Joe Louis vs Mike Tyson

[tommygun711]

Who wins it and why?
I personally can't pick a winner on this one. Joe louis has the tools, hand speed, and power to pull off a win, but I still think of how many times he's been floored. mike Tyson would be a favorite if I HAD to pick somebody. he has all the power to shatter Joe louis's chin, which would probably be the biggest factor in this fight. if Joe louis was more mobile and had a better chin, he wouldve been unbeatable.

[frankenfrank]

tyson by way of massacre .
louis can't run , can't hide , can't take tyson's punches , and after all of this , tyson has got the better chin of the two . tyson would not have been hurt by billy conn. neither by schmelling. neither even by walcott.

[ripcity]

Intresting match up. I have trubble with this one as well. I think it will start slow. I think Tyson is counter puncher ducking under the punches of his opoents to land shots of his own. I think because of this Louis is not going to let his hands go but pick his spots. Louis enjoys a good reach advantage and I expect him to stay on the outside. I think the pace will pick up as the bout progresses but knowing that Tyson can ko him, Louis will not press the acation as much as we might expect. Louis dose also have one punch power but I think Tyson has the better chin and would win if they were to go toe to toe. However I don't think Louis who is a better boxer than Tyson will let that happen. Louis by decision.

[SteveO]

For me, this is one of the cases where I think about Tyson's overall career accomplishment not being phenomenal, yet he gives many ATG's nightmares.

I think this is a bad match-up for Joe. He would be overwhelmed.

[janitor]

If this fight was happening tomorrow I would want my money on Louis.

I would of course feel a little uneasy around now.

[reznick]

lol

I say Louis by KO easily.

Louis has an incredible chin as well. I see the ending of Tyson vs Louis similar to the ending of Baer Louis. At one point in the fight, Tyson is gonna throw a flurry, and Louis will take a few of the punches, but he will connect that one hook.

You know that one hook that makes his opposition just.....'stop'..... in his tracks.

Its unbelievable the way Louis hit. I think he would be much too powerful and skillful for Tyson.

I would really really love to see the matchup though, so nice thread.

[maverock]

Louis doesn't have the size nor power to grab and hold Tyson down. No chance for him.

Tyson by mid round KO.

[Bummy Davis]

Louis would KO Tyson...I would bet on that

[Unforgiven]

Louis, definitely.

Tyson would walk straight in to his jabs and one-twos. And get knocked out.

[Osceola]

Louis, definitely.

Tyson would walk straight in to his jabs and one-twos. And get knocked out.

Because tyson wasn't at all known for his phenominal speed, reflexes and head movement.

fucking dullard.

[reznick]

Because tyson wasn't at all known for his phenominal speed, reflexes and head movement.

fucking dullard.

Still

A lot of Tysons opponents, even the ones he knocked out in the first round, landed at least one jab on him.

None of them possessed the jab power that Louis had.

Thats all...

[Bill1234]

I think Mike would knock Louis out early. If Joe somehow managed to make it to the 6th round or so I think his punches would start to bust Mike up and probably lead to a stoppage, but I think Mike's left hook would keep getting Louis, who tended to get caught with left hooks.

[mr. magoo]

I think Mike would knock Louis out early. If Joe somehow managed to make it to the 6th round or so I think his punches would start to bust Mike up and probably lead to a stoppage, but I think Mike's left hook would keep getting Louis, who tended to get caught with left hooks.

This is how I have always viewed this particular scenario as well... Joe louis had the right skills and physical tools to beat Tyson, but the problem is that he'd have to survive a brutal hurricane early before the other guy's flaws would start to work in his favor... Of all the fast starting punchers in heavyweight history, I don't think any were as effective as Tyson in the early rounds of a fight.. This was where Louis was most vulnerable as seen against many of the opponents who decked him early on... The difference between Jim Braddock, Max Schmeling, Joe Walcott, Tony Galento and Buddy Baer, is that once Tyson had him in trouble, he would have likely finished him, whereas those other men could not. That said, if Joe survives the first 5 or 6 rounds, or catches Tyson on an off night, he might very well have broken him down and stopped him late...

Its not a forgone conclusion either way, but lets just say, it would probably be Louis's most dangerous proposition..

[tommygun711]

im actually not sure.. Joe Louis is nearly a perfect heavyweight and I have no doubt that his punches would find home. he was so accurate and powerful. mike's chin wasn't granite either and with joe's accuracy I wouldn't be suprised if Joe had him on thr canvas as well. all of his shots in his prime found their target eventually.

[manbearpig]

im actually not sure.. Joe Louis is nearly a perfect heavyweight and I have no doubt that his punches would find home. he was so accurate and powerful. mike's chin wasn't granite either and with joe's accuracy I wouldn't be suprised if Joe had him on thr canvas as well. all of his shots in his prime found their target eventually.
Really? He ate monster shots for many rounds in every fight he was stopped (bar the last two joke fights)

[tommygun711]

Really? He ate monster shots for many rounds in every fight he was stopped (bar the last two joke fights)
it was decent, but not ali or mercer class. they could take punches. tyson's stoppage's weren't against hard heavy punchers. holyfield really doesn't hit that hard for a heavy and he managed to floor Tyson. lennox isn't a tremendous puncher, (#9 or 8?), and knocked mike down with a single shot. it's true this was after much punishment, but it's still odd because Louis hits harder then any of tyson's oppositon. If he was hitting Tyson as often as any of those guys were, he would be busted up badly. tyson could take a punch, but he can't take volume punching, and therefore he has an OK chin and very bad heart. tyson's chin is still better then louis's. anyway the point is that either man could be floored if either of them got hit with the right punch.

[manbearpig]

I disagree that Lennox Lewis wasn't a tremendous puncher. He was a 6'5 240 pound man, and when he loaded up he was explosive. The Rahman II knockout is one of my favourite knockouts ever. Brutal one-two. But I get your point about him. I just disagree, I think Tyson had a great chin, and could take a great deal of punishment. You'd have to keep laying into him to get him down, and doing that leaves you open to one of Mike's bombs. I fancy Mike's chances over Joe.

[reznick]

Louis got up from knockdowns after getting hit by real hard hitters such as Joe Walcott


Tyson.....well....never got up. EVER.

[Flea Man]

One worry I have for Tyson is on the inside.

He threw shots from mid-rangeish, right on the inside Louis' shorter punches could have Tyson out of there, good chin or not.

I'd favour Tyson within a few rounds though, but I now have problems with this match-up due to Louis' shorter punches.

[CF Gauss]

Louis by a mid to late KO

[The Wanderer]

Hate to say a word against Louis, but I think there is a very distinct possibility that Tyson might overwhelm him.

[Mendoza]

I think Louis is greater, but Tyson matches up well with him. I like Tyson early and in the mid rounds, and Louis late. I'd pick Tyson.

[janitor]

People talk about the early huricane that Louis is going to have to weather, but they seem to think that Tyson can just bore forward into Louis's combinations with impunity.

When Louis was loading up his combinations thae last place in the world you wanted to be was coming forward, believe me. Louis was as dangerous going backward as Tyson was coming forward.

It might well come down to a question of whether Tyson could endure the early huricane.

[Unforgiven]

Because tyson wasn't at all known for his phenominal speed, reflexes and head movement.

Well, he caught jabs and one-twos from slower less skilful fighters than Joe Louis.
Pinklon Thomas rarely missed when he actually threw, but Thomas had no power.
Tyson's head movement is overrated.

Tyson might shock Louis with a few shots, even deck him, but Louis would handle the situation and break Tyson down with his superior boxing ability and ample power.



fucking dullard.


:nono

[itrymariti]

This may sound tenuous, but I think this match-up depends fundamentally on era. Obviously, Tyson was a mid-range operater, and needed some way of getting in on his opponents without getting hit. The peek-a-boo guard was his primary means of achieving that. He could get away with it in the modern era because the gloves are huge, making his guard difficult to penetrate. But back in the day, punches were like water running through your fingers: you can't just hope to block then. (Hence the easier KO's and emphasis on range control as a primary means of defence.) We all know how Louis eats guys for breakfast on the way in. With small gloves, Tyson gets decisively beaten to the punch and probably stopped before he can get off; with modern gloves, he can probably deflect most of Louis' work from range and get up close where his better defence would give him the edge.

In other words: "Louis in his era, Tyson in his". It's a fantastic match-up, though, between two comparably overwhelming offensive forces.

[itrymariti]

Louis probably didn't face the big punchers that Tyson did, but he was never laid out cold like Tyson was against Lewis and Douglas, despite taking not entirely dissimilar amounts of punishment from Schmeling I, Charles, Marciano etc. There isn't a huge chin deficit here.

[Flea Man]

When comparing fighters from different eras I let the older guy use his gloves/equipment, and the modern guy use his,

[RockysSplitNose]

Some bits I'm kind of in agreement with - sort of


lol

At one point in the fight, Tyson is gonna throw a flurry, and Louis will take a few of the punches, but he will connect that one hook.

You know that one hook that makes his opposition just.....'stop'..... in his tracks.

Its unbelievable the way Louis hit.

ONE HERE I DON'T AGREE WITH - HOW COULD LOUIS NOT HAVE THE SIZE NOR POWER TO GRAB AND HOLD TYSON??? THAT'S RIDICULOUS REALLY

Louis doesn't have the size nor power to grab and hold Tyson down. No chance for him.

Tyson by mid round KO.

im actually not sure.. Joe Louis is nearly a perfect heavyweight and I have no doubt that his punches would find home. he was so accurate and powerful. mike's chin wasn't granite either and with joe's accuracy I wouldn't be suprised if Joe had him on thr canvas as well. all of his shots in his prime found their target eventually.

THINK I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ABOUT TYSON'S CHIN NOT BEING GRANITE - BASICALLY WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO IS TYSON COULD BE RATTLED - IT WASN'T LIKE NOBODY EVER HURT HIM - BRUNO DID AND TUCKER DID AND BONECRUSHER DID

NOT REALLY SURE ABOUT THIS ONE (ATHOUGH PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING ELSE YOU SAID I'M IN ALLIANCE WITH) - IT'S JUST I WATCHED A FEW OF LOUIS' FIGHT THE OTHER NIGHT AND TRIED TO BE OBJECTIIVE AND ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTED WAS LOUIS DIDN'T LOOK AS GOOD TO ME WHEN BACKING UP - HE'D NEED TO BRING THE FIGHT FORWARD HIMSELF I THINK

[quote=janitor;6434086] Louis was as dangerous going backward as Tyson was coming forward. quote]

Joe Louis did get made to look shaky and disorientated and did occassionally show a vunerable chin

- I i think Jimmy Braddock surprised himself even more than Louis when he put him on the seat of his pants with a seemingly inocuous right in the very first round.

- and again I think Galento was even more surprised than Joe when he put the champion down

- Mauriello also reacted like all his christmas's had come at once when he hurt Louis in the first round (almost like he could beleive he'd hurt him)

- Tommy Farr rattled him - much like Bruno did Tyson come to think of it

But usually he was up in a flash - and seemingly never actually looked shaky legged or anything when he was up (more indignant at having been knocked over) I don't know whether it was a balance thing sometimes with some of these flash knockdowns and/or getting caught cold (Jack Johnson called Louis a "programmed fighter" who wouldn't know how to adjust when his tactics or pce were upset)

- when he was back on his feet ready for the follow up onslaught he would always fight back and in the process take further (harder and more agressive) punches than the one that put him down in the first place without going down again?? - This happened in the Walcott fights too - he took harder shots without going down than the ones he took which actually put him down - they usually seemed like counter shots that he either wasn't expecting or just didn't see coming when he went down

- so yeah there are obviously examples of how Louis' chin could let him down at completely unexpected moments and if theres anything which could plant seeds of doubt in peoples minds it evidence of a sometimes dodgy chin - especially against Tyson - yeah Louis did look muddled when hit hard but on the plus side -

* he had a great 'targeting' jab, to set you up - as a result whenever he threw - HE LANDED.

*when he was hurt - he would always fire back hard to discourage opponents.

*in the defeat to Schmeling Louis actually soaked up a great deal of punishment until stopped

*Louis matched Tyson in terms of the combination of handspeed and power - which is what usually set Tyson apart so Tyson's big advantage wouldn't be there.

I think Louis takes it - to focussed, to methodical, to clever (people always talk about Louis power but he was a great great boxer and his combination punching was simply astonishing at times - two great fighters but I go with Louis by knockout because he was the greatest finisher ever and every time Tyson lost he was stopped.

[mr. magoo]

People talk about the early huricane that Louis is going to have to weather, but they seem to think that Tyson can just bore forward into Louis's combinations with impunity.

When Louis was loading up his combinations thae last place in the world you wanted to be was coming forward, believe me. Louis was as dangerous going backward as Tyson was coming forward.

It might well come down to a question of whether Tyson could endure the early huricane.

Both men were exremely dangerous in the opening rounds of a fight.. The difference however, is that one of them had the tendency to get into trouble early, while the other one did not..

[Unforgiven]

Both men were exremely dangerous in the opening rounds of a fight.. The difference however, is that one of them had the tendency to get into trouble early, while the other one did not..

Which one's which ? :huh

[itrymariti]

When comparing fighters from different eras I let the older guy use his gloves/equipment, and the modern guy use his,

That's a bit unfair, surely? There's a clear advantage to be gained for Tyson if he has those big pillows, even if they do reduce power slightly. I mean, without them, he basically has no defence.

Suppose somebody invents a magic implement tomorrow that automatically seals up cuts sustained in a fight. If we're comparing modern fighters to old, it would definitely be unfair if the old-timer were deprived thereof.

There are other examples of where asymmetries in the rules are inappropriate: suppose we're matching Sandy Saddler against modern FW; it would be strange to allow Saddler to "foul" but not his opponent. Seems strange to make an exception just for equipment.

[mr. magoo]

Which one's which ? :huh

1. Max Schmeling - Louis down in second round

2. Jim Braddock - Louis down in first

3. Buddy Baer - Louis down in first

4. Joe Walcott - Louis down in first and 3rd..

5. Tony Galento - Louis staggered in first, down in third

6. Joe Walcott II - Louis down in third

7. Tami Mauriello - Louis staggered against the ropes in first

8. Billy Conn - Louis outboxed for most of the early rounds.

How many times was Tyson in trouble early?

[itrymariti]

8. Billy Conn - Louis outboxed for most of the early rounds.

Not really.

[Unforgiven]

1. Max Schmeling - Louis down in second round

Fouth round.



2. Jim Braddock - Louis down in first

3. Buddy Baer - Louis down in first


Yes.


4. Joe Walcott - Louis down in first and 3rd..


True. But past his prime. I think it was 1st and 4th round.



5. Tony Galento - Louis staggered in first, down in third


Yes.


6. Joe Walcott II - Louis down in third


Past his prime though.

7. Tami Mauriello - Louis staggered against the ropes in first

True. Past his best again though.


8. Billy Conn - Louis outboxed for most of the early rounds.


I dont think so.


How many times was Tyson in trouble early?


Less times than Louis. :good
he had less fights though.

[mr. magoo]

Fouth round.




Yes.



True. But past his prime. I think it was 1st and 4th round.




Yes.



Past his prime though.



True. Past his best again though.



I dont think so.



Less times than Louis. :good
he had less fights though.

So basically, I did a good job at outlining which was which?

[mr. magoo]

Less times than Louis. :good
he had less fights though.

I think this is pretty much irrelevant. Tyson was not going to get decked by Max Schmeling or Jim Braddock while being in between his 28th and 33rd pro fight. Had these two met at their absolute peaks, their number of fights would have been fairly close, with Louis having perhaps just a few more, but its not that wide of a margin..

[Unforgiven]

So basically, I did a good job at outlining which was which?

Yeah. :good

[Unforgiven]

I think this is pretty much irrelevant. Tyson was not going to get decked by Max Schmeling or Jim Braddock while being in between his 28th and 33rd pro fight.

I dont know, maybe Schmeling could deck Tyson.
Anyway, Louis had the better of Schmeling through the first 3 rounds.


Had these two met at their absolute peaks, their number of fights would have been fairly close, with Louis having perhaps just a few more, but its not that wide of a margin..


That makes its more relevant then surely. Because most of your examples fall past Louis's prime.

I dont think you're wrong though. If either of them was a bit more inclined to get into trouble early it was Louis more so than Tyson, but I wouldn't say he was inclined to get into trouble early relative to most good fighters.

Tyson was caught in the 1st rounds by punches from guys who weren't remotely in Louis's class either. Tucker and Bruno actually had him losing his footing. And whenever Louis was caught he almost always came back hard with something.
I dont see it as a strong factor.

I prefer to go with the better boxer, which is Louis.

[mr. magoo]

I dont know, maybe Schmeling could deck Tyson.
Anyway, Louis had the better of Schmeling through the first 3 rounds.



That makes its more relevant then surely. Because most of your examples fall past Louis's prime.

I dont think you're wrong though. If either of them was a bit more inclined to get into trouble early it was Louis more so than Tyson, but I wouldn't say he was inclined to get into trouble early relative to most good fighters.

Tyson was caught in the 1st rounds by punches from guys who weren't remotely in Louis's class either. Tucker and Bruno actually had him losing his footing. And whenever Louis was caught he almost always came back hard with something.
I dont see it as a strong factor.

I prefer to go with the better boxer, which is Louis.

Fair enough.

[godking]

Who wins it and why?
I personally can't pick a winner on this one. Joe louis has the tools, hand speed, and power to pull off a win, but I still think of how many times he's been floored. mike Tyson would be a favorite if I HAD to pick somebody. he has all the power to shatter Joe louis's chin, which would probably be the biggest factor in this fight. if Joe louis was more mobile and had a better chin, he wouldve been unbeatable.Tyson

Louis is the greater fighter but the style matchup favors Tyson .

[RockysSplitNose]

Fouth round.




Yes.



True. But past his prime. I think it was 1st and 4th round.




Yes.



Past his prime though.



True. Past his best again though.



I dont think so.



Less times than Louis. :good
he had less fights though.

Less competetive fights and I think thats the key - discounting the Schmeling beating - how many of the fights mentioned did Louis ultimately come back to win in?? How many fights did Tyson get off the floor to win?? How many actually competetive fights did Tyson ever win??

[mr. magoo]

Less competetive fights and I think thats the key - discounting the Schmeling beating - how many of the fights mentioned did Louis ultimately come back to win in?? How many fights did Tyson get off the floor to win?? How many actually competetive fights did Tyson ever win??

You can't discount the Schmeling loss, and frankly Tyson taking the very best that big punchers like James Smith, Razor Ruddock and Frank Bruno had to offer was better than getting decked by light hitting Braddock who hadn't fought in two years, or a man like Tony Galento.. In order to beat Tyson, you had to pound him for 10 rounds or more, and ultimately had to be lucky that you were catching him on an off night... Louis was floored by lesser men consistantly throughout his career, and getting tagged by some of those guys were less than flattering, even if you did come back to win..

Now Louis may very well have been the better tachnician, and for all any of us knows, could have beaten Tyson.. But I'm not about to ignore the trends, nor how they stack up to Tyson's style or pattern of winning early... Make no mistake, this is a very dangerous fight for Louis, and should he get in trouble early, he'd be in there with a much better finisher than Schmeling, Braddock, Baer, or Galento..

[reznick]

Rockyssplitnose you make very good points.

I think when Louis was getting caught, he simply had his guard down, and was not expecting to be hit. But like you said, he would always get up.


And fleaman brought up a very good point. Tyson was a mid range fighter, not an inside fighter. And I don't think there is a more difficult distance to place yourself against Joe, than mid range.

Joe said he was bothered by inside fighters. And in my opinion only Johnson and Ali could have beaten Joe and they were both outside fighters.

If Joe Louis can take a flush Max Baer combo to the face, and then instantaneously knock him down a few seconds later, what makes you think he won't do that to Tyson.
THINK about it. Louis took about 3 flush Max Baer punches to the face (The same Baer who has killed men in the ring), and then proceeded to knock him down. I mean wasn't Louis shaken up from those punches he took from Max? Are you telling me Max' punches had no affect on Louis power? That means Louis is a legend. A legend who, in his prime, would NEVER lose to Tyson.

I hate to say this with such conviction when it pertains to such a subjective argument, but come on!

[reznick]

You can't discount the Schmeling loss, and frankly Tyson taking the very best that big punchers like James Smith, Razor Ruddock and Frank Bruno had to offer was better than getting decked by light hitting Braddock who hadn't fought in two years, or a man like Tony Galento..


Oh come on. First of all, Louis lost to Max Schmeling. Louis was not prepared for the fight mentally nor physically.

Mike Tyson lost to Busted Douglas. Mike Tyson was not prepared for the fight mentally nor physically.

I bet you Max Schmeling would defeat Mike Tyson. Or can we all agree that he would at least be a game fighter? Imagine us sayin the same about Douglas against Louis though.


Tell me, do you think if James Smith fought in 1930's we would know his name today? Not a chance. But James Braddock was an incredible fighter. Saying Louis falling to him discredits Joe as a fighter is silly.

[RockysSplitNose]

You can't discount the Schmeling loss, and frankly Tyson taking the very best that big punchers like James Smith, Razor Ruddock and Frank Bruno had to offer was better than getting decked by light hitting Braddock who hadn't fought in two years, or a man like Tony Galento..

In order to beat Tyson, you had to pound him for 10 rounds or more, and ultimately had to be lucky that you were catching him on an off night...

Louis was floored by lesser men consistantly throughout his career, and getting tagged by some of those guys were less than flattering, even if you did come back to win..

Now Louis may very well have been the better tachnician, and for all any of us knows, could have beaten Tyson.. But I'm not about to ignore the trends, nor how they stack up to Tyson's style or pattern of winning early... Make no mistake, this is a very dangerous fight for Louis, and should he get in trouble early, he'd be in there with a much better finisher than Schmeling, Braddock, Baer, or Galento..

Don't completely disagree with what you're saying at all (it is an interesting one to say the least) - just the bit I've highlighted that's all - the thing that throws me (and this happens with a lot of fighters I think - the obvious one being Ali) is a lot of fighters seem to develop a certain ruggedness and toughness as they go on - its like as their youth and zip ebs it is replaced out of neccesity with deeper resolve somehow - (i think it may have happened to some extent with Louis too actually - otherwise Braddock and co were better punchers than Marciano to have hurt Louis much quicker) but I don't personally think you needed to pummel Tyson for 10 rounds before he gave in - in his prime he was rattled enough by one shots on occassion where if a better fighter had been in there with him may have jumped on him and stopped him too - i don't think many did pummel him for 10 rounds anyway I think it was just as much his stamina let him down on occassions - I'd wonder whether the younger Tyson would take stick for long because we never got to see whether he could - it would certainly be something new for the young Tyson - it's like when I think of Henry Cooper almost knocking out a young Muhammad Ali with one left hook (good puncher though he was) and then years later when he's old he can soak up endless punishment from beasts like Foreman and Frazier (guys 2 stones bigger) - and I watch Clay-Liston and it looks to me if Clay had've stopped moving for a second Liston would've crushed him - it's really difficult to say:nut:patsch and then I see the old man version of Tyson yielding to ham n eggers like Danny Williams and Kevin McBride - i wonder whether anything counts with Tyson beyond the age of 24???

[PowerPuncher]

Tyson by way of KO, hes a far far more skilled boxer. Louis's footwork was just too plodding to see him get off his shots first and his defense wasnt nearly as good. Louis would catch Tyson at times, but Tyson lands more and it results in Louis getting stopped sooner or later

[itrymariti]

Tyson by way of KO, hes a far far more skilled boxer

Skilled?

Louis's footwork was just too plodding to see him get off his shots first

It was never Tyson's aim to get to the punch first. He actually conceived himself as a counter-puncher. If anything, Louis "plodding footwork" (i.e. maintance of good balance) is an advantage in an exchange. You don't have to move; you can wait for the other guy.

[Unforgiven]

You can't discount the Schmeling loss, and frankly Tyson taking the very best that big punchers like James Smith, Razor Ruddock and Frank Bruno had to offer was better than getting decked by light hitting Braddock who hadn't fought in two years, or a man like Tony Galento..

James Smith only landed a heavy shot once on Tyson, in the final round, and stunned him.
Joe Louis took a shot just as big from Max Baer and stayed upright too.
Galento was a huge hitter, and Braddock caught an over-eager Louis off-balance.
I think Tyson's balance was worse than Louis.

In order to beat Tyson, you had to pound him for 10 rounds or more, and ultimately had to be lucky that you were catching him on an off night...

Well, if that's an argument, yes, Tyson was knocked out in 10 by Douglas. But Louis went 12 with Schmeling.



Louis was floored by lesser men consistantly throughout his career, and getting tagged by some of those guys were less than flattering, even if you did come back to win..


No, he was consistent in not getting floored or troubled at all in the vast bulk of his fights.

In his first 54 official fights (up until the WW2) he was floored only by Schmeling, Braddock, Galento and Buddy Baer.
Braddock wasn't a monstrous puncher but wasn't feather-fisted either, and caught Louis off-balance.
Schmeling was a big puncher. Galento and Baer were monsters.

Louis got up and fought back every time, accept the second KD in the Schmeling fight which came 8 rounds after he was decked the first time.
The other three fighters were all KO'd.



Now Louis may very well have been the better tachnician, and for all any of us knows, could have beaten Tyson.. But I'm not about to ignore the trends, nor how they stack up to Tyson's style or pattern of winning early... Make no mistake, this is a very dangerous fight for Louis, and should he get in trouble early, he'd be in there with a much better finisher than Schmeling, Braddock, Baer, or Galento..


Maybe Tyson was a better finisher. But since only Schmeling beat Louis there, and it took an extra 8 rounds after Louis was hurt, Tyson's prowess would be similarly limited by Louis's.

I guess a lot of people think Tyson beats Louis. That's okay. But I dont see it myself.

[Unforgiven]

Tyson by way of KO, hes a far far more skilled boxer. Louis's footwork was just too plodding to see him get off his shots first and his defense wasnt nearly as good. Louis would catch Tyson at times, but Tyson lands more and it results in Louis getting stopped sooner or later

Louis had better footwork than Tyson, who was often off-balance.

Louis's "shuffling" style was in use when he was stalking smaller guys who were moving around and away from him, and bigger guys who were trying to keep Louis at long range.
Against Tyson, Louis doesn't need to stalk or "plod" as you call it.

Louis had some neat footwork and would side-step and turn quickly when he needn't to, but he consciously remained flat-footed for as much of the time as possible, to save energy and keep his power planted.

[Son of Gaul]

Although many people on classic will find it difficult to be objective on this one. Joe Louis was simply to slow of a starter and far too stationary to deal with the explosive, elusive Tyson from '86-'88. As with Marciano, Joe would have a chance once the fight got past the 4th round or so...but I don't see that happening.

[Son of Gaul]

Although many people on classic will find it difficult to be objective on this one. Joe Louis was simply to slow of a starter and far too stationary to deal with the explosive, elusive Tyson from '86-'88. As with Marciano, Joe would have a chance once the fight got past the 4th round or so...but I don't see that happening.

It's strange because I actually give Marciano a better chance to weather Tyson's early storm than Louis.

[djanders]

Prime against prime, I would bet heavily on Joe Louis. And, by the looks of this thread, I would make a ton of money on this fight. In a rematch, Joe would beat Mike worse, but after some of these Tyson guys saw the first fight, I probably wouldn't be able to make much money on the second one. :p

[djanders]

Old Joe survived young Marciano for nearly 8 rounds, but a prime Joe can't last past 4 with Tyson? :lol:

[PowerPuncher]

1. Skilled?

2. It was never Tyson's aim to get to the punch first. He actually conceived himself as a counter-puncher. If anything, Louis "plodding footwork" (i.e. maintance of good balance) is an advantage in an exchange. You don't have to move; you can wait for the other guy.

1. Not getting kd'ed by every half decent opponent you face like Louis....

2. So effectively you agree Louis's slow feet means Tyson will get off first and control the exchanges? Louis's defense isnt good enough to evade Tyson while hes getting beat to the punc. Tyson could counter punch wonderfully, but more often than not he'd land first and do damage

Plodding feet are never an advantage

[Son of Gaul]

1. Not getting kd'ed by every half decent opponent you face like Louis....

2. So effectively you agree Louis's slow feet means Tyson will get off first and control the exchanges? Louis's defense isnt good enough to evade Tyson while hes getting beat to the punc. Tyson could counter punch wonderfully, but more often than not he'd land first and do damage

Plodding feet are never an advantage

Agreed. I think many Louis supporters are failing to objectively look at Tyson's brief prime('86-'88) to see what he was actually capable of. He was a perfect combination of Patterson and Frazier... without Frazier's stamina of course.:good

[Unforgiven]

Joe Louis wasn't strictly a slow starter.
If a man wanted to start rumbling in the first round, Joe Louis was quick to oblige.

Tyson would tear at him, and Louis would react to it in the proper manner, ie. fight back like a demon, with short precise powerful trademark punches. And he was so cool under presure, even if knocked down, I cant see him folding against Tyson.

Conversely, I dont rate Tyson's ability under pressure. Even when he was on top in a fight beyond a few rounds he'd get frustrated and could turn very predictable winging in one telegraphed punch at a time.

[reznick]

I agree, that Joe Louis' number one problem, was balance. Jack Johnson always said Joe Louis was the hardest puncher he has ever seen, but his balance in his footwork was his weakness. And I have to agree.

However, I do not believe that weakness is enough to lose him the fight to Tyson. Because compared to the average fighter, Louis had excellent balance. But he would have lost to Johnson and Ali. Tyson would get crushed.


Imagine:

"Tyson is bobbin and weavin, tryna find the inside....WOW! he jumps in and lands 3 powerful shots on Louis! Two to the body, and a big hook the the head. Louis is still standing though, remarkably! He looks okay! Lous answers back with a big right hook! It lands flush on Tysons cheek! Tyson has stopped weaving! He doesnt look sharp anymore! Its a standup battle now, and Louis is bringin it to him!"

Thats how I see it

I love this thread and this forum. I can discuss this for days its great :D

[Unforgiven]

Agreed. I think many Louis supporters are failing to objectively look at Tyson's brief prime('86-'88) to see what he was actually capable of. He was a perfect combination of Patterson and Frazier... without Frazier's stamina of course.:good

I watched every prime Tyson fight back in the day, and have re-watched every one on a constant basis almost every week or month since. :lol:

And I am well aware of his strengths and his flaws. He always had flaws, but he was improving up until the Biggs-Holmes-Tubbs-Spinks fights, then he just stagnated and declined.
Tyson was a very good fighter then but his brief prime gets over-exaggerated. He wasn't the finished article and he had flaws that were obvious to people even then.

[PowerPuncher]

Louis had better footwork than Tyson, who was often off-balance.

Louis's "shuffling" style was in use when he was stalking smaller guys who were moving around and away from him, and bigger guys who were trying to keep Louis at long range.
Against Tyson, Louis doesn't need to stalk or "plod" as you call it.

Louis had some neat footwork and would side-step and turn quickly when he needn't to, but he consciously remained flat-footed for as much of the time as possible, to save energy and keep his power planted.

Let me break it down for you

Tysons footwork = great
Louis's footwork = shit

Louis was the off balance 1 with the dodgy bal;ance, which is evident by him getting kd'ed by every half decent contender he faced

[Unforgiven]

I agree, that Joe Louis' number one problem, was balance. Jack Johnson always said Joe Louis was the hardest puncher he has ever seen, but his balance in his footwork was his weakness. And I have to agree.

However, I do not believe that weakness is enough to lose him the fight to Tyson. Because compared to the average fighter, Louis had excellent balance.

Tyson was off-balance more than Louis was. Louis could put himself off balance at times but Tyson was off-balance during most of his attacks and certainly on the inside, where he just stood feet together.
He got away with it because he was so aggressive and because his opposition was a bit weak.

[gentleman jim]

I think Joe is somewhat underrated in the foot work department. His footwork was actually quite good and enabled him to get maximum leverage on his punches. His shuffle allowed him to move in any direction while maintaining his power base without expending unnecessary energy. Combie that with his timing, accuracy and deadly power and you have a very dangerous boxer-puncher. By comparison Tyson's footwork is problematic and dependent upon upper body movement to evade punches. Plus that peek-a-boo style requires that your feet are square to your opponent. It's no surprise that we only had 2 champions that used that style of fighting in Tyson and Patterson. It's just a difficult style to learn though effective if you can master it.

[mr. magoo]

Tyson was off-balance more than Louis was. Louis could put himself off balance at times but Tyson was off-balance during most of his attacks and certainly on the inside, where he just stood feet together.
He got away with it because he was so aggressive and because his opposition was a bit weak.


I disagree that Tyson was off balance more than Louis, and frankly don't see the basis for this claim.. He was floored far less in his prime than Louis was, and the quality of opposition card, isn't being backed up here.. He took Solid shots from Ruddock, Smith, Bruno, and Tucker without going down, and this is supposed to harbor that Louis who was floored by Braddock among others was more stable? You also say that part of the reason for Tyson getting away with being off balance, was due to his agression? If anything, being overly aggressive, creates more instances where a man is going to be caught off balance than anything else.There have been some good points made by you and others in this thread, but I think that we're starting to bend the truth a little here.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;6436584]1. Not getting kd'ed by every half decent opponent you face like Louis....


It is preposterous to claim that Louis was dropped by every decent oponent he faced.

In terms of all round boxing skillset he was far more technicaly complete than Tyson.

2. So effectively you agree Louis's slow feet means Tyson will get off first and control the exchanges?

Louis only had slow feet when it suited his purpouse which was most of the time.

When he wanted to move he could move.

Louis's defense isnt good enough to evade Tyson while hes getting beat to the punc.

Why is his defence not good enough and why should he be beaten to the punch?


Tyson could counter punch wonderfully, but more often than not he'd land first and do damage


If Louis is rangier and Tyson is fighting coming forwards then Tysons chances of landing first are slim.

He is going to have to walk through Louis's best combinations to land his own.

[PowerPuncher]

Agreed. I think many Louis supporters are failing to objectively look at Tyson's brief prime('86-'88) to see what he was actually capable of. He was a perfect combination of Patterson and Frazier... without Frazier's stamina of course.:good

Another point people don't recognise, is the fact that Tyson is a master boxer. Louis often got outboxed by these types - Conn, Schmelling, Walcott, Charles.

Louis also had problems with crouching pressuring types like MArciano/Goddoy/Farr, ie similar yet inferior fighters to Tyson

Good point about Louis being a slow starter btw, Louis also admitted he never liked being pressured and Tyson would certainly do that

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;6436719]Another point people don't recognise, is the fact that Tyson is a master boxer. Louis often got outboxed by these types - Conn, Schmelling, Walcott, Charles.


Now I have heard it all.

You are actualy trying to compare Tyson to Conn, Schmeling and Walcott in terms of style and boxing skill.

Have you seen any of them fight?


Louis also had problems with crouching pressuring types like MArciano/Goddoy/Farr, ie similar yet inferior fighters to Tyson


Tyson was not a crouching fighter.

He fought stood straight up.

Good point about Louis being a slow starter btw, Louis also admitted he never liked being pressured and Tyson would certainly do that

Actualy Louis stopped more elite level fighters in the first two rounds than Tyson did.

I guess Tyson must be a slow starter as well right?

[reznick]

I don't think Joe Louis footwork or balance was bad.

Im just saying its the reason, in my opinion, that he #3 of all time, and not #1.

I dont expect people to agree with me on that though.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. It is preposterous to claim that Louis was dropped by every decent oponent he faced.

2. In terms of all round boxing skillset he was far more technicaly complete than Tyson.

3. Louis only had slow feet when it suited his purpouse which was most of the time.

4. When he wanted to move he could move.

5. Why is his defence not good enough and why should he be beaten to the punch?

6. If Louis is rangier and Tyson is fighting coming forwards then Tysons chances of landing first are slim.

7. He is going to have to walk through Louis's best combinations to land his own.

1. Louis was down countless times in his prime against inferior fighters

2. Tyson was better at everything than Louis - sweeping statement but generally true, attempt to tell me what Louis does better so I can have a good laugh

3. It suited his purpose to get outboxed/beat up by walcott/Goddoy/Conn/Schmelling

4. Yes he could move......with the aid of a car

5. His defense isnt good enough because all the best faster boxers landed on him, some at will - Tysonwould land on him at will. Tyson would land first because of faster footwork, faster hands, better timing, better defense

6. Except everyone Tyson fought had more range than him and Louis and Tyson still landed first because of the above reasons

7. Not if Tyson lands first, which he would

[mr. magoo]

=reznick;6436319]Oh come on. First of all, Louis lost to Max Schmeling. Louis was not prepared for the fight mentally nor physically.

Mike Tyson lost to Busted Douglas. Mike Tyson was not prepared for the fight mentally nor physically.


The difference is that Louis actually tried to fight back, whereas Tyson wasn't even giving a half-assed effort...

I bet you Max Schmeling would defeat Mike Tyson. Or can we all agree that he would at least be a game fighter?

That would be a whole other thread.


Imagine us sayin the same about Douglas against Louis though.



James Douglas was a 6'4", 230 lbs fighter, who had a lengthy jab, good uppercut and halfway decent footwork, and fought in an era where being black wasn't a problem if you wanted a title shot... Schmeling was barely 6'0" tall and weighed 199 lbs, was off for a full year before facing Louis, began his career at lightheavyweight, and had only won 4 of his last 8 fights.. Given these permaters, I think James Douglas would have been a nightmare for a guy like Louis, to a much greater extent than Shmeling ever would have for Tyson..

Tell me, do you think if James Smith fought in 1930's we would know his name today? Not a chance.

Given that unless you were managed the way that Louis was back in the 1930's, Smith being a black man probably would have kept him in the unknown section... From that perspective I agree.... Now, remove the politics of the day and place a 6'5", 235 lbs black man with a solid chin and very hard punch in there, you'd have a black version of Max Baer only better....




But James Braddock was an incredible fighter. Saying Louis falling to him discredits Joe as a fighter is silly....

It's not silly at all.. Braddock was a former light heavyweight, who had lost 25 of his professional bouts, was past his prime and hadn't fought in two years... If a 38 year old Holmes ( who was a natural heavyweight and who's career and past prime fighting ability was far superior to Braddock's ), had managed to deck Tyson in their fight, you guys would be throwing that in everyone's face like it was the one and only deciding factor in picking Louis over Tyson....

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
Now I have heard it all. You are actualy trying to compare Tyson to Conn, Schmeling and Walcott in terms of style and boxing skill. Have you seen any of them fight?

2. Tyson was not a crouching fighter. He fought stood straight up.

3. Actualy Louis stopped more elite level fighters in the first two rounds than Tyson did.

I guess Tyson must be a slow starter as well right?

1. Tyson is certainly better than Conn and Schmelling when it comes to skill, his defense and shot picking is far superior, he is far better at hitting without getting hit. He is also faster of foot and hand than both

2. Watch some Tyson and come back to me, Tyson would squat incredibly low, below his opponents waist, obviously he didnt punch crouched against 6'6 fighters :lol:

3. Louis's opponents arent elite though, Tysons opposition was far far better, far more skilled, far bigger, bigger hitters etc

[mr. magoo]

Although I have all the respect in the world for Louis's abilities as a technical combination puncher, I think that people are going too far in crediting his skills... He was a fighter who generally stood in an upright, stationary position, whereas Tyson was constantly bobbing, weaving and slipping punches... Louis's guard often had holes in it, while Tyson's peak o boo defense proved to serve him better for most of his career, or at least in his prime.... Tyson was good at creating his OWN openings against his foes, but Louis often had to wait for opportunity to come knocking.... I also happen to think that Tyson had greater handspeed, more power and a superior chin...... Frankly, its a no brainer

[Unforgiven]

Let me break it down for you

Tysons footwork = great
Louis's footwork = shit

Louis was the off balance 1 with the dodgy bal;ance, which is evident by him getting kd'ed by every half decent contender he faced

If you actually bothered to look, you'd notice that Tyson's balance was a bit shit.
He had his feet square on, often had his right foot in front of his left, any half decent fight could walk him back in any clinch.

An absolute prime no-excuses Tyson almost falls over at 6:20 against Tubbs, again off-balance at 6:32, and another little stumble at 7:20 :

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Against Tucker, 0:23, he's leaning in face-first, feet together, Tucker just throws a half-ass uppercut off the backfoot and lifts Tyson in the air :

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

If Tucker wasn't in retreat all the time he might've actually been able to do something.

Against Stewart, Tyson's just crazy off-balance winging in hard shots with his feet in all sorts of unorthodox positions :

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

And these are prime or near-prime Tyson in his first round of his fights, where he supposed to be at his best ...

And I can go on and on, every Tyson fight he leaves his feet in strange positions, puts his right in front of his left like he's fighting southpaw, feet square on and easy to walk back in clinches. Leaning forward open for uppercuts. Almost constantly making those errors.

[Son of Gaul]

[quote]


Now I have heard it all.

You are actualy trying to compare Tyson to Conn, Schmeling and Walcott in terms of style and boxing skill.

Have you seen any of them fight?



Tyson was not a crouching fighter.

He fought stood straight up.



Actualy Louis stopped more elite level fighters in the first two rounds than Tyson did.

I guess Tyson must be a slow starter as well right?

Tyson was absolutely a crouching fighter as his style closely resembled Dempsey's. Tyson was also an extraordinarily fast starter...to answer your question. Much of that had to do with asthma which forced him to end fights early or fade rapidly as the fight progressed.

[mr. magoo]

If you actually bothered to look, you'd notice that Tyson's balance was a bit shit.
He had his feet square on, often had his right foot in front of his left, any half decent fight could walk him back in any clinch.

An absolute prime no-excuses Tyson almost falls over at 6:20 against Tubbs, again off-balance at 6:32, and another little stumble at 7:20 :

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Against Tucker, 0:23, he's leaning in face-first, feet together, Tucker just throws a half-ass uppercut off the backfoot and lifts Tyson in the air :

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

If Tucker wasn't in retreat all the time he might've actually been able to do something.

Against Stewart, Tyson's just crazy off-balance winging in hard shots with his feet in all sorts of unorthodox positions :

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

And these are prime or near-prime Tyson in his first round of his fights, where he supposed to be at his best ...

And I can go on and on, every Tyson fight he leaves his feet in strange positions, puts his right in front of his left like he's fighting southpaw, feet square on and easy to walk back in clinches. Leaning forward open for uppercuts. Almost constantly making those errors.

I didn't see very many instances where Tyson was off balance in that footage, except when he was in the middle of a feeding frenzy against Alex stewart and for a split second, slipped to the canvas... Still not the same as getting actually DECKED the way that Louis was regularly... Against Tubbs at the 6:20 mark, it didn't look like anything to me..

[lefthook31]

If you actually bothered to look, you'd notice that Tyson's balance was a bit shit.
He had his feet square on, often had his right foot in front of his left, any half decent fight could walk him back in any clinch.

An absolute prime no-excuses Tyson almost falls over at 6:20 against Tubbs, again off-balance at 6:32, and another little stumble at 7:20 :

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Against Tucker, 0:23, he's leaning in face-first, feet together, Tucker just throws a half-ass uppercut off the backfoot and lifts Tyson in the air :

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

If Tucker wasn't in retreat all the time he might've actually been able to do something.

Against Stewart, Tyson's just crazy off-balance winging in hard shots with his feet in all sorts of unorthodox positions :

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

And these are prime or near-prime Tyson in his first round of his fights, where he supposed to be at his best ...

And I can go on and on, every Tyson fight he leaves his feet in strange positions, puts his right in front of his left like he's fighting southpaw, feet square on and easy to walk back in clinches. Leaning forward open for uppercuts. Almost constantly making those errors.
The Tubbs fight was a masterful performance against a good solid technical fighter which showcased Tysons ability to fight both inside and out. Noone beat Tubbs like Tyson did and you are being very critical in your assessment of a dominating performance. Even Bowe had a tough time figuring Tubbs out. If any half decent fighter could have walked him back and taken advantage of him well then you are calling all his opponents less than half decent?
Tyson was an aggressive fighter, with very underated defensive skills during his best. He hardly got hit cleanly by solid power shots during his brief time at his best. Tyson would often allow himself to get touched by an opponents jab, as one of his main weapons was the counter lefthook off of it.
The Stewart fight was utter shit, just Tyson winging away looking for a KO, hardly comparable to the Tubbs fight.

[mr. magoo]

The Tubbs fight was a masterful performance against a good solid technical fighter which showcased Tysons ability to fight both inside and out. Noone beat Tubbs like Tyson did and you are being very critical in your assessment of a dominating performance. Even Bowe had a tough time figuring Tubbs out. If any half decent fighter could have walked him back and taken advantage of him well then you are calling all his opponents less than half decent?
Tyson was an aggressive fighter, with very underated defensive skills during his best. He hardly got hit cleanly by solid power shots during his brief time at his best. Tyson would often allow himself to get touched by an opponents jab, as one of his main weapons was the counter lefthook off of it.
The Stewart fight was utter shit, just Tyson winging away looking for a KO, hardly comparable to the Tubbs fight.

Hey Lefthook, I was just watching that footage of Tyson vs Tubbs, at the 6:20 mark... Frankly, I did not see Tyson off balance at all the way that unforgiven said he was.... How about you, did you see anything?

[lefthook31]

Tyson could afford to mix his footwork up, because he was hardly off balance and could knock an opponent out with either hand, by moving to one side or another. He often delivered hooks and uppercuts from a southpaw stance inside because he could get so much leverage off of either side.
Tysons footwork when he emerged from jail was flat out amatuerish. He made a lot of mistakes, and thats why he resorted to throwing one punch at a time, AND actually did start getting pushed back and knocked down and off balance.

[Son of Gaul]

I didn't see very many instances where Tyson was off balance in that footage, except when he was in the middle of a feeding frenzy against Alex stewart and for a split second, slipped to the canvas... Still not the same as getting actually DECKED the way that Louis was regularly... Against Tubbs at the 6:20 mark, it didn't look like anything to me..

That's the problem I have with his footage. He's refering specifically to Tyson foot placement, not balance, and an isolated problem like this is only a real problem if someone is willing or able to capitalize in a very specific manner. You can't capitalize on something so specific if you have hooks and uppercuts coming your way from awkward angles. It's sort of like capitilizing on minor positional advantages in chess(pawn structure, open files/diagonals, etc.) when your king is completely exposed.

[lefthook31]

Hey Lefthook, I was just watching that footage of Tyson vs Tubbs, at the 6:20 mark... Frankly, I did not see Tyson off balance at all the way that unforgiven said he was.... How about you, did you see anything?
No Tyson moved in and Tubbs simply stepped away. I think Unforgiven is a being a little critical of Tyson. Tyson did have a tendency to fall back on his power, and there are a couple other better examples of that within the first round. When a fighter loads up with a big punch and misses they often lose their balance and fall forward which Tyson did at times, but considering how much steam he had on his punches, he still remained very balanced. When you hear Rooney say use that 7, he is referring to Tyson setting things up with his jab, which Tyson started doing once he saw how slick Tubbs was.

[mr. magoo]

Here is the footage that we should REALLY be looking at.... Check out the 1:06 mark, where Louis goes down against Braddock.. This wasn't even a matter of being off balance.. He was perfectely stable prior to getting tagged with a punch that sent him strait down...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Here is another good one.. Watch how Buddy Baer sends him strait through the ropes at the 4:45 mark... Was this supposed to be another instance of being off balance?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Watch Galento deck him at the 3:47 mark, or thereabouts..


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Can anyone really see Tyson getting floored by any of these guys? ( looking for an answer from someone who is not a Louis nuthugger please...)

[MAG1965]

most people will say Louis probably but Tyson would win just on speed. P4p I still think Tyson if it is the 1987 Tyson.

[taobum70]

Oh come on. First of all, Louis lost to Max Schmeling. Louis was not prepared for the fight mentally nor physically.

Mike Tyson lost to Busted Douglas. Mike Tyson was not prepared for the fight mentally nor physically.

I bet you Max Schmeling would defeat Mike Tyson. Or can we all agree that he would at least be a game fighter? Imagine us sayin the same about Douglas against Louis though.


Tell me, do you think if James Smith fought in 1930's we would know his name today? Not a chance. But James Braddock was an incredible fighter. Saying Louis falling to him discredits Joe as a fighter is silly.

I am German and love Schmeling for many reasons, but he would not defeat a prime Tyson of the Buster Douglas of Tokio.

I clearly rate Louis as a greater fighter than Tyson and feel that consistency, even against less than stellar opposition, is underrated in boxing. But during his brief prime, Tyson's combination of movement, footwork and power would have overwhelmed Louis. Add to this the smaller gloves of Louis' era, which add to Tyson's power (or take some of Louis power away if he fights with bigger gloves) and I don't see Louis having any significant advantage.

[mr. magoo]

No Tyson moved in and Tubbs simply stepped away.

I didn't see shit either..

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;6436774][quote=janitor;6436717]

1. Louis was down countless times in his prime against inferior fighters


That only proves that Tyson could knock him down.


2. Tyson was better at everything than Louis - sweeping statement but generally true, attempt to tell me what Louis does better so I can have a good laugh


I wouldnt even know where to begin but here are a few:

Louis was a muchg better long range fighter (by default).

Louis was a much better infighter (as in he actualy could infight).

Louis threw much straighter punches.

Louis had a more varied arsenal of combinations (we can compare footage if you want).

Tyson relied almost exclusivley on head movment for his defence while Louis, slipped, shoulder rolled, emplyed an armadillo style crouch, and parried.

Basicaly if they both had the power of Chris Byrd, then Louis could still have been the champion and Tyson couldn't.


3. It suited his purpose to get outboxed/beat up by walcott/Goddoy/Conn/Schmelling


It suited his purpouse to conserve his energy and employ seek and destroy tactics against deffensive boxers.

If a puncher came at him he worked on the back foot and used his feet more.

5. His defense isnt good enough because all the best faster boxers landed on him, some at will -

Give examples backed up by film.


Tysonwould land on him at will. Tyson would land first because of faster footwork, faster hands, better timing, better defense


Louis threw straighter down the pipe punches and he would counter Tysion down the middle. Holyfield didn't have any trouble doing this.

Tyson had better timing????????/


6. Except everyone Tyson fought had more range than him and Louis and Tyson still landed first because of the above reasons


Examples please?

[djanders]

I don't see this "Louis was unsteady on his feet and therefore knocked down a lot, and had a weaker chin than Tyson" stuff. Somebody help me see the light here.

Louis had about 418 professional rounds and was knocked down about 9 times. That's once about every 46 rounds. He was knocked out twice. That's once every 214 rounds.

Tyson had about 217 professional rounds and was knocked down about 5 times. That's once about every 44 rounds. He was knocked out 5 times. That's once every 44 rounds.

(I'm relying on an old memory here and I may be off by a KD one way or the other on these guys, but I don't think that makes much difference.)

I don't see the evidence that Mike took a better punch than Joe and had better balance than Joe.

[PetethePrince]

Tyson Massacres him. He's going to completely overwhelm Louis. I do sense half the people are picking Louis just for the sake of picking the older champ that is clearly the more accomplished fighter. As if a way to pin old vs new school and say old wins. Tyson would completely overwhelm Louis. Louis will not like his fury, nor will he find it easy to hit on him.

Honestly, the only swarmer/puncher I pick for Louis to confidently beat is Dempsey. Other than that, the Frazier and Marciano matchups might be wars but I lean towards Rocky/Frazier.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;6436805][quote=janitor;6436744]

1. Tyson is certainly better than Conn and Schmelling when it comes to skill,


Bull sh1t.

It is virtualy impossible to compare them because thy are so different but Tyson would notr be a slick boxer if you took away his power.

his defense and shot picking is far superior,

What deffence?

Having good head movment does not of itself make you a deffensive master.


he is far better at hitting without getting hit. He is also faster of foot and hand than both


Take away Tysons power and any of these guys would run rings around him or Louis for that matter.


2. Watch some Tyson and come back to me, Tyson would squat incredibly low, below his opponents waist, obviously he didnt punch crouched against 6'6 fighters :lol:


Louis did.

Tyson should have.

3. Louis's opponents arent elite though, Tysons opposition was far far better, far more skilled, far bigger, bigger hitters etc

Pure supposition.

Louis's opponents are far more qualified on paper relative to their era and there is no reason to assume that they were not better head to head.

Baer, Schmeling and Walcott are better on paper than Spinks, Old Holmes and the remanents of the 80s underachievers.

[mr. magoo]

Tyson Massacres him. He's going to completely overwhelm Louis. I do sense half the people are picking Louis just for the sake of picking the older champ that is clearly the more accomplished fighter. As if a way to pin old vs new school and say old wins. Tyson would completely overwhelm Louis. Louis will not like his fury, nor will he find it easy to hit on him.

Honestly, the only swarmer/puncher I pick for Louis to confidently beat is Dempsey. Other than that, the Frazier and Marciano matchups might be wars but I lean towards Rocky/Frazier.

I don't have a problem with people picking the older champion for the sake of paying him his dues, but for Christ's sake, at least use valid comments when doing so...

So far we're hearing a lot of shit like :

" Tyson wasn't a crouching fighter. "

" Tyson was off balance against Tubbs. "

[mightyd40]

gotta go with tyson....bad style matchup for louis in my opinion. tysons bigger and strong and would be able to avoid the straight punching louis' shots and work his angles on his way to a ko victory

[janitor]

[quote=janitor;6436744]

Tyson was absolutely a crouching fighter as his style closely resembled Dempsey's. Tyson was also an extraordinarily fast starter...to answer your question. Much of that had to do with asthma which forced him to end fights early or fade rapidly as the fight progressed.

I agree that Tyson was similar to Dempsey but he was not a croucher.

He was for the most part a straight up fighter who was shorter than his opponents.

Louis used the crouch a lot more than Tyson did.

[itrymariti]

1. Not getting kd'ed by every half decent opponent you face like Louis....

What relevance does that have? I don't think trading embarassing stories about each fighter is a good way to make a case for Mike Tyson.

2. So effectively you agree Louis's slow feet means Tyson will get off first and control the exchanges?
Plodding feet are never an advantage

Try reading my post? Louis footwork was actually an advantage for him. The whole point of the "shuffle" was to maintain the right separation distance with his feet, meaning he could get off on an opponent at any time. It avoids getting put off balance by fighters with lateral movement, and avoids you getting rushed when you're not ready for an exchange by brawlers like Tyson. And it has the added benefit of results like this (2:55):

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Louis's defense isnt good enough to evade Tyson while hes getting beat to the punc. Tyson could counter punch wonderfully, but more often than not he'd land first and do damage

Frankly pathetic. There are plenty of good reasons for picking Tyson in this match-up, but "beating Louis to the punch" is not one of them. As I've already explained to you, Tyson actually viewed himself as a counter-puncher, and it was never his intention to do so. If it had, he would have been getting beaten to the punch by the guy with the longer reach, greater height, and longer, straighter punches. 0:25:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[PetethePrince]

I don't have a problem with people picking the older champion for the sake of paying him his dues, but for Christ's sake, at least use valid comments when doing so...

So far we're hearing a lot of shit like :

" Tyson wasn't a crouching fighter. "

" Tyson was off balance against Tubbs. "

The advantage Louis has is that Tyson is a mid-range fighter, essentially not very comfortable on the inside. However, with Tyson's jab and elusiveness I just feel he can afford taking something from Louis. Louis will be overwhelmed and can't afford to get hit, but he's going to be right with the right hand as Tyson slips as jab at one point.

I feel this is an awful style matchup for Louis. Either Louis is overrated H2H or this is just a terrible matchup. I lean toward the latter. Louis would have a much better chance in a matchup against Foreman/Liston.

Can I say Tyson's chin is being vastly underrated? It's his mental complex that we can question, and question only starts in the second half of a fight. Unfortunately I don't see Louis lasting that long.

Tyson by KO/TKO from anywhere from round 2-6.

[janitor]

I don't have a problem with people picking the older champion for the sake of paying him his dues, but for Christ's sake, at least use valid comments when doing so...

So far we're hearing a lot of shit like :

" Tyson wasn't a crouching fighter. "


A crouching fighter would be sombody like Henry Armstrong, Rocky Marciano or Tony Gallento, to use the films you have provided.

[mr. magoo]

A crouching fighter would be sombody like Henry Armstrong, Rocky Marciano or Tony Gallento, to use the films you have provided.


He lowered his center of gravity, fought in a bent legged stance, and did a lot of bobbing and weaving.. That's enough to make the category for me... In fact, he has often been described as having a more modern version of Marciano's style ( a man you listed as being a crouching fighter. )

[itrymariti]

Tyson Massacres him. He's going to completely overwhelm Louis. I do sense half the people are picking Louis just for the sake of picking the older champ that is clearly the more accomplished fighter. As if a way to pin old vs new school and say old wins. Tyson would completely overwhelm Louis. Louis will not like his fury, nor will he find it easy to hit on him.

Honestly, the only swarmer/puncher I pick for Louis to confidently beat is Dempsey. Other than that, the Frazier and Marciano matchups might be wars but I lean towards Rocky/Frazier.

Honestly, some of the people here sound like they've been watching a few ESPN Classic highlight reels of Tyson and nothing much else. Tyson does not have a decisive edge over Louis in power, chin or speed. There is ZERO precedent for predicting a wipe-out here.

Joe Louis was no turkey. You don't pick up 22 KO's across an 11-year stint as World Heavyweight Champion for nothing. Anybody who attempted to brawl with a remotely decent version of the man usually went down in the first couple of rounds like he'd been shot in the head. If you rate Tyson's offence but not his, you must be applying chronic double standards.

[tommygun711]

I see Mike Tyson charging in with combinations and catching Joe but then Joe fires his perfect shot and floors Tyson. I think of all the champions his punches were the most accurate. I would have to rate him top 5 as far as power goes. You can certainly see the power in his hsots when he floors fighters in slow motion. If anyone's going to catch Mike bobbing and weaving inside, it'd be Joe Louis.

[Abdullah]

Wow, Tyson is winning the poll right noiw 23-12. That is suprising to me. I voted Tyson as I believe Tyson would be too much for Joe Louis. Tyson was faster than Louis and yes, I dare say more powerful than Joe Louis. Better movement, etc. Louis had a bit of a shaky chin and if Tyson got him down early, it's over.

[reznick]

I don't see this "Louis was unsteady on his feet and therefore knocked down a lot, and had a weaker chin than Tyson" stuff. Somebody help me see the light here.

Louis had about 418 professional rounds and was knocked down about 9 times. That's once about every 46 rounds. He was knocked out twice. That's once every 214 rounds.

Tyson had about 217 professional rounds and was knocked down about 5 times. That's once about every 44 rounds. He was knocked out 5 times. That's once every 44 rounds.

(I'm relying on an old memory here and I may be off by a KD one way or the other on these guys, but I don't think that makes much difference.)

I don't see the evidence that Mike took a better punch than Joe and had better balance than Joe.


:good:good:good


and Louis almost bounced back up on all the occasions that the other poster posted as examples.

Tyson relied on explosiveness, something that he would lose quickly after being hit a few times by Joe.

[Unforgiven]

I didn't see very many instances where Tyson was off balance in that footage, except when he was in the middle of a feeding frenzy against Alex stewart and for a split second, slipped to the canvas... Still not the same as getting actually DECKED the way that Louis was regularly... Against Tubbs at the 6:20 mark, it didn't look like anything to me..

Look at it again, Tyson has his right foot forward, then as Tubbs steps around and out from him, Tyson falls back and has to do a little hoppety-step to get his footing again.

Tyson's footing is extremely unorthodox and leaves him off balance half of the time.
This isn't some new relevation or super criticism I've just come up with. Veteran trainers have been remarking on Tyson's lack of balance since the 80s !

[Unforgiven]

The Tubbs fight was a masterful performance against a good solid technical fighter which showcased Tysons ability to fight both inside and out. Noone beat Tubbs like Tyson did and you are being very critical in your assessment of a dominating performance. Even Bowe had a tough time figuring Tubbs out.

I never said it wasn't a good performance. In fact, I chose it because it is one of his best.
I'm not the type to pull a bitch move like finding a clip of him being knocked back by Douglas, or the KD against Holyfield, picking him on a "bad night". I'm picking stuff that I think was him at his very best.

Also, me being "very critical" of Tyson's performance is only a reply to those who are saying "Oh, Joe Louis had poor footwork and bad balance" ..... I'm just voicing the opinion that actually Tyson's footwork and balance was technically more flawed than Louis's.

And, I'd like to add, that those criticisms of Louis are almost purely based on his "bad nights" and worst mistakes. I chose not to show Tyson getting knocked down by Holyfield or pummelled by Douglas, or clipped by the very basic Frank Bruno. Since those are acknowledged as bad nights.
So, I figure I'm being a lot fairer to Tyson than the Louis critics are being to Louis.

It's funny how people can say Tyson "had great footwork and Louis had shit footwork", and it more or less go unchallenged by some people here who i suspect perhaps even agree with it silently. But when I say Tyson's balance was worse, and pull up fair prime examples of Tyson, I'm suddenly being unfair.

[Unforgiven]

Tyson was an aggressive fighter, with very underated defensive skills during his best. He hardly got hit cleanly by solid power shots during his brief time at his best. Tyson would often allow himself to get touched by an opponents jab, as one of his main weapons was the counter lefthook off of it.

Tyson's defensive skills have become overrated.
If he allows himself to get jabbed in the face that kind of proves the point.

[Unforgiven]

If any half decent fighter could have walked him back and taken advantage of him well then you are calling all his opponents less than half decent?

Most of his title fight opponents easily walked him back in a clinch. This is easy to spot.
They didn't take advantage of it because they weren't equipped with the speed and power to do anything more than clinch to survive. And the braver guys lacked either the power or the speed.

And, yes, Tyson fought a lot of opponents who were less than half decent.

[Unforgiven]

No Tyson moved in and Tubbs simply stepped away. I think Unforgiven is a being a little critical of Tyson.

Tubbs steps away, and Tyson's legs are all crooked and as Tubbs moves around him Tyson falls off balance.
For you and magoo to not see this is bizarre.

[PetethePrince]

Honestly, some of the people here sound like they've been watching a few ESPN Classic highlight reels of Tyson and nothing much else. Tyson does not have a decisive edge over Louis in power, chin or speed. There is ZERO precedent for predicting a wipe-out here.

Joe Louis was no turkey. You don't pick up 22 KO's across an 11-year stint as World Heavyweight Champion for nothing. Anybody who attempted to brawl with a remotely decent version of the man usually went down in the first couple of rounds like he'd been shot in the head. If you rate Tyson's offence but not his, you must be applying chronic double standards.

Look, there's no need to question my credibility over a lack of a disagreement.

Tyson I think clearly has more power, though. He definitely has a better chin, arguing that their chins are equal is beyond ludicrous and although their speed are very comparable I think a poll would show 95% would side with Tyson on that issue.

Others brought up how many times that Joe went down against fighters that weren't even in the same league as Tyson. Tyson didn't go down during his peak years ever, and was rarely even hurt against vicious hitters like Bruno. And I think displayed his chin against Ruddock. Lastly, if Louis is going down or getting hurt than he's going to see the best finisher in the HW division besides himself after him.

Bad style matchup for Louis. Tyson would probably win.

[Unforgiven]

Here is the footage that we should REALLY be looking at....
Check out the 1:06 mark, where Louis goes down against Braddock.. This wasn't even a matter of being off balance.. He was perfectely stable prior to getting tagged with a punch that sent him strait down...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


How can you say that it's not even a matter of being off balance ?
Louis's feet are completely square on !
Utterly ridiculous to say Louis isn't off balance.



Here is another good one.. Watch how Buddy Baer sends him strait through the ropes at the 4:45 mark... Was this supposed to be another instance of being off balance?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


No, Louis just got tagged clean by a 240 pound puncher.


Watch Galento deck him at the 3:47 mark, or thereabouts..


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Galento was a big hitter. And Louis might have been off balance.

Louis's balance wasn't perfect. He made mistakes. He chin wasn't solid granite class either. I never said otherwise.

At the same time Tyson wasn't perfect either, and not a complete fighting machine beyond and immune from any sort of criticism.

And then it's implied that all the Louis supporters are "rose tinted" nostalgia freaks looking at thing unobjectively, when in fact the Tyson supporters are screaming "foul !" when anything is said about Tyson's flaws.




Can anyone really see Tyson getting floored by any of these guys? ( looking for an answer from someone who is not a Louis nuthugger please...)


I think Tyson took a punch better than Louis.
i think Louis took numerous punches - and came back from them ! - better than Tyson did.

[Unforgiven]

The advantage Louis has is that Tyson is a mid-range fighter, essentially not very comfortable on the inside. However, with Tyson's jab and elusiveness I just feel he can afford taking something from Louis. Louis will be overwhelmed and can't afford to get hit, but he's going to be right with the right hand as Tyson slips as jab at one point.

I feel this is an awful style matchup for Louis. Either Louis is overrated H2H or this is just a terrible matchup. I lean toward the latter. Louis would have a much better chance in a matchup against Foreman/Liston.

Can I say Tyson's chin is being vastly underrated? It's his mental complex that we can question, and question only starts in the second half of a fight. Unfortunately I don't see Louis lasting that long.

Tyson by KO/TKO from anywhere from round 2-6.

Tyson is being overrated head 2 head.

And he's almost made-to-order for Louis. In my opinion.

People are talking as if Louis has some sort of tendency to get crushed by hard punchers early on.
And as if Tyson didn't get whipped by Buster Douglas. I know the excuses will flow from all directions when Douglas is discussed, but it happened.

Also, I hate the myth going around that Tyson's flaws only started to emerge after Rooney left.
Now, that's a good example of REVISIONISM !
I even remember Rooney talking about how Tyson would get frustrated and over-eager and start winging in one big shot at a time. Back in '87.
This was evident early on. He'd shut down for periods and become very predictable, when he was in his prime.

Truth is, it was no big deal because Tyson was only 21 and no one expected him to be the finished article.
But in hindsight it happened to be his PEAK, so the bullshit revisionist myth now circulates that he didn't have those flaws at all before Rooney left him. :-(

Yes, his flaws became more pronounced after Rooney left, but he had those tendencies all along. And they were discussed and commented on at the time.

If any "old-time heavyweight fighter" is glorified and viewed with rose-tinted specs and some sort of godly reverence, I think that fighter is Mike Tyson, who fought back in those heady old-time days of the 1980s.
:lol:

[janitor]

He lowered his center of gravity, fought in a bent legged stance, and did a lot of bobbing and weaving.. That's enough to make the category for me... In fact, he has often been described as having a more modern version of Marciano's style ( a man you listed as being a crouching fighter. )

I would consider a crouching fighter to be one whose default stance was crouched while moving around the ring and throwing combinations.

While Tysons style is a nod to this approach he is not really of the genra. Now Louis would not usualy be though of as a crouching fighter, but he mastered the methodology moreso than Tyson in the few fights where he used it.

I would close by saying that Tysons style is different from other pressure fighters in a number of surprising ways. In some key respects he worked more as a midrange fighter.

[janitor]

Honestly, some of the people here sound like they've been watching a few ESPN Classic highlight reels of Tyson and nothing much else. Tyson does not have a decisive edge over Louis in power, chin or speed. There is ZERO precedent for predicting a wipe-out here.

Joe Louis was no turkey. You don't pick up 22 KO's across an 11-year stint as World Heavyweight Champion for nothing. Anybody who attempted to brawl with a remotely decent version of the man usually went down in the first couple of rounds like he'd been shot in the head. If you rate Tyson's offence but not his, you must be applying chronic double standards.

I am hearing a lot of talk here about Tyson being too much for Louis, too fast, too agresive etc.

Does nobody stop too think that Louis might be too much for Mike Tyson?

There is no question who was the more consistant quantity of the two.

[Unforgiven]

Honestly, some of the people here sound like they've been watching a few ESPN Classic highlight reels of Tyson and nothing much else. Tyson does not have a decisive edge over Louis in power, chin or speed. There is ZERO precedent for predicting a wipe-out here.

Joe Louis was no turkey. You don't pick up 22 KO's across an 11-year stint as World Heavyweight Champion for nothing. Anybody who attempted to brawl with a remotely decent version of the man usually went down in the first couple of rounds like he'd been shot in the head. If you rate Tyson's offence but not his, you must be applying chronic double standards.

Good post. :good

It's remarkable the way some people here are saying Tyson was quicker, more powerful, better footwork, more durable, better defense ..... ... and making out Louis was some frail, weak, slow-starting, chinny fighter.

Louis came to war, he came to do damage, and he was no one's easy mark, and on those rare occasions (yes, rare) when he was dropped or hurt he was the picture of composure and cool-headedness.

Louis had great skills, and the best record of all heavyweight championships. His defense is being badly underrated. He got hit, but he had good headmovement, parries and swift counters too.
Whoever said he was a slow-starter is well off the mark too.

Louis was the boss. A beast.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

Since some people have acused Louis of being a slow starter I thought it might be instructive to compare the elite fighters that Louis and Tyson both stopped in the first, second, third and fourth rounds.

I have only listed fighters who were ranked at one time or another and may have missed sombody.

Round 1

Louis-Poreda, Levinsky, Retzlaff, Schmelling, Lewis, Baer Jr, Maurellio

Tyson-Frazier, Spinks, Williams, Tillman, Stewart, Seldon

Edge-Louis

Round 2

Louis-Ramage, Paycheck

Tyson-Berbick, Tubbs

Edge-Tyson

Round 3

Louis-Massera, Barry, Lazer?, Sharkey, Mann

Tyson-Mathis, Bruno, Gollota

Edge-Hard to call

Round4

Louis-Baer-Uzcdun, Gallento

Tyson-Holmes

Edge-Louis

So I guess Louis would be stronger in the first round, with Tyson taking control in the second and the third being even. Tyson would have to survive the first round and stop Louis before he aserted himself in the fourth.

[tommygun711]

judging from the list janitor posted it looks like Joe pretty much started just as fast as tyson. obviously. lol

[mr. magoo]

Tyson's footing is extremely unorthodox and leaves him off balance half of the time.
!


That's all well and good, but who got floored more often, and in all honesty, by lesser fighters? At the end of the day, it all comes down to what ACTUALLY happened..... You may not like Tyson's footing or stance, but in truth, Louis was decked far more times in his prime, regardless of who he was fighting or what his stance was at the time.... Maybe we're talking about different things, but this is what I am focussing on... I will also ad that while Tyson's opponents may not be quite so palletable to old school advocates, they were very large men, with fairly good punching ability, and had the advantage of modern training, amateur careers, and better than average skills, etc... Still they weren't able to make him kiss the canvas as many times as Louis's opponents were....

So basically you are left with two choices.. Either:

A. You are willing to admit that Tyson had better balance than Louis..

Or

B. That Louis had better balance, but a weaker chin, and against lesser opponents...

In either case, Tyson comes out on top.... Personally, I would bet my Mother's house on the 20 year old Tyson who defeated Trevor Berbick, dispatching the Schmeling who beat Louis, and I would place the same bet on him NOT getting decked by Braddock, Galento or Baer... In fact, I seriously think that he'd utterly destroy these men..... Do what you will with my opinion, but that is truly how I see things happening...

Originally, I had tried to be diplomatic about giving Louis a serious chance in this fight, but after giving it further thought, and listening to unreasonable posters, a combination of technical analysis and agitated emotion, has led me to the conclusion that this is a mismatch, which is precisely what a more sensible version of myself had thought several years ago.....

ON A SIDENOTE - When a past-prime Louis had lost to Rocky Marciano in 1951, he said in his post-fight interview that Marciano was the type of fighter that he hated to face, because he crowded him....... Most experts categorize Tyson as a more modern version of Marciano, and some rate him as being even better..

[janitor]

judging from the list janitor posted it looks like Joe pretty much started just as fast as tyson. obviously. lol

The list dosn't tell the whole story.

Louis would somtimes keep an oponent on his feet for a few rounds.

But yes I think he prety much could start as fast as Tyson if the mood took him.

[janitor]

That's all well and good, but who got floored more often, and in all honesty, by lesser fighters? At the end of the day, it all comes down to what ACTUALLY happened..... You may not like Tyson's footing or stance, but in truth, Louis was decked far more times in his prime, regardless of who he was fighting or what his stance was at the time.... Maybe we're talking about different things, but this is what I am focussing on... I will also ad that while Tyson's opponents may not be quite so palletable to old school advocates, they were very large men, with fairly good punching ability, and had the advantage of modern training, amateur careers, and better than average skills, etc... Still they weren't able to make him kiss the canvas as many times as Louis's opponents were....

So basically you are left with two choices.. Either:

A. You are willing to admit that Tyson had better balance than Louis..

Or

B. That Louis had better balance, but a weaker chin, and against lesser opponents...


I don't think anybody is disputing that Tyson had the better chin.

Of course that dosn't necesarily mean that Louis was easier to knock out.

If you compare them based on who stopped them and how rather than how many times they were dropped then Louis actualy compares prety favourably.

Then when you take into acount the fact that Tyson is going to be coming forward into Louis's punches the durability argument becomes less clear cut.

[mr. magoo]

Since some people have acused Louis of being a slow starter I thought it might be instructive to compare the elite fighters that Louis and Tyson both stopped in the first, second, third and fourth rounds.

I have only listed fighters who were ranked at one time or another and may have missed sombody.

Round 1

Louis-Poreda, Levinsky, Retzlaff, Schmelling, Lewis, Baer Jr, Maurellio

Tyson-Frazier, Spinks, Williams, Tillman, Stewart, Seldon

Edge-Louis

Round 2

Louis-Ramage, Paycheck

Tyson-Berbick, Tubbs

Edge-Tyson

Round 3

Louis-Massera, Barry, Lazer?, Sharkey, Mann

Tyson-Mathis, Bruno, Gollota

Edge-Hard to call

Round4

Louis-Baer-Uzcdun, Gallento

Tyson-Holmes

Edge-Louis

So I guess Louis would be stronger in the first round, with Tyson taking control in the second and the third being even. Tyson would have to survive the first round and stop Louis before he aserted himself in the fourth.

Common Janitor,

Look at the difference in the men they were fighting....


Let's take two former light heavyweights in Spinks and Schmeling.... Max was 31 years old in the first fight, the same as Spinks.... Tyson and Louis were both around the same age at 21.... Spinks was an all time great light heavyweight champ and Lineal heavy weight champ, who had never been floored or beaten in a pro fight...... Schmeling had only won 4 of his last 8 bouts , was off for a year, and fighting on American soil during a time when a member of Nazi Germany had no business doing so..... He kicked Louis's ass, while Tyson destroyed Spinks...... Years later, Louis finally got his first round KO over his conqueror, but it was hardly the same scenario as when Tyson iced Spinks.. In fact, it was against a shot Schmeling.....

It should also be noted that Louis was fighting cruiserweights, not heavyweights, and most of them had some pretty bad records, along with the advantage of being white men who were pushed ahead of their black counterparts - something that did not happen in later periods......

[mr. magoo]

[QUOTE]If you compare them based on who stopped them and how rather than how many times they were dropped then Louis actualy compares prety favourably.


Louis was floored and knocked out more times in his PRIME, than Tyson was.... Tyson was gone mentally by 1990.... His training team was GONE... His focus on the game was GONE..... His training habits were GONE...... Louis had the advantage of professional management and a training environment during a time when nobody else did... The difference, is that Tyson's opponents had the SAME advantages, only Tyson did not take advantage of them in the latter part of his reign... Louis needed to fight more to get rich.... Tyson was already rich.... Tyson lost his mother, sister, trainer and manager to death when being less than 23 years of age.... Not to mention a divorce and a bad suicide attempt.... The later losses to Danny Williams, Kevin Mcbride and Lennox Lewis play no part in this discussion as Tyson was SHOT....... I will give Holyfield the nod in his wins, as I feel that he would have beaten any version of Tyson...


Then when you take into acount the fact that Tyson is going to be coming forward into Louis's punches the durability argument becomes less clear cut.


Tyson would have had Louis hurt long before these things ever happened Janitor.... He would have taken advantage of the openings that Braddock, Schmeling, Baer and Galento found and capitalized on them... And even if he didn't, he would have done it later.... He still took many punches from many big hitters later and went the distance several times to win fights... Louis would have had a pain in his ass that wouldn't just go away with a one-two combo....

I will also ad that Tyson was a big student of old school champs, and had the utmost of respect for them.... Had these two met in a time machine, Tyson would have considered Louis's head to be his ultimate trophy, and by 11:00 eastern U.S time, would have had it on his mantle....

[Unforgiven]

That's all well and good, but who got floored more often, and in all honesty, by lesser fighters? At the end of the day, it all comes down to what ACTUALLY happened..... You may not like Tyson's footing or stance, but in truth, Louis was decked far more times in his prime, regardless of who he was fighting or what his stance was at the time....

By all means, let's get back to "what ACTUALLY happened".
Louis got up every time but one he was KD'd, in his prime or close to it, and knocked the other guy out. Most of the time he caught the other guy with something substantial within seconds of regaining his feet.

And even against Schmeling he got up in the 4th round and gave a good fight while taking tons of punishment all the way into the 12th.


Maybe we're talking about different things, but this is what I am focussing on... I will also ad that while Tyson's opponents may not be quite so palletable to old school advocates, they were very large men, with fairly good punching ability, and had the advantage of modern training, amateur careers, and better than average skills, etc... Still they weren't able to make him kiss the canvas as many times as Louis's opponents were....


Firstly, not that I think it's relevant, but I think it's worth noting that some of Tyson's opponents had long amateur careers, others didn't.
Pinklon Thomas, for instance, had amteur 3 or 4 amateur fights. Mitch Green won several NY Golden Gloves. But I think Thomas was the better fighter.
And it's an myth going around on this forum that none of the boxers of the 20s and 30s had loads of amateur fights.
Joe Louis is reported to have had 54 amateur fights himself, in about a two-year period, and won tournaments. Lots of other fighters did too, not to mention the unofficial "smoker" bouts that were popular in every city.
I dont know why so many on this board are parrotting the myth that the fighters back then had "no amateur careers".

Anyway, yes, Louis was dropped more times than Tyson.

Still, what's more obvious in any study of the two is that Louis went 58-1 in official bouts up to his first retirement, including 25 succesful defenses of the championship (22 KOs). Over 12 year period.
Being dropped didn't lead to him being defeated


So basically you are left with two choices.. Either:

A. You are willing to admit that Tyson had better balance than Louis..

Or

B. That Louis had better balance, but a weaker chin, and against lesser opponents...


I've already said Tyson took a single punch better.
I dont dispute that.



In either case, Tyson comes out on top.... Personally, I would bet my Mother's house on the 20 year old Tyson who defeated Trevor Berbick, dispatching the Schmeling who beat Louis, and I would place the same bet on him NOT getting decked by Braddock, Galento or Baer... In fact, I seriously think that he'd utterly destroy these men..... Do what you will with my opinion, but that is truly how I see things happening...

You're entitled to your opinion. And I respect it.
But, now, "what ACTUALLY happened" is that Tyson got KTFO by Buster Douglas, a totally unremarkable heavyweight who never KO'd or even dropped any other genuine rated heavyweight, to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong).


Originally, I had tried to be diplomatic about giving Louis a serious chance in this fight, but after giving it further thought, and listening to unreasonable posters, a combination of technical analysis and agitated emotion, has led me to the conclusion that this is a mismatch, which is precisely what a more sensible version of myself had thought several years ago.....



"a mismatch" now ?
That's funny. Joe Louis isn't overmatched against anyone.




ON A SIDENOTE - When a past-prime Louis had lost to Rocky Marciano in 1951, he said in his post-fight interview that Marciano was the type of fighter that he hated to face, because he crowded him....... Most experts categorize Tyson as a more modern version of Marciano, and some rate him as being even better..


Firstly, can you provide the source ?

Secondly, I dont think Tyson "crowded" guys, he came in ferociouly with punches but he turned tame on the inside and just rested. Crowding is like what Arturo Godoy did with Louis, messy, head-on-chest stuff. Tyson was more about springing through with dynamic punches, often from further out that a fighter of his arm-length would normally be capable of. He didn't crowd or bull guys around like a Godoy, a Bonavena, or at times Marciano.

[Unforgiven]

Louis was floored and knocked out more times in his PRIME, than Tyson was.... Tyson was gone mentally by 1990.... His training team was GONE... His focus on the game was GONE..... His training habits were GONE...... Louis had the advantage of professional management and a training environment during a time when nobody else did... The difference, is that Tyson's opponents had the SAME advantages, only Tyson did not take advantage of them in the latter part of his reign... Louis needed to fight more to get rich.... Tyson was already rich.... Tyson lost his mother, sister, trainer and manager to death when being less than 23 years of age.... Not to mention a divorce and a bad suicide attempt.... The later losses to Danny Williams, Kevin Mcbride and Lennox Lewis play no part in this discussion as Tyson was SHOT....... I will give Holyfield the nod in his wins, as I feel that he would have beaten any version of Tyson...

:rofl

Some classic excuses there.

Poor little Mikey. :|


Louis had the advantage of professional management and a training environment during a time when nobody else did

What a load of crap.

[AmericanSugar]

power this and chin that, all up for debate. the thing not up for debate is how well louis can fight on the inside. louis can sit in the pocket all night and eventually knock you out. tyson would come in to explode.

[lefthook31]

Tyson's defensive skills have become overrated.
If he allows himself to get jabbed in the face that kind of proves the point.
No it doesnt. How many fights did Tyson come out of beaten up? If he used it as a tactic to counter off of, its actually a good weapon. If you notice most of the time, his chin is tucked and the jab is touching the top of his head. Tyson gave up a huge advantage in reach, fighting guys like Tucker 6'4-6'5 and realistically being 5'11, his defense has become vastly underated.

[lefthook31]

Most of his title fight opponents easily walked him back in a clinch. This is easy to spot.
They didn't take advantage of it because they weren't equipped with the speed and power to do anything more than clinch to survive. And the braver guys lacked either the power or the speed.

And, yes, Tyson fought a lot of opponents who were less than half decent.
:blood Wow Tyson must have been perfectly matched his entire career. The brave guys had no skills and the guys with skills werent brave. Your just being silly with a statement like that.

[PetethePrince]

That's all well and good, but who got floored more often, and in all honesty, by lesser fighters? At the end of the day, it all comes down to what ACTUALLY happened..... You may not like Tyson's footing or stance, but in truth, Louis was decked far more times in his prime, regardless of who he was fighting or what his stance was at the time.... Maybe we're talking about different things, but this is what I am focussing on... I will also ad that while Tyson's opponents may not be quite so palletable to old school advocates, they were very large men, with fairly good punching ability, and had the advantage of modern training, amateur careers, and better than average skills, etc... Still they weren't able to make him kiss the canvas as many times as Louis's opponents were....

So basically you are left with two choices.. Either:

A. You are willing to admit that Tyson had better balance than Louis..

Or

B. That Louis had better balance, but a weaker chin, and against lesser opponents...

In either case, Tyson comes out on top.... Personally, I would bet my Mother's house on the 20 year old Tyson who defeated Trevor Berbick, dispatching the Schmeling who beat Louis, and I would place the same bet on him NOT getting decked by Braddock, Galento or Baer... In fact, I seriously think that he'd utterly destroy these men..... Do what you will with my opinion, but that is truly how I see things happening...

Originally, I had tried to be diplomatic about giving Louis a serious chance in this fight, but after giving it further thought, and listening to unreasonable posters, a combination of technical analysis and agitated emotion, has led me to the conclusion that this is a mismatch, which is precisely what a more sensible version of myself had thought several years ago.....

ON A SIDENOTE - When a past-prime Louis had lost to Rocky Marciano in 1951, he said in his post-fight interview that Marciano was the type of fighter that he hated to face, because he crowded him....... Most experts categorize Tyson as a more modern version of Marciano, and some rate him as being even better..

Quoted For Truth.

[Gesta]

This is how I have always viewed this particular scenario as well... Joe louis had the right skills and physical tools to beat Tyson, but the problem is that he'd have to survive a brutal hurricane early before the other guy's flaws would start to work in his favor... Of all the fast starting punchers in heavyweight history, I don't think any were as effective as Tyson in the early rounds of a fight.. This was where Louis was most vulnerable as seen against many of the opponents who decked him early on... The difference between Jim Braddock, Max Schmeling, Joe Walcott, Tony Galento and Buddy Baer, is that once Tyson had him in trouble, he would have likely finished him, whereas those other men could not. That said, if Joe survives the first 5 or 6 rounds, or catches Tyson on an off night, he might very well have broken him down and stopped him late...

Its not a forgone conclusion either way, but lets just say, it would probably be Louis's most dangerous proposition..

Good read.

Forgone conclusion. :lol::lol::lol:

[crash]

Tyson whould beat Joe,and easy,

[johnmaff36]

This is how I have always viewed this particular scenario as well... Joe louis had the right skills and physical tools to beat Tyson, but the problem is that he'd have to survive a brutal hurricane early before the other guy's flaws would start to work in his favor... Of all the fast starting punchers in heavyweight history, I don't think any were as effective as Tyson in the early rounds of a fight.. This was where Louis was most vulnerable as seen against many of the opponents who decked him early on... The difference between Jim Braddock, Max Schmeling, Joe Walcott, Tony Galento and Buddy Baer, is that once Tyson had him in trouble, he would have likely finished him, whereas those other men could not. That said, if Joe survives the first 5 or 6 rounds, or catches Tyson on an off night, he might very well have broken him down and stopped him late...

Its not a forgone conclusion either way, but lets just say, it would probably be Louis's most dangerous proposition..
my sentiments exactly. Prime tysons ability to finish a hurt opponent were second to none BUT.....the longer the fight goes, the more it favours louis especially a 15 rounder. Tough call either way

[johnmaff36]

Oh come on. First of all, Louis lost to Max Schmeling. Louis was not prepared for the fight mentally nor physically.

Mike Tyson lost to Busted Douglas. Mike Tyson was not prepared for the fight mentally nor physically.

I bet you Max Schmeling would defeat Mike Tyson. Or can we all agree that he would at least be a game fighter? Imagine us sayin the same about Douglas against Louis though.


Tell me, do you think if James Smith fought in 1930's we would know his name today? Not a chance. But James Braddock was an incredible fighter. Saying Louis falling to him discredits Joe as a fighter is silly.
mike tyson would murder schmeling

[PATSYS]

Nothing going to Louis way in this match up.

[Unforgiven]

No it doesnt. How many fights did Tyson come out of beaten up? If he used it as a tactic to counter off of, its actually a good weapon. If you notice most of the time, his chin is tucked and the jab is touching the top of his head. Tyson gave up a huge advantage in reach, fighting guys like Tucker 6'4-6'5 and realistically being 5'11, his defense has become vastly underated.

I dont want to get into the "overrated"/"underrated" debate, but I think almost every time Tyson is discussed his ability to slip punches is highlighted, so it's clearly not being overlooked.

[Unforgiven]

:blood Wow Tyson must have been perfectly matched his entire career. The brave guys had no skills and the guys with skills werent brave. Your just being silly with a statement like that.

Well, I never even mentioned "skills".

If my statement's so silly, you should prove it wrong. Maybe I am wrong.
Which world-ranked fighter had speed, power and courage against a prime Tyson ?
And, yeah, you can throw in "skills" if you want.

[Pachilles]

One thing i will say...

There was a list of times Louis was floored in the early rounds, being used as a negative towards him. But he got back up and won those fights, right? Surely heart and determination as positives outweight sturdyness as a negative? I think your thinking like robots and the mental aspect of the fight game is being highly underrated

[Unforgiven]

One thing i will say...

There was a list of times Louis was floored in the early rounds, being used as a negative towards him. But he got back up and won those fights, right? Surely heart and determination as positives outweight sturdyness as a negative? I think your thinking like robots and the mental aspect of the fight game is being highly underrated

Good post. :good

Yeah, it's crazy, like because Louis could well get knocked flying by Tyson's punches and the initial onslaught, or decked, that means it's all over for him. A lot of people are ignoring the fact that every time Louis got decked he had a lot more to say about it than just stand there and get wiped out. That would be totally and utterly against the nature of Joe Louis. Most likely, he'd get up and respond in kind with sharp powerful precise dynamite punches.
Even if Tyson hits harder than anyone he faced, he's not going to just give up or turn into some glass-chinned flake who will pass out at any sniff of trouble. He's gonna get up and give Tyson (or anyone else) a taste of his own medicine.

And that's just the basic assumption we have to make if we are to give him any sort of credit and acknowledgement for the way he conducted himself in his career. But some here dont want to even do that, they act like it's plain sailing for Tyson. And I just dont get that.

[lefthook31]

Well, I never even mentioned "skills".

If my statement's so silly, you should prove it wrong. Maybe I am wrong.
Which world-ranked fighter had speed, power and courage against a prime Tyson ?
And, yeah, you can throw in "skills" if you want.
Tucker skills speed and courage (undefeated)
Tubbs speed courage skills (Never neen ko'd)
Ruddock power and courage
Bruno power decent skills (courage in the first fight)
Biggs skills and speed (undefeated)
Thomas skills and courage (never been ko'd)
Holmes (in my opinion an underated win)
Spinks (undefeated never ko'd)
To start dissecting them as inadequate fighters is unfair. We can do that to all champions resume. I also dont want to get into a pissing match over Tysons comp, but I just think your selling it short, and being very nitpicky showcasing points of his career where he was off balance during a fight, whereas Louis was actually floored on many occasions against lessor fighters. Theres also a very real mental factor when a fighter comes into a fight on this level undefeated and/or having never been knocked out.

[itrymariti]

Tyson I think clearly has more power, though.

On what basis? They have almost identical knockout records. If anything, Louis proved his punch against more durable opponents in an era where you didn't get the stoppage unless the other guy was beaten into the ground. He flattened giants like Baer, Simon, Carnera. How many comparably tough opponents did Tyson stop?

He definitely has a better chin, arguing that their chins are equal is beyond ludicrous.

I'd probably give Tyson the edge, but it isn't a huge edge by any means. Louis was knocked down more, but then he was never laid out cold by mediocre punchers like Buster fucking Douglas - even when they wheeled him out to fight your boy, he never looked anything more than overwhelmed.

and although their speed are very comparable I think a poll would show 95% would side with Tyson on that issue.

Louis was very fast, arguably faster if you consider his frame and style. Look how quickly he slips the jab and comes over the top with a killer right here:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Others brought up how many times that Joe went down against fighters that weren't even in the same league as Tyson. Tyson didn't go down during his peak years ever, and was rarely even hurt against vicious hitters like Bruno. And I think displayed his chin against Ruddock.

And Louis wouldn't have been seen dead losing to Kevin McBride. What does that prove?

Lastly, if Louis is going down or getting hurt than he's going to see the best finisher in the HW division besides himself after him.

That argument works both ways, obviously.

You could give Tyson the edge in any or all of power, speed and chin, but it's not a decisive edge, and certainly not enough to be predicting a massacre. You need to say more than "Tyson overwhelms him".

[Unforgiven]

Tucker skills speed and courage (undefeated)
Tubbs speed courage skills (Never neen ko'd)
Ruddock power and courage
Bruno power decent skills (courage in the first fight)
Biggs skills and speed (undefeated)
Thomas skills and courage (never been ko'd)
Holmes (in my opinion an underated win)
Spinks (undefeated never ko'd)


Well, my actual statement that you declared silly was ...

"They didn't take advantage of it because they weren't equipped with the speed and power to do anything more than clinch to survive. And the braver guys lacked either the power or the speed."

Speed AND power, and you can add in "skills" if you want.

I dont think my statement was ridiculous or silly.

But, it's not important because you are correct when you say :

To start dissecting them as inadequate fighters is unfair. We can do that to all champions resume. I also dont want to get into a pissing match over Tysons comp, but I just think your selling it short,

Ok, that's fair enough.

and being very nitpicky showcasing points of his career where he was off balance during a fight, whereas Louis was actually floored on many occasions against lessor fighters.

Again, you seem to have misunderstood where the whole point about Tyson's balance originated from.

I was simply responding to all the negative nonsense about Louis having "shit footwork" and "bad balance", "plodding footwork" being spouted by the same people who were quick to insist that Tyson was "great" in these areas.
I pointed out that, no, actually, Tyson's footwork isn't perfect either, and nor was his balance.

Louis being "actually floored on many occasions against lessor fighters" is your line.
Sure, he was vulnerable to a hard punch flash knockdown and/or his balance wasn't always perfect.

But it's also true that only 4 men managed to floor him in his prime years, in 59 official fights, up to WW2.
And on 3 of those occasions he got up and knocked the other guy into next week.
So, cant you see how straight off the bat these things are being spun negatively towards Louis ?
And it goes almost totally unchallenged.

So, if I'm being "very nitpicky" it's because the level of debate was already at the nit-picking stage, and very one-sidedly too.

Four men (5 KDs total ) in his first 59 fights.
Only 1 loss - a 12-round competitive fight with a tremendous amount of punishment dished out.
Those are the facts of prime Louis.

And people are talking as if Tyson wipes him out, because Louis was flakey or something.

:-(

[enquirer]

Tremendous bias in favour of louis in this thread.
To people who think that louis chin or speed are comparable to tysons,well then the film evidence must be wrong.
Stylistically this is a very bad matchup for joe,nobody is saying joe is not on the greatest heavies ever.

[mr. magoo]

Tremendous bias in favour of louis in this thread.



Well Tyson is leading in the pole, so that's at least a good thing.

[Unforgiven]

Tremendous bias in favour of louis in this thread.

Bullshit.
Tyson is way ahead in the poll, and several people here are saying Louis will be "overwhelmed" and that he'll get "crushed" in a "mismatch".
How can that be bias in favour of Louis ? :lol:

To people who think that louis chin or speed are comparable to tysons,well then the film evidence must be wrong.

When Louis was young, his hand speed is certainly comparable.
The film evidence shows that clearly.

"Chin" ? I think Tyson had a better "chin" for taking single shots.
But the record shows he got knocked out more times than Louis did.
He suffered as many bad defeats, and more.



Stylistically this is a very bad matchup for joe,nobody is saying joe is not on the greatest heavies ever.


Stylistically - in your opinion !

But for years I remember arguing with people who said that Holyfield was made-to-order for Tyson too, because he took too many shots and liked to brawl or whatever other idea that had about it. That was their opinion, and most of them think differently now, but a few still insist a "prime" Tyson would destroy Holyfield.

But it's all opinion. Nothing can be proved.

I think Louis is getting unfair treatment here rather than favouritism. For a man of his record and sheer destructiveness to be seen as an easy mark against anyone is absurd.

[Unforgiven]

I'm actually surprised Tyson is winning this poll.

Usually I avoid threads like this one. :lol:

[enquirer]

I should clarify,tremendous bias by some posters on here for louis,my bad.
Look,holyfield and louis are really two different types of fighters,so the tyson holyfield example is pointless.
I think the fighters tyson likes the most are those who dont tie him up,are relatively slow,and have a go at him. Now louis fits all three,its only louis' awesome punch arsenal that gives him a sniff here. But it is only a sniff...

[lefthook31]

Well, my actual statement that you declared silly was ...

"They didn't take advantage of it because they weren't equipped with the speed and power to do anything more than clinch to survive. And the braver guys lacked either the power or the speed."

Speed AND power, and you can add in "skills" if you want.

I dont think my statement was ridiculous or silly.

But, it's not important because you are correct when you say :



Ok, that's fair enough.



Again, you seem to have misunderstood where the whole point about Tyson's balance originated from.

I was simply responding to all the negative nonsense about Louis having "shit footwork" and "bad balance", "plodding footwork" being spouted by the same people who were quick to insist that Tyson was "great" in these areas.
I pointed out that, no, actually, Tyson's footwork isn't perfect either, and nor was his balance.

Louis being "actually floored on many occasions against lessor fighters" is your line.
Sure, he was vulnerable to a hard punch flash knockdown and/or his balance wasn't always perfect.

But it's also true that only 4 men managed to floor him in his prime years, in 59 official fights, up to WW2.
And on 3 of those occasions he got up and knocked the other guy into next week.
So, cant you see how straight off the bat these things are being spun negatively towards Louis ?
And it goes almost totally unchallenged.

So, if I'm being "very nitpicky" it's because the level of debate was already at the nit-picking stage, and very one-sidedly too.

Four men (5 KDs total ) in his first 59 fights.
Only 1 loss - a 12-round competitive fight with a tremendous amount of punishment dished out.
Those are the facts of prime Louis.

And people are talking as if Tyson wipes him out, because Louis was flakey or something.

:-(
Fair enough. Notice I didnt comment on Louis, I have a whole different feeling about these mythical matchups and thats why I rarely comment on them. I do feel the physical size aspect starts to play a big factor as it does often times in the lower weights, but thats a whole different discussion. Personally I dont think Louis has ever experienced someone who punches as hard and fast as a prime 220 pound Mike Tyson therefore its very hard to say how he would hold up. Its almost like Spinks going in with Tyson.
Im just pointing out some disagreements of your asessment of Tysons skillset, but its all good, were all entitled to our own opinion, and we cant agree on everything.:good

[Unforgiven]

I should clarify,tremendous bias by some posters on here for louis,my bad.
Look,holyfield and louis are really two different types of fighters,so the tyson holyfield example is pointless.
I think the fighters tyson likes the most are those who dont tie him up,are relatively slow,and have a go at him. Now louis fits all three,its only louis' awesome punch arsenal that gives him a sniff here. But it is only a sniff...

My point about Holyfield is that no one really knew how his style would mesh with Tyson's and there were loads of different opinions. And some of the ones who claimed to know with almost certainty that Holyfield would be knocked out have changed that opinion.

See, I disgree with your analysis of Louis's capabilities and of what's needed to beat Tyson. I certainly dont think Louis was slow, his hands were ridiculously fast.
I see Louis busting Tyson up with jabs on the oustside and picking off with hooks on the inside, and catching him with uppercuts as he comes in. Tyson can get through with some bombs and maybe floor Louis, maybe knock him across the ring, bounce him off the ropes, but I doubt he could finish him. Louis was every bit as badass as Tyson, and cooler under pressure.
That's how I see it, based on filmed evidence and the record books.
I see Louis adapting to Tyson's style better than Tyson adapts to his.

[enquirer]

Ok,thats fair enough.
But you also have to state the reverse,that we dont really know how louis' style would match up to a guy who is quicker,punches as hard as any other opponent,has a great chin,elusiveness And physically is unusually built for a heavy.
I think it goes without saying theirs no dogma or 100% certainty on any of the mythical matchups.
But i think we have to be careful not to weigh the evidence in FAVOUR of the boxers we like better.

[mr. magoo]

There seems to be a myth that Mike Tyson was completely useless after the 5th round..

[enquirer]

Yes,in the tucker fight he took over AFTER the fifth or sixth. He won plenty of fights after the fifth as well.
In the losses to douglas and holy,i dont think it was stamina,but the fact that they consistently punched the shit out of him...

[mr. magoo]

Yes,in the tucker fight he took over AFTER the fifth or sixth. He won plenty of fights after the fifth as well.
In the losses to douglas and holy,i dont think it was stamina,but the fact that they consistently punched the shit out of him...

He was already losing both the Douglas and Holyfield fights, long before those matches ever extended into the latter rounds, so the observation is moot.. At only 19 years of age, he was absolutely pounding Jose Ribalta to submission in the 10th round... At 21, he outgunned a 6'5", 225 lbs Tucker to a decision.... He took loads of shots for 12 rounds against Ruddock, but was still standing at the final bell, and won a comfortable decision..

[enquirer]

Exactly.
I know its become fashionable now to downplay tyson,and to contend he was a complete front running puncher,who would lose to most of the greats.
Well,last week i reviewed the tucker and tubbs fights,plus a few of his post douglas/post jail fights.
Frankly,the guy is superb. Great punching prowess,speed,elusiveness,body punching,jabbing,awesome early attack. Super chin,heart and a great intensity. I think he also learned a little more about how to fight on the inside as he got older.
I keep reminding myself that the guy was only 21 in the tucker fight!!!!!
It might be sacriledge,but he'd beat 95% of the atgs heavies inside.

[mr. magoo]

Exactly.
I know its become fashionable now to downplay tyson,and to contend he was a complete front running puncher,who would lose to most of the greats.
Well,last week i reviewed the tucker and tubbs fights,plus a few of his post douglas/post jail fights.
Frankly,the guy is superb. Great punching prowess,speed,elusiveness,body punching,jabbing,awesome early attack. Super chin,heart and a great intensity. I think he also learned a little more about how to fight on the inside as he got older.
I keep reminding myself that the guy was only 21 in the tucker fight!!!!!
It might be sacriledge,but he'd beat 95% of the atgs heavies inside.

Agreed,

I seriously doubt that there are many people around here who saw the Douglas fight live and who fully understood the circumstances that surrounded that match... Anyone who saw that fight from round 1 to the point where Tyson was counted out, listened to all the commentary, paid attention to what was going on in the corner between rounds, and who heard the news in the months and years leading up to that match, knows that he was not himself that evening.... Its easy to see the defeat listed on boxrec, then follow up by watching a few brief youtube clips, and arrive at the conclusion that he just wasn't that good, or that Douglas was better than everyone had originally thought, but these things don't tell the whole story...

[Son of Gaul]

Exactly.
I know its become fashionable now to downplay tyson,and to contend he was a complete front running puncher,who would lose to most of the greats.
Well,last week i reviewed the tucker and tubbs fights,plus a few of his post douglas/post jail fights.
Frankly,the guy is superb. Great punching prowess,speed,elusiveness,body punching,jabbing,awesome early attack. Super chin,heart and a great intensity. I think he also learned a little more about how to fight on the inside as he got older.
I keep reminding myself that the guy was only 21 in the tucker fight!!!!!
It might be sacriledge,but he'd beat 95% of the atgs heavies inside.

Exactly my point. People too often forget about just how elusive and explosive Tyson was in his very brief prime. He was, as I've said before, the perfect combination of Patterson and Dempsey or Frazier...without the stamina.

[enquirer]

Yes,i watched nearly all of tyson fights live from alfonso ratcliff to peter mcneeley. You forget how awesome he was.
I think everyone in the know accepts that douglas would be stopped in a rematch by tyson,and without too much trouble...
Its a damn shame we never saw holy and tyson pre-prison.
ps; son of gaul,i dont think his prime was that short either,he was superb right up until jail,after that he became a bit too power happy,and too bulky.
I dont agree with the stamina thing though,he always had enough to win fights,he didnt really lose through exhaustion.

[I am Legion]

Because tyson wasn't at all known for his phenominal speed, reflexes and head movement.

fucking dullard.

Didn't help him against Douglas did it?

Louis KO. End of thread.
:patsch

[mr. magoo]

Exactly my point. People too often forget about just how elusive and explosive Tyson was in his very brief prime. He was, as I've said before, the perfect combination of Patterson and Dempsey or Frazier...without the stamina.

His stamina was not that bad, and it certainly wasn't the deciding factor in most of his losses.. In the vast majority of his defeats, he was already losing those fights long before stamina should have even come into play, and was broken down over a long period by sustained beatings before ever succumbing to defeat...

[enquirer]

Louis' power and accuracy didnt help him v max first time did it.
Close thread......
Loony tunes logic there...

[mr. magoo]

Louis KO. End of thread.
:patsch

Indeed,

Tyson has won this pole 29-18, so I think its time to close if off..

[Son of Gaul]

Yes,i watched nearly all of tyson fights live from alfonso ratcliff to peter mcneeley. You forget how awesome he was.
I think everyone in the know accepts that douglas would be stopped in a rematch by tyson,and without too much trouble...
Its a damn shame we never saw holy and tyson pre-prison.
ps; son of gaul,i dont think his prime was that short either,he was superb right up until jail,after that he became a bit too power happy,and too bulky.
I dont agree with the stamina thing though,he always had enough to win fights,he didnt really lose through exhaustion.

I consider his prime from '86-'88 when Rooney was still his trainer and Jim Jacobs was still alive as his manager. Rooney kept him sharp and Jacobs was the only person in the world he could really trust...:-(

[mr. magoo]

I consider his prime from '86-'88 when Rooney was still his trainer and Jim Jacobs was still alive as his manager. Rooney kept him sharp and Jacobs was the only person in the world he could really trust...:-(

Had Rooney and most of the original team Tyson held together, I think that it might have made a key difference in extending his reign, and perhaps even kept his problems outside the ring to a minimal.. This is all speculation of course, but I do feel that most of his problems were amplied right around the firing of Bill Cayton and Kevin Rooney.

[Son of Gaul]

His stamina was not that bad, and it certainly wasn't the deciding factor in most of his losses.. In the vast majority of his defeats, he was already losing those fights long before stamina should have even come into play, and was broken down over a long period by sustained beatings before ever succumbing to defeat...

Remember, we're talking about Tyson in his PRIME('86-'88). He never allowed this to happen when Rooney was his trainer.

[mr. magoo]

Remember, we're talking about Tyson in his PRIME('86-'88). He never allowed this to happen when Rooney was his trainer.


I agree..

[Son of Gaul]

Had Rooney and most of the original team Tyson held together, I think that it might have made a key difference in extending his reign, and perhaps even kept his problems outside the ring to a minimal.. This is all speculation of course, but I do feel that most of his problems were amplied right around the firing of Bill Cayton and Kevin Rooney.
Agreed.:good

[enquirer]

I disagree. As tyson got older he needed to learn how to adapt in a fight himself,and not rely on patterened methods from rooney.
Cornermen and trainers tweak the great fighters,they dont make em,or sustain em.

[mr. magoo]

I disagree. As tyson got older he needed to learn how to adapt in a fight himself,and not rely on patterened methods from rooney.
Cornermen and trainers tweak the great fighters,they dont make em,or sustain em.


Eventually he would have broken down and lost like everyone else, but surely his reign could have lasted beyond 1990, and under the right circumstances, might even have survived a meeting with Holyfield in that same time frame.. By 1992-1994 however, retaining his title would have gotten increasingly more difficult with some of the more talented super heavyweights coming into the picture like Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis.. I don't think that he was going to dispatch these men in the easy fashion that he did guys like Tony Tubbs and Carl Williams... He would have to be extremely well prepared and at the top of his game in order to stay on top.... Imagine if say in 1993, he defended his belt three times back to back against Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis and Michael Moorer, with an additional meeting against Ray Mercer somewhere in there.. That would be a tough schedule for anyone...

[enquirer]

Yes,the guys you mentioned would all be tough. I think the stint in clink is what took away tysons momentum and hunger. And i think he needed to be hungry and active to be sucessful over the long haul.
I personally feel he could have beaten all of those guys,but we will never know for sure.
And,of course he would have lost in due course given mikes 'duran like' excesses,which you cant get away with against great fighters.

[mr. magoo]

Yes,the guys you mentioned would all be tough. I think the stint in clink is what took away tysons momentum and hunger. And i think he needed to be hungry and active to be sucessful over the long haul.
I personally feel he could have beaten all of those guys,but we will never know for sure.
And,of course he would have lost in due course given mikes 'duran like' excesses,which you cant get away with against great fighters.


For as highly as I think of Mike Tyson as a fighter, I don't think that he was ever destined to have a lengthy reign Joe Louis proportions.. His fighting style was of the sort, that typically did not bode well for aging, and boxing was in the dawn of a new era where heavyweights were becomming increasingly larger men. Under the absolute best of circumstances and with everything in the world working out his way, Tyson probably could have reigned to perhaps 1994, but I don't see it going much beyond that....

[enquirer]

I agree. Its a hard style to maintain,especially given the dimensions of tyson,and his lifestyle. (short and squat,plus wild.)
With regard to louis' reign,is there anyone destined to have a reign like that,at any weight class?

[mr. magoo]

With regard to louis' reign,is there anyone destined to have a reign like that,at any weight class?

I don't think so, but in all honesty, had Joe's reign as champion began in 1988, I doubt that he would have still been champion 12 years later in 2000. The 90's were packed with too many talented big heavyweights, and no way could he have defended his belt 3 times per year on a steady basis against all of them without picking up a loss or two along the way..... Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis and Michael Moorer were all champions who's status ranged anywhere from very good to great, and none of them survived the dawn of the 90's without picking up their first defeats... Furthermore, that would have been a very nasty gauntlet for even someone like Muhammad Ali to have to go through..

[enquirer]

Oh,i see what you mean.
Louis would no way have gone through a reign from 88+,never.
Ali would have been the best bet,but he too would pick up a loss or two. (he did even in his own time.)
See Magoo,the decade of the nineties was a golden one for heavyweight boxing. :D

[mr. magoo]

Oh,i see what you mean.
Louis would no way have gone through a reign from 88+,never.
Ali would have been the best bet,but he too would pick up a loss or two. (he did even in his own time.)
See Magoo,the decade of the nineties was a golden one for heavyweight boxing. :D


Well, let's say that Joe arrived in 1988 via time travel, and decided that he was going to duplicate his reign by doing exactly the same thing that he did the first time, in defeating every single worthy challenger available, bar none....

From 1988-2000, what this would have meant is facing Michael Spinks, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, George Foreman, Michael Moorer, Razor Ruddock, David Tua, Ray Mercer, Ike Ibeabuchi, Andre Golata, James Douglas, Oliver McCall, Frank Bruno, Chris Byrd, and perhaps even one of the Klitschko's. Now granted, its possible that some of those men may have knocked each other out of contention, especially if Louis had unified the belt, with no alpha titles available, hence he might not have had to face all of them, but still, these would have been far more treachurous waters than the ones he waded through during the 30's and 40's.....

Frankly, I can't name a single fighter who I think would have done it.... Take your pick, Ali, Louis, Holmes, Marciano, even Jesus Christ almighty..... No way..

[enquirer]

Not even siddartha guatama 'buddha' would be able to achieve such a feat....
But i will tell you one who could defeat them all....
FATHER TIME....:D

[mr. magoo]

Not even siddartha guatama 'buddha' would be able to achieve such a feat....
But i will tell you one who could defeat them all....
FATHER TIME....:D


And one of them ( George Foreman ), nearly handed Father time his first loss...:good

[janitor]

[quote=mr. magoo;6439266]Common Janitor,

Look at the difference in the men they were fighting....


I have done and frankly I think it favours Louis.

Let's take two former light heavyweights in Spinks and Schmeling....

Former lightheavyweights?

You might have pointed out that Spinks had a grand total of four fights at heavyweight while Schmeling was ranked in the top five at heavyweight for the best part of a decade.

Some people rank Schmeling among the top 20 all time heavyweights and I don't think you could make the same case for Spinks.

Im sorry but Spinks is not comparable to Schmeling as a heavyweight challenger.

Max was 31 years old in the first fight, the same as Spinks.... Tyson and Louis were both around the same age at 21.... Spinks was an all time great light heavyweight champ and Lineal heavy weight champ, who had never been floored or beaten in a pro fight...... Schmeling had only won 4 of his last 8 bouts , was off for a year, and fighting on American soil during a time when a member of Nazi Germany had no business doing so..... He kicked Louis's ass, while Tyson destroyed Spinks......

If you are going to handpick examples to suport your arguments then I have to be frank with you and say that a loss to James Douglas is far more damaging than a loss to Max Schmeling.

Basicaly Douglas would have been nobody if he hadnt beatenb Tyson. He isnt Tysons Max Schmeling, he is Tysons Tony Musto who found a way to beat him.


Years later, Louis finally got his first round KO over his conqueror, but it was hardly the same scenario as when Tyson iced Spinks.. In fact, it was against a shot Schmeling.....


A shot Schmeling who had just nearly killed the #1 contender Steve Hamas and who went on to ice Adolph Heuser in the first round.

Louis avenged his loss to Schmeling which is more than Tyson did with any of his losses.

It should also be noted that Louis was fighting cruiserweights, not heavyweights,

Cruiserweights like Spinks and Holyfield, or cruiserweights like Primo Carnera and Buddy Baer?

Louis's top opponents were qualatativley and quantitativley better.

and most of them had some pretty bad records

Largley an artefact of the era.


along with the advantage of being white men who were pushed ahead of their black counterparts - something that did not happen in later periods......


Ever heard of Gerry Cooney?

[PetethePrince]

On what basis? They have almost identical knockout records. If anything, Louis proved his punch against more durable opponents in an era where you didn't get the stoppage unless the other guy was beaten into the ground. He flattened giants like Baer, Simon, Carnera. How many comparably tough opponents did Tyson stop?

Yes, but a lot of it comes down to how these guys were knocked out. Tyson has more one punch KO's. Louis brutalized a lot of these men. Dempsey believed that Marciano had the most one punch power of any champion he had ever seen. I believe Marciano has more one punch power than Louis, and I don't think he had more power than Tyson. So that would help break down my reasoning. And while all these men were big they were KO-able. It's all impressive, I just think Tyson had more power and would've stopped all these men. I don't see Louis with as many one punch KO's like what Tyson did to Spinks, Williams, and other men. Maybe it's close, but clear to me.


I'd probably give Tyson the edge, but it isn't a huge edge by any means. Louis was knocked down more, but then he was never laid out cold by mediocre punchers like Buster fucking Douglas - even when they wheeled him out to fight your boy, he never looked anything more than overwhelmed.

McCall said Douglas was the hardest puncher he ever faced. At was addressed in one of the articles on this site. Lastly, Tyson was KOed "cold" once, but he almost beat the count. In fact he probably did but was too wobbly to continue. It took Douglas a whooping to do it for 10 rounds. Do you think Schemling hits harder than Douglas? I think the edge is clearly to Tyson. Lastly it was Louis who was more legitimately knocked out cold than Tyson (He COULDN'T even get up from the count) and Tyson took much more punishment proving his chin from punchers like Ruddock and Bruno. Bruno had sparring partners that said he hit about as good as Foreman.



Louis was very fast, arguably faster if you consider his frame and style. Look how quickly he slips the jab and comes over the top with a killer right here:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Only arguably faster if you like to argue. Maybe one punch at a time he's close but in combinations I think most would side with Tyson. And for his frame and style? Tyson was the stocky bulky 218lb fighter while Louis was a lankier 200 lb fighting machine. P4P the speed edge is even more in favor of Tyson.



And Louis wouldn't have been seen dead losing to Kevin McBride. What does that prove?

Louis probably had a lot more pugilistic pride than Tyson. Are you trying to make an argument with this statement or are just starting in with generic meaningless retorts?



That argument works both ways, obviously.

You could give Tyson the edge in any or all of power, speed and chin, but it's not a decisive edge, and certainly not enough to be predicting a massacre. You need to say more than "Tyson overwhelms him".

It's a style thing. Louis didn't like being crowded, while Tyson was a mid-range bomber he's going to feel those punchers. Tyson has fight punchers that probably hit comparable, if not harder than Louis. That doesn't work both ways. Lastly, I just think Tyson is going to be making Louis pay too much. If he didn't slip the jab, he'd get punished from dropping it low.

[PetethePrince]

I think some important reasoning that people should think about is the fact that if either man were hurt who do you think has the better chance of surviving. Tyson wasn't easy to hurt, let alone get knocked down or even KOed. But if it had happened, which it could against a guy like Louis I think he survives and Louis finds himself after an opponent that's not easy to finish off. On the contrary, if Louis were hurt I think he has less a chance of fighting.

If I just see the fight on singularly that issue I favor Tyson. Two things... if Tyson gets dropped it can easily mentally affect him. And the fight could go the distance... if it did I think Louis would win. I don't think it would.

[janitor]

[quote=mr. magoo;6439320]
Louis was floored and knocked out more times in his PRIME, than Tyson was....


Louis faced a lot more dangerous challengers in his prime than Tyson and they were still knocked out once apeice (before long periods of inactivity).

Tyson was gone mentally by 1990.... His training team was GONE... His focus on the game was GONE..... His training habits were GONE......

I can make an alowance for these things up to a point.

Most fighters suffer from these problems at some stage of their careers and it is not obligotory to strike their key losses off their record as a result.

Louis had the advantage of professional management and a training environment during a time when nobody else did... The difference, is that Tyson's opponents had the SAME advantages, only Tyson did not take advantage of them in the latter part of his reign...

But as you say, most fighters of Louis's era were up against the same sort of problems as Tyson.


Louis needed to fight more to get rich.... Tyson was already rich.... Tyson lost his mother, sister, trainer and manager to death when being less than 23 years of age.... Not to mention a divorce and a bad suicide attempt.... The later losses to Danny Williams, Kevin Mcbride and Lennox Lewis play no part in this discussion as Tyson was SHOT....... I will give Holyfield the nod in his wins, as I feel that he would have beaten any version of Tyson...


All this is true enough, but if you are going to make these blanket alowances then you simply have to make the equivalent alowances for Louis.

If you can excuse a Tyson loss so casualy then you should be able to excuse a flash knockdown or a lacklustre performence from Louis verry easily.

Also isn't the asumption that the weakneses that so readily emerged in Tyson after he lost his focus, could never have been brought out by an all time great a bit of a leap of faith?

Tyson would have had Louis hurt long before these things ever happened Janitor.... He would have taken advantage of the openings that Braddock, Schmeling, Baer and Galento found and capitalized on them...

By that logic you would have to assume that Tyson would have beaten any fighter who was dropped by a lesser puncher eg Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Lewis etc.

The real world dosn't work like that.

Those guys either got lucky, or in Schmelings case made their own luck. Hell practicaly every ATG has been dumped on their butt by these type of punchers. It dosn't follow that Tyson gets the same openings or that it has the same result if he does.


And even if he didn't, he would have done it later.... He still took many punches from many big hitters later and went the distance several times to win fights... Louis would have had a pain in his ass that wouldn't just go away with a one-two combo....


Louis would bring the kind of finishing ability that Tyson had never seen before and he would bring it in all the wrong ways. He would catch Tyson coming in, and when Tyson got in he would bring the pain on the inside where Tyson dosn't like it.

By the middle of the fight Tyson might not even want to press Louios any more.

I will also ad that Tyson was a big student of old school champs, and had the utmost of respect for them.... Had these two met in a time machine, Tyson would have considered Louis's head to be his ultimate trophy, and by 11:00 eastern U.S time, would have had it on his mantle....

I doubt that he thinks so.

Acording to him Louis is unbeatable.

[janitor]

I think some important reasoning that people should think about is the fact that if either man were hurt who do you think has the better chance of surviving. Tyson wasn't easy to hurt, let alone get knocked down or even KOed. But if it had happened, which it could against a guy like Louis I think he survives and Louis finds himself after an opponent that's not easy to finish off. On the contrary, if Louis were hurt I think he has less a chance of fighting.


If both guys are actualy hurt as you suggest, then:

A. Louis has better recuperative powers.

and

B. Louis wants it more.

[mr. magoo]

=janitor;6445973]


I have done and frankly I think it favours Louis.


Something we will always disagree on, but let's move on..

Former lightheavyweights?

You might have pointed out that Spinks had a grand total of four fights at heavyweight while Schmeling was ranked in the top five at heavyweight for the best part of a decade.

Schmeling had lost 4 of his last 8 fights....Spinks was ranked #1 at the time Tyson fought him, and considered by some as the lineal heavyweight champion... .After Louis had demolished Carnera and Baer, Schmeling was viewed as another lamb for the slaughter, whereas a few people actually thought that Tyson might lose to Spinks... He destroyed him in one of the shortest heavyweight title fights of all time, while Louis was beaten by Schmeling...

Some people rank Schmeling among the top 20 all time heavyweights and I don't think you could make the same case for Spinks.

From a legacy standpoint? No... But we're talking head to head in terms of what these men's standing were AT THE TIME of the meetings, what the fights meant, and the outcomes...

Im sorry but Spinks is not comparable to Schmeling as a heavyweight challenger.


At the time Tyson fought him, when compared to the timing of Louis's meeting with Schmeling, he was that and then some... He was a very dominant light heavyweight champion, a lineal heavyweight title claimant, and undefeated...


If you are going to handpick examples to suport your arguments then I have to be frank with you and say that a loss to James Douglas is far more damaging than a loss to Max Schmeling.

I was comparing Schmeling and Spinks for the purpose of drawing a contrast between two light heavyweights, and how each man did against them...

Basicaly Douglas would have been nobody if he hadnt beatenb Tyson. He isnt Tysons Max Schmeling, he is Tysons Tony Musto who found a way to beat him.


Again we are talking head to head.... While Douglas's legacy may have been shit going into the Tyson fight, he was 29 years old, had won his last 7 strait fights, and a natural heavyweight who stood 6'4", weighing nearly 230 lbs... Schmeling was 199 lbs, off for a full year, had only won 4 of his last 8 matches... I will also ad that Tyson lost to Schmeling because his whole life was going down in flames, whereas Louis never had it better.....


A shot Schmeling who had just nearly killed the #1 contender Steve Hamas and who went on to ice Adolph Heuser in the first round.

Fair enough.

Louis avenged his loss to Schmeling which is more than Tyson did with any of his losses.

There's a reason why that fight never got avenged... Douglas lost in his first title defense and went into retirement, while Tyson fought a handful of other fights, and went to prison...



Cruiserweights like Spinks and Holyfield, or cruiserweights like Primo Carnera and Buddy Baer?

Rather than Cherry pick, would you care to do a comparative analysis of all their challengers and see who comes up short in that department? I will also ad that Spinks and Holyfield are all time great fighters, whereas Baer and carnera weren't.... They also both stood close to 6'3", and weighed around 210 lbs a piece.... Both of them would be larger than the average Louis opponent and needless to say, far better....


Louis's top opponents were qualatativley and quantitativley better.

Based on what? Legacies that were established more than half a century ago, in a racially political environment, or actual head to head abilities? It should also be noted that while Louis certainly faced some highly regarded men, he also fought a lot of guys who were no where near Tyson's worst opponent... Jack Roper, Tony Musto, Gus Dorazio, Johnny Paycheck, Al Mccoy, Tony Galento and Johnny Davis were not quality challengers and they account for roughly one third of Louis's title defenses..



Largley an artefact of the era.


Losing fights, is losing fights, and frankly it doesn't stop you from commenting on the defeats of modern heavyweights regardless of the reasons.... The difference, is that I'll casually point out the fact that a man in 1940, lost a third of his professional bouts, whereas you'll hammer to death a single defeat on the record of a modern champion....


Ever heard of Gerry Cooney?

Absolutely, and there's no reason why I shouldn't have.... He was a solid contender who had beaten all of his opponents, had never lost, and was never floored... He gained recognition by hammering a very recent world champion in only 54 seconds, along with a handful of other named opponents... He was supposed to face Mike Weaver for the WBA title, until Weaver's handler Bob Arum, talked the WBA into defending against James Tills instead.... Now why do you think that is? Given the money that Weaver and Arum would have made facing Cooney over Tillis, you'd think that it was a no brainer, but obviously it was Cooney who was being avoided and not the other way around.... There were some who even favored Cooney to beat Holmes..... Gerry is over rated as a historical fighter, but his rightful status as a number 1 contender in 1982 can't be denied...

[ironchamp]

I think Mike would knock Louis out early. If Joe somehow managed to make it to the 6th round or so I think his punches would start to bust Mike up and probably lead to a stoppage, but I think Mike's left hook would keep getting Louis, who tended to get caught with left hooks.

What makes you think that if he manages to make it to the 6th round that he would all of a sudden turn the tables.

If he makes it to the 6th round it won't be because Tyson packed it in or got tired or whatever. It will be because he was beating Mike all along.

I favor Tyson on this one.

[mr. magoo]

[QUOTE=janitor;6446147]


Louis faced a lot more dangerous challengers in his prime than Tyson and they were still knocked out once apeice (before long periods of inactivity).


With all due respect some of these guys hardly bore the resemblance of being a threat to Louis or any great champion.. Jim Braddock was 32 years old, off for two years, had lost 26 pro fights, was a former light heavyweight, and not particularly known for being a hitter Tony Galento stood 5'9", was disproportionatly over weight, never trained a day in his life, and openly admitted to drinking beer and smoking cigars just days before a fight... Buddy Baer was a man who I'll admit could have been a dangerous opponent due to his size and power, but he looks extremely crude and unskilled on film...


I can make an alowance for these things up to a point.

Most fighters suffer from these problems at some stage of their careers and it is not obligotory to strike their key losses off their record as a result.

Not striking the loss from his record... He lost legitimately, but when doing fantasy match-ups we have to factor when fighters were at their best..



But as you say, most fighters of Louis's era were up against the same sort of problems as Tyson.


True..


All this is true enough, but if you are going to make these blanket alowances then you simply have to make the equivalent alowances for Louis.

If you can excuse a Tyson loss so casualy then you should be able to excuse a flash knockdown or a lacklustre performence from Louis verry easily.

Indeed, but in all fairness, Tyson stubbed his toe once during his prime, whereas Louis had a career long habit of getting into trouble against lesser fighters... Its true that he came back to win most of them, but my original point is that when placed against an opponent who could truly capitalize on his weaknesses, these frequent tendencies to get into trouble may have become a serious problem... Sure Louis could have exploited some of Tyson's weaknesses as well, but the difference is that they were far less evident in Tyson's case, and not quite so regularly displayed..

Also isn't the asumption that the weakneses that so readily emerged in Tyson after he lost his focus, could never have been brought out by an all time great a bit of a leap of faith?

It certainly could have, which is why I would have favored Louis to beat him after Kevin Rooney was fired, Tyson's life outside the ring went south, and his title taken away... From 1986-1989 however, Tyson is a head to head nightmare for anyone...



By that logic you would have to assume that Tyson would have beaten any fighter who was dropped by a lesser puncher eg Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Lewis etc.

He could very well have beaten all of them under the right circumstances..George Foreman was dropped by very few men in his career...One of them was against a man who's size, strength and athleticism equalled his own and following a 16 month layoff and a devastating loss.. The other came in the last fight of his first career, against a truly gifted boxer and mainly due to exhaustion... Ali was decked at the age of 21 and with 18 fights behind him... He was decked again by an all time great champion and following a four year layoff... Holmes was decked many times, but mainly by big punchers, and is a man who I'd pick Tyson to beat... Lewis could have been knocked out by Tyson as well..



Those guys either got lucky, or in Schmelings case made their own luck. Hell practicaly every ATG has been dumped on their butt by these type of punchers. It dosn't follow that Tyson gets the same openings or that it has the same result if he does.


I don't know if we can chalk up all of those occurrences to luck, and if schmeling found a way to create his own luck, Tyson may very well have done the same, albeit two different fighters..


Louis would bring the kind of finishing ability that Tyson had never seen before and he would bring it in all the wrong ways. He would catch Tyson coming in, and when Tyson got in he would bring the pain on the inside where Tyson dosn't like it.

Louis would not just be able to pick out his shots at his leisure.. Sorry, not happening.... He would have a constantly bobbing and weaving target in front of him, and one who could hit hard in both hands, along with possesing a full arsenal of jabs, hooks, uppercuts, crosses and even the occasional elbow.... He also had a solid chin, fast hands, good defense, and could even go the distance if he had to.... He was also quite possibly one of the hardest punchers in the division's history.. Lastly he fought a style that Louis said himself that he did not like, after facing a similar opponent.

By the middle of the fight Tyson might not even want to press Louios any more.

Assuming it goes that far, and that Louis isn't too heavily battered if it does...



I doubt that he thinks so.

Acording to him Louis is unbeatable.

Mike said the same thing about Dempsey and many others.... Doesn't mean that his opinion wouldn't change upon meeting them..

[CF Gauss]

In just about every Joe Louis vs. Random Modern Fighter thread on ESB, people go on and on about how Louis didn't face a fighter like Random Modern Fighter.

What I don't understand is why no one ever turns the question around and ask if Random Modern Fighter has ever faced anyone like Joe Louis.

[Unforgiven]

I think some important reasoning that people should think about is the fact that if either man were hurt who do you think has the better chance of surviving. Tyson wasn't easy to hurt, let alone get knocked down or even KOed. But if it had happened, which it could against a guy like Louis I think he survives and Louis finds himself after an opponent that's not easy to finish off. On the contrary, if Louis were hurt I think he has less a chance of fighting.

I see it the opposite.
Louis was easier to hurt, but he was much more proven in coming back from being hurt and remaining 100% cool and confident even when under serious pressure, and capable of fighting to his fullest.

Tyson was more difficult to hurt, but he was a little less comfortable and cool-headed when he was hurt, and more prone to desperation and frustration, and more likely to become predictable and one-dimensional.

Tyson almost always became a lesser fighter when he was taking a beating ; Louis almost always showed some of his greatest stuff when he was taking a beating.

The idea that Tyson can get rid of Louis with one or two KDs is unrealistic, in my opinion - and just look at some of the bums and washed-up fighters who got up from Tyson KDs, it's not like he KO'd everyone cold.
But the idea that Louis just has to put Tyson down once or twice to beat him (or to render him predictable and impotent, and a relative non-threat) is very realistic, from what I have seen.

And this is the crux of the whole match-up for me.
I call it QUALITY OF FIGHTER.

It's basically a no-brainer for me. I pick Louis, definitely.
But I respect the other opinions.

[Unforgiven]

In just about every Joe Louis vs. Random Modern Fighter thread on ESB, people go on and on about how Louis didn't face a fighter like Random Modern Fighter.

What I don't understand is why no one ever turns the question around and ask if Random Modern Fighter has ever faced anyone like Joe Louis.

Oh, c'mon now, we know Tyson never fought a Louis, but he fought guys like Frank Bruno, and did you see Frank's muscles ? :hey

[HardLeftHook]

Tyson. I think his head movement alone would trouble Joe. Tyson's power obviously would get to Joe eventually. Tyson's chin is slightly underrated too(see Ruddock II but not to compare Ruddock to Joe or anything.) Tyson by KO in the later rounds.

[itrymariti]

Yes, but a lot of it comes down to how these guys were knocked out. Tyson has more one punch KO's. Louis brutalized a lot of these men. Dempsey believed that Marciano had the most one punch power of any champion he had ever seen. I believe Marciano has more one punch power than Louis, and I don't think he had more power than Tyson. So that would help break down my reasoning. And while all these men were big they were KO-able. It's all impressive, I just think Tyson had more power and would've stopped all these men. I don't see Louis with as many one punch KO's like what Tyson did to Spinks, Williams, and other men. Maybe it's close, but clear to me.

The very fact that you have to refer to Tyson having slightly more one-punch KO's (which is debatable in itself) shows that there isn't a distinct edge in power. That's all I'm saying. When there aren't lopsided offensive advantages for either, styles become relevant. Like I said, you need more to be able to claim "Tyson just overwhelms him".

Another way of saying it is that either guy has the power to knock the other out. I don't doubt that.


McCall said Douglas was the hardest puncher he ever faced. At was addressed in one of the articles on this site. Lastly, Tyson was KOed "cold" once, but he almost beat the count. In fact he probably did but was too wobbly to continue. It took Douglas a whooping to do it for 10 rounds. Do you think Schemling hits harder than Douglas? I think the edge is clearly to Tyson. Lastly it was Louis who was more legitimately knocked out cold than Tyson (He COULDN'T even get up from the count) and Tyson took much more punishment proving his chin from punchers like Ruddock and Bruno. Bruno had sparring partners that said he hit about as good as Foreman. .

Again, this is too tenuous. I'd probably give Tyson the edge, but he has been seriously hurt in a way I've never seen Louis hurt. Louis is probably more vulnerable defensively in an exchange. Both guys can hurt each-other.

Only arguably faster if you like to argue. Maybe one punch at a time he's close but in combinations I think most would side with Tyson. And for his frame and style? Tyson was the stocky bulky 218lb fighter while Louis was a lankier 200 lb fighting machine. P4P the speed edge is even more in favor of Tyson. .

P4P isn't particularly relevant. We're splitting hairs.

It's a style thing. Louis didn't like being crowded, while Tyson was a mid-range bomber he's going to feel those punchers.

Well this is the interesting debate to have. I think Louis was better against guys coming in, and could neutralise Tyson by getting to the punch first when Tyson is bobbing and weaving and then going inside to take away Tyson's punching room once he gets in close. Maybe you disagree.

Tyson has fight punchers that probably hit comparable, if not harder than Louis..

Who?

That doesn't work both ways..

Of course it does. You yourself said that Louis was the better finisher. If Tyson would finish Louis when he's hurt, Louis would sure as hell do the same to Tyson. in the opposite situation.

Lastly, I just think Tyson is going to be making Louis pay too much. If he didn't slip the jab, he'd get punished from dropping it low.

You can't make a guy pay if he hits you with his shots, and Louis was extremely accurate against guys coming in. You can counter the jab if he paws with it and allows it to fall short. The simple jab wouldn't even be that relevant here - Louis preferred to lead with a left hook or a 1-2 against a guy coming in.

[Unforgiven]

Did someone say Tyson had more one-punch KOs ?

How many one-punch KOs did Tyson have ?

Do we even know how many he and Louis had ?

[janitor]

[quote=mr. magoo;6447250]
Schmeling had lost 4 of his last 8 fights....


You are verry fond of quoting this statistic, but you fail to observe that he had won his last three fights, two of those losses came against former lineal champions, and two were outright roberies (one a draw).

If we cut through to the reality of the matter then he had lost two of his last eight fights, one to the previous champion Max Baer and one to the former #1 contender Steve Hamas (avenged).


Spinks was ranked #1 at the time Tyson fought him, and considered by some as the lineal heavyweight champion... .After Louis had demolished Carnera and Baer, Schmeling was viewed as another lamb for the slaughter, whereas a few people actually thought that Tyson might lose to Spinks... He destroyed him in one of the shortest heavyweight title fights of all time, while Louis was beaten by Schmeling...


Again you are picking Tysons best result around this stage of their careers and matching it against Louis's worst performence.

It would be like me matching Louis's win over Carnera against Tyson's loss to Douglas and citing the fact that Tyson had been more experienced and was facing a less regarded opponent etc etc.



From a legacy standpoint? No... But we're talking head to head in terms of what these men's standing were AT THE TIME of the meetings, what the fights meant, and the outcomes...


Again I would have to strongly favour Schmeling.

Douglas was the No7 contender when he fought Tyson and hadn't beaten anybody of note before (or since for that matter).

Schmeling was the No1 contender who had just destroyed the previous No1 contender and nobody questioned that he was the logical challenger (before either fight).


I was comparing Schmeling and Spinks for the purpose of drawing a contrast between two light heavyweights, and how each man did against them...


You chose the one challenger who beat Louis and picked a hypothetical equivalent who Tyson beat.

You could just as easily have chosen John Henry Lewis.

Indeed you could just as easily have compared the Douglas fight to say the Buddy Baer fight.

Again we are talking head to head.... While Douglas's legacy may have been shit going into the Tyson fight, he was 29 years old, had won his last 7 strait fights, and a natural heavyweight who stood 6'4", weighing nearly 230 lbs...

Head to head is proven in the ring.

If Douglas was theis shit hot talent then why did he only beat one fighter of note?

Schmeling was 199 lbs, off for a full year, had only won 4 of his last 8 matches... I will also ad that Tyson lost to Schmeling because his whole life was going down in flames, whereas Louis never had it better.....

Can you not see what I have a problem with here?

People arguing for Tyson acuse those arguing for Louis as being biased and sentimental, but then they ask for the verry strongest alowance to be made for losses on Tysons resume that occured during his physical prime.

I don't seek to excuse Louis's loss to Schmelling because he was neglecting his training in all the same ways as Tyson was in Tokyo. I cite his level experience as the sole mitigating factor and give Schmeling credit for the win.

There's a reason why that fight never got avenged... Douglas lost in his first title defense and went into retirement, while Tyson fought a handful of other fights, and went to prison...

What if Schmeling had retired after he beat Louis?

Nobody would make a blanket assumption that Louis would have won the rematch.

Of course Tyson did get a shot at redemption against Holyfield, and yes he was past his prime and without his trainer, but so was Louis when he had to rematch Walcott.


Rather than Cherry pick, would you care to do a comparative analysis of all their challengers and see who comes up short in that department? I will also ad that Spinks and Holyfield are all time great fighters, whereas Baer and carnera weren't.... They also both stood close to 6'3", and weighed around 210 lbs a piece.... Both of them would be larger than the average Louis opponent and needless to say, far better....


The bottom line is that the size argument can cut both ways.

Tyson won the title from a fighter who spent most of his career at light heavyweight (arguably his best win).

He lost twice to a former cruiserweight champion.

He didn't really beat any world class oponents as big as Carnera or Buddy Baer, and when he did fight opponents aproaching that size they generally took him to the cards.


Based on what? Legacies that were established more than half a century ago, in a racially political environment, or actual head to head abilities? It should also be noted that while Louis certainly faced some highly regarded men, he also fought a lot of guys who were no where near Tyson's worst opponent... Jack Roper, Tony Musto, Gus Dorazio, Johnny Paycheck, Al Mccoy, Tony Galento and Johnny Davis were not quality challengers and they account for roughly one third of Louis's title defenses..


Again I would have to argue that the bulk of Tysons post prime career was spent fighting guys woirse than these.

For the record the fighters you have listed varry enormously in quality.


Losing fights, is losing fights, and frankly it doesn't stop you from commenting on the defeats of modern heavyweights regardless of the reasons.... The difference, is that I'll casually point out the fact that a man in 1940, lost a third of his professional bouts, whereas you'll hammer to death a single defeat on the record of a modern champion....


The bottom line is that any contender who came up in the 30s was almost certainly going to pick up losses.

They wern't protected like they are today and you simply didn't get contenders with, say a 31-0-0 record.


Absolutely, and there's no reason why I shouldn't have.... He was a solid contender who had beaten all of his opponents, had never lost, and was never floored... He gained recognition by hammering a very recent world champion in only 54 seconds, along with a handful of other named opponents... He was supposed to face Mike Weaver for the WBA title, until Weaver's handler Bob Arum, talked the WBA into defending against James Tills instead.... Now why do you think that is? Given the money that Weaver and Arum would have made facing Cooney over Tillis, you'd think that it was a no brainer, but obviously it was Cooney who was being avoided and not the other way around.... There were some who even favored Cooney to beat Holmes..... Gerry is over rated as a historical fighter, but his rightful status as a number 1 contender in 1982 can't be denied...


Consider it denied.

There were a number of black fighters who had a stronger claim to be the No1 contender but Cooney was a white, charismatic and marketable contender.

I think that fighters like Lou Nova, Bob Pastor and even Tony Gallento were far more deserving of their rankings than Cooney.

[frankenfrank]

1. Max Schmeling - Louis down in second round

2. Jim Braddock - Louis down in first

3. Buddy Baer - Louis down in first

4. Joe Walcott - Louis down in first and 3rd..

5. Tony Galento - Louis staggered in first, down in third

6. Joe Walcott II - Louis down in third

7. Tami Mauriello - Louis staggered against the ropes in first

8. Billy Conn - Louis outboxed for most of the early rounds.

How many times was Tyson in trouble early?
damn ! that's one heck of a resume ..
louis is definitely the greatest heavyweight of all time
at least tyson wins the poll in this one

[janitor]

[quote=mr. magoo;6447487]
With all due respect some of these guys hardly bore the resemblance of being a threat to Louis or any great champion.. Jim Braddock was 32 years old, off for two years, had lost 26 pro fights, was a former light heavyweight, and not particularly known for being a hitter


Louis obviously had to fight Braddock because he was the champion.

Braddock was regarded as a hitter, and he was the sort of opponent that any champion would have to take seriously.

Tony Galento stood 5'9", was disproportionatly over weight, never trained a day in his life, and openly admitted to drinking beer and smoking cigars just days before a fight...

Gallento was a dangerous puncher and again the type of fighter you have to treat with respect. He might have been fat, but if you threw him in among the 80s beltholders he is the kind of guy who could have picked up a couple of scalps.


Buddy Baer was a man who I'll admit could have been a dangerous opponent due to his size and power, but he looks extremely crude and unskilled on film...


Perhaps you have been watching different films to me.

This is a guy who would probably have held a peice of the title when Tyson was coming up, and might even have handed the Tokyo Tyson his head.


Not striking the loss from his record... He lost legitimately, but when doing fantasy match-ups we have to factor when fighters were at their best..


And not how likley their best is to happen?

Indeed, but in all fairness, Tyson stubbed his toe once during his prime, whereas Louis had a career long habit of getting into trouble against lesser fighters... Its true that he came back to win most of them, but my original point is that when placed against an opponent who could truly capitalize on his weaknesses, these frequent tendencies to get into trouble may have become a serious problem...

To what extent is this tendency a function of how long Louis was in the hot seat?

Lets say that Tyson beats Douglas and continues defending against the top challengers. How long untill he stubs his toe again?

Sure Louis could have exploited some of Tyson's weaknesses as well, but the difference is that they were far less evident in Tyson's case, and not quite so regularly displayed..

Or they were displayed less frequently with more catastrophic results that mitigated against them being explored further.


It certainly could have, which is why I would have favored Louis to beat him after Kevin Rooney was fired, Tyson's life outside the ring went south, and his title taken away... From 1986-1989 however, Tyson is a head to head nightmare for anyone...


I am not taking Tyson lightly here by any means.

He could very well have beaten all of them under the right circumstances..George Foreman was dropped by very few men in his career...One of them was against a man who's size, strength and athleticism equalled his own and following a 16 month layoff and a devastating loss.. The other came in the last fight of his first career, against a truly gifted boxer and mainly due to exhaustion...

How many times would Foreman have been decked if he had faced the number of ranked contenders that Louis did?

Ali was decked at the age of 21 and with 18 fights behind him... He was decked again by an all time great champion and following a four year layoff...

Ali had been in the game longer than the Louis of the first Schmeling fight when Cooper decked him.


Holmes was decked many times, but mainly by big punchers, and is a man who I'd pick Tyson to beat... Lewis could have been knocked out by Tyson as well..


All of these guys could have been but it is dangerous to assume that they would have been.


I don't know if we can chalk up all of those occurrences to luck, and if schmeling found a way to create his own luck, Tyson may very well have done the same, albeit two different fighters..


Schmeling made his own luck in the same way that Randy Turpin did against Sugar Ray Robinson. Walcott as well to a lesser extent.

The rest were just the guys who got lucky against an active champion who tested the odds.


Louis would not just be able to pick out his shots at his leisure.. Sorry, not happening.... He would have a constantly bobbing and weaving target in front of him, and one who could hit hard in both hands, along with possesing a full arsenal of jabs, hooks, uppercuts, crosses and even the occasional elbow.... He also had a solid chin, fast hands, good defense, and could even go the distance if he had to.... He was also quite possibly one of the hardest punchers in the division's history.. Lastly he fought a style that Louis said himself that he did not like, after facing a similar opponent.


Oh Louis would get Tyson alright.

His shots are going to be coming faster and straighter than Tyson has ever seen before, and the closer Tyson gets the shorter they are going to become. Louyis is not just going to try to hit Tyson at range and hold him when he gets in close like a Tony Tucker.


Mike said the same thing about Dempsey and many others.... Doesn't mean that his opinion wouldn't change upon meeting them..


"Even today it is hard to imagine anybody beating him (Louis) including Muhamad Ali"

Mike Tyson

[Pachilles]

damn ! that's one heck of a resume ..
louis is definitely the greatest heavyweight of all time
at least tyson wins the poll in this one

Knocked down by punches that had left many other opponents lying out on the canvas, Joe Louis recovered, got back to his feet and won every single one of those fights.

and what? AND WHAT!?

[janitor]

damn ! that's one heck of a resume ..
louis is definitely the greatest heavyweight of all time
at least tyson wins the poll in this one

If you are trying to argue against Louis it is best not to bring up the issue of resume.

Louis beat approximately three times as many ranked contenders as Mike Tyson (who is under rated in this aspect).

That is one heck of a resume.

[Pachilles]

If you are trying to argue against Louis it is best not to bring up the issue of resume.

Louis beat approximately three times as many ranked contenders as Mike Tyson (who is under rated in this aspect).

That is one heck of a resume.

You don't even need to consider resume to think that Louis has more than a good chance against Tyson. You can see it plain as day on film, the fashion in which he knocks people the fuck out is raw deadliness. He's not some fisticuffer with a porno-tasche that requires extensive glorification and a massive dose of era-bias to justify. He was way ahead of his time.

[janitor]

You don't even need to consider resume to think that Louis has more than a good chance against Tyson. You can see it plain as day on film, the fashion in which he knocks people the fuck out is raw deadliness. He's not some fisticuffer with a porno-tasche that requires extensive glorification and a massive dose of era-bias to justify. He was way ahead of his time.

At least we have to work hard to defend Jack Dempseys resume.

[PetethePrince]

The very fact that you have to refer to Tyson having slightly more one-punch KO's (which is debatable in itself) shows that there isn't a distinct edge in power. That's all I'm saying. When there aren't lopsided offensive advantages for either, styles become relevant. Like I said, you need more to be able to claim "Tyson just overwhelms him".

Altering language to win in argument is fun.

Again, this is too tenuous. I'd probably give Tyson the edge, but he has been seriously hurt in a way I've never seen Louis hurt. Louis is probably more vulnerable defensively in an exchange. Both guys can hurt each-other.

It's tenuous that you can't analyze the context at which things happen. Louis more vulnerable defensively, and much easier to hurt. It took Douglas 10 rounds of punishing Tyson to get him out of there. You call Douglas a powder-puncher, but I'm sure he hits harder than Schemling.

P4P isn't particularly relevant. We're splitting hairs.

Then stop making silly arguments about frame and weight when talking about handspeed. You say it's hardly significant, I say 95% of people would agree with me.


Well this is the interesting debate to have. I think Louis was better against guys coming in, and could neutralise Tyson by getting to the punch first when Tyson is bobbing and weaving and then going inside to take away Tyson's punching room once he gets in close. Maybe you disagree.

Yes and no. It works in his advantage to have a plodding come going into his power. I think Dempsey wouldn't be durable and elusive enough to sustain his attack without getting obliterated. I feel other swarmers would, and Tyson is one of these guys. I think his durability is very good and his elusiveness in and of it self will probably try Louis. He's going to slip that jab, and disrupt Louis' rhythm. I think Louis punches first but probably not often enough. I always think Louis will be surprised by Tyson's jab in his face.

Lastly, what's your take of the Godoy fight? Louis just didn't like being crowded, and liked having room. While Tyson wasn't a typical in-fighter he's going to be after him and closing the distance fast. He's not going to give Louis as much room as he wants... let's just say that.


Who?

Key word being harder puncher, not better puncher. Louis is probably the best composite puncher at HW with Tyson right there with him. Frank Bruno had sparring partners that said he hit as hard as Foreman.


Of course it does. You yourself said that Louis was the better finisher. If Tyson would finish Louis when he's hurt, Louis would sure as hell do the same to Tyson. in the opposite situation.

No, I was referring to fighting a man with comparable if not better power. Who did Louis fight, let alone beat that had comparable if not more power than Tyson?

You can't make a guy pay if he hits you with his shots, and Louis was extremely accurate against guys coming in. You can counter the jab if he paws with it and allows it to fall short. The simple jab wouldn't even be that relevant here - Louis preferred to lead with a left hook or a 1-2 against a guy coming in.

If he abandons his jab here is probably in more trouble. What do you think of Tyson's defense and most importantly his ability to get past the jab. Hooking with Tyson would be dangerous. As Dundee said you don't "you don't hook with a hooker and you don't date a hooker." Though Louis is the best HW puncher, he would need to vary his attack and try being unpredictable. I just don't see Louis setting or getting in a comfortable rhythm against Tyson. And I think Tyson can take what Louis has better than Louis can take what Tyson has.

[PetethePrince]

Did someone say Tyson had more one-punch KOs ?

How many one-punch KOs did Tyson have ?

Do we even know how many he and Louis had ?

Based on the film we do have. I guess we don't truly know then.

I'm sure Tyson has more overall and probably has more if not at least as many over rated fighters.

[Unforgiven]

Based on the film we do have. I guess we don't truly know then.

I'm sure Tyson has more overall and probably has more if not at least as many over rated fighters.

I'll be honest, I cant think of many Tyson one-punch KOs.
Botha, maybe Tubbs, Etienne ? (:lol:)

Maybe you can enlighten me.

I like how you say, "I guess we don't truly know then.

I'm sure Tyson has more overall "

Classic. :good

[mr. magoo]

=janitor;6450372][quote]


You are verry fond of quoting this statistic, but you fail to observe that he had won his last three fights, two of those losses came against former lineal champions, and two were outright roberies (one a draw).



One way or the other, he was coming away with an indecisive mixed bag of wins,losses and draws... Spinks had dominated an entire light heavyweight division and established himself as one of its historically all time great members... Schmeling never won a title at that weight, and certainly did not flatten an entire division... Spinks moved up and became the first in his category to capture the lineal heavyweight title against an undefeated all time great... Schmeling won the belt in vacant fashion and lost it in a hurry... Spinks was undefeated and had never even been decked in a fight.... Spinks was given a chance against a Tyson by a select few ( albeit the minority ), while Schmeling was viewed as being dead in the water....Now, its reasonable to say that Schmeling's stock as well as people's perception of him grew after beating Louis, but that does not award him points in hindsite going in..



If we cut through to the reality of the matter then he had lost two of his last eight fights, one to the previous champion Max Baer and one to the former #1 contender Steve Hamas


How is this better than NEVER having lost at all, or having an argument to being a champion?


Again you are picking Tysons best result around this stage of their careers and matching it against Louis's worst performence.

If it is indeed " this stage " of their careers that we are focussing on, then the comparison is valid.. Both were facing former heavyweight champions, both were facing former light heavyweights.... One of them won in easy fashion while the other got killed.... Don't see this as being a problem for discussion purposes.




It would be like me matching Louis's win over Carnera against Tyson's loss to Douglas and citing the fact that Tyson had been more experienced and was facing a less regarded opponent etc etc.



A better comparison would be Tyson's fight with Berbick, given that neither Louis nor Tyson were champions when they fought Berbick or Carnera, and had roughly the same number of fights going in.... The difference, is that Berbick was coming off a fresh win over one of the concencus best fighters in the division, was holding a world title, had only been stopped once very early in his career, and lost in two rounds to Tyson.... Carnera had recently been pummeled, was beating no one of particular significance, and extended Louis into the 6th...



Again I would have to strongly favour Schmeling.

Douglas was the No7 contender when he fought Tyson and hadn't beaten anybody of note before (or since for that matter).


He was actually the IBF's number 2 contender, and had recorded wins over former and future world titlists in Greg Page, Trevor Berbick and Oliver McCall.. Along with contenders in Tex Cobb and a few decent prospect in Mike Williams and Dion Simpson... Your assesment of him is incorrect.... I am also going to ask you for an honest answer to this question - Do you really think that Douglas would be a bum had he been fighting in 1936? Assuming of course that he had the advantages that Louis did, with good management and unbiased promoting, I think a 6'4", 230 lb black heavyweight with good footwork, a decent jab and a solid uppercut would have been a nightmare for many of the contenders back then, and his skills certainly look better on film that Baer's, Braddock's or Carnera's...




You chose the one challenger who beat Louis and picked a hypothetical equivalent who Tyson beat.

Spinks and Schmeling are not equivalent... Spinks was better, and I've already stated my reasons as to why.... You just stated the other half of the issue, which is that Tyson beat Spinks while Louis lost to Schmeling... Nothing left to debate here..


You could just as easily have chosen John Henry Lewis.


Fine ad him if you so well choose.... He still doesn't ad up to Spinks, and ranks even lower than Schmeling....


Indeed you could just as easily have compared the Douglas fight to say the Buddy Baer fight.


Sure but this was a motivated and well trained Louis who still got decked by a mediocre opponent, whereas an unprepared Tyson got beat by a quality one... Apples to oranges...



Head to head is proven in the ring.



Indeed, which is why claims about one man beating more ranked contenders than the other is useless when comparing careers that took place 40 years apart... A legacy that was established in one era by one fighter, may not necessarily be duplicated in another ere by the very same fighter, due to changes in the games climate and other factors...


If Douglas was theis shit hot talent then why did he only beat one fighter of note?


We've covered this,.



Can you not see what I have a problem with here?

People arguing for Tyson acuse those arguing for Louis as being biased and sentimental, but then they ask for the verry strongest alowance to be made for losses on Tysons resume that occured during his physical prime.


Well let me put it to you this way.... I am asking for a little allowence for a single loss on one man's record... You on the otherhand, make litterally hundreds of concessions for numerous losses that appear on the records of an entire generation of fighters, many of whom fought Louis and some even beat him..... Taking this into account, am I really being unreasonable?

I don't seek to excuse Louis's loss to Schmelling because he was neglecting his training in all the same ways as Tyson was in Tokyo. I cite his level experience as the sole mitigating factor and give Schmeling credit for the win.

Indeed, and in truth I never felt that the Tyson who lost to Douglas nor the Louis who lost to Scmeling were the best versions of either of these men...




What if Schmeling had retired after he beat Louis?

Nobody would make a blanket assumption that Louis would have won the rematch.


We'll never know, what thousands of fans, experts or analysts would have speculated over half a century's time... Do we not do plenty of speculation on this forum?


Of course Tyson did get a shot at redemption against Holyfield, and yes he was past his prime and without his trainer, but so was Louis when he had to rematch Walcott.

Fair enough.




The bottom line is that the size argument can cut both ways.

Tyson won the title from a fighter who spent most of his career at light heavyweight (arguably his best win).

He lost twice to a former cruiserweight champion.

He didn't really beat any world class oponents as big as Carnera or Buddy Baer, and when he did fight opponents aproaching that size they generally took him to the cards.



In all fairness, virtually none of Louis's conquerors, nor most of his best opponents would have been heavyweights in Tyson's time... You may see this as irrelevant, but it happens to be a major factor that a lot of experts consider, and in truth is largely why we have added weight classes now.. As for your comment about Carnera and Baer, and Tyson not being able to stop men of that size, keep in mind that Those men came up in an era, where they were not alone in enjoying such advantages the way that Carnera and Baer were.. They had to face others who equalled their peramters and hence were more proven from that perspective.... Most of them also never fought Tyson to win, but rather to survive, another fact that often goes ignored.


Again I would have to argue that the bulk of Tysons post prime career was spent fighting guys woirse than these.


That may be true, but let's not forget that we are talking about a head to head match-up between him and Louis, and in such instances, we are looking at prime for prime.....







The bottom line is that any contender who came up in the 30s was almost certainly going to pick up losses.

They wern't protected like they are today and you simply didn't get contenders with, say a 31-0-0 record.



See my earlier comment several lines above about making concessions for losses.


Consider it denied.

There were a number of black fighters who had a stronger claim to be the No1 contender but Cooney was a white, charismatic and marketable contender.


For someone who is a huge admirer of a champion who defended his title 22 out of 25 times against white challengers, this may not be the position that you want to take... And in either case, you are incorrect..... The ring magazine had Cooney ranked as number two, only behind Mike Weaver, who:

A. Was holding the WBA title, eliminating him from contender status

B. Was a man who Holmes had already beaten

C. Who's promotor had steared him clear of Cooney as explained to you before.

Outside of Weaver who is a moot mention, there really wasn't anyone else who deserved to be higher... Men like Dokes, Page, Thomas, Witherspoon, etc. Had yet to prove themselves...Cooney was very highly regarded, and even picked by many to beat Holmes...



I think that fighters like Lou Nova, Bob Pastor and even Tony Gallento were far more deserving of their rankings than Cooney....


You're entitled to your opinion, and at least one of those men ( Bob Pastor ) is a fighter who I hold in very high regard.. I never thought much of the others...

[tommygun711]

I bet people are basically picking Tyson because of his suspect chin...

[itrymariti]

It's tenuous that you can't analyze the context at which things happen. Louis more vulnerable defensively, and much easier to hurt. It took Douglas 10 rounds of punishing Tyson to get him out of there. You call Douglas a powder-puncher, but I'm sure he hits harder than Schemling.

Maybe, but then Louis wasn't seeing stars against Schmeling like Tyson was vs. Douglas, so it probably evens itself out. Like I said, there's no clear edge. Louis has been down more, Tyson has been more badly hurt when he has been down.

Then stop making silly arguments about frame and weight when talking about handspeed.

Hey? You're the one who brought up Tyson's weight as a justification for having greater "P4P speed" (whatever that is), which was hardly relevant.

You say it's hardly significant, I say 95% of people would agree with me.

Truth is not subject to majority opinion.

Yes and no. It works in his advantage to have a plodding come going into his power. I think Dempsey wouldn't be durable and elusive enough to sustain his attack without getting obliterated. I feel other swarmers would, and Tyson is one of these guys. I think his durability is very good and his elusiveness in and of it self will probably try Louis. He's going to slip that jab, and disrupt Louis' rhythm. I think Louis punches first but probably not often enough. I always think Louis will be surprised by Tyson's jab in his face.

Fair enough. I think Louis is more accurate and efficient that you're giving him credit for, basically. But there are perfectly good reasons for picking Tyson, like these. (I did, after all, leave this more or less 50/50 in my OP.)

Lastly, what's your take of the Godoy fight? Louis just didn't like being crowded, and liked having room. While Tyson wasn't a typical in-fighter he's going to be after him and closing the distance fast. He's not going to give Louis as much room as he wants... let's just say that.

Well, Godoy is different to Tyson for starters. Godoy is a true, rough-and-tumble in-fighter, whereas Tyson operated at mid-range. He didn't stick his head in your chest and play with your arms; he wanted an open exchange. So it's not all that relevant.

For the record, though, I think Louis handled Godoy pretty easily in the second fight. Obviously, he had a rough ride in the first, but once he sussed out the guy's style it was a different ball game. He kept the guy at a distance, got to the punch first from the outside and defended himself well in close, broke the guy down and finished him. Not a weak performance by any means. (Ironically with me having dismissed the relevance of this fight for Louis/Tyson, I think the skills Louis showed there illustrate quite nicely some of the skills he'd use to handle Tyson.)

Key word being harder puncher, not better puncher. Louis is probably the best composite puncher

You got that one in there faster than McGrain! :lol::good

No, I was referring to fighting a man with comparable if not better power. Who did Louis fight, let alone beat that had comparable if not more power than Tyson?

Who did Tyson fight, let alone beat that had comparable if not more power than Louis?

If he abandons his jab here is probably in more trouble. What do you think of Tyson's defense and most importantly his ability to get past the jab. Hooking with Tyson would be dangerous. As Dundee said you don't "you don't hook with a hooker and you don't date a hooker." Though Louis is the best HW puncher, he would need to vary his attack and try being unpredictable. I just don't see Louis setting or getting in a comfortable rhythm against Tyson. And I think Tyson can take what Louis has better than Louis can take what Tyson has.

Well, if you haven't seen that Louis has a diverse, fast, accurate, powerful offensive arsenal, I can't help you.

[McGrain]

"Composite Puncher" is actually officially trademarked. Pete now owes me $3.

[itrymariti]

"Composite Puncher" is actually officially trademarked. Pete now owes me $3.

:lol:

You should at least define these phrases before charging people to use them. (Though, I suppose, meaning is use.)

[lefthook31]

I'll be honest, I cant think of many Tyson one-punch KOs.
Botha, maybe Tubbs, Etienne ? (:lol:)

Maybe you can enlighten me.

I like how you say, "I guess we don't truly know then.

I'm sure Tyson has more overall "

Classic. :good
One shots that ended the fights. Theres probably a couple more
Spinks
Williams
Botha
Tubbs
Etienne
Tillman
Colay
Johnson
Nelson

[janitor]

[quote=mr. magoo;6452417]
One way or the other, he was coming away with an indecisive mixed bag of wins,losses and draws... Spinks had dominated an entire light heavyweight division and established himself as one of its historically all time great members... Schmeling never won a title at that weight, and certainly did not flatten an entire division...


Schmeling outgrew the lhw division at the age of 23 while Spinks was fighting at that weight untill the age of 29, so the analogy falls down right there.

Schmeling was never more than a Euro level fighter at lhw, and he moved up because he was having to do horible things to his body to make weight. Spinks came into one fight at 170lbs (2lbs above the supermiddleweight limit) at the age of 29.

Drop the Schmeling Spinks comparison, it is nonsense.

Spinks moved up and became the first in his category to capture the lineal heavyweight title against an undefeated all time great... Schmeling won the belt in vacant fashion and lost it in a hurry... Spinks was undefeated and had never even been decked in a fight....

The bottom line is that Schmelings heavyweight resume is much deeper than Spinks's in quality, quantity and duration.


Spinks was given a chance against a Tyson by a select few ( albeit the minority ), while Schmeling was viewed as being dead in the water....Now, its reasonable to say that Schmeling's stock as well as people's perception of him grew after beating Louis, but that does not award him points in hindsite going in..


There had always been those arguing that Schmeling was the best thing since sliced bread but they were viewed a bit like Calzaghe fans on the general forum.


How is this better than NEVER having lost at all, or having an argument to being a champion?


It depend who you loose to and who you have risked your status against.


If it is indeed " this stage " of their careers that we are focussing on, then the comparison is valid.. Both were facing former heavyweight champions, both were facing former light heavyweights.... One of them won in easy fashion while the other got killed.... Don't see this as being a problem for discussion purposes.


The problem is that you are focusing in on Louis's sole loss and sidesteping Tysons equaivalent more damaging loss.


A better comparison would be Tyson's fight with Berbick, given that neither Louis nor Tyson were champions when they fought Berbick or Carnera, and had roughly the same number of fights going in.... The difference, is that Berbick was coming off a fresh win over one of the concencus best fighters in the division, was holding a world title, had only been stopped once very early in his career, and lost in two rounds to Tyson.... Carnera had recently been pummeled, was beating no one of particular significance, and extended Louis into the 6th...


Again the Douglas loss gets moved behind the skirting board, despite being clearly the equivalent event.

For the record, Carnera was still a force in the division, and had won an eliminator which he had been told would get him a shot at Braddock.

He was actually the IBF's number 2 contender, and had recorded wins over former and future world titlists in Greg Page, Trevor Berbick and Oliver McCall.. Along with contenders in Tex Cobb and a few decent prospect in Mike Williams and Dion Simpson... Your assesment of him is incorrect.... I am also going to ask you for an honest answer to this question - Do you really think that Douglas would be a bum had he been fighting in 1936? Assuming of course that he had the advantages that Louis did, with good management and unbiased promoting, I think a 6'4", 230 lb black heavyweight with good footwork, a decent jab and a solid uppercut would have been a nightmare for many of the contenders back then, and his skills certainly look better on film that Baer's, Braddock's or Carnera's...

Firstly the IBF didnt exist in Louis's day so only his ring ranking would have counted.

He aint going to get the advantages that Louis had untill at least the second world war.

Now personaly I think that the Tokyo Douglas looks better than Lennox Lewis on film but looks are not everything.

I guess that Douglas would be Douglas in any era, and be hit and miss, perhaps managing one major asult on the title.


Fine ad him if you so well choose.... He still doesn't ad up to Spinks, and ranks even lower than Schmeling....


Lewis was an all time great lhw champion who went down in 1, just like Spinks.


Sure but this was a motivated and well trained Louis who still got decked by a mediocre opponent, whereas an unprepared Tyson got beat by a quality one... Apples to oranges...


Firstly, Buddy Baer was on Douglas's level going into the title fight.

Secondly, getting decked by a mediocre oponent is absolutely better than loosing to a quality one.


Indeed, which is why claims about one man beating more ranked contenders than the other is useless when comparing careers that took place 40 years apart... A legacy that was established in one era by one fighter, may not necessarily be duplicated in another ere by the very same fighter, due to changes in the games climate and other factors...


The only variables that we can compare between eras are acomplishments relative to that era.

Head to head is speculative, while acomplishments are facts.

Louis's resume and those of his oponents should absolutely be taken int account.

Well let me put it to you this way.... I am asking for a little allowence for a single loss on one man's record... You on the otherhand, make litterally hundreds of concessions for numerous losses that appear on the records of an entire generation of fighters, many of whom fought Louis and some even beat him..... Taking this into account, am I really being unreasonable?

Yes, to an extent.

Lets look at Jersey Joe Walcott for example.

Would you compare his early career losses to one of a post 1970 champion?

On this note, can I have some leniency for a couple of Louis's flash knockdowns?

Indeed, and in truth I never felt that the Tyson who lost to Douglas nor the Louis who lost to Scmeling were the best versions of either of these men...

Me neither.

In all fairness, virtually none of Louis's conquerors, nor most of his best opponents would have been heavyweights in Tyson's time... You may see this as irrelevant, but it happens to be a major factor that a lot of experts consider, and in truth is largely why we have added weight classes now..

In Tysons prime the cruiserweight limit was set at 190, so most of Louis's oponents could have jumped either way.


As for your comment about Carnera and Baer, and Tyson not being able to stop men of that size, keep in mind that Those men came up in an era, where they were not alone in enjoying such advantages the way that Carnera and Baer were.. They had to face others who equalled their peramters and hence were more proven from that perspective.... Most of them also never fought Tyson to win, but rather to survive, another fact that often goes ignored.


Not entirely fair.

Carnera did have to fight bigger men including one in that eliminator that I mentioned earlier.

Buddy Baer had to fight Abe Simon.

There was a slight tendency to match bigger guys against eachother.


For someone who is a huge admirer of a champion who defended his title 22 out of 25 times against white challengers, this may not be the position that you want to take... And in either case, you are incorrect..... The ring magazine had Cooney ranked as number two, only behind Mike Weaver, who:

A. Was holding the WBA title, eliminating him from contender status

B. Was a man who Holmes had already beaten

C. Who's promotor had steared him clear of Cooney as explained to you before.

Outside of Weaver who is a moot mention, there really wasn't anyone else who deserved to be higher... Men like Dokes, Page, Thomas, Witherspoon, etc. Had yet to prove themselves...Cooney was very highly regarded, and even picked by many to beat Holmes...

You're entitled to your opinion, and at least one of those men ( Bob Pastor ) is a fighter who I hold in very high regard.. I never thought much of the others...


To combine these two points:

Cooney never beat a ranked contender going into the Holmes fight, and was rightly criticised for it. He had beaten name fighters who were past their best but was a bit of a manufactured fighter.

Guys like Pastor, Nova, Gallento etc typicaly had to beat more than one ranked contender to get a title shot, and that often had to include the murder row brigade. White fighters with poor backing and managment often took the murder row route from 1900 onwards.

I honestly think that some of these guys earned their title shots more than most subsequent challengers.

[mr. magoo]

=janitor;6453944][quote]


Schmeling outgrew the lhw division at the age of 23 while Spinks was fighting at that weight untill the age of 29, so the analogy falls down right there.


This is just ridiculous. Schemeling was getting KO'd by journeyman at that weight class, and hardly had a name, while Spinks was beating hall of fame bound champions, contenders and unifying a title... Yet, you state Schmeling's departure as though he was moving up to greater challenges while Spinks stayed in pre-school.. Nice try, but no cigar..


Schmeling was never more than a Euro level fighter at lhw, and he moved up because he was having to do horible things to his body to make weight. Spinks came into one fight at 170lbs (2lbs above the supermiddleweight limit) at the age of 29.


Schmeling was only 6'0" tall and a had a smaller frame than Spinks who was 6'3" , and had to struggle his whole career to stay at those dimensions.. If Spinks was able to maintain his weight and still be a world class fighter at 175, while Schmeling couldn't then it only proves who the greater athlete was..


Drop the Schmeling Spinks comparison, it is nonsense.

On the contrary, I think that it gives us quite a bit of insite to work with..

A. Both men were former lightheavyweights

B. Both men were recent heavyweight champs

C. Tyson and Louis fought each man at comparable stages in their careers

D. Tyson destroyed Spinks, while Louis got the crap beat out of him by Schmeling..




The bottom line is that Schmelings heavyweight resume is much deeper than Spinks's in quality, quantity and duration.


The problem that I have with your logic, is that you don't seem to factor losses into the equation, when in fact they are just as pertinant as wins are... In addition, I struggle to find a fighter who Schmeling beat prior to Louis that was on the level of an aging but still undefeated Holmes... Furthermore, you fail to acknowledge that Spinks gained 20 lbs in just a few months, to challenge the heavyweight champ in only his first bout at 200lbs. Surely he deserves credit for this, and its not something that Schmeling can claim.. Lastly, Spinks got beat in 91 seconds, while Schmeling Kicked the crap out of Louis, so I don't what the problem is...





It depend who you loose to and who you have risked your status against.



Gypsy Daniels?


The problem is that you are focusing in on Louis's sole loss and sidesteping Tysons equaivalent more damaging loss.



No, I've acknowledged it.


Again the Douglas loss gets moved behind the skirting board, despite being clearly the equivalent event.


By the time Tyson had lost to Douglas, he had won 37 pro fights, was the youngest champ of all time, unified a title, beat an all time great in record breaking time, had some 9 title defenses and had a lot of experts thinking that he was one of the greatest fighters of all time.... He loses the management team that raised him from early asolescence, gets into trouble with the law, goes through a bad divorce.... The result, is he loses a fight during one of the worst periods of his life, and people like you think that its a beacon for getting beat by any and every champion....

I don't have a problem with people eluding to the Douglas loss as a dent in a legacy, or even to some extent, a head to head measure, but the man's whole careeer should not be summed up by it... While I agree that its ridiculous to pick on Louis's defeat to Schmeling, let me remind you that its not the only thing I look at when sizing Louis up in head to head fantasy fights... Weather he was a young contender, a world champion or aging veteran, Louis had a pattern of getting decked, staggered, outboxed or placed in trouble by lesser fighters, whereas Tyson for most of the better part of his career did not... Sure, Louis came back to win those fights, but at the same time, he was not in the ring with someone who could capitalize on his being hurt...

There were other things that I could have commented on, but feel that we can wrap things up here....


For the record, I rate Louis as the second best heavyweight of all time from a legacy standpoint, whereas, I don't even have Tyson close. I have also stated before that I believe Louis might have beaten Tyson, but that it would have to be under the right circumstances, and never would it be a forgone conclusion.... I favor Tyson in a head to head match-up, because even though his prime was short and would show more vulnerability later, I think that for a brief period, his best was better than Louis's best, and could take advantage of Joe's weaknesses early, before Louis could do the contrary..

[Muchmoore]

I like Tyson in this one.

I dont think Louis has the neccessary style/strengths to defeat Tyson at his very best. I don't see anyone able to beat him unless they employ a Buster Douglas type strategy and then win via attrition late in the fight. Basically, Tyson just never really was in trouble against punchers contrary to some popular belief and I favor him over any puncher who ever lived. I just don't see Louis being able to survive due to his style.

[mr. magoo]

=janitor;6453944
To combine these two points:

Cooney never beat a ranked contender going into the Holmes fight, and was rightly criticised for it. He had beaten name fighters who were past their best but was a bit of a manufactured fighter.


Incorrect.. Norton was still ranked by the ring magazine, and although Young and Lyle weren't, they were still reputable named opponents who were viewed as tough customers... All of Cooney's best opponents were past prime, but he was dispatching them in ways the few others could.. His name was over hyped, but I think his rating was reasonable, and I've already covered why he deserved to be rated ahead of his peers..



Guys like Pastor, Nova, Gallento etc typicaly had to beat more than one ranked contender to get a title shot, and that often had to include the murder row brigade. White fighters with poor backing and managment often took the murder row route from 1900 onwards.

I honestly think that some of these guys earned their title shots more than most subsequent challengers....



Bob pastor had recorded two losses and two draws, within two years of stepping in the ring with Louis, and while he defeated some decent foes, he was also beating a fair number of journeyman.. Most of Tony Galento's best victims were finished, and some of whom had only won 4 of their last 15 bouts when entering the ring with him... Nova had chalked up some very good wins, but he was a very beatable fighter as well, and none of these men were dominant or decisive winners as Cooney was...

it should also be noted that Cooney was not even one of Tyson's opponents, and while he may have benefitted from SOME of the political advantages of being white, he was only one example when contrasted to litterally dozens of white men from Louis's era.....

[reznick]

I got 37 Joe Louis fights sent to me on DVD

I have been watching a bunch of the fights the past few days.


There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that a prime Louis would have knocked out a prime Tyson. They only way is if Tyson devised a way to knock Louis out without being hit once with a Joe Lous power punch. Because I'm sorry, if Mike got hit by Louis power blows, it's over. His stance, his confidence, aggressiveness, it would all crumble. Louis proved that he could take hits from some of the strongest punchers in heavyweight history and keep going.


Sometimes opinions on such matters like these are so far apart from one indivdual to another, that I feel inclined to give Tyson believers the benefit of the doubt on a few things, just so I can come off as politically correct.

But screw that. Louis would have knocked him out. You cant convince me different. I will have to see Tyson knock out Louis before I believe it

[Muchmoore]

His stance, his confidence, aggressiveness, it would all crumble. Louis proved that he could take hits from some of the strongest punchers in heavyweight history and keep going.



Tyson did that against Ruddock, among others.

[billy boy balbo]

mike on a hard fought affair ,jimmy dropped louis early so i see tyson maybe knocking louis down

[Unforgiven]

One shots that ended the fights. Theres probably a couple more
Spinks
Williams
Botha
Tubbs
Etienne
Tillman
Colay
Johnson
Nelson

Spinks was knocked down twice in 91 seconds.

Williams wasn't really KO'd, and took a left hook and a massive headbutt on his way down. If Holyfield had scored that KO few would mention the punch. :lol:

I suppose it depends on how we define "one punch KO".

Some of those guys are bums, and Louis probably finished off loads of guys like that with one punch.
Again, it depends on how we define it.

[lefthook31]

Spinks was knocked down twice in 91 seconds.

Williams wasn't really KO'd, and took a left hook and a massive headbutt on his way down. If Holyfield had scored that KO few would mention the punch. :lol:

I suppose it depends on how we define "one punch KO".

Some of those guys are bums, and Louis probably finished off loads of guys like that with one punch.
Again, it depends on how we define it.
Of course some were bums, but you asked I answered. Spinks was knocked down by a body shot but he was knocked unconscious by an uppercut after he got up from taking a knee. Williams got up looking like he thought he was in heaven. I dont know about the headbutt it was a beautiful counter lefthook and Williams was heading down. More like a head brush than a headbutt.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[mr. magoo]

They only way is if Tyson devised a way to knock Louis out without being hit once with a Joe Lous power punch.





So even though Louis was the one with a far more established track record of getting decked early in fights, Tyson gets beat with one shot?!?!? :lol::lol::lol:

[janitor]

[quote=mr. magoo;6458747]
This is just ridiculous. Schemeling was getting KO'd by journeyman at that weight class, and hardly had a name, while Spinks was beating hall of fame bound champions, contenders and unifying a title... Yet, you state Schmeling's departure as though he was moving up to greater challenges while Spinks stayed in pre-school.. Nice try, but no cigar..


Schmeling was forced to step up at the age of 23 because he could no longer make the weight.

The loss to Gypsie Daniels (no journeyman incidentaly) which you later reffer to was atributed by Schmeling to the punishing process he had to put his body through to make 175.

As for Schmelings step up to world level, it was his destruction of Johny Risko who was then the favourite to suceed Gene Tunney as champion. Quite a tough n umber for a first fight at that level.


Schmeling was only 6'0" tall and a had a smaller frame than Spinks who was 6'3" , and had to struggle his whole career to stay at those dimensions.. If Spinks was able to maintain his weight and still be a world class fighter at 175, while Schmeling couldn't then it only proves who the greater athlete was..


Schmeling was basicaly a natural cruiserweight in todays money. He stepped up because he simply wasn't able to make the weight and be effective anymore. I think that I am correct in saying that he had a bigger chest than Riddick Bowe.


On the contrary, I think that it gives us quite a bit of insite to work with..

A. Both men were former lightheavyweights

B. Both men were recent heavyweight champs

C. Tyson and Louis fought each man at comparable stages in their careers

D. Tyson destroyed Spinks, while Louis got the crap beat out of him by Schmeling..


A. Spinks was a natural lightheavyweight while Schmeling was a natural cruiserweight. Schmeling was probably closer to Evander Holyfield physicaly than Mike Spinks.

B. Spinks had verry few fights at heavyweight while Schmeling fought all his fights at world level at that weight.

C. Why don't we put a terified Spinks with his knees in braces in front of Joe Louis and see what happens.

D. I could just as easily find Joe Louis's equivalent of James Douglas, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, or even Danny Williams who he beat.

The problem that I have with your logic, is that you don't seem to factor losses into the equation, when in fact they are just as pertinant as wins are...

In Louis's era proffesional boxing was more like amateur today. The top contenders fought eachother more often and were expected to pick up thge odd loss.

Some of these losses have to be put in context.

In addition, I struggle to find a fighter who Schmeling beat prior to Louis that was on the level of an aging but still undefeated Holmes...

The version of Jack Sharkey that Louis fought would probably have taken an ageing Larry Holmes. I could see Steve Hamas beating him as well.

Outside of that it is quantity vs quality.


Furthermore, you fail to acknowledge that Spinks gained 20 lbs in just a few months, to challenge the heavyweight champ in only his first bout at 200lbs. Surely he deserves credit for this, and its not something that Schmeling can claim..


The sports science of Schmelings day would not have alowed him to gain so much weight so quickly. Furthermore he would not have needed to. At 185lbs he would have butchered the ageing Holmes.


By the time Tyson had lost to Douglas, he had won 37 pro fights, was the youngest champ of all time, unified a title, beat an all time great in record breaking time, had some 9 title defenses and had a lot of experts thinking that he was one of the greatest fighters of all time.... He loses the management team that raised him from early asolescence, gets into trouble with the law, goes through a bad divorce.... The result, is he loses a fight during one of the worst periods of his life, and people like you think that its a beacon for getting beat by any and every champion....


I certainly don't think that.

I have defended Tyson in other threads, but if we are going to make such alowances then it has to extend to fighters of Louis's era.

I don't have a problem with people eluding to the Douglas loss as a dent in a legacy, or even to some extent, a head to head measure, but the man's whole careeer should not be summed up by it... While I agree that its ridiculous to pick on Louis's defeat to Schmeling, let me remind you that its not the only thing I look at when sizing Louis up in head to head fantasy fights... Weather he was a young contender, a world champion or aging veteran, Louis had a pattern of getting decked, staggered, outboxed or placed in trouble by lesser fighters, whereas Tyson for most of the better part of his career did not... Sure, Louis came back to win those fights, but at the same time, he was not in the ring with someone who could capitalize on his being hurt...

I see what you are saying.

I see Louis's trips to the canvas as being partly a function of his disproportionately high number of fights against ranked contenders e.g. 34.

I conceed that Tyson had the bettewr chin but I have always resisted the logic of fighter A decked fighter B so fighter C could knock fighter B out. It is not just in Louis's case that I havce oposed this logic.


For the record, I rate Louis as the second best heavyweight of all time from a legacy standpoint, whereas, I don't even have Tyson close. I have also stated before that I believe Louis might have beaten Tyson, but that it would have to be under the right circumstances, and never would it be a forgone conclusion.... I favor Tyson in a head to head match-up, because even though his prime was short and would show more vulnerability later, I think that for a brief period, his best was better than Louis's best, and could take advantage of Joe's weaknesses early, before Louis could do the contrary..


I can see your logic to some extent.

I also don't see this fight as a forgone conclusion but I have jumped the other side of the fence.

[janitor]

Of course some were bums, but you asked I answered. Spinks was knocked down by a body shot but he was knocked unconscious by an uppercut after he got up from taking a knee. Williams got up looking like he thought he was in heaven. I dont know about the headbutt it was a beautiful counter lefthook and Williams was heading down. More like a head brush than a headbutt.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I often wonder why that one gets no love when discussing Tysons best wins.

[mr. magoo]

[quote]


Schmeling was forced to step up at the age of 23 because he could no longer make the weight.

The loss to Gypsie Daniels (no journeyman incidentaly) which you later reffer to was atributed by Schmeling to the punishing process he had to put his body through to make 175.

As for Schmelings step up to world level, it was his destruction of Johny Risko who was then the favourite to suceed Gene Tunney as champion. Quite a tough n umber for a first fight at that level.



Schmeling was basicaly a natural cruiserweight in todays money. He stepped up because he simply wasn't able to make the weight and be effective anymore. I think that I am correct in saying that he had a bigger chest than Riddick Bowe.



A. Spinks was a natural lightheavyweight while Schmeling was a natural cruiserweight. Schmeling was probably closer to Evander Holyfield physicaly than Mike Spinks.

B. Spinks had verry few fights at heavyweight while Schmeling fought all his fights at world level at that weight.

C. Why don't we put a terified Spinks with his knees in braces in front of Joe Louis and see what happens.

D. I could just as easily find Joe Louis's equivalent of James Douglas, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, or even Danny Williams who he beat.



In Louis's era proffesional boxing was more like amateur today. The top contenders fought eachother more often and were expected to pick up thge odd loss.

Some of these losses have to be put in context.



The version of Jack Sharkey that Louis fought would probably have taken an ageing Larry Holmes. I could see Steve Hamas beating him as well.

Outside of that it is quantity vs quality.


The sports science of Schmelings day would not have alowed him to gain so much weight so quickly. Furthermore he would not have needed to. At 185lbs he would have butchered the ageing Holmes.



I certainly don't think that.

I have defended Tyson in other threads, but if we are going to make such alowances then it has to extend to fighters of Louis's era.



I see what you are saying.

I see Louis's trips to the canvas as being partly a function of his disproportionately high number of fights against ranked contenders e.g. 34.

I conceed that Tyson had the bettewr chin but I have always resisted the logic of fighter A decked fighter B so fighter C could knock fighter B out. It is not just in Louis's case that I havce oposed this logic.



I can see your logic to some extent.

I also don't see this fight as a forgone conclusion but I have jumped the other side of the fence.

I think we have both made some reasonably good points in regards to this issue, and can probably cut things off here... I will leave my position with Louis having a very good chance at winning this fight, but giving the edge to Tyson, while you will have a similar position, only favoring Louis instead.... Good debate as usual...:good

[janitor]

Good debate as usual...:good

I expected no less.

[prime]

Tyson would most certainly be meeting solid-gold boxing royalty.

But he never regarded boxing royalty in the ring; he chewed it up and spat it out.

Louis would not fear Mike Tyson; at heart he was no less than a ruthless assassin in the ring.

But what would actually happen in the pivotal Round 1?

a) Louis would come in compact, probing with the left, attempting to lure Mike in and counter with those straight and curved clusters.

b) Tyson would emerge the much faster man, behind a swift jab attempting to get in that one big punch and follow up with a blistering finishing combination.

c) If Louis opens with the powerful, insistent jab he used against Baer, he has a good chance of disrupting Mike, lumping him up, giving him pause, and quite possibly setting him up for a killer right.

d) Without a doubt Tyson will early on unleash his patented right to body and chin, but I agree with Bill1234 that a fast Tyson left hook has the greatest potential for sending the lighter Louis flying onto the canvas, perhaps as the beginning of an early end.

MuchMoore expressed my feeling here. Quite possibly no puncher can defeat Mike Tyson toe-to-toe. He possessed three elements, at all-time great levels: power, speed and a chin; and an effective evasive style to boot.

You look at revered ring hitters, like Foreman: little speed, no defense, disruptable; Liston: not fast, hittable; Marciano: slow, small dimensions allowed for only face-to-face clubbing; Frazier: a one-trick puncher, easy to hit, not the most solid of chins. And so on. Besides Jack Dempsey, no other all-time great puncher brought together Mike's attributes. Louis' Achilles heel is his chin. Period.

In Round 1, Tyson unfazed snorted through Tucker's famous right uppercut and Bruno's gazillion rabbit punches and solid smashes. A prime Louis was back on his heels from a clumsy, heavy Galento rush and was floored soon after with one smash to the jaw. At mid-range, Louis could be hit, and he didn't take it all that well.

At their best, I see Tyson getting Louis out of there, sooner than later.

[janitor]

MuchMoore expressed my feeling here. Quite possibly no puncher can defeat Mike Tyson toe-to-toe. He possessed three elements, at all-time great levels: power, speed and a chin; and an effective evasive style to boot.


I suspect that Sonny Liston, as well as Joe Louis might have had the style to beat Tyson.

Tom Cribb invented the technique, and called it "milling on the retreat".

You back up just enough to keep your opponent walking into your punches. As long as you do that he is going to be in a no win situation.

Good examples of this strategy are Louis Baer and Liston Patterson.

[prime]

I suspect that Sonny Liston, as well as Joe Louis might have had the style to beat Tyson.

Tom Cribb invented the technique, and called it "milling on the retreat".

You back up just enough to keep your opponent walking into your punches. As long as you do that he is going to be in a no win situation.

Good examples of this strategy are Louis Baer and Liston Patterson.

Yes, but would Tyson cooperate?

Backing up is pretty suicidal against the swift-lunging Tyson.

I think lateral movement is more effective against Mike, who could then be reduced to running into the ropes.

But Louis had little lateral movement.

[janitor]

[quote=prime;6461391]Yes, but would Tyson cooperate?

Backing up is pretty suicidal against the swift-lunging Tyson.


If Tyson lunged then he would be co-operating.

A straight punch followed by a sick combination are bad for a lunging fighter.


I think lateral movement is more effective against Mike, who could then be reduced to running into the ropes.

But Louis had little lateral movement.


There is a reason why Louis rarely used lateral movment.

If he moved he was usualy trying to make you walk into a shot.

[reznick]

So even though Louis was the one with a far more established track record of getting decked early in fights, Tyson gets beat with one shot?!?!? :lol::lol::lol:


No I didn't say he would win with one punch. I'm saying all it would take is one of Joe Louis power punches to make Tysons gameplan crumble.


Many punches from Louis would follow that first one, don't worry.

[prime]

If Tyson lunged then he would be co-operating.

A straight punch followed by a sick combination are bad for a lunging fighter.

Ha! Good one!

But Tyson at his best, as opposed to the Ghost of Tysons Past, was not merely a lunger. He came in with blinding speed behind a jab, double jab, and then unleashed the combos.

Moreover, in preparation to challenge Larry Holmes, Tyson was taught to evade the straight punch and was fantastic at getting around the jab and countering.

If Louis is shuffling back, I say he would be cooperating with Tyson's irresistible mid-range momentum.

Both would get hit. And this is where Tyson's better chin becomes a factor. History shows that Tyson snorts through while Louis staggers back.

There is a reason why Louis rarely used lateral movment.

If he moved he was usualy trying to make you walk into a shot.

This is great against slow, wade-in brawlers. But not against a bullet train.

Douglas avoided fully-expected disaster by moving side-to-side and around a subpar Mike all night. Louis never deployed these skills.

Tyson was a force of nature going forward, the proverbial train. If you go straight back along the track, you're asking for big trouble.

[reznick]

Tyson did that against Ruddock, among others.

How many times has Tyson gotten up after falling?

Joe Louis beat Max Baer without falling down, AND he took vicious power shots from Baer.


You can make up any excuse you want, but the fact is, that when the ultimate intimidator, Mike Tyson, fell down, he could never get back up.


Your telling me Tyson won't get knocked down by Louis? Not even once? A prime Louis? Because we all know that if he did, Tyson loses the fight.

[reznick]

Both would get hit. And this is where Tyson's better chin becomes a factor. History shows that Tyson snorts through while Louis staggers back.


lol.


History shows? No.
History, my friend, shows that nobody 'snorts' through a Louis' power. Not in his prime.


Joe Louis hit some guy so hard that the man spun and did a 360 before he hit the ground. And he didn't throw his entire body into the punch. He simply punched.

[PetethePrince]

How many times has Tyson gotten up after falling?

Joe Louis beat Max Baer without falling down, AND he took vicious power shots from Baer.


You can make up any excuse you want, but the fact is, that when the ultimate intimidator, Mike Tyson, fell down, he could never get back up.


Your telling me Tyson won't get knocked down by Louis? Not even once? A prime Louis? Because we all know that if he did, Tyson loses the fight.

Holyfield vs Tyson I. It's not about dropping Tyson, but beating him from start to finish. Frustrating him, bothering him, and hurting him.

[reznick]

Holyfield vs Tyson I. It's not about dropping Tyson, but beating him from start to finish. Frustrating him, bothering him, and hurting him.


Thats all fine and well, if we are talking about someone like Ali, or Holyfield

But we are talking about Joe Louis. Whom many boxing enthusiasts will claim till they die that he is the hardest hitting boxer ever.

[PetethePrince]

Maybe, but then Louis wasn't seeing stars against Schmeling like Tyson was vs. Douglas, so it probably evens itself out. Like I said, there's no clear edge. Louis has been down more, Tyson has been more badly hurt when he has been down.

He was just down and out?

Hey? You're the one who brought up Tyson's weight as a justification for having greater "P4P speed" (whatever that is), which was hardly relevant.

No, you brought up the stupid argument about Louis' frame and punching speed, as if that was relevant. I responded to that, unless I initially just misunderstood.


Truth is not subject to majority opinion.

You're right, film is which shows you're wrong.

Fair enough. I think Louis is more accurate and efficient that you're giving him credit for, basically. But there are perfectly good reasons for picking Tyson, like these. (I did, after all, leave this more or less 50/50 in my OP.)

Then why did you go on about people only picking Tyson having only watched Tyson highlights on ESPN Classic as a response to me. I've been called a Tyson hater before too; I suppose I'm in the middle if I got stuff from both sides.

Louis is the most accurate puncher at HW possibly of all time. He's the best HW puncher ever, but he's facing probably the second best puncher ever (Speed, power, accuracy, etc). So in the end, considering Tyson's defense, skills, combinations, and durability which I feel you're understating... or at least overrating Louis' to try comparing their chins as being nearly equal. After that run on sentence, my point is I just don't see Louis bombing Tyson out... and I don't see him just beating Tyson to the punch every-time to beat up on him.

Well, Godoy is different to Tyson for starters. Godoy is a true, rough-and-tumble in-fighter, whereas Tyson operated at mid-range. He didn't stick his head in your chest and play with your arms; he wanted an open exchange. So it's not all that relevant.

Right, I mentioned this. It is not quite the same, but Louis is still going to not be in his comfort zone as far as space and being smothered is concerned. At least that illusion with the pressure Tyson brings. Just downing it as irrelevant doesn't seem entirely fair, as it still has some merit I think in this matchup.

For the record, though, I think Louis handled Godoy pretty easily in the second fight. Obviously, he had a rough ride in the first, but once he sussed out the guy's style it was a different ball game. He kept the guy at a distance, got to the punch first from the outside and defended himself well in close, broke the guy down and finished him. Not a weak performance by any means. (Ironically with me having dismissed the relevance of this fight for Louis/Tyson, I think the skills Louis showed there illustrate quite nicely some of the skills he'd use to handle Tyson.)

Louis had a good team and was good at adapting after a first fight. However, he wasn't the best at adapting during a fight (Think Louis-Schemling I and Godoy I). With age and experience he got better, naturally, but you could point to this as a weakness. This point to me suggests that Tyson takes the first fight, but maybe Louis' would win in a fantasy rematch. Maybe the case, but a rematch adjustment helps my case more than yours I feel.

You got that one in there faster than McGrain! :lol::good

Yeah, he's claiming to have invented that. I thought that was a pretty generic term.


Who did Tyson fight, let alone beat that had comparable if not more power than Louis?

Do you have short-term memory problems or something? We went over this. Bruno has probably more power. His sparring partners said he hit as hard as Foreman. Ruddock hits like a mule and probably has equal power. Nobody is as good as a puncher, perhaps. But a perfectly placed shot would/could perhaps be more deadly from Bruno. And he did nail Tyson good.

Well, if you haven't seen that Louis has a diverse, fast, accurate, powerful offensive arsenal, I can't help you.

No, that's not it. It's more of a defense/rhythm issue. But thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

[PetethePrince]

"Composite Puncher" is actually officially trademarked. Pete now owes me $3.

Lies!

[PetethePrince]

Thats all fine and well, if we are talking about someone like Ali, or Holyfield

But we are talking about Joe Louis. Whom many boxing enthusiasts will claim till they die that he is the hardest hitting boxer ever.

I don't think anyone claims he's the hardest hitting boxer ever. I think they claim he's the best HW puncher, which I would agree with. But he's facing the next best HW Puncher probably, so I don't think statement is enough to prove a case on why Louis beats Tyson.

[mr. magoo]

No I didn't say he would win with one punch. I'm saying all it would take is one of Joe Louis power punches to make Tysons gameplan crumble.


Many punches from Louis would follow that first one, don't worry.

You're drawing a forgone conclusion based on what you think would be very specific and well laid out events, but frankly I don't think that anything about this match would be specific nor well laid out...

[tommygun711]

I suspect that Sonny Liston, as well as Joe Louis might have had the style to beat Tyson.

Tom Cribb invented the technique, and called it "milling on the retreat".

You back up just enough to keep your opponent walking into your punches. As long as you do that he is going to be in a no win situation.

Good examples of this strategy are Louis Baer and Liston Patterson.
Yeah.. If Liston and Louis could ever back up Tyson that would be it.
Given Louis has great accuracy and would more or less hit Tyson a lot, and Liston has that huge reach, I think they're both capable of outboxing and maybe knocking out a prime Tyson.
I love how everyone talks about Sonny's heart, but they don't realize his two wars with Cleveland Williams, when he took bomb after bomb and fought tactically and came back to knock Williams out.

He also fought with a broken jaw against Marshall, doesn't that define heart? He looked emotionally shot and past-his-prime in the Ali fight. That's basically what comes into their mind when they think of Liston: They think of a shot fighter who fought the greatest heavyweight of the world and got stopped twice.
Liston was certainly a great fighter.

[reznick]

You're drawing a forgone conclusion based on what you think would be very specific and well laid out events, but frankly I don't think that anything about this match would be specific nor well laid out...


Im not God. I can't say with certainty who wins and who loses.

Every statement/claim/prediction I make is based on the general consensus that we are all just having fun debates. I just happen to be a more passionate believer for one of the sides to the argument than others might be.



I don't usually like to make such bold predictions or claims like the ones I've made in this thread, however I feel strongly about my opinion on this one.

I think Rocky would have beaten Tyson too, but I'm not as sure as I am with this one. Which is why I haven't made bold statements, or a single post at that, in that thread.



But Louis, Tyson. Forget about it. The Brown Bomber would accomplish his mission.

[Muchmoore]

Yes, but would Tyson cooperate?

Backing up is pretty suicidal against the swift-lunging Tyson.

I think lateral movement is more effective against Mike, who could then be reduced to running into the ropes.

But Louis had little lateral movement.

Exactly my thoughts. Trying to lure Tyson in and catch him with big shots by going backwards is suicidal imo, like you said lateral movement, not backing up is the key to beating him. I just don't see Louis being able to employ this strategy the way that Douglas and others who extended Tyson were able to, despite the fact that Louis is unquestionably better than Douglas/Tucker/Holyfield etc.

Louis simply wasn't fast enough on his feet for this imo, and while knocking out Joe Louis is a hard task Tyson is one of the few I'd pick to do it. If my life depended on picking someone to defeat Joe Louis, I may very well pick Tyson.

[Muchmoore]

How many times has Tyson gotten up after falling?


None because to knock him down you had to damn near kill him. His chin and balance was such that he didn't give up flash knockdowns, this should help his legacy not hurt it.

I'd say the shots he took from Tucker early, Bruno early, and the wars with Ruddock answer any questions about him having no heart. Was he Marciano? No, but he wasn't a pussy either.

[mr. magoo]

None because to knock him down you had to damn near kill him. His chin and balance was such that he didn't give up flash knockdowns, this should help his legacy not hurt it.

I'd say the shots he took from Tucker early, Bruno early, and the wars with Ruddock answer any questions about him having no heart. Was he Marciano? No, but he wasn't a pussy either.


Agreed,

Michael Dokes was Ko'd with only one of the huge left uppercuts that Tyson took literally dozens of... Frank Bruno retired having stopped 38 of his 40 opponents, and Tyson took his best. Tucker was no slugger but the guy could crack, as could Smith.. Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis, hammered him all night long before it was over with, and none of those guys faced the best version of Tyson in my ( and many other's ) opinion... I won't question Joe Louis's heart nor chin, but if we're honest I don't think that most of the guys who decked him or even knocked him out, had the power of the men that I just mentioned...

[PetethePrince]

I use to be like Reznick, then my mind grew up a little. I loved the legends, and mythology of great fighters like Rocky Marciano. Knowing how tough he was and how much he overcame... I've reasoned he could've maybe taken Tyson surely just because of his guts and willpower... then I woke up. Realized it was just as much as a work of fiction as the movie Rocky that Marciano could take on Tyson considering all his disadvantages in a fight with him, stylistically.

I'm not saying this is the case with Louis vs Tyson. It has the glamor, and a reasoned argument, but it's essence comes from the same mindset. Stylistically, I just favor Louis against guys like Holmes, Lewis, Liston, and Klitshcko than I would Tyson. And this does not come from overrating Tyson.

[PetethePrince]

Exactly my thoughts. Trying to lure Tyson in and catch him with big shots by going backwards is suicidal imo, like you said lateral movement, not backing up is the key to beating him. I just don't see Louis being able to employ this strategy the way that Douglas and others who extended Tyson were able to, despite the fact that Louis is unquestionably better than Douglas/Tucker/Holyfield etc.

Louis simply wasn't fast enough on his feet for this imo, and while knocking out Joe Louis is a hard task Tyson is one of the few I'd pick to do it. If my life depended on picking someone to defeat Joe Louis, I may very well pick Tyson.

:good

That first paragraph really slams it home. Douglas had all the tools and the style. No doubt...

[mr. magoo]

I use to be like Reznick, then my mind grew up a little. I loved the legends, and mythology of great fighters like Rocky Marciano. Knowing how tough he was and how much he overcame... I've reasoned he could've maybe taken Tyson surely just because of his guts and willpower... then I woke up. Realized it was just as much as a work of fiction as the movie Rocky that Marciano could take on Tyson considering all his disadvantages in a fight with him, stylistically.

I'm not saying this is the case with Louis vs Tyson. It has the glamor, and a reasoned argument, but it's essence comes from the same mindset. Stylistically, I just favor Louis against guys like Holmes, Lewis, Liston, and Klitshcko than I would Tyson. And this does not come from overrating Tyson.


I agree,

Tyson's resume and legacy can't be rated over Joe Louis's, but due to various physical and stylistic issues, this would be a very bad match for him, and it has nothing to do with being partial towards one man or the other.. As for comparing opponents, while men like Tony Tucker and Razor Ruddock may never hold a candle to a guy like Max Schmeling in terms of accomplishments, I simply can't imagine Schmeling winning a sizable streak of fights, taking a world title, and manufacturing any kind of a notable record in the 1980's and 90's.. He would not be a key player in the mix of things, and nor would most of Joe Louis's best opponents... Walcott might have been a good fighter in a modern era, if he could make a reasonable weight without compromising too many of his abilities, and it would also help if he could somehow get his career on the right track an earlier age... These are some very big " could's " and "if's" however. Braddock would be a fring type on about the level of an orlin Norris or Fancesco Damiani, as would Buddy Baer, Arturo Godoy, and Primo Carnera.... These men do not reach the tier that was shared in the early 90's by men like Tyson, Ruddock, Foreman, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, or even Moorer ( albeit Tyson did not face a lot of them either. )

[janitor]

You're drawing a forgone conclusion based on what you think would be very specific and well laid out events, but frankly I don't think that anything about this match would be specific nor well laid out...

Here at last is the crux of the matter.

Both of these boys have a level of finishing ability that puts them beyond virtualy everty other fighter in the history of the division. Even if sombody had walked through the shots of a prime George Foreman I would make no assumption that they could withstand the surgical combinations of a Louis or Tyson.

I think that both probably faced oponents with more power than the other, but power on its own isn't worth two buckets of warm spit. I am not much of a believer in the concept of the punchers chance but I absolutely believe in the finishers chance.

This fight is not just puncher on puncher, it is finisher on finisher.

[mr. magoo]

=janitor;6468015]Here at last is the crux of the matter.

Both of these boys have a level of finishing ability that puts them beyond virtualy everty other fighter in the history of the division. Even if sombody had walked through the shots of a prime George Foreman I would make no assumption that they could withstand the surgical combinations of a Louis or Tyson.

I think that both probably faced oponents with more power than the other, but power on its own isn't worth two buckets of warm spit. I am not much of a believer in the concept of the punchers chance but I absolutely believe in the finishers chance.


True, and I'm not disagreeing, except that terming the ability to take a huge punch from an all time great puncher is worth more to me than a mere " warm bucket of spit. " Earnie Shavers was no technical genius, but Larry Holmes taking his best throught two long fights earned him the right to patent his chin as being one of the very best...
This fight is not just puncher on puncher, it is finisher on finisher.

[janitor]

True, and I'm not disagreeing, except that terming the ability to take a huge punch from an all time great puncher is worth more to me than a mere " warm bucket of spit. " Earnie Shavers was no technical genius, but Larry Holmes taking his best throught two long fights earned him the right to patent his chin as being one of the very best...


Joe Louis soaked up a fair few Max Baer shots and nobody ranks his chin among the best.

Audley Harrison took a shot off Danny Williams that practicaly lifted him off his feet, and nobody rates his chin.

[prime]

lol.

History shows? No.
History, my friend, shows that nobody 'snorts' through a Louis' power. Not in his prime.

Joe Louis hit some guy so hard that the man spun and did a 360 before he hit the ground. And he didn't throw his entire body into the punch. He simply punched.

Your comments seem a bit tinged with romanticism.

I don't blame you at all. 70 years later, Louis is, and will be forevermore, A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. And quite scary. His aura in the ring is that of a cold-blooded killer and sends something of a chill down my spine.

But the same can be said of young Tyson.

Regardless of credentials, styles make fights, qualities determine results. And Louis' clear inability to walk through a solid punch must be held against him here. In his prime, heavy-handed, fat Galento had him briefly overwhelmed and later on one knee with one punch! Postfight, brash Lou Nova, who had witnessed at ringside, snorted of Louis, "The fellow can't take a punch." Who in his right mind would say that of Tyson during his reign of terror?

Of course, Tyson wasn't hit often at all. But it happened: Thomas' perfect right-hand smash at the end of Round 1; Berbick's ferocious uppercut in Round 1; Holmes' jabs and swift right cross early in Round 4; Bruno's blatant rabbit punches and excellent left hooks in Round 1, as well as a great right uppercut before being stopped; Tucker's uppercut; even Smith's last-second awakening. These moments are hardly mentioned or even noticed because Tyson simply shrugged through.

And, again, Louis's back-shuffling style cannot bode well for him. Yes, he may catch Tyson coming in, but he will no doubt be countered. And this is where chin factors in.

In their inevitable firefight, these two titans are close enough in punching power, speed and arsenal. But Tyson walks through the better punch.

Furthermore, Tyson is more elusive than Louis. He made a career out of countering past the jab.

[janitor]

"If I didnt kill sombody now and then you would forgett who I am"

Blackbeard

Joe Louis is probably thinking the same thing right now.

[Unforgiven]

Of course some were bums, but you asked I answered. Spinks was knocked down by a body shot but he was knocked unconscious by an uppercut after he got up from taking a knee. Williams got up looking like he thought he was in heaven. I dont know about the headbutt it was a beautiful counter lefthook and Williams was heading down. More like a head brush than a headbutt.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]


"head brush". :lol:

Check out the replays starting 0:23

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Jaws]

"head brush". :lol:

Check out the replays starting 0:23

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

You are hilarious if you really think that did anything. Wow. Williams was down from the punch, no debating. All you have to do is listen to the sound of it. Brutal. Perfect, full transfer of energy. Their heads brushed because he was already out and falling on his ass!

[pretty boy]

Louis for me. Hes the best hw of all time. The only thing he didnt have was a chin. His jab wud be stuck in tyson face and he wud catch tyson we bombs in the way in. Tyson cant take louis' power. Louis wud probably hav to get up off the floor though to win.

[prime]

"If I didnt kill sombody now and then you would forgett who I am"

Blackbeard

Joe Louis is probably thinking the same thing right now.

Very touching.

I for one love Joe Louis and, if I am so lucky, will carry his torch into my old age.

In fact, he is a hero to me.

And I greatly admire Tyson's skills in the ring. He was one of a kind and worked to conquer the top. I empathize with him, but he is no hero in my heart.

[PetethePrince]

You are hilarious if you really think that did anything. Wow. Williams was down from the punch, no debating. All you have to do is listen to the sound of it. Brutal. Perfect, full transfer of energy. Their heads brushed because he was already out and falling on his ass!

Yeah... talk about reaching. That's what you have to do if you think it's clear cut that Louis beats Tyson though.

[Unforgiven]

You are hilarious if you really think that did anything. Wow. Williams was down from the punch, no debating. All you have to do is listen to the sound of it. Brutal. Perfect, full transfer of energy. Their heads brushed because he was already out and falling on his ass!

Yes, the punch was what put him down. The punch was every bit as you describe it.

But that was a solid bang with the head, but you want to say it "brushed". Honestly, if that was Holyfield instead of Tyson, most people here would be calling foul.

[djanders]

Yeah... talk about reaching. That's what you have to do if you think it's clear cut that Louis beats Tyson though.

I think it's a reach to think it's clear cut that Tyson beats Louis. So there you go. The beat goes on! :good

[Unforgiven]

Yeah... talk about reaching. That's what you have to do if you think it's clear cut that Louis beats Tyson though.


No, not reaching for anything.
The whole thing about "one punch KOs" (which I think you brought up, with no evidence to back it up) was a little tangent, and this conversation about Tyson-Williams is a tangent off a tangent.
Just discussion for the hell of it, I'm not traying to say anything about Joe Louis and Mike Tyson and their hypothetical result. That played itself out several pages ago.

[mr. magoo]

"If I didnt kill sombody now and then you would forgett who I am"

Blackbeard

Joe Louis is probably thinking the same thing right now.

This is actually a good quote, and on a side note, I have developed an interest in classic books, stories, and even collectables like ships in glass bottles... Do you have similar interests?


Of course, we can chat about these things elsewhere... I believe you've mentioned that you have a facebook account, and I would like to befriend you there...

[Unforgiven]

Any Blackbeard v. Tyson thread needs to be started here though. :D

Obviously with Tyson's impetuous style and his merry band of nuthuggers here, Mr.Teach dont stand a chance. :lol:

[lefthook31]

"head brush". :lol:

Check out the replays starting 0:23

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

:huh Are you serious?

[Unforgiven]

:huh Are you serious?

:huh
Their heads clashed. Is that being disputed ?
I've never heard the expression "head brush" before.