Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

[pound per pound]

Some of his best performances were before the Schmeling fight. However, many were after. He of course destroyed Schmeling in the rematch. Not to mention the fights against Buddy Baer, Nova, Simon etc.
Lennox Lewis most impressive KO may have been against Razor Ruddick. Most people don't consider him to have quite reached his prime yet.
Ali won the Fight of the Year against Doug Jones. He had not reached his prime yet.
Donovan was a ref for a long time time. Did many big fights. Was considered the best referee in the sport for a long time.

Not sure what "pick stats" are but as I said before Louis landed more of the clean punches throughout most of the fight.
Donovan's score of 10-5 was not rubbish. No I don't agree with "ring facts" that say otherwise.

10-5 for Louis is also how both the AP and the NY Times. About the same as I had it.

Have only seen bits and pieces of the 1st Walcott-Louis fight. The fight was scored by rounds, not by points. All the knockdowns did was given Walcott two rounds. There are 13 other ones to judge. (.ie. Wladimir Klitschko got decked three times in two different rounds on point system, and got the decision. Louis said later that he thought that he won the fight.
Besides he was clearly past his best by this point. This was after he had missed all that time in World War II.

Roughly over two half of the rounds were shown, and Louis won few of them. Donovan is a biased ref who with Louis and MSG. I don't doubt he was famous. He was incompetent at the best, his scoring off the Farr and Godoy fight prove this, and cooked at the worst. Did I mention the problem with MSG and Louis manger was an illegal numbers runner. MSG had a known gambling problem in the 30s with Boo Boo Hoff and company. By the way I herad he had Louis in the money before Schmeling knocked him out and that outrageous. Louis at best won a round after he was dropped in the 4th and delivered a mean low blow late in the fight before it was stopped. Did you know that?

Wlad isn't in the conversation and won the fight 9-3 on fear score cards, enough to over come the knock downs,

Walcott was the same age as a Louis, and Louis was active in two other fights where he looked just fine before he meet Walcott.. Excuse him you can not. Your still not being fair-minded.

[Ambling Alp II]

Not sure what "roughly two half's of the rounds were shown."
Anyway, Donovan's; scorecard was reasonable. He had it 10-5, which was pretty much the consensus. Most of the punches that Godoy landed were not clean; glancing blows off the shoulder don't mean as much as solid punches. Louis landed many more solid punches.

My point on Klitschko was that a fighter can decked twice and still deserve to win the fight. Yes Louis got decked twice; all that means is that Walcott gets those two rounds. There were 13 other rounds to score.

Yes Walcott was about the same age as Louis. However Louis had been in the Army and not fighting for three years. You can almost always tell the difference when a great fighter comes back after a long absence. Louis was maybe 80% of the fighter that he once was. You have to take the stage of a fighter's career (and not just his age) into consideration.

[pound per pound]

Not sure what "roughly two half's of the rounds were shown."
Anyway, Donovan's; scorecard was reasonable. He had it 10-5, which was pretty much the consensus. Most of the punches that Godoy landed were not clean; glancing blows off the shoulder don't mean as much as solid punches. Louis landed many more solid punches.

My point on Klitschko was that a fighter can decked twice and still deserve to win the fight. Yes Louis got decked twice; all that means is that Walcott gets those two rounds. There were 13 other rounds to score.

Yes Walcott was about the same age as Louis. However Louis had been in the Army and not fighting for three years. You can almost always tell the difference when a great fighter comes back after a long absence. Louis was maybe 80% of the fighter that he once was. You have to take the stage of a fighter's career (and not just his age) into consideration.

Should read about 2/3 of the fight was shown. Walcott is the better off what's shown.

He won it. 10-5 is a laughable verdict of Godoy vs Louis 1. Louis did not land much or anything if serious note where you said yo yourself that was a solid punch. Do you know how to score a fight? Again Godoy landed and threw more, there were few punches from Louis the little that that landed solidly.

In the army, boxing was Louis job. He wasn't rusty looking in the two fights before Walcott.

[Ambling Alp II]

Do I know how to score a fight? Nice.
10-5 is a legitimate score. That is about how media outlets had it as well.

Louis did not have a fight for four years. (Nobody but boxrec counts the one-round Johnny Davis fight.)
You don't just come back from that and pick up where you left off.
Those weren't real fights when he boxed in the army. Michael Jordan shots baskets when he left basketball for almost two years. Not the same thing.

It was obvious from the 2nd Conn fight that he (and Conn for that matter) declined significantly. Not to say that he was completely shot. But there was a clear difference.

Have never heard anyone question that Louis was not past his best when he fought Walcott. It's quite obvious that he was.

[Caractacus]

A Battle of "Dreadnoughts".

[mikebourkefan]

A Battle of "Dreadnoughts".

LOL Toby Gibson @ 19:41 to 19:46 so true

[Caractacus]

Joe Louis vrs a "Dreadnaught"

[Caractacus]

what about the size of athletes in gerneral from the old days ?
Red Grange, the "Galloping Ghost" famous football player (half-back) in the early 1920's
was 5 ft 11" and 175 lbs.

[Caractacus]

[pound per pound]

what about the size of athletes in gerneral from the old days ?
Red Grange, the "Galloping Ghost" famous football player (half-back) in the early 1920's
was 5 ft 11" and 175 lbs.

Not all football players back then were than small, but all heavyweights at least the decent ones today are over 210 pounds.

[Ezzard]

Just read an interesting research paper on HWs and size.

In a comparison between HW champions and unsuccessful challengers...

Champions were younger, taller, heavier and with a longer reach. They were bigger in all categories measured other than ankle, calf and waist. There were tiny differences in those though.

Made me think though about some of the outliers. If Tommy Burns was taken out of the data how much it would likely change to be even more conclusive. Burns was a lot smaller than all his challengers and his reputation for being a canny matchmaker were legendary. He fought a lot of guys who didn't deserve a title shot. But that's for a different thread.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 2/tables/4