Prime Tyson v Prime Joe Louis - who wins ?

tryingmybestt wrote: »

agree 100% with that......that's exactly what he never showed!

louis was a complete fighter....on a par with ray robinson......excellent in every department....balance, speed, power, technique.....

tyson was one dimensional....his mind was not as strong as his body.....if he had ali's mind he would have been the greatest probably of all time

Totally agree, i am one of Tysons greatest fans, its tragic what happend to the man, pity he wasnt mentally stronger but fact is his peak was over when he was only 23! And that will always be his biggest weakness.
Louis was champ at 23 and was dethroned at 35, twelve years at the top of the tree.

tryingmybestt wrote: »

this backs up exactly what i've been saying......more or less.....the main difference is heart because tyson was mentally weaker.....

i would say tyson was little faster......

it also confirms what i was saying about endurance and ring generalship....

i would say possibly power is equal but louis' power combined with his timing, accuracy and technique was better than tyson's....

In categories it's three to two for Louis, with some categories razor thin.

These are all down to subjectivity. Also, are these lists at peak? If so, I would argue about stamina/fitness. Tyson was very fit at peak.

As for this thread, most are picking Tyson? Again, proves nothing.

Bad fight for Louis in my mind. The thread is NOT about who had more defences as HW champ. It's man against man for one night at peak. That is the thread. On their best night, Louis vs. Schmeling, vs.Tyson vs. say Berbick or Spinks, or Thomas, then that is all we can look at.

Jesus, I can't believe I'm trying to show up Joe Louis, as I've spent so much time in the past doing the exact opposite, but...

Firstly, and most incorrectly, you consistently laud Louis chin as "granite". This is rubbish. Off the top of my head the following floored Joe - Max Schmeling twice (second for the full count), Jim Braddock, Buddy Baer, Jersey Joe (three times in their two fights), twice against Marciano and worst of all badly shook in the first and floored in the third against the utterly useless fat slob 'Two Ton' Tony Galento. He was also shook on numerous other occasions. That ought to put the chin argument to bed.

In terms of opposition quality - have you ever heard of 'the bum of the month club'? That's what Louis contenders were called by the press of the day as they were so poor. That's fact not opinion. Galento is a perfect example. A bum in every sense of the word. There's more than one reason he made 25 defenses.

You talk of Holyfield as a builtup light-heavy, in fact he was a big cruiserweight, who was just as big as Louis. But when Louis has a life and death struggle with Billy Conn (who weighed under the light-heavy limit for their fight and was a small light-heavy at best) it's conveniently ignored.

You also mention Walcott, the two Baers and Conn as "all-time greats". You got to be joking???? Seriously???? Walcott would be on nobody's top ten heavy champs, Conn was a good but small light-heavy champ who's entire reputation is built around his 'blowing' of the Louis fight and as for the Baers.... all-time greats???? Please.

You mention how Louis beat Walcott twice as an example of how good he was, yet you completely ignore (or are unaware of) the fact that their first fight was a brutal decision. Outside of the judges nobody thought Joe won. That's why there was a rematch and fair play to Joe, he did the business second time round (after being floored).

You also mention footwork. Joe had beautiful balance and that was usually because he had his feet rooted to the floor, but he was very slow to move, which is why I could never see him coming near Ali ( a vastly superior version of Conn), and also means he wouldn't be moving away from Tyson at all. Not good.

You are correct in terms of accuracy and timing. Joe's was legendary (along with perfect technique) and that is why his punches had such an effect (on much smaller men than Tyson it has to be said), but Tyson had faster hands, quicker feet to close the distance and definitely had more raw power. His accuracy wasn't too bad either and he had every punch in the book, thrown in tremendous combinations.

Joe's defense was decent but that's about it. The fact that so many hurt and floored him shows he could be hit regularly and against Tyson that's an absolute disaster.

I can't see Joe lasting any longer than 3 or 4 rounds.

And it kills me to say it.

gene_tunney wrote: »

Good post.

I wonder who'd win, Carl Lewis or Usain Bolt?

Easy, Bolt!

gene_tunney wrote: »

So Joe Louis would knock out Mike Tyson? I've heard it all now.

In reality any op athlete from any sport would crush their equivalent from a bygone era. That's the reason records are constantly being broken.

I love Tyson, but he was very overrated. That said he would absolutely molest Joe Louis, it would look like a man against a prepubescent boy.

Very overrated? So what would that make Louis? I think he may get overrated based off career 2. Career 1 the guy was an absolute beast, a machine, and unstoppable. Lost Rooney, lost Cus, Cayton etc and he slipped. Went to prison for three years, sure was he ever going to be great after this.

Joe Louis p4p was extra special. One of the best ever. Just think Tyson is all wrong for Louis.

And I insist that if Joe had a steel chin then I may go with him in this fight.

megadodge wrote: »

I can't see Joe lasting any longer than 3 or 4 rounds.
And it kills me to say it.

And, really, one rd wouldn't at all suprise me. Would it take Tyson 3 mins to find Joe's chin with a monster shot? 3-4 rds he'd be doing very well to stay out of harms way for that long.

Love Louis, would root so much for him, but Tyson is so wrong for Joe Louis.

tryingmybestt wrote: »

i don't think you can compare a FW today with a FW from say the 50's.....back in the 50's they had same day weigh ins and didnt usually way much more than the limit on fight night....nowadays some featherweights are over a stone heavier come fight time.....so i think all the weights are different from today's weights, not just the heavyweights

I am not talking about the rules or rule changes. I am simply saying that boxing is a sport where you can debate and argue one man against another thru the years. It is a very subjective sport in that sense, because it is so man against man. The great LWs of the past would be more than a match for the great LWs of today, same day weigh or not. It is when we get to the HWs where past fighters may suffer a bit more due to the weight differences.

tryingmybestt wrote: »

you clearly said a FW today is a FW 50 years ago !!!

i'm saying that is not the case, there's at least 10lbs in the difference, maybe more

Again, dismissing rules, a FW today is a FW 50 years ago. Same day weigh ins and previous day weigh ins do play a part, I agree, but boxing is a subjective sport. BUT, same day weigh-in in rule for BOTH, and yes a FW is a feather. Previous day weigh in for both, and yes, a FW is a FW. We must apply a common and equal rule for both IF discussing a fantasy fight for the two men.

Think of it: Imagine opening a thread of who wins MAB vs. Sandy Saddler @ FW? And, by the way, Marco weighs in the day before and Sandy must weigh in the day of the fight?

tryingmybestt wrote: »

you can't compare a FW today with FW yesterday as different sizes......i don't understand how you can say they are the same!

do you a think a joe gans or benny lenoard weighed a similar weight to say duran or de la hoya on fight night?? NO

so you can't compare a modern lightweight to a lightweight from the 50's........

the 50's versions would be at least a weight below in today's game

Please read my previous post. Applying equal rules to BOTH men, and they are the same weight division.....

Whether we apply the old rule or the new rule, IF we apply it to both men for the purpse of a fantasy bout, then how are they different?

Yes, if we apply the old rule to the old fighter and the new rule to the new fighter and match them, that is NOT the same; I agree with you here.

So, let Benny Leonard or Joe Gans weigh in the day before, and let Oscar or Pea weigh in the day before, and all is equal, yes?

Make Pea and Oscar weigh in the day of the fight, and Gans and Leonard the day of the fight, and all is equal, yes?

tryingmybestt wrote: »

you didn't say that in first post....you said FW of now is comparable to FW of 50's

if were both using same rules it still doesn't matter as a lightweight today would still be much bigger than a lightweight of 50's ....if lightweight of 50's was using todays rules he would be a featherweight or lower.....so your logic doesn't add up!

Not going to get into silly arguments around semantics. Simple: Boxing is a subjective sport where one can match men today against men from years gone by. You did with Louis and Tyson, and almost disregarded weight? Now, you are making a big issue with it?

SRR or any other great WW/MW from years gone by can sure as hell compete with men today at this weight, with or without your rules.

BTW, the difference in the rule is probaly 12 hrs, and not all weight gain is effective. Piling on 10-15 lbs overnight in a 24 hr period can also cause issues.
There are those that think fighter boiling down in weight and not fighting at a close to natural weight is bad for them. And, there are many men from years gone by that I would select over the current men from today. Serioulsy, SRR wipes the floor with any WW today, and beats any middle too. And, I would bet on him being successful at LH. So, screw the rule.

walshb wrote: »

WHAT?

Eder Jofre gets crushed by the best today?

Ok, average or not, men from years gone by at the low weights were still brilliant fighters.

Please, give me examples?

You see, this is what gets me. I say the average boxer and then you start talking about Eder Jofre. That makes absolutely no sense. Please stick to the discussion at hand.

Give you examples of what? An avegage boxer beating his equivalent from bygone years?

Walshb, explain this to me. In every single sport in the world athletes have progressed. How is boxing any different?

gene_tunney wrote: »

You see, this is what gets me. I say the average boxer and then you start talking about Eder Jofre. That makes absolutely no sense. Please stick to the discussion at hand.

Give you examples of what? An avegage boxer beating his equivalent from bygone years?

Walshb, explain this to me. In every single sport in the world athletes have progressed. How is boxing any different?

Not saying they have not progressed. You came out with the claim. I would love examples. Average is just ridiculously vague.

I am saying that boxing to me is a sport that may well have progressed in certain areas, but it is still a sport that for years has been using techniques today that were there years ago. You cannot say it is like comparing track and field, or swimming, like the Carl Lewis/Bolt example you gave. It does not work like that. It is a one to one physical combat sport.

Men from years gone by had their share of great, good and average boxers, just like today.

If we use the term avearge, then why not compare like with like. Great WW today vs. great WW 50 years ago?

Good WW today vs good WW yesterady etc etc.

Take Floyd at 135 lbs vs. Henry Armstrong? I wouldn't bet on either man confidently.

How about Ike Williams vs. Guerrero or Katsidis, or JMM at 135 lbs? I know who I am picking.

Now, take the jorneyman in Henry's/Ike's era against the journeyman in today's era? Who wins?

Average vs average stands, and so does the best from each era.

Floyd would destroy Armstrong. Armstrong would be a journeyman today, at best a gatekeeper.

Scamaill wrote: »

Middleweight is the top division in my opinion. They dont come any better than Marvyn Hagler. Thoughts?

Like Hagler, but you know, I would pick several styles to beat him. I would select SRR to be all around too good. Monzon would be a very close one.

Recent fighters like Toney and Jones would be very difficult, as would Mike McCallum. Eubank would be tough too.

Clazaghe and Hagler at 168 lbs would be a terriffic fight. Joe being naturally bigger, every bit as rough, as fit, and as clever. Great scrap.

Nunn would stylistically cause issues, but Hagler I think would prevail late on via KO.

Marvin could blow hot and cold. Was at times ponderous, wee bit slow. On form he was vicious.