Joe Louis vs mike tyson . give me a convincing argument for louis

Simple.

The aforementioned stylistic advantage, can trump everything else on the list.

 

Louis wasn't slow on his feet, and his hitting power is superior to Tyson's.

 

All I am saying is that boxing is not a game of Top Trumps.

If fighter A is a 10 on everything, and fighter B is a 9 or 9.5 on everything but holds the stylistic advantage, then you go with fighter B.

Louis’s main cards in this game would be his ability to use an opponent’s forward momentum against them, his ability to fight on the back foot, and his ability to fight on the inside.

 

I cannot help but imagine that a shootout is bound to occur, and I am virtually 100% sure that Tyson will be the one standing at the end.

 

I think it is more the case that it is hard to work out who has the stylistic advantage.

There styles are different enough, that somebody probably had it.

 

Louis had a great jab, which was hard and accurate. He had tremendous power, heart and will to win. He had the best variety of punches of any heavyweight in history and was the best combination puncher too. That's enough of a case right there.

 

I agree that Louis was the best combination puncher ever and he didn't need space to get them off.
Whether he'd beat Tyson I don't know.i think Tyson is underrated at the moment but in years to come he'll be more appreciated

 

timing beats speed.

precision beats power.

 

Jab, accuracy, general intangibles have to go to Louis. He has the ability to hurt Tyson severely, as well as the ability to disrupt his game. I'm not saying that he'd ravage Tyson, I'm saying he has a good chance, at least as good as Holyfield

 

Edited for double post