Joe Louis vs Mike Tyson

That's a bit unfair, surely? There's a clear advantage to be gained for Tyson if he has those big pillows, even if they do reduce power slightly. I mean, without them, he basically has no defence.

Suppose somebody invents a magic implement tomorrow that automatically seals up cuts sustained in a fight. If we're comparing modern fighters to old, it would definitely be unfair if the old-timer were deprived thereof.

There are other examples of where asymmetries in the rules are inappropriate: suppose we're matching Sandy Saddler against modern FW; it would be strange to allow Saddler to "foul" but not his opponent. Seems strange to make an exception just for equipment.

 

1. Max Schmeling - Louis down in second round

2. Jim Braddock - Louis down in first

3. Buddy Baer - Louis down in first

4. Joe Walcott - Louis down in first and 3rd..

5. Tony Galento - Louis staggered in first, down in third

6. Joe Walcott II - Louis down in third

7. Tami Mauriello - Louis staggered against the ropes in first

8. Billy Conn - Louis outboxed for most of the early rounds.

How many times was Tyson in trouble early?

 

Not really.

 

Fouth round.

Yes.

True. But past his prime. I think it was 1st and 4th round.

Yes.

Past his prime though.

True. Past his best again though.

I dont think so.

Less times than Louis. :good
he had less fights though.

 

So basically, I did a good job at outlining which was which?

 

I think this is pretty much irrelevant. Tyson was not going to get decked by Max Schmeling or Jim Braddock while being in between his 28th and 33rd pro fight. Had these two met at their absolute peaks, their number of fights would have been fairly close, with Louis having perhaps just a few more, but its not that wide of a margin..

 

Yeah. :good

 

I dont know, maybe Schmeling could deck Tyson.
Anyway, Louis had the better of Schmeling through the first 3 rounds.

That makes its more relevant then surely. Because most of your examples fall past Louis's prime.

I dont think you're wrong though. If either of them was a bit more inclined to get into trouble early it was Louis more so than Tyson, but I wouldn't say he was inclined to get into trouble early relative to most good fighters.

Tyson was caught in the 1st rounds by punches from guys who weren't remotely in Louis's class either. Tucker and Bruno actually had him losing his footing. And whenever Louis was caught he almost always came back hard with something.
I dont see it as a strong factor.

I prefer to go with the better boxer, which is Louis.

 

Fair enough.

 

Tyson

Louis is the greater fighter but the style matchup favors Tyson .

 

Less competetive fights and I think thats the key - discounting the Schmeling beating - how many of the fights mentioned did Louis ultimately come back to win in?? How many fights did Tyson get off the floor to win?? How many actually competetive fights did Tyson ever win??

 

You can't discount the Schmeling loss, and frankly Tyson taking the very best that big punchers like James Smith, Razor Ruddock and Frank Bruno had to offer was better than getting decked by light hitting Braddock who hadn't fought in two years, or a man like Tony Galento.. In order to beat Tyson, you had to pound him for 10 rounds or more, and ultimately had to be lucky that you were catching him on an off night... Louis was floored by lesser men consistantly throughout his career, and getting tagged by some of those guys were less than flattering, even if you did come back to win..

Now Louis may very well have been the better tachnician, and for all any of us knows, could have beaten Tyson.. But I'm not about to ignore the trends, nor how they stack up to Tyson's style or pattern of winning early... Make no mistake, this is a very dangerous fight for Louis, and should he get in trouble early, he'd be in there with a much better finisher than Schmeling, Braddock, Baer, or Galento..

 

Rockyssplitnose you make very good points.

I think when Louis was getting caught, he simply had his guard down, and was not expecting to be hit. But like you said, he would always get up.


And fleaman brought up a very good point. Tyson was a mid range fighter, not an inside fighter. And I don't think there is a more difficult distance to place yourself against Joe, than mid range.

Joe said he was bothered by inside fighters. And in my opinion only Johnson and Ali could have beaten Joe and they were both outside fighters.

If Joe Louis can take a flush Max Baer combo to the face, and then instantaneously knock him down a few seconds later, what makes you think he won't do that to Tyson.
THINK about it. Louis took about 3 flush Max Baer punches to the face (The same Baer who has killed men in the ring), and then proceeded to knock him down. I mean wasn't Louis shaken up from those punches he took from Max? Are you telling me Max' punches had no affect on Louis power? That means Louis is a legend. A legend who, in his prime, would NEVER lose to Tyson.

I hate to say this with such conviction when it pertains to such a subjective argument, but come on!

 

Oh come on. First of all, Louis lost to Max Schmeling. Louis was not prepared for the fight mentally nor physically.

Mike Tyson lost to Busted Douglas. Mike Tyson was not prepared for the fight mentally nor physically.

I bet you Max Schmeling would defeat Mike Tyson. Or can we all agree that he would at least be a game fighter? Imagine us sayin the same about Douglas against Louis though.


Tell me, do you think if James Smith fought in 1930's we would know his name today? Not a chance. But James Braddock was an incredible fighter. Saying Louis falling to him discredits Joe as a fighter is silly.

 

Don't completely disagree with what you're saying at all (it is an interesting one to say the least) - just the bit I've highlighted that's all - the thing that throws me (and this happens with a lot of fighters I think - the obvious one being Ali) is a lot of fighters seem to develop a certain ruggedness and toughness as they go on - its like as their youth and zip ebs it is replaced out of neccesity with deeper resolve somehow - (i think it may have happened to some extent with Louis too actually - otherwise Braddock and co were better punchers than Marciano to have hurt Louis much quicker) but I don't personally think you needed to pummel Tyson for 10 rounds before he gave in - in his prime he was rattled enough by one shots on occassion where if a better fighter had been in there with him may have jumped on him and stopped him too - i don't think many did pummel him for 10 rounds anyway I think it was just as much his stamina let him down on occassions - I'd wonder whether the younger Tyson would take stick for long because we never got to see whether he could - it would certainly be something new for the young Tyson - it's like when I think of Henry Cooper almost knocking out a young Muhammad Ali with one left hook (good puncher though he was) and then years later when he's old he can soak up endless punishment from beasts like Foreman and Frazier (guys 2 stones bigger) - and I watch Clay-Liston and it looks to me if Clay had've stopped moving for a second Liston would've crushed him - it's really difficult to saypatsch and then I see the old man version of Tyson yielding to ham n eggers like Danny Williams and Kevin McBride - i wonder whether anything counts with Tyson beyond the age of 24???