This thread should be entitled "If you can't be 'em, join 'em". Yes, another mindnumbing heavyweight match-up backed by an obvious agenda. Well, folks have at it!
Joe Louis of 1951 was unbeatable. I believe he put it all together that year. Name me one fighter that could do it.
Amusingly, Lyle would be 35 to Joe's 36. And hear it from the Marciano critics, that means Lyle is ancient, shot, and his weight is now an artificial abstract concept. So i could see both these old weightless men floating around the ring, unable to time their now worthless right hands, until someone opens a window and they blow away to the retirement home.
Joe Louis all day, he' defintly able to out think Lyle, he's faster, far more coodinated and skilled, Louis would wear Lyle down with one two combos playing defensively and waiting for Lyle to make a mistake which Louis would capitalize on and finish him. I suspect Louis would knock out lyle about the same round foreman did give or take a round, if we were talking prime for prime but the 1951 version of Louis was mostly gone and losses around round 3 to lyle
Know it's supposed to be a joke thread, but Louis would still have a chance at pulling a win out of the bag. He could perhaps still out box Lyle with the jab alone.
Amusingly, Lyle would be in his 5th year of pro boxing and Louis would be in his 17th. Louis would be 32 pounds over his debut weight while Lyle would be 3 pounds over his debut weight. the more you know...
There's nothing joke about this thread. Serious as a heart attack. Do you really think that the embalmed Louis of 51, who admitted he could no longer pull the trigger on his right, could stave off the Lyle that went to war with Foreman with that now somewhat tepid jab?
Lyle could perhaps stop this version of Louis, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. Plus, he was still good enough to be ahead on the cards vs a prime Rocky Marciano, who BTW, I feel would stop Lyle.
So age is now slang for "years as a pro" so that 60 year old Middle Eastern heavy with 27 fights is younger than Wilder. Great logic, bro. So any weight added after a pro debut ceases to be real, right? So David Tua was really 201 pounds hiis whole career, and the rest was an illusion of useless artifical mass. Cause you got to be consistent with craziness..
Does tread left on the tires mean anything to you? Or is that just some crazy concept? So, Louis still had a lot of tread but because he owed no money and wanted to pursue knitting full time, he decided to retire? I was merely using another metric to illustrate the difference in their career trajectories. Lyle was half way thru his career and Louis was at a very over-extended end. Sorry if this flew over your head.
How about this for a crazy concept: Ron Lyle was 215-220 Joe Louis was 208-214 Joe was 36-37 Lyle was 34-35 Shocking, I know. Fighters actually being weighed in real pounds and being their real age. But if you have an agenda constructed around "age" and "weight", I could see why you have to blur very simple measurable facts into abstract mumbo jumbo. Otherwise, you are left with two men of similiar age and size....one vastly superior in technique and demonstrated ability with a far more legendary punch.
Ron Lyle fought 3 fights in 76. He lost to both Foreman and Young. He managed one win over an unrated novice in Issac. Joe Louis fought 8 fights in 51. He lost to Maricano, but defeated respectable competition in Savold, Bivins, Brion, Agramonte, and Beshore. Both men obviously have a ceiling, but no question Louis had a more proven rounded year. Regarding their career trajectories. Yes, Louis retried after Maricano. Does that prove he was more done than Lyle? Lyle would fight just 9 more times from 77-80. He only managed to just scrap by Bugner and LeDoux, and would be knocked completely out of the ratings by novice Lynn Ball before getting served up to Cooney. So did Lyle really have more left, or just carried on longer than he should have? And more importantly is there any hard evidence Lyle in 76 was really better than Louis was in 51? Regardless of how much Louis might have diminished from his days as a young man. I dont' see it, if anything Louis looks to still be the better fighter. I think Lyle could beat the men Louis did but would look far less dominate, given his struggles with defensive vets and Bugner. I think Bivins could even pull an upset honestly.
Savold's 142nd and next to last fight. Jabbing a 180 pound Bivins, 100 fights into his career to decision. A Beshore who had lost 5 of his last 6. Agramonte? These are keep busy fights to grease the easiest route to a money fight because Louis needed money above all else. Lyle beat both Bugner and Stan Ward in 77. Both made the Ring's Annual Top Ten for 76. And by the way, Lyle was #5 in 76 and #4 in 77 and 78. So, no, I would contend Lyle was not as used up as a Louis, who desperately needed cash, but decided to retire because the knowing rabble would come to his fights. And my contention would be backed by contemporary opinion. So, who do you favor in the Lyle/Louis match-up? The fighter you see against Foreman or the one you see against Marciano? Are you going against the contemporary commentators who remarked on how much Louis had slipped or do you have your own ideas on the subject?