Joe Louis (1951) v Ron Lyle (1976)

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

 

Ron Lyle would win because he is Ron 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.

 

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..

 

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.