joe louis vs primo carnera

[Ambling Alp II]

No one; sad as that sounds.

Foreman was nowhere near as good after 35 as he was in his 20s. Obviously when got older, he had to pace himself because his speed, reflexes, power etc was greatly decreased. He really had little choice. There was no way he could fight at that pace when he was much older.
He was not a dumb fighter in his 20s. He used the talents that he had very well.

Well of course he doesn't very good in those 3 fights that he got crushed. However, look at the fights that he was winning back then; Byrd, Jefferson, McCline etc. He looked much better then than he looks now.

If you take Joe Louis' loss to Schmeling, he doesn't look nearly as good as he did later in his career. However, take fights he had earlier, (for example, Max Baer, or Carnera) and he looks as good as ever.

As for being ashamed for losing so badly to Sanders, it's how you are look at things. For a journeyman, getting blown out by Sanders is nothing to be ashamed of. If you are comparing him to ATGs, then yes losing badly to someone that is decent but nothing special is absolutely embarrassing.

Yes almost everyone loses. However, his losses were not to great fighters, and his losses were blowouts. If there was only one you could call it a fluke. You can't do that with three, and almost a 4th time against Peter. This doesn't happen to the truly great heavyweights as often, or to as low quality of opponents as Klitschko did. And he doesn't have the quality wins that they have.

[HomicideHenry]

Who's better than Sanders and Brewster that Wladimir dominated?

I've braced myself for a lot of padded record fluff and paper trinkets being used to bolster some men's reps.

Sanders and Brewster, were inconsistent fighters. They remind me of Oleg Maskaev, who in recent years, has bellied a more inconsistent record in the heavyweight division. Sanders admitted himself he was more passionate about golfing than he was fighting. He reminds me, in a sense, of Caveman Bob Moha from the Jack Johnson era. Would win a beautiful fight, get alot of talk about him, then would either disappear or would drop a loss to someone well beneath him. Great talent, yes, but it was pissed away. As for Brewster, his problem was too much too soon. I know guys who personally traveled with Brewster and even fought on the same cards and said he got too much into marijuana and parties, etc. Never forget, that Brewster lost to the likes of Clifford Ettienne (that an old, washed up Tyson kayoed in one round) and to Charles Shufford who will only be remembered as playing George Foreman in that horrible Will Smith movie.

As for who did Klitschko beat that was BETTER than those two men... well first off, Klitschko avenged his loss to Brewster. Klitschko also defeated David Haye (who will one day be in the HOF as one of the best Cruiserweights ever). Klitschko also defeated Chris Byrd (twice) and his record and accomplishments are far better than Sanders and Brewster. And even though they were older, and passed their best--- legacy and historical wise--- Mormeck, Mercer, Botha, Rahman, Schulz were better than them. I'll even go a step further and argue that Povetkin and Ibragimov was better than them, because they were not inconsistent, did not drop losses to anyone else but Klitschko, etc. and hell, Pulev is the same way--- he's consistent, and outside of Klitschko, he never been dropped, hurt, etc. and beat just as high quality of opposition as they did.

Of course I know my opinion is considered warped, and unrealistic, by a lot of people, when it comes to Klitschko.

[HomicideHenry]

Yes almost everyone loses. However, his losses were not to great fighters, and his losses were blowouts. If there was only one you could call it a fluke. You can't do that with three, and almost a 4th time against Peter. This doesn't happen to the truly great heavyweights as often, or to as low quality of opponents as Klitschko did. And he doesn't have the quality wins that they have.

The thing with your logic, alot of the past champions, regardless of division, had double digit losses. Billy Conn lost his first 6 pro fights. Henry Armstrong lost his first four pro fights. Etc etc etc. Archie Moore, even at his prime, lost to some guys who I didn't think certainly compared to his greatness (such as Henry Hall, Clinton Bacon, Leonard Morrow, Aaron Wade, Jack Chase, Shorty Hogue). In the heavyweight division--- yes its rarer to see--- but then again, this also happens to be the most protected, guarded, division there is (regardless of era). Guys get built up records, seldom face adversity (true opposition) until later in careers, and sometimes the bubble bursts, with guys like Duane Bobick or Billy Squires, etc.

Even among the all-time greats, you see losses at random to guys that make no real sense. Some champions, however, just had such lengthy careers--- and had so many great wins--- that the bizarre losses get overshadowed and ultimately forgotten. If we are to believe that Jersey Joe Walcott, and others, make up the top twenty of all time, then we must take with a grain of salt that even the all-time greats lose in the most incredible of ways to the least likely of opposition. Walcott, for example, lost to the likes of Johnny Allen, Abe Simon, Roy Lazer, George Brothers. All that in his prime. A knockout loss in six rounds to the Frankensteinian Abe Simon, and we consider Walcott to be one of the most masterful boxers of all time.

People often forget, that when Walcott was to fight Louis, that he was written off as a shitcan bum. People talked how inconsistent and that the only thing reliable about him was how big of a let down he was. Cus he would win a great fight, then lose to someone he didnt have to. They talked more about him being a family man and a garbage man for the city, than they did him being a good fighter. Only til AFTER the Louis fights, was he taken seriously, and only when he battled Charles multiple times was he considered a damn good fighter and his place cemented in boxing history as one of the ring wizards.

So no, you are wrong. It does happen to even the all-time greats. It just so happens that the all-time greats had 50+ fights and made people forget the losses that were outrageous, with wins over amazing fighters. The problem with Klitschko is, he belongs to an era where there is no amazing fighters to show the world he has advanced and deserves the respect of being called champion, and a damn good one.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm tired of arguing with you, tbh. So I'm walking away from the discussion. But when (not if) Klitschko surpasses Holmes or Louis, I will wait to see what you say then. And if its more of the same--- then I'll have co choice but to accept that you either lost a shitload of money on the man once, and thats why ur pissed at him, or you are delusional.

[Tuan_Jim]

Wladimir was KOd by Ross Puritty and called in big brother (the one with the chin). Fact.

Wladimir was KOd by Corrie Sanders and called in big brother (the one with the chin). Fact.

Wladimir was KOd by Lamon Brewster and NOW it gets interesting. . . .

Because in 2006 Wladimir had a choice of two title fights. Rematch Lamon Brewster, the reigning WBO champ who was coming off a string of violent KOs and had served Wladimir one of the most ignominious knockout defeats in heavyweight history - OR - rematch Chris Byrd, the waning IBF champ coming off a string of dubious decisions and who had lost decisively to Wladimir years before.

Wladimir opted for Chris Byrd.

Wladimir was only willing to rematch Brewster in 2007, once Brewster was 1) FIFTEEN MONTHS WITHOUT A FIGHT, 2) COMING OFF A LOSS, 3) COMING OFF MAJOR SURGERY, and 4), most chilling of all, ON MEDICAL SUSPENSION IN THE USA.

That's the kind of champion Wladimir Klitschko is. What an utterly empty, cynical "vengeance" that was. Not unlike rematching Samuel Peter once big brother had beat the stuffing out of him too. That's the kind of career choices that have extended Wladimir's reign for years. Still, these fights, as offensively staged managed as they were, have been sufficient to impress people like Homicide Henry, which I suppose was their point.

[HomicideHenry]

Everyone always brings up Ross Purritty.... the thing is with ol' Iron Dome... is he wasn't half as bad as people make him out to be. I suspect that if all fights were 20 rounders, etc. that Purritty could of been world champion. If one goes down his record, one sees that he was one of the real spoilers in heavyweight history.

He was only stopped twice in 54 bouts. The first in his second pro fight (which doesnt count) and against Vitali Klitschko. And even at that, it took eleven rounds to do it and that was by a CUT, not a real knockout. The people Purritty faced was rather amazing, and some of which he made look like crap or was robbed blind. The fight with Morrison, is an example of the latter. Guys like Rahman, Grant, Sanders, Johnson, Byrd, Donald, etc. all went the distance with him and alot of those fights were competitive. Purritty was a man you couldnt just sit on. He wasnt just a human punching bag. He could be dangerous.

Klitschko was 24-0-0 at the time, and prior to Purritty never really fought anyone of any serious consequence. Unless you figure Wimpy Halstead and Bigfoot Martin as being challenges. Klitschko won every single round of that fight--- 9 rounds to 0--- and was throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Purritty and with bad intentions. Because he worked at 110% and tried in vain to score a knockout, he gassed out. The tenth round he was completely spent, and Purritty began teeing off. Klitschko survived the tenth round. Klitschko, who got knocked down in that round, entered into the 11th round completely spent and Purritty started throwing bombs and Klitschko's seconds threw the towel.

It's ironic that some years after the fact, Purritty said the following:

“I just let him punch himself out. I’m sure he would’ve knocked out a lot of guys before that. I just happened to take a good punch, I feel to this day that had he been more patient and boxed, he would’ve won."

So, in reality, if we are to be objective about the whole ordeal, Vladimir was 22 years old, fighting in front of his countrymen, looking to impress in a big way, and rather than fight with a game plan---- thought he would do the "impossible" and knock out Purritty. Was more a mistake made in youth, than anything else. Hell alot of guys tried to knockout Ross and almost lost as a consequence. The draw Morrison got was nothing short of a robbery, which Ross should of won. And people tend to forget "The Boss" did beat some noteworthy fighters like Joe Hipp and Jorge Luis Gonzales.

*************************************************************************************************************

As for Lamon Brewster, the timing stinks on the rematch, but in all honesty I don't think there would of been much of a difference. Why? Because after losing to "White Wolf" in Ohio, he lost to Klitschko by KO, and beat two bums, and then lost two times, and retired due to a torn retina. Prior to losing the WBO title? The best victory he had was against Golota. Again, it must be remembered he did lose to Clifford Ettienne and Charles Shufford. He was not the most consistent man to bank on. I dont believe he would of been successful two times in a row. Just wasnt in his nature to be good, great, etc. every time out.

[Tuan_Jim]

Well done Henry, for completely missing the point once again.

Here's one that puzzles me. Why do you allow Wladimir so many alibis for getting beaten up by Ross Puritty, and then go on to dismiss Lamon Brewster with 'He lost to Etienne and Shufford'. What are Brewster's alibis? At least attempt to be consistent (an enormous job for you I realise). If you discount Puritty, discount Etienne and Shufford too.

Your version of Puritty-Klit is the usual fantasy fiction that all his acolytes recite. Those who have watched the fight (I watched it live on DSF in 98) know that Ross Puritty's fists were the main factor in Wladimir's unraveling. If your oft told account were true it would have been a very easy task for Wladimir to rematch Puritty & redeem himself. He never wanted to fight Puritty again. Hnmm. What's wrong with this picture?!

There was an interview with Ross in Boxing Monthly in 2000. The Klits claimed they had triee to arrange a rematch - Ross pointed out he was his own manager and they had never rang him - not even once. The WBC also froze him out & stripped him of his hard earned WBC international belt. The system was on the Klit's side as far back as the late 90s.

[man]

So, in reality, if we are to be objective about the whole ordeal, Vladimir was 22 years old, fighting in front of his countrymen, looking to impress in a big way, and rather than fight with a game plan---- thought he would do the "impossible" and knock out Purritty. Was more a mistake made in youth, than anything else.

i watched that fight live on TV and it was exactly
as you describe it. wlad gassed because he wanted
to impress his own people too much.

yet i have no excuse for him not going for a rematch.

[man]

Your version of Puritty-Klit is the usual fantasy fiction that all his acolytes recite. Those who have watched the fight (I watched it live on DSF in 98) know that Ross Puritty's fists were the main factor in Wladimir's unraveling.

i watched it live. i disagree. wlad gassed after
dominating. i haven't watched that one ever
since, but i am pretty sure that was the common
understanding of everyone back then.

[Tuan_Jim]

It's always been the version propagated by the boxing press, who are there to sell the Klits and not Ross Puritty. I fully accept I begin to sound like a sort of conspiracy loon with such statements, but anyone who thinks that fight was an easy night for Wladimir Klitschko for 9 or 10 rounds must be on the same drugs Wladimir claimed to be when Brewster annihilated him.

The stench of upset was in the air from the midway point in Puritty/Klit.

Again, if you want to stick to this fallacy of Wladimir being responsible for what was an easily avoidable loss, explain why he was deathly afraid of fighting Ross Puritty. That man could shrug off his best shots, physically overpower him in a wrestling match and hurt him when he let his hands go.

[Ambling Alp II]

What, the boxing press likes Klitschko? Next you are going to say HBO is pro-Klitschko. :)
Obviously his chin had something to do with. Even if you buy the punching himself out excuse, it's his own fault. He still lost to a journeyman. This was his 25th pro fight, he was not some novice. That's an embarrassing loss.

He has three embarrassing losses. It's not like he lost tough decisions. It's not like they were to great fighters. They were conclusive losses to not so great opponents. Once, you can argue for a fluke, not three. Not close to your prime. The ATG great heavyweights don't have this. And the ATG heavyweights have major wins that are far better than his best wins.

[cfang]

Can't argue that wk has some poor losses and had dominated in a terrible era. Have to admire his longevity and the way he's managed to carry on showing up in shape and doing his business. Doesn't make him an all time great though!

The only top fighter either bro has faced is vk taking on a not quite prime Lewis and he lost. Great fight but he lost.

It's tough tho cos neither fighter has really avoided anyone. It's just been a weak era. The weakest ever I think.

My view is that wk has shown fragility and it would be exposed by the top fighters and punchers of the past.

[Cojimar 1946]

One thing that helps Wladimir is greater longevity and beating numerous top contenders. He has beaten more top contenders than Vitali or Lennox and shown greater longevity which puts him ahead of them in the rankings.

His losses don't hurt him that much relative to Lewis who has knockout losses to Rahman and McCall. These serve to balance out Wladimir's losses to Sanders and Brewster.

[Cojimar 1946]

As far as losing to great fighters goes, do great fighters get dominated by Andrew Golota in their primes? Some of us are not sold on Bowe's greatness (or Golota's understandably) and Holyfield lost twice to Bowe.

[Tuan_Jim]

No one's going to go round in circles with you again, Cojimar. 'Sugar Ray Leonard didn't beat enough great fighters, therefore Floyd Mayweather is better'. Your views are nonsense and you are here to troll.

[dempseyfire]

One thing that helps Wladimir is greater longevity and beating numerous top contenders. He has beaten more top contenders than Vitali or Lennox and shown greater longevity which puts him ahead of them in the rankings.

His losses don't hurt him that much relative to Lewis who has knockout losses to Rahman and McCall. These serve to balance out Wladimir's losses to Sanders and Brewster.

"Top contenders" . . . pluueeze, that phrase is meaningless in this era. Look at Wlad's opponent tomorrow night. Not even had 20 fights, hasn't fought anyone in the top 10 (Perez was top 15, and that was an awful fight in which Jennings did not look good) Plus he started boxing late and is basically a feel good story but not an elite boxer. Nonetheless he's considered a "top contender" and will get bludgeoned. A Bob Baker would've bludgeoned him as well.

You want to know the story of today's top contenders? Look at every Klitschko opponent since Byrd. Even in this depth-less division . . EVERY Klitschko opponent save Eddie Chambers came into the fight not having fought a top 10 opponent their previous two fights. In fact, none of his opponents had even defeated TWO top 10 heavyweight their entire careers save the aformentioned Chambers.

Chagaev/Haye only had one (who both shared one top 10 victory vs the lumbering Valuev), and Peter had one (vs an old Maskaev) Maybe Brock had one vs McCline.
I don't even count Rahman/Brewster as their peak days were a distant memory when they fought Wlad.

"Contenders" . . .don't make me laugh.

[HomicideHenry]

There is that train of thought.... that athletes, fighters, etc.... TODAY are so far superior than from earlier eras.

I like how Mike Tyson said it, once, when he was asked about Klitschko:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykX6xehi_qM


(@ 3:00 mark)

"In reality, even though we dont want to believe it, athletes get better as time goes on they dont get worse. They may not look better, but they are better."

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm tired of arguing with you, tbh. So I'm walking away from the discussion. But when (not if) Klitschko surpasses Holmes or Louis, I will wait to see what you say then. And if its more of the same--- then I'll have co choice but to accept that you either lost a shitload of money on the man once, and thats why ur pissed at him, or you are delusional.

[Tuan_Jim]

There is that train of thought.... that athletes, fighters, etc.... TODAY are so far superior than from earlier eras.

I like how Mike Tyson said it, once, when he was asked about Klitschko:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykX6xehi_qM


(@ 3:00 mark)

"In reality, even though we dont want to believe it, athletes get better as time goes on they dont get worse. They may not look better, but they are better."

Now we're expected to entertain the opinion of a man so intelligent he tattooed Chairman Mao on his arm? What a great spokesman for that "train of thought".

[HomicideHenry]

Whether you like Tyson or not.... being that he was trained in both competition and on the history of the sport by Cus D'Amato... Tyson is no fool when it comes to the advancement of boxing. Athletes and fighters have gotten faster, more conditioned, healthier, etc. over time than they were in earlier generations.

[Tuan_Jim]

So why can't Wladimir survive the sort of fast pace that was common in a Tyson fight of the 80s and all eras beforehand?

"Athletes and fighters have gotten faster, more conditioned, healthier, etc. over time than they were in earlier generations." The language is always so vague. Healthier? More conditioned? Most of Wladimir's opponents have appalling physiques. Ruslan Chagaev! Sam Peter! Kubrat Pulev! Eddie Chambers! Are you seriously suggesting the men in these pairings are better conditioned than, say, Holyfield/Bowe 92? Tyson/Tucker 87? Holmes/Norton 78? Frazier/Ali 71?

[Cojimar 1946]

Yes, this is an era in which top fighters often don't fight the other top level fighters at heavyweight but many of the guys Wladimir has beaten are clearly top 10 heavyweights. How many heavyweights in the world were better than Pulev, Chagaev, Povetkin, etc?

[Cojimar 1946]

Oh, with regards to Leonard his lack of longevity hurts him with regards to Mayweather. Leonard lost at 34 to Terry Norris for example whereas Mayweather was still unbeaten at age 37 despite having more bouts than Leonard did at that age.

[Tuan_Jim]

Oh, with regards to Leonard his lack of longevity hurts him with regards to Mayweather. Leonard lost at 34 to Terry Norris for example whereas Mayweather was still unbeaten at age 37 despite having more bouts than Leonard did at that age.

With Mayweather, his lack of wins over great fighters hurts him with regards to Leonard. Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler versus Mayweather's. . . . Well, I'll let our statistics troll search Boxrec for Mayweather victims who have similar sounding numbers to those men (while as always overlooking the crucial, more abstract issue of opponent quality).

Your arguments are as tight as Kubrat Pulev's defence, Cojimar.

[Cojimar 1946]

I should think Juan Manuel Marquez counts as a great fighter.