Prime for Prime, tyson vs. .....

The only elite he ever beat was an old rusty Larry Holmes. I want to say Mike, but based off this, I'm not so sure.

 

well its the reason I call alot of these crazy people trolls and act of blindness its odd

if joe was so great for future then why was he defeated then that says there he wouldnt had made it vs the 70s-90s why is that hard to admit for these people

 

What the hell is this monstrosity?

Is this even a reply?

What language is it supposed to be in?


You have repeatedly said that NO fighter from back then could even compete today.

You have said that on numerous occasions, across numerous threads, all throughout this last year.

Boxing has evolved, so no fighter from the 40’s or 50’s etc, can compete with anyone from the 70’s onwards.

That’s what you’ve said.

Yet all of a sudden, Robinson could because he was ahead of his time. Ha!

Brilliant.


So you’re now going to pick and choose when it suits.

How about engaging your brain and acknowledging the fact that ANY GREAT fighter from ANY era could also find success, depending on how they matched up STYLISTICALLY.


Louis would have SOME success in ANY era, depending on who he faced.

The same goes for all of the other greats of the 40’s and 50’s.

The following guys would all have had MIXED SUCCESS:

Willie Pep, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Henry Armstrong,


There’s lots of HW’s who weren’t as skilled or as fast as Louis, who also found success.

Every fighter has different attributes and a style that works for them.

Ali, Frazier and Foreman all had completely different styles.

Ali didn’t try and imitate Louis because that style wouldn’t have suited him.


You are a terribly ignorant poster, and I can only hope for your own sake that you are trolling for your own amusement.

 

crazy

 

What does this even mean?

Joe had almost 70 fights.

Yes, he lost some fights.

The best fighters of the 70’s-90’s also lost fights.

How many top tier HW’s have retired unbeaten?

More than 95% of them lose at some point.


Wlad Klitschko was bombed out three times by B and C class guys when he was in his 20’s.

How did that happen, genius?


How did James Smith and Mitch Greene survive 10 rounds with Mike?

Let me guess, they were 10 times the fighter that Louis was, right?


Almost every fighter either gets beat, or struggles against, guys of a certain style.

There’s also many other factors to take into account.

Things such as: injuries, hectic schedules, a lack of motivation etc.

It’s why a guy like James Toney beat Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson and Michael Nunn, yet then should have lost to a C class fighter in James Tiberi.

 

That’s all you can offer up as a response.

Anything of value is beyond you.


Here’s an easy challenge for you:

Name me your top 10 HW’s of all time.

Whoever you put forward, I can guarantee you that at some point in their careers, they either lost to, or struggled with, guys who were inferior to Joe Louis.


Styles make fights.

It’ll always be that way.

Always.


You think that Mike Tyson would have crushed Joe Louis.

Okay. No problem. But are you aware, that there’s many knowledgeable fans on here who believe that George Foreman would have crushed Mike Tyson?


George Foreman wasn’t as skilled or as fast as Joe Louis.

Yet, many people have him beating Mike due his attributes and his STYLE.


The same principle applies to ANY other HW.


I actually AGREE with you that Mike would have beaten Louis.

However, it wouldn’t mean that Louis couldn’t have beaten ANY other HW from the modern era.


You have picked Ray Robinson from the 1940’s-1950’s, to have had success today due to his style which you think was ahead of its time.

That’s great. But then if you think logically, that also means that other great fighters of his era could also have had SOME success today, again, depending on who they’d have fought and how they’d have matched up stylistically.

 

Prime Mike Tyson '88. is a chainsaw. He beat Louis.

 

Different eras it’s not a fair comparison. Like Babe Ruth trying to hit against a modern pitcher.

 

yea not at all fair

 

fast 1st round

 

ill ask you even though I know the answer show me proof of joe using all the advanced techniques/movement in upper/lowerbody movement as seen in a 70s-90s boxer which fight should I watch

 

What are you going to be saying in 20 years time?

That it wouldn’t be fair for Mike Tyson to have fought a modern day HW, as his prime was over 50 years ago?

 

no cause its already been years and its people that I know he wouldnt have a easy time with like fury and wlad the difference is his skill/movement was so advanced any past or future he could compete with and never be destroyed not at his best

your problem like others is your trying to make a person who fought in a time or the time before that the whole 1900s which boxing was real stiff and basic and trying to make that fighter better then they ever showed none of those dudes would be able to compete vs any mid/high level 70s-90s fighter sense those era's was more advanced in all areas

why is this hard for you to understand just watch highlights it's real easy to see as a whole even the average no name

its like you people have some type of odd way to be stuck in time that you think boxing never became more advanced

 

Show you proof?

Go and watch his fights.

Once again, he is credited as being one of the most skilful HW’s of all time.

There’s numerous videos on YouTube where they’ve broken down his skills.

What advanced techniques?

Joe Louis fought in the 1940’s and 1950’s, not the 1840’s and 1850’s.

How many punches are they in boxing?

Boxing has evolved from the M.O.Q. but the only significant differences in the sport today, are: Less rounds, bigger gloves, day before weigh-ins and more protection from the referees.

The techniques of the fighters are based on their own unique attributes and styles.

How skilled were Joe Frazier and George Foreman?

Joe Louis had more skills than both of those guys.

Yet Frazier and Foreman both found success, as they were world class fighters who used their attributes and their styles to maximum affect.

 

You’re just talking ignorant nonsense that completely contradicts what you’ve said previously.

You’ve already admitted that Ray Robinson could have had success in the modern era against SOME guys, due to his style and his attributes.

So then why couldn’t other great fighters of the past also have had SOME success against modern day guys, depending on who they’d have fought and how they’d have matched up?

Why couldn’t Henry Armstrong, Benny Leonard, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles and Willie Pep etc, have had SOME success today?

None of those guys were basic and stiff.

Go and research them.

Archie Moore was Bernard Hopkins’ favourite fighter.

Floyd Mayweather and James Toney were classed as throwback fighters due to their styles and skills.

Great fighters could fight and beat fighters from ANY era.