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

[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.

[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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[Max Power]

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!

[ruthless rocco]

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!

[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.

[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.

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.

[powerpuncher]

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.

[ruthless rocco]

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!

[greynotsoold]

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.

[Max Power]

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...

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