Joe Louis vs Mike Tyson FULL FIGHT

Louis was also undertrained though. No one did to him what Max did until 1951 when Louis fought Marciano.
Louis's trainer said before the fight that Joe losing would help to teach him a lesson.
So it makes no sense how you see Tyson's unavenged thrashing as less of a blemish than Louis's.

 

Honestly, Mike probably stops Louis in round 1. Terrible match up.

 

Mike Tyson

 

I think you are trying to make Schmelling out to be better than he was in order to make Joe's loss to him not look so bad.

 

The imaginings of Mike’s successes in the Fantasy Realm often exceed and are well divorced from the realities of his own career.

Those giving Mike advantage understand what it means to properly anchor one’s analysis in, and allow proportional credits/demerits for, a fighter’s actual career achievements or lack thereof.

They apply such analysis to the nth degree when examining and assessing Mike’s Fantasy opposition - without any caveats, but they notably do not apply the same analysis to Mike himself.

Louis was clearly not quite at his best for the first Schmeling fight and there was a flaw in his game that Max spied - a flaw that had not been taken advantage of hitherto - so, it was left unchecked - but still, there were NO excuses, nor are there any now.

The fight remains part of the Joe’s full career mosaic - fully eligible for fair and balanced analysis and assessment.

On the flip side any less than perfect performances from Mike, including losses, are deludedly edited out to maintain the imagined perception of Mike being a H2H killer.

And, rather than wearing the blinkers when over focusing on and overweighting the ramifIcations of the first Schmeling - the Schmeling loss actually provides for the marking of a significant PIVOT in Joe’s career - one for which he should actually be duly credited for -

That pivot being that Joe corrected the flaw thereafter, and did in fact rematch his one time conqueror 2 years later to absolutely destroy him. As we know, Joe often improved himself in rematches - a mark of a great fighter.

In all fairness, Max was likely not quite what he was in ‘36 and fair analysis has to account for that likelihood but Joe’s net credit for his performance in ‘38 still rates as extremely high IMO.

So, Joe had his own kind of Buster Douglas fall when he lost to Max (Mike’s loss was far worse IMO) but Joe corrected, improved, continued and shined. Again, NO excuses proffered or required.

During his reign Joe avenged all losses and/or less than stellar performances - and that includes his first fight vs Walcott, a fight that some believe Joe lost - but Jersey Joe got his rematch and was KO’d leaving no doubts after the fact.

Mike’s impossibly brief prime (as perceived and conveniently cropped and framed by many) is a consequence of the psychology that rejects any real life examples of Mike not performing like the H2H monster they imagine (want) him to be.

The destruction of Michael Spinks was impressive, some say Mike at his absolute best - but it still was Mike Spinks, as presented on the night...a far cry from a prime Joe Louis.

Mike’s best performances against lesser opposition are inappropriately pasted 100% into fantasy fights against far superior opposition - as if he isn’t actually being measured relative to that superior opposition.

Several of his ACTUAL losses during his ACTUAL career against his ACTUAL best opposition (arguably) are inexplicably deemed as impermissible evidence - losses that were never reversed, I might add.

If one was inclined, they might argue that Louis’ “absolute” prime was also brief - but an “absolute” prime that was embedded in a longer, slightly less acute but still impressively maintained sub prime run.

What if Louis simply fell off after the first Schmeling fight and loss, never climbing quite back to the top - would it then have been appropriate to edit out the Schmeling loss, sealing Louis’ prime off up until that fight - in order to maintain perfect imaginings of what Joe would do to all and sundry in fantasy land?

I think not.

The beauty of Louis’ career is that it can be kept 100% REAL, no convenient edits or omissions, with Joe still coming out as a high end ATG and an extremely viable H2H candidate.

 

There's nothing I said that was untrue.
You could say the same about people who defend Tyson's losses.

 

Louis was just too good a puncher (perhaps the most powerful combination puncher, period). He had a huge heart, outstanding jab (trailing only behind Ali, Holmes, and Liston imo), far better a chin than apparently given credit here.

Mike would have been overwhelmed in 8, though he might have managed a flash knockdown on the way. Holyfield and Douglas didn't brutalize him anywhere near as bad as Louis would imo.

 

Louis said in his autobiography that he was 22 years old and full of himself before the first Schmeling fight, half-assed trained to Jack Blackburn’s disgust, had to take off 12 pounds in the 14 days before the fight, and was screwing everything with a vagina and the champagne and liquor were flowing in Harlem. Those who think this is somehow a Rosetta Stone to his career, what happened the next time after he got deadly serious?

 

Whenever you have mythical matchups, there are going to be negatives brought out about any fighter. What fighter is so perfect they can't be criticized?

I just think Louis was too vulnerable and Mike Tyson had an extremely difficult style to cope with. He didn't fight like the traditional stand-up straight fighters of the past and had unique qualities going for him. Harder to figure out than Lous' style and difficult to time him. Louis was more a cruiserweight by modern standards as well.

 

I don't think Louis really hit his prime until 1938. Against Schmeling in '36 he was 22 (not 24) and had been a pro for less than 2 years. He was a total phenomenon of course and his blow outs against the aging ex-champs made him look unbeatable. But he wasn't the full deal yet. Plus he was buying into his hype and didn't train very hard for Max -- a bit like Mike in 1990 actually. The second Schmeling fight for mine is like Ali's first Liston fight. It was the night his talent, training & self-belief all took him to a new level. It was the start of a prime that would last until he joined the army in 1942.

 

The question on a lot of people's minds is "Can Tyson deal with Joe Louis's incredible offense?" but my question is the exact opposite: Can Louis deal with Tyson's ferocious offense? Tyson dealt with speed (Tucker, Tubbs, Thomas) and power (Ruddock) very well whilst Louis had difficulty with both (Galento and Buddy Baer for power and Conn for speed).

Tyson's speed and power combination is arguably the greatest in heavyweight history and I can't see Louis overcoming it. I would pick Tyson by mid-round KO.