Joe Louis vs Mike Tyson

I would consider a crouching fighter to be one whose default stance was crouched while moving around the ring and throwing combinations.

While Tysons style is a nod to this approach he is not really of the genra. Now Louis would not usualy be though of as a crouching fighter, but he mastered the methodology moreso than Tyson in the few fights where he used it.

I would close by saying that Tysons style is different from other pressure fighters in a number of surprising ways. In some key respects he worked more as a midrange fighter.

 

I am hearing a lot of talk here about Tyson being too much for Louis, too fast, too agresive etc.

Does nobody stop too think that Louis might be too much for Mike Tyson?

There is no question who was the more consistant quantity of the two.

 

Good post. :good

It's remarkable the way some people here are saying Tyson was quicker, more powerful, better footwork, more durable, better defense ..... ... and making out Louis was some frail, weak, slow-starting, chinny fighter.

Louis came to war, he came to do damage, and he was no one's easy mark, and on those rare occasions (yes, rare) when he was dropped or hurt he was the picture of composure and cool-headedness.

Louis had great skills, and the best record of all heavyweight championships. His defense is being badly underrated. He got hit, but he had good headmovement, parries and swift counters too.
Whoever said he was a slow-starter is well off the mark too.

Louis was the boss. A beast.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1gcmVwRnJE[/ame]

 

Since some people have acused Louis of being a slow starter I thought it might be instructive to compare the elite fighters that Louis and Tyson both stopped in the first, second, third and fourth rounds.

I have only listed fighters who were ranked at one time or another and may have missed sombody.

Round 1

Louis-Poreda, Levinsky, Retzlaff, Schmelling, Lewis, Baer Jr, Maurellio

Tyson-Frazier, Spinks, Williams, Tillman, Stewart, Seldon

Edge-Louis

Round 2

Louis-Ramage, Paycheck

Tyson-Berbick, Tubbs

Edge-Tyson

Round 3

Louis-Massera, Barry, Lazer?, Sharkey, Mann

Tyson-Mathis, Bruno, Gollota

Edge-Hard to call

Round4

Louis-Baer-Uzcdun, Gallento

Tyson-Holmes

Edge-Louis

So I guess Louis would be stronger in the first round, with Tyson taking control in the second and the third being even. Tyson would have to survive the first round and stop Louis before he aserted himself in the fourth.

 

That's all well and good, but who got floored more often, and in all honesty, by lesser fighters? At the end of the day, it all comes down to what ACTUALLY happened..... You may not like Tyson's footing or stance, but in truth, Louis was decked far more times in his prime, regardless of who he was fighting or what his stance was at the time.... Maybe we're talking about different things, but this is what I am focussing on... I will also ad that while Tyson's opponents may not be quite so palletable to old school advocates, they were very large men, with fairly good punching ability, and had the advantage of modern training, amateur careers, and better than average skills, etc... Still they weren't able to make him kiss the canvas as many times as Louis's opponents were....

So basically you are left with two choices.. Either:

A. You are willing to admit that Tyson had better balance than Louis..

Or

B. That Louis had better balance, but a weaker chin, and against lesser opponents...

In either case, Tyson comes out on top.... Personally, I would bet my Mother's house on the 20 year old Tyson who defeated Trevor Berbick, dispatching the Schmeling who beat Louis, and I would place the same bet on him NOT getting decked by Braddock, Galento or Baer... In fact, I seriously think that he'd utterly destroy these men..... Do what you will with my opinion, but that is truly how I see things happening...

Originally, I had tried to be diplomatic about giving Louis a serious chance in this fight, but after giving it further thought, and listening to unreasonable posters, a combination of technical analysis and agitated emotion, has led me to the conclusion that this is a mismatch, which is precisely what a more sensible version of myself had thought several years ago.....

ON A SIDENOTE - When a past-prime Louis had lost to Rocky Marciano in 1951, he said in his post-fight interview that Marciano was the type of fighter that he hated to face, because he crowded him....... Most experts categorize Tyson as a more modern version of Marciano, and some rate him as being even better..

 

The list dosn't tell the whole story.

Louis would somtimes keep an oponent on his feet for a few rounds.

But yes I think he prety much could start as fast as Tyson if the mood took him.

 

I don't think anybody is disputing that Tyson had the better chin.

Of course that dosn't necesarily mean that Louis was easier to knock out.

If you compare them based on who stopped them and how rather than how many times they were dropped then Louis actualy compares prety favourably.

Then when you take into acount the fact that Tyson is going to be coming forward into Louis's punches the durability argument becomes less clear cut.

 

Common Janitor,

Look at the difference in the men they were fighting....


Let's take two former light heavyweights in Spinks and Schmeling.... Max was 31 years old in the first fight, the same as Spinks.... Tyson and Louis were both around the same age at 21.... Spinks was an all time great light heavyweight champ and Lineal heavy weight champ, who had never been floored or beaten in a pro fight...... Schmeling had only won 4 of his last 8 bouts , was off for a year, and fighting on American soil during a time when a member of Nazi Germany had no business doing so..... He kicked Louis's ass, while Tyson destroyed Spinks...... Years later, Louis finally got his first round KO over his conqueror, but it was hardly the same scenario as when Tyson iced Spinks.. In fact, it was against a shot Schmeling.....

It should also be noted that Louis was fighting cruiserweights, not heavyweights, and most of them had some pretty bad records, along with the advantage of being white men who were pushed ahead of their black counterparts - something that did not happen in later periods......

 

By all means, let's get back to "what ACTUALLY happened".
Louis got up every time but one he was KD'd, in his prime or close to it, and knocked the other guy out. Most of the time he caught the other guy with something substantial within seconds of regaining his feet.

And even against Schmeling he got up in the 4th round and gave a good fight while taking tons of punishment all the way into the 12th.

Firstly, not that I think it's relevant, but I think it's worth noting that some of Tyson's opponents had long amateur careers, others didn't.
Pinklon Thomas, for instance, had amteur 3 or 4 amateur fights. Mitch Green won several NY Golden Gloves. But I think Thomas was the better fighter.
And it's an myth going around on this forum that none of the boxers of the 20s and 30s had loads of amateur fights.
Joe Louis is reported to have had 54 amateur fights himself, in about a two-year period, and won tournaments. Lots of other fighters did too, not to mention the unofficial "smoker" bouts that were popular in every city.
I dont know why so many on this board are parrotting the myth that the fighters back then had "no amateur careers".

Anyway, yes, Louis was dropped more times than Tyson.

Still, what's more obvious in any study of the two is that Louis went 58-1 in official bouts up to his first retirement, including 25 succesful defenses of the championship (22 KOs). Over 12 year period.
Being dropped didn't lead to him being defeated

I've already said Tyson took a single punch better.
I dont dispute that.

You're entitled to your opinion. And I respect it.
But, now, "what ACTUALLY happened" is that Tyson got KTFO by Buster Douglas, a totally unremarkable heavyweight who never KO'd or even dropped any other genuine rated heavyweight, to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong).

"a mismatch" now ?
That's funny. Joe Louis isn't overmatched against anyone.

Firstly, can you provide the source ?

Secondly, I dont think Tyson "crowded" guys, he came in ferociouly with punches but he turned tame on the inside and just rested. Crowding is like what Arturo Godoy did with Louis, messy, head-on-chest stuff. Tyson was more about springing through with dynamic punches, often from further out that a fighter of his arm-length would normally be capable of. He didn't crowd or bull guys around like a Godoy, a Bonavena, or at times Marciano.

 

:rofl

Some classic excuses there.

Poor little Mikey. :|

What a load of crap.

 

power this and chin that, all up for debate. the thing not up for debate is how well louis can fight on the inside. louis can sit in the pocket all night and eventually knock you out. tyson would come in to explode.

 

No it doesnt. How many fights did Tyson come out of beaten up? If he used it as a tactic to counter off of, its actually a good weapon. If you notice most of the time, his chin is tucked and the jab is touching the top of his head. Tyson gave up a huge advantage in reach, fighting guys like Tucker 6'4-6'5 and realistically being 5'11, his defense has become vastly underated.

 

:blood Wow Tyson must have been perfectly matched his entire career. The brave guys had no skills and the guys with skills werent brave. Your just being silly with a statement like that.