BoxRec

Troll or extremely ignorant of boxing history older than last week....

Tomasino wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:......was the best combination puncher in Boxing history.

His highlight reels and slow motion replays are things of beauty. The power in every shot, accuracy and timing. Amazing.


I feel worse of as a fan losing his prime to the war than I do for Ali.

It's ironic that the 2 best HWs in history arguably lost their best years due to wars.

Louis's hiatus doesn't seem to get mentioned as much, but his loss of years is every bit as significant as Ali's was.

Tomasino wrote:Joe in his late prime would wipe the floor with Haye. Too much ring craft, too much power.

Certainly Walcott would enter as the heavy favourite. I have long said that Jersey Joe is a tremendously underrated fighter these days.

But Hayes is a slippery fighter. When at his best he was quick on his feet with explosive punching power. I do wonder if Haye could him clean a couple of times, would it sway the fight in his favour?

But as I say, good fight - definitely one I would pay a good few quid to witness.

Kalan wrote:Joe Walcott would be gone in the 1st round if he faced anyone as fast, sharp, and deadly a puncher as David Haye... Walcott was beaten many times and knocked out several times -- sometimes by super slow and inept guys like Abe Simon in his 35th fight ... at a time when Walcott was a 10-year pro.

Walcott was a poor guy who was badly mismanaged for a long time during his career. Remember, boxers don't earn the millions of dollars that they do now.

He was taking fights at VERY short notice, we are talking 3 or 4 days notice. And him travelling hundreds of miles across the states to get to the venue of the fight.

So often he either had poor preparation for fights & sometimes had NO preparation at all. But if he didn't fight - then he didn't get paid.

Not exactly a winning formula.

I've also heard that he liked to drink, but that hasn't been proven conclusively for my liking.

Crease wrote:

Kalan wrote:Joe Walcott would be gone in the 1st round if he faced anyone as fast, sharp, and deadly a puncher as David Haye... Walcott was beaten many times and knocked out several times -- sometimes by super slow and inept guys like Abe Simon in his 35th fight ... at a time when Walcott was a 10-year pro.

Walcott was a poor guy who was badly mismanaged for a long time during his career. Remember, boxers don't earn the millions of dollars that they do now.

He was taking fights at VERY short notice, we are talking 3 or 4 days notice. And him travelling hundreds of miles across the states to get to the venue of the fight.

So often he either had poor preparation for fights & sometimes had NO preparation at all. But if he didn't fight - then he didn't get paid.

Not exactly a winning formula.

I've also heard that he liked to drink, but that hasn't been proven conclusively for my liking.

He also had a labor job for much of his career.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He also had a labor job for much of his career.

Yeah, that too.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Crease wrote:

Kalan wrote:Joe Walcott would be gone in the 1st round if he faced anyone as fast, sharp, and deadly a puncher as David Haye... Walcott was beaten many times and knocked out several times -- sometimes by super slow and inept guys like Abe Simon in his 35th fight ... at a time when Walcott was a 10-year pro.

Walcott was a poor guy who was badly mismanaged for a long time during his career. Remember, boxers don't earn the millions of dollars that they do now.

He was taking fights at VERY short notice, we are talking 3 or 4 days notice. And him travelling hundreds of miles across the states to get to the venue of the fight.

So often he either had poor preparation for fights & sometimes had NO preparation at all. But if he didn't fight - then he didn't get paid.

Not exactly a winning formula.

I've also heard that he liked to drink, but that hasn't been proven conclusively for my liking.

He also had a labor job for much of his career.

What I know for sure is Walcott was a heavy smoker... Cigarettes were cheap in those days and tons of athletes smoked... Walcott said he was a 2-pack-a-day guy. He would do the cake walk, shoe shine shuffle, tons of feints, and other little tricks to buy him time in a fight -- because smoking does effect your wind and work rate.. 59% of American males smoked in the 1950's.. Women smoked too.. A pretty girl would put a cigarette in her mouth and 3 guys would try to light it.

Syntax Error wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:......was the best combination puncher in Boxing history.

His highlight reels and slow motion replays are things of beauty. The power in every shot, accuracy and timing. Amazing.


I feel worse of as a fan losing his prime to the war than I do for Ali.

It's ironic that the 2 best HWs in history arguably lost their best years due to wars.

Louis's hiatus doesn't seem to get mentioned as much, but his loss of years is every bit as significant as Ali's was.

It is true that Louis (and others who were in the military) lost time that doesn't often get mentioned.
In Louis' case, he was about 28 left for WWII and 32 when he had his first fight back. It's doubtful that he was going to get much better at the age of 28 (after fighting as a pro for 7 years) and he probably would have been starting to slide by 1946 anyway. However, being off that time certainly accelerated his decline. What is interesting is that people seem to take it for granted that missing almost four years would mean that he would was never going to be the fighter that he was. However, there are still people who like to say Ali was somehow in his prime after coming back after missing about the same length of time as Louis.

What we may have missed out is fights against good contenders like Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Turkey Thompson etc.

Jeffries was out of Boxing for 6 years... Dempsey was out for 3 years... Louis was out for 4 years... Ali was out of Boxing 3 years... Foreman was out for 10 years... Holmes was out for 5 years essentially, with just the Tyson fight in between... Tyson was out for 4 years... Vitali Klitschko was out 4 years

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Crease wrote:

Kalan wrote:Joe Walcott would be gone in the 1st round if he faced anyone as fast, sharp, and deadly a puncher as David Haye... Walcott was beaten many times and knocked out several times -- sometimes by super slow and inept guys like Abe Simon in his 35th fight ... at a time when Walcott was a 10-year pro.

Walcott was a poor guy who was badly mismanaged for a long time during his career. Remember, boxers don't earn the millions of dollars that they do now.

He was taking fights at VERY short notice, we are talking 3 or 4 days notice. And him travelling hundreds of miles across the states to get to the venue of the fight.

So often he either had poor preparation for fights & sometimes had NO preparation at all. But if he didn't fight - then he didn't get paid.

Not exactly a winning formula.

I've also heard that he liked to drink, but that hasn't been proven conclusively for my liking.

He also had a labor job for much of his career.

wow. didn't know that. these were
different days and these men were
tough as nails.

It's not super unusual for boxers to have full time day jobs... Juan Manuel Marquez was an CPA for almost his entire career.

Crease wrote:

Tomasino wrote:Joe in his late prime would wipe the floor with Haye. Too much ring craft, too much power.

Certainly Walcott would enter as the heavy favourite. I have long said that Jersey Joe is a tremendously underrated fighter these days.

But Hayes is a slippery fighter. When at his best he was quick on his feet with explosive punching power. I do wonder if Haye could him clean a couple of times, would it sway the fight in his favour?

But as I say, good fight - definitely one I would pay a good few quid to witness.

Haye would feel the power early and, if he wasn't KOd clean already (Haye remember boxes with his arms dangling round his hips) would spend all night on the run. I doubt a stamina conscious muscleman like Haye would enjoy 15 rounds of a stalking hitter walking him down, don't see a way he lasts.

Haye was WAY too fast and too good a boxer for Louis... If the wide open 174-pound Billy Conn ripped Louis with scores of punches the lightning fast David Haye certainly could... Look at Haye's last 2 fight as he absolutely destroys a 30-1 guy and a 29-0 guy with blazing hand speed... When did Louis ever get rid of guys with records like that in such stunning fashion??? ... When Louis was younger than Haye he struggle to a 15-round SD robbery win over 194-pound Joe Walcott ... who was very easy to hit and suffered very many losses previously.

Conn had fast hands and ripped Louis like crazy with every punch in the book... But little bitty Conn had no power at all... He was kicking Louis's ass for 12 rounds... Haye would hit Louis just as easily as Conn did but with 10 X the power... Haye would dispatch Louis with little problem... Haye easily went 12 rounds with a peak 6'6" X 245 Wladimir Klitschko, who's one of the greatest Heavyweights in the History of Boxing.

My favourite Louis performance was probably Max Baer, just an awesome display of combination punching. Even in his later years when he pulled the trigger it was a thing of beauty, the finishing salvo in the Walcott rematch was sensational.

He certainly wasn't the quickest on his feet but his timing was so good that he could negate his opponent, an absolute legend and a serious contender for greatest heavyweight of all time.

I really like haye. He has a brutal right hand and he's a proper fighter - he clearly enjoys fighting. So Im a Haye fan and have been right since his early days. Joe Louis however, would destroy Haye. We can all play these picking out one or two fights and basing a whole argument on them. You do it all the time, well, what if i come back with the 40 year old Carl Thomson Koing Haye? what you dont seem to get with any of your post is levels.

Those two guys haye destroyed were very poor journeymen types. Joe Louis was the undisputed - note that - there was one champion not 4, world heavy champ for like 11 years and made 26 defences. This during a time when there were more boxing clubs in new york than there are in the us now. Boxing was huuge back then and when sports are huge there are more participants, the level is higher.

Joe Louis was a killer a total killer, Haye would have no chance - and im a fan!

Kalan wrote:Haye was WAY too fast and too good a boxer for Louis... If the wide open 174-pound Billy Conn ripped Louis with scores of punches the lightning fast David Haye certainly could... Look at Haye's last 2 fight as he absolutely destroys a 30-1 guy and a 29-0 guy with blazing hand speed... When did Louis ever get rid of guys with records like that in such stunning fashion??? ... When Louis was younger than Haye he struggle to a 15-round SD robbery win over 194-pound Joe Walcott ... who was very easy to hit and suffered very many losses previously.

Conn had fast hands and ripped Louis like crazy with every punch in the book... But little bitty Conn had no power at all... He was kicking Louis's ass for 12 rounds... Haye would hit Louis just as easily as Conn did but with 10 X the power... Haye would dispatch Louis with little problem... Haye easily went 12 rounds with a peak 6'6" X 245 Wladimir Klitschko, who's one of the greatest Heavyweights in the History of Boxing.

cfang wrote:I really like haye. He has a brutal right hand and he's a proper fighter - he clearly enjoys fighting. So Im a Haye fan and have been right since his early days. Joe Louis however, would destroy Haye. We can all play these picking out one or two fights and basing a whole argument on them. You do it all the time, well, what if i come back with the 40 year old Carl Thomson Koing Haye? what you dont seem to get with any of your post is levels.

Those two guys haye destroyed were very poor journeymen types. Joe Louis was the undisputed - note that - there was one champion not 4, world heavy champ for like 11 years and made 26 defences. This during a time when there were more boxing clubs in new york than there are in the us now. Boxing was huuge back then and when sports are huge there are more participants, the level is higher.

Joe Louis was a killer a total killer, Haye would have no chance - and im a fan!

He didn't kill Conn very fast.. Billy Conn did get hit.. Conn got beaten 9 times before Louis laid him out.. But Louis was damned easy to hit with fast punches by Billy Conn. Conn ripped Louis for 12 rounds.. Saying Louis was a killer is meaningless.. Louis didn't crush Conn in 90 seconds like Mike Tyson did to Michael Spinks.. No!! Louis looked very slow against Conn.. And he looked pathetically slow against the less than impressive Walcott when he was younger than Haye is.

Haye had only 10 fights when he fought Thompson - who had 38 fights. Haye had no skills at that time, so to put Haye in with a veteran was premature. But Haye didn't get knocked out cold like Louis did for the full count... Louis was 24-0 when he faced 10/1 underdog Schmeling and got knocked out for the 10-count... Louis was a finished product with one of the most masterful coaches and trainers of all time in Blackburn and he got upset by a huge underdog.

And let's go apples to apples... Haye is bigger, taller, faster, stronger, more skilled, harder punching, much smarter and sharper mentally than Louis ever was... He's also a much better finisher than Louis.

Kalan wrote:

cfang wrote:I really like haye. He has a brutal right hand and he's a proper fighter - he clearly enjoys fighting. So Im a Haye fan and have been right since his early days. Joe Louis however, would destroy Haye. We can all play these picking out one or two fights and basing a whole argument on them. You do it all the time, well, what if i come back with the 40 year old Carl Thomson Koing Haye? what you dont seem to get with any of your post is levels.

Those two guys haye destroyed were very poor journeymen types. Joe Louis was the undisputed - note that - there was one champion not 4, world heavy champ for like 11 years and made 26 defences. This during a time when there were more boxing clubs in new york than there are in the us now. Boxing was huuge back then and when sports are huge there are more participants, the level is higher.

Joe Louis was a killer a total killer, Haye would have no chance - and im a fan!

He didn't kill Conn very fast.. Billy Conn did get hit.. Conn got beaten 9 times before Louis laid him out.. But Louis was damned easy to hit with fast punches by Billy Conn. Conn ripped Louis for 12 rounds.. Saying Louis was a killer is meaningless.. Louis didn't crush Conn in 90 seconds like Mike Tyson did to Michael Spinks.. No!! Louis looked very slow against Conn.. And he looked pathetically slow against the less than impressive Walcott when he was younger than Haye is.

Haye had only 10 fights when he fought Thompson - who had 38 fights. Haye had no skills at that time, so to put Haye in with a veteran was premature. But Haye didn't get knocked out cold like Louis did for the full count... Louis was 24-0 when he faced 10/1 underdog Schmeling and got knocked out for the 10-count... Louis was a finished product with one of the most masterful coaches and trainers of all time in Blackburn and he got upset by a huge underdog.

And let's go apples to apples... Haye is bigger, taller, faster, stronger, more skilled, harder punching, much smarter and sharper mentally than Louis ever was... He's also a much better finisher than Louis.

The last sentence is definitely the most absurd i have ever seen on here. Congratulations

Haye's KO ratio is substantially higher than Louis's... There were 17 guys who Louis couldn't put away and only 4 who Haye couldn't put away... and the guys Haye is fighting are a lot bigger and stronger than the guys Louis fought... Conn weighed 174 and was beating Louis for 12 rounds.

Tomasino wrote:

Kalan wrote:

cfang wrote:I really like haye. He has a brutal right hand and he's a proper fighter - he clearly enjoys fighting. So Im a Haye fan and have been right since his early days. Joe Louis however, would destroy Haye. We can all play these picking out one or two fights and basing a whole argument on them. You do it all the time, well, what if i come back with the 40 year old Carl Thomson Koing Haye? what you dont seem to get with any of your post is levels.

Those two guys haye destroyed were very poor journeymen types. Joe Louis was the undisputed - note that - there was one champion not 4, world heavy champ for like 11 years and made 26 defences. This during a time when there were more boxing clubs in new york than there are in the us now. Boxing was huuge back then and when sports are huge there are more participants, the level is higher.

Joe Louis was a killer a total killer, Haye would have no chance - and im a fan!

He didn't kill Conn very fast.. Billy Conn did get hit.. Conn got beaten 9 times before Louis laid him out.. But Louis was damned easy to hit with fast punches by Billy Conn. Conn ripped Louis for 12 rounds.. Saying Louis was a killer is meaningless.. Louis didn't crush Conn in 90 seconds like Mike Tyson did to Michael Spinks.. No!! Louis looked very slow against Conn.. And he looked pathetically slow against the less than impressive Walcott when he was younger than Haye is.

Haye had only 10 fights when he fought Thompson - who had 38 fights. Haye had no skills at that time, so to put Haye in with a veteran was premature. But Haye didn't get knocked out cold like Louis did for the full count... Louis was 24-0 when he faced 10/1 underdog Schmeling and got knocked out for the 10-count... Louis was a finished product with one of the most masterful coaches and trainers of all time in Blackburn and he got upset by a huge underdog.

And let's go apples to apples... Haye is bigger, taller, faster, stronger, more skilled, harder punching, much smarter and sharper mentally than Louis ever was... He's also a much better finisher than Louis.

The last sentence is definitely the most absurd i have ever seen on here. Congratulations

Yes it reaches a whole new level.

cfang wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

Kalan wrote:
He didn't kill Conn very fast.. Billy Conn did get hit.. Conn got beaten 9 times before Louis laid him out.. But Louis was damned easy to hit with fast punches by Billy Conn. Conn ripped Louis for 12 rounds.. Saying Louis was a killer is meaningless.. Louis didn't crush Conn in 90 seconds like Mike Tyson did to Michael Spinks.. No!! Louis looked very slow against Conn.. And he looked pathetically slow against the less than impressive Walcott when he was younger than Haye is.

Haye had only 10 fights when he fought Thompson - who had 38 fights. Haye had no skills at that time, so to put Haye in with a veteran was premature. But Haye didn't get knocked out cold like Louis did for the full count... Louis was 24-0 when he faced 10/1 underdog Schmeling and got knocked out for the 10-count... Louis was a finished product with one of the most masterful coaches and trainers of all time in Blackburn and he got upset by a huge underdog.

And let's go apples to apples... Haye is bigger, taller, faster, stronger, more skilled, harder punching, much smarter and sharper mentally than Louis ever was... He's also a much better finisher than Louis.

The last sentence is definitely the most absurd i have ever seen on here. Congratulations

Yes it reaches a whole new level.

Kalan is under the impression boxing is Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots, where boxers stand straight in front of each other & slug it out till one is unconscious. A fight going the distance to him is evidence both men withstood each other's best, rather than something more abstract taking place - such as a boxing match - where subtle means of self defence where employed to evade full power shots. His understanding of boxing, very much like his voice & writing style, is common among very young teenagers who have just discovered the sport.

Kalan wrote:Haye easily went 12 rounds with a peak 6'6" X 245 Wladimir Klitschko, who's one of the greatest Heavyweights in the History of Boxing.

This might be a bit of an overstatement, although Haye went 12 rounds it was more a matter of surviving 12 rounds without any real intention of trying to win.

razzledaz wrote:

Kalan wrote:Haye easily went 12 rounds with a peak 6'6" X 245 Wladimir Klitschko, who's one of the greatest Heavyweights in the History of Boxing.

This might be a bit of an overstatement, although Haye went 12 rounds it was more a matter of surviving 12 rounds without any real intention of trying to win.

It also contradicts Kalan's great logic that the giant Wilt Chamerlain could 'obviously' hurt Ali because "little" heavyweights like Henry Cooper and Joe Frazier had knocked him down. The super middleweight Lolenga Mock decked and badly hurt Haye, as did ageing the cruiserweights Carl Thompson and Jean Marc Mormeck - so exactly how did Haye stay on his feet vs the mighty 6'6" X 245 Wladimir Klitschko? It's almost as if something called boxing came into play.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

razzledaz wrote:

Kalan wrote:Haye easily went 12 rounds with a peak 6'6" X 245 Wladimir Klitschko, who's one of the greatest Heavyweights in the History of Boxing.

This might be a bit of an overstatement, although Haye went 12 rounds it was more a matter of surviving 12 rounds without any real intention of trying to win.

It also contradicts Kalan's great logic that the giant Wilt Chamerlain could 'obviously' hurt Ali because "little" heavyweights like Henry Cooper and Joe Frazier had knocked him down. The super middleweight Lolenga Mock decked and badly hurt Haye, as did ageing the cruiserweights Carl Thompson and Jean Marc Mormeck - so exactly how did Haye stay on his feet vs the mighty 6'6" X 245 Wladimir Klitschko? It's almost as if something called boxing came into play.

Kalan wrote:Look at Haye's last 2 fight as he absolutely destroys a 30-1 guy and a 29-0 guy with blazing hand speed...

I'm a big David Haye fan, but both those guys were of a poor standard.

And it's absolutely inconceivable how you can compare thrm to JOE LOUIS???

Kalan wrote:When Louis was younger than Haye he struggle to a 15-round SD robbery win over 194-pound Joe Walcott ... who was very easy to hit and suffered very many losses previously.

For reasons that have already been explained to you. Walcott is probably the most underrated Heavyweight Champ in history.

Not to mention that Walcott got better as he got older (like Bernard Hopkins did).