Walcott would not last 2 rounds with a 88 tyson,mike in his peak was better than louis in nearly every department , speed,power,size( forget the height and reach ,tyson was bigger),chin,****nal of blows,footwork,defence,combinations..
I am not convinced that they were. Louis proved his credentials as a knockout artist against every type of fighter imaginable. He stopped hall of famers, durable fighters, defensive specialists, superheavyweights. It is hard to see what else you could ask for.
You are hanging a lot on what you think Tyson would have done to Walcott. Who did he actually stop in the real world, to make you think that he was a better finisher than Louis?
At hw pinklon thomas,tony tucker,michel spinks(yes spinks at least weighed 210 against tyson,not 188), tony tubbs,frank Bruno,ruddock were a much better test than walcott,schmeling,braddock(all very good pfp but h2h against tyson would not last 2 rounds AND YOU KNOW it) and baer is debatable but he was very crude.the fact is that they fought in their respectives eras and in their Prime fought the best guys available and tyson did better,was more dominant
If the size of the people you stop is the yard stick, then Louis has Tyson knocked into a ****ed hat. He demolished Primo Carnera and Buddy Baer, while the biggest heavyweights that Tyson met such as Tucker and Smith, were able to last the distance against him.
Tyson would take it on the average size of opponent, but Louis would be able to present the better results in terms of results against the biggest opponents. Personally I dont share this obsession with size that many are afflicted with. I give Louis more credit for stopping Arturo Godoy, than I do for stopping Primo Carnera. Louis was not necessarily a better finisher than Tyson, but he does seem to have been better at closing the distance against the rangier opponents.
Tyrell biggs was bigger than tucker and smith and tyson stopped him,anyway tucker beats carnera and buddy every day
Really, never noticed There's some real intangibles (personal perception of the quality of era) coming into this by the looks of things. Fighter A cleans out his division and finishes his particular opponents on the whole slightly better than fighter B. Fighter B also cleans house in a different era and finishes his opponents lets say very slightly less impressively than fighter A. Does this automatically make fighter A a better finisher? Poster A believes Fighter A's era was much weaker so rates B the better finisher, but personal perception is now starting to come into things. They were all crushing finishers, certainly Tyson and Louis who i have seen a lot of.
One way to look at this is who did these fighters let off the hook after they had them hurt? Tyson had Douglas down but couldn't follow up the next round. Dempsey had Gibbons going but let him survive. Did Louis ever have Farr or Pastor hurt? I can't remember.
First fight Pastor ran like thief. Second Pastor fight. "Pastor was down four times in round one and once in round two. Louis put him down for the count with a right hand in the eleventh round." He never had Farr in trouble ,Louis hurt his hand early in the fight. Gibbons fought to survive ,pretty hard to get those guys out of there,62 fights only one stoppage loss in his last fight. Tyson v Ruddock 2? Ruddock was going for it. Bone -crusher? Tucker? Greene? Surviving ,if they ain't trying to win it's pretty hard to stop them.