Joe Louis vs Mike Tyson

Tyson could afford to mix his footwork up, because he was hardly off balance and could knock an opponent out with either hand, by moving to one side or another. He often delivered hooks and uppercuts from a southpaw stance inside because he could get so much leverage off of either side.
Tysons footwork when he emerged from jail was flat out amatuerish. He made a lot of mistakes, and thats why he resorted to throwing one punch at a time, AND actually did start getting pushed back and knocked down and off balance.

 

That's the problem I have with his footage. He's refering specifically to Tyson foot placement, not balance, and an isolated problem like this is only a real problem if someone is willing or able to capitalize in a very specific manner. You can't capitalize on something so specific if you have hooks and uppercuts coming your way from awkward angles. It's sort of like capitilizing on minor positional advantages in chess(pawn structure, open files/diagonals, etc.) when your king is completely exposed.

 

No Tyson moved in and Tubbs simply stepped away. I think Unforgiven is a being a little critical of Tyson. Tyson did have a tendency to fall back on his power, and there are a couple other better examples of that within the first round. When a fighter loads up with a big punch and misses they often lose their balance and fall forward which Tyson did at times, but considering how much steam he had on his punches, he still remained very balanced. When you hear Rooney say use that 7, he is referring to Tyson setting things up with his jab, which Tyson started doing once he saw how slick Tubbs was.

 

Here is the footage that we should REALLY be looking at.... Check out the 1:06 mark, where Louis goes down against Braddock.. This wasn't even a matter of being off balance.. He was perfectely stable prior to getting tagged with a punch that sent him strait down...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvhscZl7He4[/ame]


Here is another good one.. Watch how Buddy Baer sends him strait through the ropes at the 4:45 mark... Was this supposed to be another instance of being off balance?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNYTX8jLebE[/ame]


Watch Galento deck him at the 3:47 mark, or thereabouts..


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVcgD7VlmT8[/ame]


Can anyone really see Tyson getting floored by any of these guys? ( looking for an answer from someone who is not a Louis nuthugger please...)

 

most people will say Louis probably but Tyson would win just on speed. P4p I still think Tyson if it is the 1987 Tyson.

 

I am German and love Schmeling for many reasons, but he would not defeat a prime Tyson of the Buster Douglas of Tokio.

I clearly rate Louis as a greater fighter than Tyson and feel that consistency, even against less than stellar opposition, is underrated in boxing. But during his brief prime, Tyson's combination of movement, footwork and power would have overwhelmed Louis. Add to this the smaller gloves of Louis' era, which add to Tyson's power (or take some of Louis power away if he fights with bigger gloves) and I don't see Louis having any significant advantage.

 

I didn't see **** either..

 

I don't see this "Louis was unsteady on his feet and therefore knocked down a lot, and had a weaker chin than Tyson" stuff. Somebody help me see the light here.

Louis had about 418 professional rounds and was knocked down about 9 times. That's once about every 46 rounds. He was knocked out twice. That's once every 214 rounds.

Tyson had about 217 professional rounds and was knocked down about 5 times. That's once about every 44 rounds. He was knocked out 5 times. That's once every 44 rounds.

(I'm relying on an old memory here and I may be off by a KD one way or the other on these guys, but I don't think that makes much difference.)

I don't see the evidence that Mike took a better punch than Joe and had better balance than Joe.

 

Tyson Massacres him. He's going to completely overwhelm Louis. I do sense half the people are picking Louis just for the sake of picking the older champ that is clearly the more accomplished fighter. As if a way to pin old vs new school and say old wins. Tyson would completely overwhelm Louis. Louis will not like his fury, nor will he find it easy to hit on him.

Honestly, the only swarmer/puncher I pick for Louis to confidently beat is Dempsey. Other than that, the Frazier and Marciano matchups might be wars but I lean towards Rocky/Frazier.

 

I don't have a problem with people picking the older champion for the sake of paying him his dues, but for Christ's sake, at least use valid comments when doing so...

So far we're hearing a lot of **** like :

" Tyson wasn't a crouching fighter. "

" Tyson was off balance against Tubbs. "

 

gotta go with tyson....bad style matchup for louis in my opinion. tysons bigger and strong and would be able to avoid the straight punching louis' shots and work his angles on his way to a ko victory

 

What relevance does that have? I don't think trading embarassing stories about each fighter is a good way to make a case for Mike Tyson.

Try reading my post? Louis footwork was actually an advantage for him. The whole point of the "shuffle" was to maintain the right separation distance with his feet, meaning he could get off on an opponent at any time. It avoids getting put off balance by fighters with lateral movement, and avoids you getting rushed when you're not ready for an exchange by brawlers like Tyson. And it has the added benefit of results like this (2:55):

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBiyX9oDgNE[/ame]

Frankly pathetic. There are plenty of good reasons for picking Tyson in this match-up, but "beating Louis to the punch" is not one of them. As I've already explained to you, Tyson actually viewed himself as a counter-puncher, and it was never his intention to do so. If it had, he would have been getting beaten to the punch by the guy with the longer reach, greater height, and longer, straighter punches. 0:25:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5myL5x-qmd8[/ame]