1973 George Foreman vs 1942 Joe Louis

[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

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



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.

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

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.

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