louis was a punch bag. Haye fought and beat giant boxers with condition and skill Louis outsized 90%! of his opponents, of the 6 bigger boxers he faced, only 3 were real giants and they were all complete oafs. Haye was outgunned at HW in all his fights!

Louis was bested by cruiser Max Scmelling, dropped by an emporer penguin, a danny DeVito look alike in Tony Galento. Haye would not be allowed to KO Schmelling and would laugh at Galento.

I'm sorry but either you cannot have watched Haye's fights, have seen them and know I'm right but are trying to cover it up or you have some special issues if you don't think Haye is slick at all.

Same for Louis. If you really watch Louis one can only conclude is that his performance relative to today is not very impressive.

Joe Louis never fought anybody like David Haye more like it, if Joe Louis had decent coaching like Haye he might be as polished as Haye, THAT's more like it. And Haye has fought opponents like Louis before... In the Amatuers!

It's interesting to note though that you implied the truth, that the modern division is one of the MOST active of all time and the Louis and Dempsey eras were exceptions.

However you alluded to but didn't complete the picture- The HW era then was a combined CW+HW era. If you take CW and HW eras together today then guess what.. You find there were MORE fights now!

And another even more important point- there are comparable fights now even despite the fact that those old guys fought for a dollar and a meal ticket every month or so where as the modern HW fights only 3 times a year. Kind of shits all over the nobody is interested in boxing anymore theory doesn't it!

You are a grade A clown comparing Haye with the great Joe Louis is silly. Haye lost against the great cruiserweight Thompson, so how can you compare?

Rocco I never said Haye is greater than Louis, let's get that straight, he is not to be mentioned alongside Louis in that sense, and you'll notice Haye doesn't appear on the title list either.

But I MUST insist on Haye beating the living crap out of Louis.. Not in a competitive fight either.

Haye would belt up Louis like it was an easy sparring session, not even close!

And that's just a plain fact, like it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Complete rose-coloured glasses I'm afraid. Joe Louis demonstratably has trouble slipping punches. David Haye vs Wladimir Klitschko, made the long range, fast and accurate Wladimir miss all night, only 25% punch accuracy from the champ!

Haye barely sustains any damage whole career, Louis was a punch bag. Haye fought and beat giant boxers with condition and skill Louis outsized 90%! of his opponents, of the 6 bigger boxers he faced, only 3 were real giants and they were all complete oafs. Haye was outgunned at HW in all his fights!

Louis was bested by cruiser Max Scmelling, dropped by an emporer penguin, a danny DeVito look alike in Tony Galento. Haye would not be allowed to KO Schmelling and would laugh at Galento.

I'm sorry but either you cannot have watched Haye's fights, have seen them and know I'm right but are trying to cover it up or you have some special issues if you don't think Haye is slick at all.

Same for Louis. If you really watch Louis one can only conclude is that his performance relative to today is not very impressive.

Joe Louis never fought anybody like David Haye more like it, if Joe Louis had decent coaching like Haye he might be as polished as Haye, THAT's more like it. And Haye has fought opponents like Louis before... In the Amatuers!

It's interesting to note though that you implied the truth, that the modern division is one of the MOST active of all time and the Louis and Dempsey eras were exceptions.

However you alluded to but didn't complete the picture- The HW era then was a combined CW+HW era. If you take CW and HW eras together today then guess what.. You find there were MORE fights now!

And another even more important point- there are comparable fights now even despite the fact that those old guys fought for a dollar and a meal ticket every month or so where as the modern HW fights only 3 times a year. Kind of shits all over the nobody is interested in boxing anymore theory doesn't it!

---

Your "insightful" comments about Haye vs Klit would only be relevant if Haye had won so much as ONE ROUND... He lost the whole fight... Start to finish. So it doesn't matter what Klitschko's connect percentage was because Haye did FUCKALL!!!

Haye beat giant boxers with no skill or stamina. Yes they were bigger. Were they utter shit? YES!!! Is Valuev a good fighter despite the fact that he is bigger than most old school heavyweights? NO! He sucks no matter what era he fought in. I'd pick any of the TOP current middleweight, supermiddle, light heavy or cruiserweights to beat Valuev. That fucking giant was a JOKE!

The fact that Louis had tough fights over the course of his career attests to the skills of the opponents at the time not to the skills of the current HW fighters who are steroid using fat fucks or pseudo giants with little or no co-ordination.

As for your comments about SIZE... POUND 4POUND given all the opportunities of DIET, MEDICINE, SCIENCE and STEROIDS the greats of yesteryear would have KICKED the ASSES of the FAT FUCKS of today.

Your limited agenda has been exposed. Stop trying to argue the same point over and over again.

Get a girlfriend. Start banging your mom. Date a dude.... Whatever it takes, but stop trying to change facts. You look like sad fucking moron every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

I have another test, which I've performed numerous times to my expected affect.

Take a woman, or a child or somebody else who knows nothing at all of boxing. Coach them not at all. Put them in front of an olden days championship fight, then put them in front of a modern championship fight, and ask them to honestly tell you which set looks better?

Almost all say the same thing. The old guys look weak, slow and unco. The new guys look fast, strong and crisp.

---

Ha! Really? Your dumb argument puts you firmly in the camp of the ignorant and ill informed. Enjoy your X Factor "talent" and the vacuous celebrity twit filled world that masquerades as ability. You are quite obviously not interested in rationality or a discussion and therefor are simply trolling. You are suggesting that people ignore trainers, boxers themselves and promoters, journalists etc with decades of first hand experience and entertain your own proposal simply because you are personally unable to understand conventional thought on what constitutes greatness in a boxer. You are accusing people of wearing rose tinted glasses whilst burying your own head in a hole.

As a matter of fact Rocco, I presented facts, THE facts, that aren't changed and you couldn't handle them.

I did give up on trying to educate you, long ago.

But for some reason you keep popping up out of the woodwork for more and you can throw abuse all you want but at the end of the day... These so called "fat fucks" are still gonna kick your favourites asses! ;)

By the way I'm married and have 1 month til the birth of my first child, going to be called by coincidence... Max! =P

So you should only have to put up with adversity for the next month then I'll be too busy to be argue and you can go back to your little fantasy land where Louis beats up todays HW division. But until then... He's a great champion in an ancient era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

As a matter of fact Rocco, I presented facts, THE facts, that aren't changed and you couldn't handle them.

I did give up on trying to educate you, long ago.

But for some reason you keep popping up out of the woodwork for more and you can throw abuse all you want but at the end of the day... These so called "fat fucks" are still gonna kick your favourites asses! ;)

By the way I'm married and have 1 month til the birth of my first child, going to be called by coincidence... Max! =P

So you should only have to put up with adversity for the next month then I'll be too busy to be argue and you can go back to your little fantasy land where Louis beats up todays HW division. But until then... He's a great champion in an ancient era.

---

i feel like you have presented some facts but your last few posts have just been random ranting about you knowing better than everybody with absolutely no facts. you said that you have talked to a lot of people who know boxing that would agree with you. i will tell you that i have not talked to anybody who knows boxing that would agree with you and thats a fact. that means that i have to just trust your word that your friends (or whoever you are talking to) know a lot about boxing and its history and also agree with you. its hard to trust that when i havent met anyone with your opinions. maybe you hang out with people like you though.

like i keep saying, if you cant trust "experts" or historians then i dont know what to tell you. they, along with many other people including myself, have seen many old fights and can clearly see that someone like joe louis was great and that david haye is just good. for example, if you watch 5 joe louis fights and 5 haye fights, i guarantee you that anybody who really knows boxing will be able to easily observe that louis has way more skill set than haye.

and did you live in the 30's? you are just assuming that people like galento and schmelling are bad boxers? schmelling was actually a very good fighter. galento was fat but wasnt as bad as most people think. he was actually very athletic and strong. he just didnt train hard. kind of like a lot of HWs today. the difference is that galento wasnt considered a top fighter like arreola.

Joe Louis---26 consecutive title defenses. Holy Fuck!

cut the cock off of anyone who talks shit about The Bomber.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8447/7...8c868d2e_z.jpg

What constitutes an "expert" to you? Many of us box, have boxed, train boxing, watch boxing, know boxing and analyse it all the time so aren't we the "experts".

It pisses me off when guys like you turn away from true facts to bring up a statement issued by a guy in a position of authority to support your argument when that statement in the first place was not backed up with anything solid to start.

At the end of the day perspectives are perspectives. But facts are also facts.
Where do you live? I know that nobody in their right bloody mind around any of the gyms in Adelaide SA thinks that Joe Louis would be anything but a punch bag in the modern HW division. They call him as I do a great champion in his day, who might do alright at CW today if he was modern trained.

It is easy to point out on film how lacking Louis is really compared to Haye. If I hadn't done this already many times I wouldn't be so confident about it.

And here you go again, comparing Galento to Arreola! Why cause Arreola was a bit fat too? He was never as fat as Galento and Galento not only didn't train, he drank a gallon of grog before his fights. Arreola is considered a top fighter because he IS a great fighter. Galento was pathetic, just fat and strong and nothing else and the fact that he was a top fighter in the 30's is ABSOLUTE PROOF AGAIN that the Louis era was a vey weak era!

Basically today, you are unable to be a bum and sub200lbs are forbidden..

The further you go back in time, the lighter the opponents get and the more bums are prevalent.

The 70's was about the point where the division was about half HW and half CW. And half the guys were bums.

Previous eras to that like Louis's were cruiser divisions MAINLY and were riddled with bums mainly!

And this can be shown statistically in the records. Is becoming the general consensus abroad. And in my opinion is supported by the film evidence (empirical) as well as the other forms. It is a fact!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

What constitutes an "expert" to you?

---

Well, it's not you anyway, that's for damn sure!

I think I make thoroughly reasonable assessments based on many forms of evidence and completely free of nationalist, racist, authoritarian and nostalgic bias. The 4 "evils" of boxing... sport... science.. and anything in life in general really.

I think that puts me on the playing field as much as any self-proclaimed "expert".

Most of these "experts" who make claims like "the modern HW division is weak" or "current boxers lack skills, are fat and out of shape" are not just flat out wrong or lying, they are guys who do not have to stand up against these guys in the ring... And fight them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

I think I make thoroughly reasonable assessments based on many forms of evidence and completely free of nationalist, racist, authoritarian and nostalgic bias. The 4 "evils" of boxing... sport... science.. and anything in life in general really.

I think that puts me on the playing field as much as any self-proclaimed "expert".

Most of these "experts" who make claims like "the modern HW division is weak" or "current boxers lack skills, are fat and out of shape" are not just flat out wrong or lying, they are guys who do not have to stand up against these guys in the ring... And fight them!

---

thats exactly right. we all had a meeting without you and made a pact that we would lie about boxers from the past being good. and no, you are not in the playing field of people who have watched old fights live and have trained for many years at a high level. that is just an ignorant and arrogant statement.

Funny you mention that because what professional boxer do you know today that would tell you he would get bashed up by his counterpart from 80 years ago? or 50? Not a great many, smashing that argument.

And the other class you mentioned, the codger who seen the old fights live. I have seen much of what I need on film... NOW. And don't you think a less analytical eye than my own, seeing something ringside where things are a little more difficult to perceive than on film in the first instance and cannot be replayed again and the memory of which will deteriorate with time, and then write about it, your telling me this type of historian is a reliable resource over solid evidence and statistical facts?

Your beliefs are akin to a religion, your sect of guys who believe this and pat each other on the back are like a church and your historians are like its preachers and you and your kind are like the parish sheep than listen to sermon.

And me and my kind are like Galileo or Bruno, I forget which one now, showing you all the world is round and can't understand why in light of overwhelming evidence you still can't let go of the idea that it's flat.

That's what I think!

i would say that a lot of boxers would admit that they would lose to past fighters. now maybe ones with certain personalities like floyd may never admit it whether or not he truly believes it, but i would bet you that most cruisers today would admit that they lose to joe louis.

and again, dont you see that you are the only person that is looking at old fights and seeing all of these flaws? nobody else is other than your "friends" in texas. and dont pretend like you are like galileo and have some knowledge that nobody else does. galileo spent so many years researching the stars and planets. he was an expert in his field. but i guess by your logic, i am an expert in astronomy too because i say so.

No, I consider myself as valid as any expert because I have put in the time and effort to learn and verify all the things I talk about. I don't NEED to rely on heresay. I can cross reference but I arm myself with my own knowledge.

In his day for example Gallileo was NOT regarded as correct by the church, only by his fellow scientists who seen also and knew he wad right. Some of these guys didn't want to speak up. These are analogous to the guys in the boxing world who agree but don't say so because the old time nutbags will shut them down.

But history shows that the nutbags always lose eventually. And every year you can see there is more of us and less of you and already the tables have turned.

I should judge by the end of the decade, most people will be realistic about boxing and nutbaggery will be a thing of the past!

I just want you to know that I DO in fact respect these past warriors. That gets lost arguing with you about it because it's necessary to break them to show the truth as you try to do to modern boxers.

But in their day, they were the champions and nothing can take that from them.

If you're talking using a time machine and taking either Haye back or Louis forward, David Haye would decapitate Joe Louis.

Sport science and athleticism has come way too far. An athlete from the 30's isn't going to compete with a modern athlete. That's just silly. Take a look at the olympic records/times back in the 30s when Joe was in his prime and now.

But you can only judge a guy by how he competed in his particular time, and Joe had an incredible legacy. He fought a lot of guys that had no business in the ring with him, but he did fight and destroy a lot of A-quality fighters, so to me Joe deserves the highest honours.

One of the true greats for sure.

Quote:

---

i would say that a lot of boxers would admit that they would lose to past fighters. now maybe ones with certain personalities like floyd may never admit it whether or not he truly believes it, but i would bet you that most cruisers today would admit that they lose to joe louis.

---

Really. Let's ask Wladimir Klitschko how he thinks he would perform too against Muhammad Ali, or Chris Arreola, another brutally honest contender? Let's ask Mike Tyson or Evander Holyfield what he thinks of his honest chances vs Joe Louis? I know they will want to show respect. But I also know what their answer will be! ;) And I like it how you singled out the CW's against Joe Louis, you were apparently hesitant to compare him to the HW's now ;) ;)

Beanflicker;

Yeah on your last part I said something similar above, because of have been so brash about this topic a lot of guys now obviously will have the idea that I hate the old timers and have no respect. That's simply not true. I definitely do. I love boxing and if it wasn't for great champions of the past we wouldn't HAVE boxing as it is. I believe as you have said that you should only judge a champions performance against the criteria of his day and in doing that.. OF COURSE Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali etc are some of the greatest champions to have ever lived.

I would never, have never, disputed that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Quote:

---

i would say that a lot of boxers would admit that they would lose to past fighters. now maybe ones with certain personalities like floyd may never admit it whether or not he truly believes it, but i would bet you that most cruisers today would admit that they lose to joe louis.

---

Really. Let's ask Wladimir Klitschko how he thinks he would perform too against Muhammad Ali, or Chris Arreola, another brutally honest contender? Let's ask Mike Tyson or Evander Holyfield what he thinks of his honest chances vs Joe Louis? I know they will want to show respect. But I also know what their answer will be! ;) And I like it how you singled out the CW's against Joe Louis, you were apparently hesitant to compare him to the HW's now ;) ;)

Beanflicker;

Yeah on your last part I said something similar above, because of have been so brash about this topic a lot of guys now obviously will have the idea that I hate the old timers and have no respect. That's simply not true. I definitely do. I love boxing and if it wasn't for great champions of the past we wouldn't HAVE boxing as it is. I believe as you have said that you should only judge a champions performance against the criteria of his day and in doing that.. OF COURSE Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali etc are some of the greatest champions to have ever lived.

I would never, have never, disputed that!

---

P4P with equal nutrition, steroids and scientific training methods, the old fighters would WHOOP the ASSES of the new generation of heavyweights.

Just like Maidana did Broner.

They're cut from a different cloth!

lb for lb, steroid for steroid, training for training whatever. That is not what this is about. It's about how they IN FACT WERE.

You MAY or MAY NOT be right there but that is a purely subjective thing to assess and if that could be the case those guys would all BE just like modern fighters, they would not BE who they were then!

Your statement is, at it's core... Utterly ridiculous.

And just what the hell has Maidana vs Broner got to do with this topic?

Maidana and Broner might be cut from a different cloth. Yeah that may be true, I'll throw you that bone, Broner shoots his mouth beyond his ability and Maidana prefers to let his fists decide those matters first. Good for Maidana there. But he is just as "modern" as Broner is. He's no throw back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Quote:

---

i would say that a lot of boxers would admit that they would lose to past fighters. now maybe ones with certain personalities like floyd may never admit it whether or not he truly believes it, but i would bet you that most cruisers today would admit that they lose to joe louis.

---

Really. Let's ask Wladimir Klitschko how he thinks he would perform too against Muhammad Ali, or Chris Arreola, another brutally honest contender? Let's ask Mike Tyson or Evander Holyfield what he thinks of his honest chances vs Joe Louis? I know they will want to show respect. But I also know what their answer will be! ;) And I like it how you singled out the CW's against Joe Louis, you were apparently hesitant to compare him to the HW's now ;) ;)

---

i used the CW example because you used it too. its a more extreme example. and im sure that arreola would admit that he would lose to ali. also, mike tyson has studied old fighters a ton and im sure that he would admit that some of the older fighters would beat him. i would be very surprised if he said that he was too good for all of them.

im not sure why some people are arguing with you and calling you dumb though because it seems that some agree with you on here that without modern techniques and training that older fighters couldnt beat current fighters. if you agree with that then im not sure why anybody is arguing with you because i understand that thats your whole argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

No, I consider myself as valid as any expert because I have put in the time and effort to learn and verify all the things I talk about. I don't NEED to rely on heresay. I can cross reference but I arm myself with my own knowledge.

In his day for example Gallileo was NOT regarded as correct by the church, only by his fellow scientists who seen also and knew he wad right. Some of these guys didn't want to speak up. These are analogous to the guys in the boxing world who agree but don't say so because the old time nutbags will shut them down.

But history shows that the nutbags always lose eventually. And every year you can see there is more of us and less of you and already the tables have turned.

I should judge by the end of the decade, most people will be realistic about boxing and nutbaggery will be a thing of the past!

I just want you to know that I DO in fact respect these past warriors. That gets lost arguing with you about it because it's necessary to break them to show the truth as you try to do to modern boxers.

But in their day, they were the champions and nothing can take that from them.

---

you can consider yourself an expert but that doesnt count. i can read science books and consider myself an expert at science but it doesnt mean that i am. and comparing the galileo situation is completely different. that was a religious culture which was being compromised. i havent heard anybody switching sides as you claim. no more people than normal are saying that todays fighters would beat older fighters unless you are talking about random boxing fans who started to like boxing and have never seen older fights.

i have not met one person or read anybody on the internet that really knows their boxing history and has watched a lot of old fights that agree with you. not one. and no, i dont believe that you know that much about boxing history. you may know a little but not anywhere near a lot of people. i have put in many hours over years studying boxing and i still know nothing compared to some people. which brings us full circle as to why we are not experts in the sports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

lb for lb, steroid for steroid, training for training whatever. That is not what this is about. It's about how they IN FACT WERE.

You MAY or MAY NOT be right there but that is a purely subjective thing to assess and if that could be the case those guys would all BE just like modern fighters, they would not BE who they were then!

Your statement is, at it's core... Utterly ridiculous.

And just what the hell has Maidana vs Broner got to do with this topic?

Maidana and Broner might be cut from a different cloth. Yeah that may be true, I'll throw you that bone, Broner shoots his mouth beyond his ability and Maidana prefers to let his fists decide those matters first. Good for Maidana there. But he is just as "modern" as Broner is. He's no throw back.

---

@Max Power ... you don't even understand what i wrote. You're symptomatic of a type of person who takes only what he wants from a conversation or set of ideas and then warps it to suit their own interests. I feel bad for your future children....and your baby's mama.

P4P given all the advantages that the current fighters have the forefathers of the sport would have DESTROYED your precious & heartless fat boys of today. FACT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

I have another test, which I've performed numerous times to my expected affect.

Take a woman, or a child or somebody else who knows nothing at all of boxing. Coach them not at all. Put them in front of an olden days championship fight, then put them in front of a modern championship fight, and ask them to honestly tell you which set looks better?

Almost all say the same thing. The old guys look weak, slow and unco. The new guys look fast, strong and crisp.

---

That is fucking irrelevant and you prove it yourself. You can watch David Haye, then watch Joe Louis, and pick Haye to stop Louis??
What do you know of punching technique? Of balance? Of fighting?
Your baiting grows tiresome.

There are lots of pointless and idiotic statements issued by some posters here. But I would like to answer to one from powerpuncher that I found intriguing...

Quote:

---

i used the CW example because you used it too. its a more extreme example. and im sure that arreola would admit that he would lose to ali. also, mike tyson has studied old fighters a ton and im sure that he would admit that some of the older fighters would beat him. i would be very surprised if he said that he was too good for all of them.

---

Arreola would know he could stop Ali. Any guy like Arreola seeing how Frazier managed to get Ali and trouble him knows that he would be far too much for him to handle. He's an inch taller and 30lbs heftier for a start. He is even more aggressive than Frazier with a much harder punch which he can throw in combinations too as opposed to Joe's single shots, has better footwork than Joe, is faster and has an excellent chin compared to Joe's glass one. Chris is brash and brutally honest and knows he would overwhelm Ali by comparison. And he is not dumb enough like Foreman to punch himself out.

Mike Tyson has gone on record before claiming that he thinks he could beat all that came before, as has Holyfield and even declares honestly that every fighter thinks they could have beaten the new guys once they retire but then goes on to admit that that probably isn't true because they are stronger and better trained today an have built on past experiences. He then mentions the Klitschko's are doing great.

But hey, what do the fighters know? Let's take the word of a sidelined historian from a bunch of years ago.

A quick look at Mike Tyson's physical presence, an assessment of his fights and style and attributes is evidence enough for me that none who came before Mike could have beaten Mike. No not Ali and not George either, or Liston and definitely not Frazier! lol

Stop being selective about what Tyson says to suit your silly agenda.

Tyson also said that with no drugs, and just good hard training he essentially would wipe out the Klit brothers.

Tyson also said he was going to eat Lennox Lewis' children...of which he had none at the time.

This guy made this topic on ESB as well. He said Peter is better than Frazier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VG_Addict

This guy made this topic on ESB as well. He said Peter is better than Frazier.

---

this guy is the worst.

Tyson has moments of rationality and irrationality. I think it's obvious which is which.

Peter and Frazier are quite comparable. When Peter fought Wladimir Klitschko the 2nd time he was primarily fighting out of a bob and weave style that reminded a lot of people, Emanuel Steward too I might add, of the late Joe Frazier.

The main difference between Peter and Frazier is that, Peter hads a good chin, Joe doesn't. Peter has a very hard punch, Joe doesn't. Peter weighs 240lbs, Joe weighs 210! Peter was at his prime ripped like a bodybuilder, you will NEVER see an image of Frazier with a 6-pack! Peter has an extensive and good record against REAL HW opponents with good records. Frazier has a smaller record against bums and cruisers MAINLY.

Peter is famed for his punching power and is credited for giving Wlad probably his toughest battle in which he was victorious.

Frazier is famous for only 2 reasons- His trilogy with Ali in which he beat him once and is thus special to fans, revealing Ali was in fact a very limited fighter for not being able to handle such a feeble opponent.

And for getting demolished 2ce by George Foreman KO2 KO5- a limited slugger with little more than a really big punch proving as well Frazier's limitedness.

Samuel Peter > Joe Frazier in both h2h AND in achievements (what did he do really?) = FACT!