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

[brocktonblockbust]

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

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

[Max Power]

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!

[bradlee180]

What constitutes an "expert" to you?

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

[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!

[powerpuncher]

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.

[Max Power]

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!

[powerpuncher]

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.