Joe Louis vs Mike Tyson

Not even siddartha guatama 'buddha' would be able to achieve such a feat....
But i will tell you one who could defeat them all....
FATHER TIME....

 

And one of them ( George Foreman ), nearly handed Father time his first loss...:good

 

Yes, but a lot of it comes down to how these guys were knocked out. Tyson has more one punch KO's. Louis brutalized a lot of these men. Dempsey believed that Marciano had the most one punch power of any champion he had ever seen. I believe Marciano has more one punch power than Louis, and I don't think he had more power than Tyson. So that would help break down my reasoning. And while all these men were big they were KO-able. It's all impressive, I just think Tyson had more power and would've stopped all these men. I don't see Louis with as many one punch KO's like what Tyson did to Spinks, Williams, and other men. Maybe it's close, but clear to me.

McCall said Douglas was the hardest puncher he ever faced. At was addressed in one of the articles on this site. Lastly, Tyson was KOed "cold" once, but he almost beat the count. In fact he probably did but was too wobbly to continue. It took Douglas a whooping to do it for 10 rounds. Do you think Schemling hits harder than Douglas? I think the edge is clearly to Tyson. Lastly it was Louis who was more legitimately knocked out cold than Tyson (He COULDN'T even get up from the count) and Tyson took much more punishment proving his chin from punchers like Ruddock and Bruno. Bruno had sparring partners that said he hit about as good as Foreman.

Only arguably faster if you like to argue. Maybe one punch at a time he's close but in combinations I think most would side with Tyson. And for his frame and style? Tyson was the stocky bulky 218lb fighter while Louis was a lankier 200 lb fighting machine. P4P the speed edge is even more in favor of Tyson.

Louis probably had a lot more pugilistic pride than Tyson. Are you trying to make an argument with this statement or are just starting in with generic meaningless retorts?

It's a style thing. Louis didn't like being crowded, while Tyson was a mid-range bomber he's going to feel those punchers. Tyson has fight punchers that probably hit comparable, if not harder than Louis. That doesn't work both ways. Lastly, I just think Tyson is going to be making Louis pay too much. If he didn't slip the jab, he'd get punished from dropping it low.

 

I think some important reasoning that people should think about is the fact that if either man were hurt who do you think has the better chance of surviving. Tyson wasn't easy to hurt, let alone get knocked down or even KOed. But if it had happened, which it could against a guy like Louis I think he survives and Louis finds himself after an opponent that's not easy to finish off. On the contrary, if Louis were hurt I think he has less a chance of fighting.

If I just see the fight on singularly that issue I favor Tyson. Two things... if Tyson gets dropped it can easily mentally affect him. And the fight could go the distance... if it did I think Louis would win. I don't think it would.

 

If both guys are actualy hurt as you suggest, then:

A. Louis has better recuperative powers.

and

B. Louis wants it more.

 

=

Something we will always disagree on, but let's move on..

Schmeling had lost 4 of his last 8 fights....Spinks was ranked #1 at the time Tyson fought him, and considered by some as the lineal heavyweight champion... .After Louis had demolished Carnera and Baer, Schmeling was viewed as another lamb for the slaughter, whereas a few people actually thought that Tyson might lose to Spinks... He destroyed him in one of the shortest heavyweight title fights of all time, while Louis was beaten by Schmeling...

From a legacy standpoint? No... But we're talking head to head in terms of what these men's standing were AT THE TIME of the meetings, what the fights meant, and the outcomes...

At the time Tyson fought him, when compared to the timing of Louis's meeting with Schmeling, he was that and then some... He was a very dominant light heavyweight champion, a lineal heavyweight title claimant, and undefeated...

I was comparing Schmeling and Spinks for the purpose of drawing a contrast between two light heavyweights, and how each man did against them...

Again we are talking head to head.... While Douglas's legacy may have been **** going into the Tyson fight, he was 29 years old, had won his last 7 strait fights, and a natural heavyweight who stood 6'4", weighing nearly 230 lbs... Schmeling was 199 lbs, off for a full year, had only won 4 of his last 8 matches... I will also ad that Tyson lost to Schmeling because his whole life was going down in flames, whereas Louis never had it better.....

Fair enough.

There's a reason why that fight never got avenged... Douglas lost in his first title defense and went into retirement, while Tyson fought a handful of other fights, and went to prison...

Rather than Cherry pick, would you care to do a comparative analysis of all their challengers and see who comes up short in that department? I will also ad that Spinks and Holyfield are all time great fighters, whereas Baer and carnera weren't.... They also both stood close to 6'3", and weighed around 210 lbs a piece.... Both of them would be larger than the average Louis opponent and needless to say, far better....

Based on what? Legacies that were established more than half a century ago, in a racially political environment, or actual head to head abilities? It should also be noted that while Louis certainly faced some highly regarded men, he also fought a lot of guys who were no where near Tyson's worst opponent... Jack Roper, Tony Musto, Gus Dorazio, Johnny Paycheck, Al Mccoy, Tony Galento and Johnny Davis were not quality challengers and they account for roughly one third of Louis's title defenses..

Losing fights, is losing fights, and frankly it doesn't stop you from commenting on the defeats of modern heavyweights regardless of the reasons.... The difference, is that I'll casually point out the fact that a man in 1940, lost a third of his professional bouts, whereas you'll hammer to death a single defeat on the record of a modern champion....

Absolutely, and there's no reason why I shouldn't have.... He was a solid contender who had beaten all of his opponents, had never lost, and was never floored... He gained recognition by hammering a very recent world champion in only 54 seconds, along with a handful of other named opponents... He was supposed to face Mike Weaver for the WBA title, until Weaver's handler Bob Arum, talked the WBA into defending against James Tills instead.... Now why do you think that is? Given the money that Weaver and Arum would have made facing Cooney over Tillis, you'd think that it was a no brainer, but obviously it was Cooney who was being avoided and not the other way around.... There were some who even favored Cooney to beat Holmes..... Gerry is over rated as a historical fighter, but his rightful status as a number 1 contender in 1982 can't be denied...

 

What makes you think that if he manages to make it to the 6th round that he would all of a sudden turn the tables.

If he makes it to the 6th round it won't be because Tyson packed it in or got tired or whatever. It will be because he was beating Mike all along.

I favor Tyson on this one.

 

In just about every Joe Louis vs. Random Modern Fighter thread on ESB, people go on and on about how Louis didn't face a fighter like Random Modern Fighter.

What I don't understand is why no one ever turns the question around and ask if Random Modern Fighter has ever faced anyone like Joe Louis.

 

I see it the opposite.
Louis was easier to hurt, but he was much more proven in coming back from being hurt and remaining 100% cool and confident even when under serious pressure, and capable of fighting to his fullest.

Tyson was more difficult to hurt, but he was a little less comfortable and cool-headed when he was hurt, and more prone to desperation and frustration, and more likely to become predictable and one-dimensional.

Tyson almost always became a lesser fighter when he was taking a beating ; Louis almost always showed some of his greatest stuff when he was taking a beating.

The idea that Tyson can get rid of Louis with one or two KDs is unrealistic, in my opinion - and just look at some of the bums and washed-up fighters who got up from Tyson KDs, it's not like he KO'd everyone cold.
But the idea that Louis just has to put Tyson down once or twice to beat him (or to render him predictable and impotent, and a relative non-threat) is very realistic, from what I have seen.

And this is the crux of the whole match-up for me.
I call it QUALITY OF FIGHTER.

It's basically a no-brainer for me. I pick Louis, definitely.
But I respect the other opinions.

 

Oh, c'mon now, we know Tyson never fought a Louis, but he fought guys like Frank Bruno, and did you see Frank's muscles ? :hey

 

Tyson. I think his head movement alone would trouble Joe. Tyson's power obviously would get to Joe eventually. Tyson's chin is slightly underrated too(see Ruddock II but not to compare Ruddock to Joe or anything.) Tyson by KO in the later rounds.

 

The very fact that you have to refer to Tyson having slightly more one-punch KO's (which is debatable in itself) shows that there isn't a distinct edge in power. That's all I'm saying. When there aren't lopsided offensive advantages for either, styles become relevant. Like I said, you need more to be able to claim "Tyson just overwhelms him".

Another way of saying it is that either guy has the power to knock the other out. I don't doubt that.

Again, this is too tenuous. I'd probably give Tyson the edge, but he has been seriously hurt in a way I've never seen Louis hurt. Louis is probably more vulnerable defensively in an exchange. Both guys can hurt each-other.

P4P isn't particularly relevant. We're splitting hairs.

Well this is the interesting debate to have. I think Louis was better against guys coming in, and could neutralise Tyson by getting to the punch first when Tyson is bobbing and weaving and then going inside to take away Tyson's punching room once he gets in close. Maybe you disagree.

Who?

Of course it does. You yourself said that Louis was the better finisher. If Tyson would finish Louis when he's hurt, Louis would sure as hell do the same to Tyson. in the opposite situation.

You can't make a guy pay if he hits you with his shots, and Louis was extremely accurate against guys coming in. You can counter the jab if he paws with it and allows it to fall short. The simple jab wouldn't even be that relevant here - Louis preferred to lead with a left hook or a 1-2 against a guy coming in.