Re: 1973 George Foreman vs 1942 Joe Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
If you are not here for debating then you are in the wrong place. :)
mission is to spread the truth on video, you for a fact can't make the louis era more advanced than video shows,you're not sane like the rest here acting like you can alter video, they look like novices like my video shows
I'll keep spreading the truth I'll be on other sites spreading the truth to,does that hurt, I'm already on 2 tube and another place and I'll be joining more, I'm ascended
Nice to see you back, but more importantly, nice to see your cut and paste still works! đź‘Ť
Nice to see you're still not sane cant see good like the rest like you here,and can't alter the louis era to be more advanced than video shows
Why am I not sane ? I have not disputed or debated any of the points you made. (Actually, when I say “any”, it’s the same point cut and pasted a million times!)
To be honest, I have so little interest in your posts that I haven’t read them sufficiently to make a comment one way or another.
All I will say , and it is an undeniable FACT , is that you have a lazy style of posting that just regurgitates the same drivel time after time not making any point to back up your opinion and counter anybody’s to the contrary.
That’s why people get pissed off with it and think you’re a Dopey fucker!
So to summarise, congratulations! You’ve even got me to waste 5 minutes of my life replying to you.👍
I repeat it cause it's fact on video why does that bother you?, oh cause I'm not speaking about fictional versions of fighters?,cause I'm not speaking about fictional highlighted versions of fighters that don't show everything I'm dopey for that reason?,
I'm not anything you not sane people call me,
I actually can see good and base everything I say from full rounds, cause I'm not speaking the so-called correct way of debating by using matches of a person that he fought in 1 era and 1 other person who they fought in their own era makes me wrong?
that's a flawed way to compare era's by you guy's logic,because usually the older era never fought anybody as advanced as the guy in the future
which is why I started comparing era advances instead where anybody who has good vision can clearly see the differences that automatically should tell people which person would win if they understand advances and the sport
So where did you get an opinion from when I posted video, see how you're not sane and a liar nothing I say is an opinion from my mind its all on video
It's fact the louis era looks like novices compared to o 70s-90s my video shows that,it shows not even no names were as horrible in 70s-90s like they were in louis era not a opinion
Re: 1973 George Foreman vs 1942 Joe Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
If you are not here for debating then you are in the wrong place. :)
mission is to spread the truth on video, you for a fact can't make the louis era more advanced than video shows,you're not sane like the rest here acting like you can alter video, they look like novices like my video shows
I'll keep spreading the truth I'll be on other sites spreading the truth to,does that hurt, I'm already on 2 tube and another place and I'll be joining more, I'm ascended
Nice to see you back, but more importantly, nice to see your cut and paste still works! đź‘Ť
Nice to see you're still not sane cant see good like the rest like you here,and can't alter the louis era to be more advanced than video shows
Why am I not sane ? I have not disputed or debated any of the points you made. (Actually, when I say “any”, it’s the same point cut and pasted a million times!)
To be honest, I have so little interest in your posts that I haven’t read them sufficiently to make a comment one way or another.
All I will say , and it is an undeniable FACT , is that you have a lazy style of posting that just regurgitates the same drivel time after time not making any point to back up your opinion and counter anybody’s to the contrary.
That’s why people get pissed off with it and think you’re a Dopey fucker!
So to summarise, congratulations! You’ve even got me to waste 5 minutes of my life replying to you.👍
I repeat it cause it's fact on video why does that bother you?, oh cause I'm not speaking about fictional versions of fighters?,cause I'm not speaking about fictional highlighted versions of fighters that don't show everything I'm dopey for that reason?,
I'm not anything you not sane people call me,
I actually can see good and base everything I say from full rounds, cause I'm not speaking the so-called correct way of debating by using matches of a person that he fought in 1 era and 1 other person who they fought in their own era makes me wrong?
that's a flawed way to compare era's by you guy's logic,because usually the older era never fought anybody as advanced as the guy in the future
which is why I started comparing era advances instead where anybody who has good vision can clearly see the differences that automatically should tell people which person would win if they understand advances and the sport
So where did you get an opinion from when I posted video, see how you're not sane and a liar nothing I say is an opinion from my mind its all on video
It's fact the louis era looks like novices compared to o 70s-90s my video shows that,it shows not even no names were as horrible in 70s-90s like they were in louis era not a opinion
I repeat Why am I not sane ?
Re: 1973 George Foreman vs 1942 Joe Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs. guys in the 70s-'90s
They look like novices to you because you and most ppl just use their eyes most in judging a fighter. Strong impressions gathered under an emotional load are not trustworthy. Sometimes, what one feels he "already knows" is a false guide.
Boxing is different to ANY OTHER SPORT
Will power cannot immediately lift a sprinter to run the 100m a second faster, but indomitable will power can assist a boxer bent on an errand "thought to be impossible." Even a boxer who has less than perfect technique can be a great fighter whereas almost every other sport requires perfect technique to excel.
No one will break sprinting or swimming records without near perfect technique, nor power lifting records or high jumping records. A chess player with heaps of will power and an I.Q of 100 can never win a world chess title. But a man with bad technique can win a boxing title, immediate reserves of will can and often do make the final difference.
So boxing, unlike basically every single other timed, individual sport on earth, does not rely on being bigger, stronger, faster etc. You're looking at other sports like Running, Soccer, Rugby and seeing the improvement in those and you think that this logic applies to boxing
But, the big thing is that in every other sport, whilst doing your thing, it doesn't involve you getting punched in the face.
Boxing is the hurt business.
It's a primitive sport that doesn't rely on the stuff you think it does, and won't evolve in the same way and the history of the sport shows this over and over and over and over.
History has repeated itself a thousand fold with boxing. The bigger, stronger, faster guy does not equal the better guy. Then comes the body type. In boxing, it really makes no difference. We only need to look Andy Ruiz - AJ in the first fight. It's not a team sport, so an entire team of bigger, stronger, faster guys might mean something...but boxing doesn't work that way. It's just you and someone else punching each other.
By the way, by "primitive", I don't mean in terms of skill. It's obviously not. I mean in the sense that what shoes you wear aren't going to make nearly as much of a difference as a sprinters would have. The surface that a track guy runs on now compared to 50 years ago alone would make a huge difference in time. Add in streamlined clothes and lightweight spiked shoes and you increase time by a significant margin with that alone. That is a huge part of the evolution of sprinting. Steroids are obviously a much bigger one
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
My video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought. In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on foreman or people he fought?
I stand by the fact that boxing is the least evolved sport
If we look at the act of punching each other in the face and make a similar graph as we might for baseball or soccer, the entire time that those sports have existed would look like a speck next to the entire time we have been trading blows. Getting better at fighting is an ancient process that evolves over a great amount of time.
The advantage that the old timers had was that, because older forms of boxing were less restrictive, they could do more with the underlying body dynamics to improve. This is why the older fighters spent large amounts of time on body dynamics, techniques and developing a form. They knew the advantages of technical excellence
Modern fighters live in easier times. Technology is great for convenience but makes many people softer. Not in all cases, but often times, they become lazier and less reliant on their bodies and this effects athletes, too. Not to say modern fighters don't train hard. That is always up to the fighter themselves. Still, I think it makes a difference when a fighter must be more physical as far as his every day life like walking instead of driving and performing manual labor at his other job.
The things that you more impressed by (movement)would in my opinion be a detriment against the great fighters of the past.
Watch Cinderella Man with Russell Crowe portrayed heavyweight champ James Braddock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ZJbAdw1Rw
I know it was a film but it was very realistic. See how the crowds used to be more demanding of seeing a real fight ? Hell promoters would stop a fight and hold the pay if they didn't get stuck in and start swinging. So the guys in the old days had to get in there and go at each other. Not as much today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
The video clearly shows his whole era were novice like compared in angles/tech/fluidity/timing/defense and they fought really dumb to a lot of times standing right in front of the opposition and waiting for them to counter or to hit them, i specifically chose no names to show even those guys were way more advanced than the whole louis era
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a27vtfAuSyI&t=68s
The whole era ?
You will NEVER convince me that fighters like Floyd, Pac, Canelo, Crawford, Inoue or RJJ would have the same success in the golden era of boxing.
The odds are just to great against them. Floyd for example would have had to clear through 48 fighters in much, much less time, and he wouldn't have been able to challenge for a title so early, and even if he did win it, he would have multiple defenses the same year. There is no guarantee he wouldn't be undefeated, but the chances of it are much, much, much slimmer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
if you can make the louis era more advanced than video shows go ahead, looks horrible i wont act like i don't see them as that,you or no one else can make me see them as advanced, you're not sane like the rest like you on here
Modern fighters have the advantages of modern medicine and nutritional knowledge, and that's it.
Fighters in the past were part of a deeper talent pool, worked harder, were more active as fighters, and were required to have higher conditioning. These days, despite the advances of medicine and science, fighters at the elite level get away with fighting very few times a year, and probably 1/10 of them actually maintains fighting shape year round.
Even all else considered equal, the talent pool disparity is a huge factor. There are less fighters, less trainers, less truly knowledgeable trainers, and less competition.
It doesn't take a scientist to determine from that alone, that a smaller talent pool means it takes less to make it to the top, and it takes less to succeed at all levels. The lack of boxing knowledge passed on by trainers and masters, and the overall lesser knowledge many "trainers" have today means fighters learn less and less is required of them to "qualify" to enter the ring, to win at the amateur level, to become pro, to challenge for a title, etc etc.
If anything, rather than boxing advancing you could make a strong case for, boxing being is the only sport I know of that is moving backwards in that aspect, unlike sports like soccer, Cricket, Baseball, Track And Field
Re: 1973 George Foreman vs 1942 Joe Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denilson3.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs. guys in the 70s-'90s
They look like novices to you because you and most ppl just use their eyes most in judging a fighter. Strong impressions gathered under an emotional load are not trustworthy. Sometimes, what one feels he "already knows" is a false guide.
Boxing is different to ANY OTHER SPORT
Will power cannot immediately lift a sprinter to run the 100m a second faster, but indomitable will power can assist a boxer bent on an errand "thought to be impossible." Even a boxer who has less than perfect technique can be a great fighter whereas almost every other sport requires perfect technique to excel.
No one will break sprinting or swimming records without near perfect technique, nor power lifting records or high jumping records. A chess player with heaps of will power and an I.Q of 100 can never win a world chess title. But a man with bad technique can win a boxing title, immediate reserves of will can and often do make the final difference.
So boxing, unlike basically every single other timed, individual sport on earth, does not rely on being bigger, stronger, faster etc. You're looking at other sports like Running, Soccer, Rugby and seeing the improvement in those and you think that this logic applies to boxing
But, the big thing is that in every other sport, whilst doing your thing, it doesn't involve you getting punched in the face.
Boxing is the hurt business.
It's a primitive sport that doesn't rely on the stuff you think it does, and won't evolve in the same way and the history of the sport shows this over and over and over and over.
History has repeated itself a thousand fold with boxing. The bigger, stronger, faster guy does not equal the better guy. Then comes the body type. In boxing, it really makes no difference. We only need to look Andy Ruiz - AJ in the first fight. It's not a team sport, so an entire team of bigger, stronger, faster guys might mean something...but boxing doesn't work that way. It's just you and someone else punching each other.
By the way, by "primitive", I don't mean in terms of skill. It's obviously not. I mean in the sense that what shoes you wear aren't going to make nearly as much of a difference as a sprinters would have. The surface that a track guy runs on now compared to 50 years ago alone would make a huge difference in time. Add in streamlined clothes and lightweight spiked shoes and you increase time by a significant margin with that alone. That is a huge part of the evolution of sprinting. Steroids are obviously a much bigger one
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
My video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought. In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on foreman or people he fought?
I stand by the fact that boxing is the least evolved sport
If we look at the act of punching each other in the face and make a similar graph as we might for baseball or soccer, the entire time that those sports have existed would look like a speck next to the entire time we have been trading blows. Getting better at fighting is an ancient process that evolves over a great amount of time.
The advantage that the old timers had was that, because older forms of boxing were less restrictive, they could do more with the underlying body dynamics to improve. This is why the older fighters spent large amounts of time on body dynamics, techniques and developing a form. They knew the advantages of technical excellence
Modern fighters live in easier times. Technology is great for convenience but makes many people softer. Not in all cases, but often times, they become lazier and less reliant on their bodies and this effects athletes, too. Not to say modern fighters don't train hard. That is always up to the fighter themselves. Still, I think it makes a difference when a fighter must be more physical as far as his every day life like walking instead of driving and performing manual labor at his other job.
The things that you more impressed by (movement)would in my opinion be a detriment against the great fighters of the past.
Watch Cinderella Man with Russell Crowe portrayed heavyweight champ James Braddock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ZJbAdw1Rw
I know it was a film but it was very realistic. See how the crowds used to be more demanding of seeing a real fight ? Hell promoters would stop a fight and hold the pay if they didn't get stuck in and start swinging. So the guys in the old days had to get in there and go at each other. Not as much today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
The video clearly shows his whole era were novice like compared in angles/tech/fluidity/timing/defense and they fought really dumb to a lot of times standing right in front of the opposition and waiting for them to counter or to hit them, i specifically chose no names to show even those guys were way more advanced than the whole louis era
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a27vtfAuSyI&t=68s
The whole era ?
You will NEVER convince me that fighters like Floyd, Pac, Canelo, Crawford, Inoue or RJJ would have the same success in the golden era of boxing.
The odds are just to great against them. Floyd for example would have had to clear through 48 fighters in much, much less time, and he wouldn't have been able to challenge for a title so early, and even if he did win it, he would have multiple defenses the same year. There is no guarantee he wouldn't be undefeated, but the chances of it are much, much, much slimmer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
if you can make the louis era more advanced than video shows go ahead, looks horrible i wont act like i don't see them as that,you or no one else can make me see them as advanced, you're not sane like the rest like you on here
Modern fighters have the advantages of modern medicine and nutritional knowledge, and that's it.
Fighters in the past were part of a deeper talent pool, worked harder, were more active as fighters, and were required to have higher conditioning. These days, despite the advances of medicine and science, fighters at the elite level get away with fighting very few times a year, and probably 1/10 of them actually maintains fighting shape year round.
Even all else considered equal, the talent pool disparity is a huge factor. There are less fighters, less trainers, less truly knowledgeable trainers, and less competition.
It doesn't take a scientist to determine from that alone, that a smaller talent pool means it takes less to make it to the top, and it takes less to succeed at all levels. The lack of boxing knowledge passed on by trainers and masters, and the overall lesser knowledge many "trainers" have today means fighters learn less and less is required of them to "qualify" to enter the ring, to win at the amateur level, to become pro, to challenge for a title, etc etc.
If anything, rather than boxing advancing you could make a strong case for, boxing being is the only sport I know of that is moving backwards in that aspect, unlike sports like soccer, Cricket, Baseball, Track, And Field
Response below
Re: 1973 George Foreman vs 1942 Joe Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denilson3.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs. guys in the 70s-'90s
They look like novices to you because you and most ppl just use their eyes most in judging a fighter. Strong impressions gathered under an emotional load are not trustworthy. Sometimes, what one feels he "already knows" is a false guide.
Boxing is different to ANY OTHER SPORT
Will power cannot immediately lift a sprinter to run the 100m a second faster, but indomitable will power can assist a boxer bent on an errand "thought to be impossible." Even a boxer who has less than perfect technique can be a great fighter whereas almost every other sport requires perfect technique to excel.
No one will break sprinting or swimming records without near perfect technique, nor power lifting records or high jumping records. A chess player with heaps of will power and an I.Q of 100 can never win a world chess title. But a man with bad technique can win a boxing title, immediate reserves of will can and often do make the final difference.
So boxing, unlike basically every single other timed, individual sport on earth, does not rely on being bigger, stronger, faster etc. You're looking at other sports like Running, Soccer, Rugby and seeing the improvement in those and you think that this logic applies to boxing
But, the big thing is that in every other sport, whilst doing your thing, it doesn't involve you getting punched in the face.
Boxing is the hurt business.
It's a primitive sport that doesn't rely on the stuff you think it does, and won't evolve in the same way and the history of the sport shows this over and over and over and over.
History has repeated itself a thousand fold with boxing. The bigger, stronger, faster guy does not equal the better guy. Then comes the body type. In boxing, it really makes no difference. We only need to look Andy Ruiz - AJ in the first fight. It's not a team sport, so an entire team of bigger, stronger, faster guys might mean something...but boxing doesn't work that way. It's just you and someone else punching each other.
By the way, by "primitive", I don't mean in terms of skill. It's obviously not. I mean in the sense that what shoes you wear aren't going to make nearly as much of a difference as a sprinters would have. The surface that a track guy runs on now compared to 50 years ago alone would make a huge difference in time. Add in streamlined clothes and lightweight spiked shoes and you increase time by a significant margin with that alone. That is a huge part of the evolution of sprinting. Steroids are obviously a much bigger one
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
My video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought. In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on foreman or people he fought?
I stand by the fact that boxing is the least evolved sport
If we look at the act of punching each other in the face and make a similar graph as we might for baseball or soccer, the entire time that those sports have existed would look like a speck next to the entire time we have been trading blows. Getting better at fighting is an ancient process that evolves over a great amount of time.
The advantage that the old timers had was that, because older forms of boxing were less restrictive, they could do more with the underlying body dynamics to improve. This is why the older fighters spent large amounts of time on body dynamics, techniques and developing a form. They knew the advantages of technical excellence
Modern fighters live in easier times. Technology is great for convenience but makes many people softer. Not in all cases, but often times, they become lazier and less reliant on their bodies and this effects athletes, too. Not to say modern fighters don't train hard. That is always up to the fighter themselves. Still, I think it makes a difference when a fighter must be more physical as far as his every day life like walking instead of driving and performing manual labor at his other job.
The things that you more impressed by (movement)would in my opinion be a detriment against the great fighters of the past.
Watch Cinderella Man with Russell Crowe portrayed heavyweight champ James Braddock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ZJbAdw1Rw
I know it was a film but it was very realistic. See how the crowds used to be more demanding of seeing a real fight ? Hell promoters would stop a fight and hold the pay if they didn't get stuck in and start swinging. So the guys in the old days had to get in there and go at each other. Not as much today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
The video clearly shows his whole era were novice like compared in angles/tech/fluidity/timing/defense and they fought really dumb to a lot of times standing right in front of the opposition and waiting for them to counter or to hit them, i specifically chose no names to show even those guys were way more advanced than the whole louis era
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a27vtfAuSyI&t=68s
The whole era ?
You will NEVER convince me that fighters like Floyd, Pac, Canelo, Crawford, Inoue or RJJ would have the same success in the golden era of boxing.
The odds are just to great against them. Floyd for example would have had to clear through 48 fighters in much, much less time, and he wouldn't have been able to challenge for a title so early, and even if he did win it, he would have multiple defenses the same year. There is no guarantee he wouldn't be undefeated, but the chances of it are much, much, much slimmer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
if you can make the louis era more advanced than video shows go ahead, looks horrible i wont act like i don't see them as that,you or no one else can make me see them as advanced, you're not sane like the rest like you on here
Modern fighters have the advantages of modern medicine and nutritional knowledge, and that's it.
Fighters in the past were part of a deeper talent pool, worked harder, were more active as fighters, and were required to have higher conditioning. These days, despite the advances of medicine and science, fighters at the elite level get away with fighting very few times a year, and probably 1/10 of them actually maintains fighting shape year round.
Even all else considered equal, the talent pool disparity is a huge factor. There are less fighters, less trainers, less truly knowledgeable trainers, and less competition.
It doesn't take a scientist to determine from that alone, that a smaller talent pool means it takes less to make it to the top, and it takes less to succeed at all levels. The lack of boxing knowledge passed on by trainers and masters, and the overall lesser knowledge many "trainers" have today means fighters learn less and less is required of them to "qualify" to enter the ring, to win at the amateur level, to become pro, to challenge for a title, etc etc.
If anything, rather than boxing advancing you could make a strong case for, boxing being is the only sport I know of that is moving backwards in that aspect, unlike sports like soccer, Cricket, Baseball, Track, And Field
All nonsense they look like novices Cause they were compared anybody can clearly see that who isn't insane you're not sane, you clearly are if you think any one of those guys in louis era would be able to not only land but beat those guys in the video let alone the hundreds who aren't in the video
Mutiple outdated tech and mistakes in the louis era aren't in present in the guys in my video, yet you're here saying they look like that to me, no it's what is shown in every louis era fighter, they just weren't as advanced simple as that, why you're here acting as if you're literally blind is beyond me they look horrible
Basically, you're saying the Louis-era guys could just walk into any ring with a 70s-90s guy and do great, you can't see any obsolete tech and flaws in them, they look just as advanced to you
But why am I not sane?
Re: 1973 George Foreman vs 1942 Joe Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denilson3.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs. guys in the 70s-'90s
They look like novices to you because you and most ppl just use their eyes most in judging a fighter. Strong impressions gathered under an emotional load are not trustworthy. Sometimes, what one feels he "already knows" is a false guide.
Boxing is different to ANY OTHER SPORT
Will power cannot immediately lift a sprinter to run the 100m a second faster, but indomitable will power can assist a boxer bent on an errand "thought to be impossible." Even a boxer who has less than perfect technique can be a great fighter whereas almost every other sport requires perfect technique to excel.
No one will break sprinting or swimming records without near perfect technique, nor power lifting records or high jumping records. A chess player with heaps of will power and an I.Q of 100 can never win a world chess title. But a man with bad technique can win a boxing title, immediate reserves of will can and often do make the final difference.
So boxing, unlike basically every single other timed, individual sport on earth, does not rely on being bigger, stronger, faster etc. You're looking at other sports like Running, Soccer, Rugby and seeing the improvement in those and you think that this logic applies to boxing
But, the big thing is that in every other sport, whilst doing your thing, it doesn't involve you getting punched in the face.
Boxing is the hurt business.
It's a primitive sport that doesn't rely on the stuff you think it does, and won't evolve in the same way and the history of the sport shows this over and over and over and over.
History has repeated itself a thousand fold with boxing. The bigger, stronger, faster guy does not equal the better guy. Then comes the body type. In boxing, it really makes no difference. We only need to look Andy Ruiz - AJ in the first fight. It's not a team sport, so an entire team of bigger, stronger, faster guys might mean something...but boxing doesn't work that way. It's just you and someone else punching each other.
By the way, by "primitive", I don't mean in terms of skill. It's obviously not. I mean in the sense that what shoes you wear aren't going to make nearly as much of a difference as a sprinters would have. The surface that a track guy runs on now compared to 50 years ago alone would make a huge difference in time. Add in streamlined clothes and lightweight spiked shoes and you increase time by a significant margin with that alone. That is a huge part of the evolution of sprinting. Steroids are obviously a much bigger one
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
My video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought. In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on foreman or people he fought?
I stand by the fact that boxing is the least evolved sport
If we look at the act of punching each other in the face and make a similar graph as we might for baseball or soccer, the entire time that those sports have existed would look like a speck next to the entire time we have been trading blows. Getting better at fighting is an ancient process that evolves over a great amount of time.
The advantage that the old timers had was that, because older forms of boxing were less restrictive, they could do more with the underlying body dynamics to improve. This is why the older fighters spent large amounts of time on body dynamics, techniques and developing a form. They knew the advantages of technical excellence
Modern fighters live in easier times. Technology is great for convenience but makes many people softer. Not in all cases, but often times, they become lazier and less reliant on their bodies and this effects athletes, too. Not to say modern fighters don't train hard. That is always up to the fighter themselves. Still, I think it makes a difference when a fighter must be more physical as far as his every day life like walking instead of driving and performing manual labor at his other job.
The things that you more impressed by (movement)would in my opinion be a detriment against the great fighters of the past.
Watch Cinderella Man with Russell Crowe portrayed heavyweight champ James Braddock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ZJbAdw1Rw
I know it was a film but it was very realistic. See how the crowds used to be more demanding of seeing a real fight ? Hell promoters would stop a fight and hold the pay if they didn't get stuck in and start swinging. So the guys in the old days had to get in there and go at each other. Not as much today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
The video clearly shows his whole era were novice like compared in angles/tech/fluidity/timing/defense and they fought really dumb to a lot of times standing right in front of the opposition and waiting for them to counter or to hit them, i specifically chose no names to show even those guys were way more advanced than the whole louis era
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a27vtfAuSyI&t=68s
The whole era ?
You will NEVER convince me that fighters like Floyd, Pac, Canelo, Crawford, Inoue or RJJ would have the same success in the golden era of boxing.
The odds are just to great against them. Floyd for example would have had to clear through 48 fighters in much, much less time, and he wouldn't have been able to challenge for a title so early, and even if he did win it, he would have multiple defenses the same year. There is no guarantee he wouldn't be undefeated, but the chances of it are much, much, much slimmer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
if you can make the louis era more advanced than video shows go ahead, looks horrible i wont act like i don't see them as that,you or no one else can make me see them as advanced, you're not sane like the rest like you on here
Modern fighters have the advantages of modern medicine and nutritional knowledge, and that's it.
Fighters in the past were part of a deeper talent pool, worked harder, were more active as fighters, and were required to have higher conditioning. These days, despite the advances of medicine and science, fighters at the elite level get away with fighting very few times a year, and probably 1/10 of them actually maintains fighting shape year round.
Even all else considered equal, the talent pool disparity is a huge factor. There are less fighters, less trainers, less truly knowledgeable trainers, and less competition.
It doesn't take a scientist to determine from that alone, that a smaller talent pool means it takes less to make it to the top, and it takes less to succeed at all levels. The lack of boxing knowledge passed on by trainers and masters, and the overall lesser knowledge many "trainers" have today means fighters learn less and less is required of them to "qualify" to enter the ring, to win at the amateur level, to become pro, to challenge for a title, etc etc.
If anything, rather than boxing advancing you could make a strong case for, boxing being is the only sport I know of that is moving backwards in that aspect, unlike sports like soccer, Cricket, Baseball, Track, And Field
All nonsense they look like novices Cause they were compared anybody can clearly see that who isn't insane you're not sane, you clearly are if you think any one of those guys in louis era would be able to not only land but beat those guys in the video let alone the hundreds who aren't in the video
Mutiple outdated tech and mistakes in the louis era aren't in present in the guys in my video, yet you're here saying they look like that to me, no it's what is shown in every louis era fighter, they just weren't as advanced simple as that, why you're here acting as if you're literally blind is beyond me they look horrible
Basically, you're saying the Louis-era guys could just walk into any ring with a 70s-90s guy and do great, you can't see any obsolete tech and flaws in them, they look just as advanced to you
But why am I not sane?
All nonsense they look like novices Cause they were compared anybody can clearly see that who isn't insane you're not sane, you clearly are if you think any one of those guys in louis era would be able to not only land but beat those guys in the video let alone the hundreds who aren't in the video
Mutiple outdated tech and mistakes in the louis era aren't in present in the guys in my video, yet you're here saying they look like that to me, no it's what is shown in every louis era fighter, they just weren't as advanced simple as that, why you're here acting as if you're literally blind is beyond me they look horrible
Basically, you're saying the Louis-era guys could just walk into any ring with the 70s-90s guy and do great, you can't see any obsolete tech and flaws in them, they look just as advanced to you
I don't need to convince any not sane person like you anything I'm here to show evidence to the public who understands the advances and who is sane and can see good you're none of that
And all those guys you named wouldn't be fighting in that era the louis era guys would come the exact way they fought on video from full matches and would all be destroyed in the 1st by Floyd, Pac, Canelo, Crawford, Inoue, and RJJ cause all those guys were way more advanced than the whole louis era guys even in their amateur form
You and everyone else like you here have no way to win this cause you can't alter footage of fighters to be more advanced than video shows
Re: 1973 George Foreman vs 1942 Joe Louis
Those comments seem skewed and "shaven" , like a cucumber "bilked" you and you sank into a blue pool of mirky Sosa
Re: 1973 George Foreman vs 1942 Joe Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
All nonsense they look like novices Cause they were compared anybody can clearly see that who isn't insane you're not sane, you clearly are if you think any one of those guys in louis era would be able to not only land but beat those guys in the video let alone the hundreds who aren't in the video
Mutiple outdated tech and mistakes in the louis era aren't in present in the guys in my video, yet you're here saying they look like that to me, no it's what is shown in every louis era fighter, they just weren't as advanced simple as that, why you're here acting as if you're literally blind is beyond me they look horrible
Basically, you're saying the Louis-era guys could just walk into any ring with the 70s-90s guy and do great, you can't see any obsolete tech and flaws in them, they look just as advanced to you
I don't need to convince any not sane person like you anything I'm here to show evidence to the public who understands the advances and who is sane and can see good you're none of that
And all those guys you named wouldn't be fighting in that era the louis era guys would come the exact way they fought on video from full matches and would all be destroyed in the 1st by Floyd, Pac, Canelo, Crawford, Inoue, and RJJ cause all those guys were way more advanced than the whole louis era guys even in their amateur form
You and everyone else like you here have no way to win this cause you can't alter footage of fighters to be more advanced than video shows
Fair enough. You have your opinion and I have mine
Observe, find you own understanding outside the youtube clips, or even other people. Saying that I'm writing "nonsense" is the ultimate compliment, cause that means I'm blazing my own path, long as I keep moving, its all good.
I don't want to repeat myself and honestly ? This is going to turn into a "Last Man Writing Contest" It is a common tactic on this and other forums. It's where you out-talk/write everyone and then claim victory once they all lose patience and give up. “See! No one can prove me wrong!”
You're a good gunslinger hombre. But whenever you come trying to shoot that sh!t at me I always go for the Kalashnikov Assault Rifle baby
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...08-20_2386.jpg
Because in a full-on blast the person with the bigger gun is more likely to leave a smoking bullet-ridden avatar on the ground. And besides, at that point I know the convo is over, so might as well have some fun.
Re: 1973 George Foreman vs 1942 Joe Louis
[QUOTE=Denilson3.0;1662160]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joe smith
All nonsense they look like novices Cause they were compared anybody can clearly see that who isn't insane you're not sane, you clearly are if you think any one of those guys in louis era would be able to not only land but beat those guys in the video let alone the hundreds who aren't in the video
Mutiple outdated tech and mistakes in the louis era aren't in present in the guys in my video, yet you're here saying they look like that to me, no it's what is shown in every louis era fighter, they just weren't as advanced simple as that, why you're here acting as if you're literally blind is beyond me they look horrible
Basically, you're saying the Louis-era guys could just walk into any ring with the 70s-90s guy and do great, you can't see any obsolete tech and flaws in them, they look just as advanced to you
I don't need to convince any not sane person like you anything I'm here to show evidence to the public who understands the advances and who is sane and can see good you're none of that
And all those guys you named wouldn't be fighting in that era the louis era guys would come the exact way they fought on video from full matches and would all be destroyed in the 1st by Floyd, Pac, Canelo, Crawford, Inoue, and RJJ cause all those guys were way more advanced than the whole louis era guys even in their amateur form
You and everyone else like you here have no way to win this cause you can't alter footage of fighters to be more advanced than video shows
[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]Fair enough. You have your opinion and I have mine
Observe, find you own understanding outside the youtube clips, or even other people. Saying that I'm writing "nonsense" is the ultimate compliment, cause that means I'm blazing my own path, long as I keep moving, its all good.
I don't want to repeat myself and honestly ? This is going to turn into a "Last Man Writing Contest" It is a common tactic on this and other forums. It's where you out-talk/write everyone and then claim victory once they all lose patience and give up. “See! No one can prove me wrong!”
You're a good gunslinger hombre. But whenever you come trying to shoot that sh!t at me I always go for the Kalashnikov Assault Rifle baby
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...08-20_2386.jpg
Because in a full-on blast the person with the bigger gun is more likely to leave a smoking bullet-ridden avatar on the ground. And besides, at that point, I know the convo is over, so might as well
https://youtu.be/a27vtfAuSyI?si=l7lJhskqST-Wcp87looks like novices compared side by side to 70s-90s so no not an opinion liar maybe get you're vision checked and where did you get I watch highlights only from? My video is full rounds showing everything you people here just say anything no matter if it makes no sense at all and is just blatant lies
You're no different than that other guy above you saying that odd comment about how I see the Louis era guys as novices Cause I'm using my eyes when that's literally how boxers learn new tech
Mutiple outdated tech and mistakes in the louis era aren't in present in the guys in my video in full matches, yet you're here saying that's an opinion? No, it's not they look horrible every louis era fighter has all or mutiple of those same obsolete flaws and tech cause it was all they knew
You aren't sane sane at all
Re: 1973 George Foreman vs 1942 Joe Louis
https://i.imgur.com/Mx6rlds.jpg Thought for sure I hit one month and not one week. Maybe I really do need glasses ;D
