Could Joe Louis beat Mike Tyson?

What evidence/reason do you have for that claim?

 

Their's not ONE opponent of Tyson's who failed to last 30 seconds. Not one.

 

Louis will be the first.

 

Tyson is faster, stronger and way more skilled. Louis won't even know what hit him as he wakes up in the ER room.

 

Lewis was facing much better and bigger competition, not the 180-200 lbs guys that Marciano had. Lewis will KO those with just a jab.

 

AH c'mon man.
You cannot really believe that anything makes Louis worse than even the decent but non-elite boxers he fought, let alone the cannon-fodder he & most everyone started with.
Look at who he fought just before his prime-who was around the size of Prime Louis, & had lost 4 of nhis last 5 fights.
James "Quick" Tillis gave Tyson a quite close fight, & came on stronger at the end.

Now every fighter seems to do worse than expected sometime-& I also favor Tyson.
But you can be comically biased in favor of the more recent & bigger (Tyson just in muscle) fighters!

 

How could possibly the GOAT heavyweight even dream of lasting as long as the 0-3 Hector Mercaid?

Probably the most delusional comment I've ever seen on this board.

 

It's possible.
But White Bomber is trying & succeding at being nicer!
He may get more rational bit by bit.

But yes sometimes he reminds me of Ye Olde Tymers who insist any relatively tiny athlete who emerged trumphant from a small homogenous talent pool absent modern training maybe during segregation & even with glaring flaws & sometimes near prime losses...
Could beat the best superbly trained, SHW sized athletes.

EDIT: I see you meant Tyson;s debut, & it is Hector Merced.
Who was 1-10 for his career.
I noted that he fought a single decent fighter-Paul Poirer, undefeated.
This guy was 31-3: but never fought anyone decent until he was near the END of a n almost 20 year career.
It was a huge leap up from who he had been fighting to...Alex Stewart. Tony Tucker. Larry Holmes.

I wonder how common it is for guys to take so long to move up, but then it's huge: well he did fight a 21 year old "John L. Sullivan", who had also beaten nobody...
And Poirer started boxing at a max of 16 year s old.

 

Wrong. Tyson had faster feet not faster hands. Louis had more power in his punches and easily knocked out guys that were much bigger than him. If you think Tyson is more 'skilled' than Louis then you clearly have never watch footage of Louis in your life or you're willfully blind. Or you just don't know sh*t about boxing. Tyson was a one dimensional fighter who went for the same attacks over and over again. Louis could fight on the inside, mid-range and on the outside and was the best counter-puncher in the history of the heavyweight division - not to mention being the greatest finisher. He had the most superior boxing IQ of any heavyweight that's ever live. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

What good fighter did Lewis KO with his jab? How does being over 200lbs make you a better fighter?

 

He couldn't even stop glorified cans like Mitch Green and Quick Tillis and Bonecrusher Smith. Those guys actually gave him trouble.

 

Tyson wasn't really a "crowder" in the vein of inside fighters such as Frazier or Duran. He could throw combinations up close such as his signature hook to the body+uppercut, but sometimes he looked lost and got tied up at close range. The point being, Tyson wasn't the type to plant his feet staying at close range for an extended period of timing crowding and chipping away at the opponent. He preferred mid range to use head movement for counters or to build momentum for a bomb.

 

Styles make fights.
Tilis had good movement and didn't stay still in front of Tyson.
Poor ol Joe, with his steady inching towards an opponent, will get his arse handed to him by Tyson.

 

Those guys might also beat Louis. Can't be sure about the first 2, but Smith definitely does.

 

Yes, size does matter, that's why they invented weight classes.