In my opinion, Larry Holmes drew up the blueprints but he wasn't able to get it done, due to where he was at physically. He saw that Tyson was slipping his jab and put it out to make Mike move, and then looked to counter with his right hand. If you watch that fight Larry was putting some heat on his right hand, trying to time Tyson coming in. That caused Tyson to look to tie up inside- he wasn't getting the opportunity to counter coming in. When he tied up Larry was trying to work his body but that wasn't his game. I think that a lot of people misunderstood how to beat Tyson. You were never going to beat Mike Tyson, at his best, with a stick and move strategy. His whole game plan was based on him being hard to hit with a jab. His squared up base let him shift his feet- you can call it turning southpaw but it is really a very very old school way of cutting angles and extending your reach. James Toney did it a lot, too. What you had to do with Tyson is what Fritzie Zivic did with Armstrong; you give up the idea of 'keeping him at the end of your jab' because you just can't do it. You use your jab to see how he is looking to move once he slips it, and then you throw a right hand, a hook, or whatever to the place he is going to. When that happened, Mike would start to think about why he was getting hit and he would often stand straight up while he was thinking. Very specific systems can be a wonderful thing but sometimes, when the system isn't quite working, the practitioners don't know how to fix it.
Open your mind. To write off a fighter with the punching prowess and skills of Joe Louis is like I say nonsense. I’m not saying Louis would beat Tyson but to write it off as a mismatch, well what can I say.
I know there is a school of thought that Tyson storms out and does a Marvis Frazier to Louis or a Spinks and based on styles it's not impossible but it's also very possible that Louis is prepared, warmed up, moves a bit like he did against Max Baer, uses his jab and lands blazing fast early to badly hurt Tyson and it's another fight ... to me no one had the explosive speed and power of the premise Tyson and anything was possible , especially if the opponent did not have an exceptional chin ..
I'm quite sure people would say that Tyson'd dominate Holyfield had the fight not happen. Unfortunately for his fans, this fight happened twice and Evander dominated him.
Joe Louis was a boxer/puncher, with great fundamentals, and a decent ability to also fight inside, because his punches were compact at close range. Does that remind you of anyone? And Joe had more power!
It's not completely unbelievable that Joe Louis could have beaten Mike Tyson, but he would have had to have given the best performance of his life to do it. I see Tyson being way too fast and aggressive for Louis personally. We've also seen Louis been rocked/knocked down early in fights and by lesser punchers than Tyson too. I believe Tyson could take Louis's punches better than Louis could take Tyson's.
Until Tyson fell off the rails? So, in the same post you argue, in all inequity. Louis being KO’d in his “absolute prime” but ignore, dismiss Tyson at just 23 yo, in his own “absolute”’prime, being thoroughly dismantled and ultimately obliterated in 10 rounds by 42-1 underdog Douglas? That requires some heavy mental editing of what actually went down in Mike’s career - Forget predictions of so called mismatches and obliterations in favour of Tyson in the realm of fantasy fights - Tokyo was forecast likewise during Mike’s actual career - in fact it was the greatest margin of advantage afforded to any HW Champ in the face of his next challenger. Forget fantasy or slanted imaginings, Mike was materially wiped out in a fight that absolutely defied popular forecast - a complexion and result that actually saw Mike as the overmatched opponent who was in fact destroyed. So, in comparing Joe to Mike, it seems it’s open season on Louis’ whole career while, at the same time, imposing convenient and false boundaries on Mike’s own assessable career performances - lest Mike’s own chances “on paper” be impugned. A young, 22 yo Louis, 24 fights under the belt, tripped and fell v Schmeling but not before absorbing a lot of punishment. So what. Joe came back - BIG, won the title and avenged his loss in the most emphatic manner. The Schmeling loss is actually an extricable part of the fabric that proved, rather than disproved, how great a fighter Joe ultimately was. Mike? Well he never readily did comeback after Tokyo and the excuses (which Louis didn’t invoke or need) have never stopped since. Isn’t that the truth? Of course, even if fans did believe that Mike would dominate Holy, after the fact of being materially disproven, the “safety net” would be that would it wasn’t “prime” Mike and if it had have been……well, of course Tyson would’ve smashed Holy…the sliding defence never stops…. As to what I believe is “overweighting” of Louis’ performance vs Conn - imagine if a number of key and significant Louis bouts and victories didn’t eventuate in his actual career - say Carnera, Baer, Braddock, the Schmeling rematch etc. Then imagine those fights being considered in the realm of fantasy, the calculated results being heavily based on Louis’ performance v Conn and extrapolation of same. There’s a good chance pundits would NOT predict any where near the successes that Joe did in fact materially achieve against the opposition in question. So much for the Conn fight and it’s actual, workable ramifications and realistic factoring. I think some big errors that are made when calling that fight in are 1) Conn was a far different fighter than those Joe is often being matched against in fantasy 2) Complacency - it happens, but then Joe still won and more emphatically so the second time around - as was Joe’s habit and finally, last but not least 3) Louis’ economy. In a number of instances it kept Joe closely tethered to the quality of his opposition though he was NOT limited to same in all potential. Sometimes, Joe simply ran the “budget” a little too fine - the proof(s) in the pudding(s) were his vastly improved performances and results in rematches when he duly loosened purse strings. Of course Joe couldn’t and wouldn’t be miserly or complacent vs Tyson. Joe would bring it all to the table, he would have to and that means Mike would be in for a very tough fight.
You ignored some of what I wrote, seemingly because it was inconvenient. That is fine, but not ignoring points would show more integrity. But I will address the few things you replied to. Just like you speculating upon the outcome if Tyson was substituted for Louis, saying someone is washed up is an opinion. It is ironically a FACT that any judgement or prediction cannot be a fact. This is basic logic, taught to kids in school at an early age. Also it is not even a common opinion that he was washed up. By the way, past prime is very different than "washed up". Also Schmelling was 31 years old. Even by boxing standards, that is not old. Now 2 years later against Louis, he was past prime, but not washed up even then? Evidence? You falsely said that Max never won a meaningful fight after that. Over a year later he defeated Adolph Heuser, who was 71-7-7, for the: [url]EBU European Heavy Title[/url] [url]Germany BDB Heavy Title[/url] I await your manful admission of a basic mistake. You have gratuitously introduced Trump (your taunting comment about having a severe illness, TDS)-you were not "told" this, & I can only guess that you went off-topic in order to be denigrating-& seeing as your alliances seem primitive & tribal, you must be a member of the Cult of that endlessly criminal, incompetent demagogue & sociopath. But we could communicate respectfully despite different opinions-if you did not resort to juvenile mockery. Mr. Izzard rightly called you out on being obnoxious. You introducing inapplicable, political partisan cliches or attack lines related to what you assume is "woke" is more weaponizing simple debate by piggybacking on your unevolved tendency to pick a side-a lower kind of tribalism-then pick a fight when things should remain civil. Don't you want to be respected here? Why create enemies as if your ego or identity was at stake when folks disagree? Again, I also pick Tyson over Louis, your need to make things personal, demeaning & unpleasant for the forum is dysfunctional. I do not know if you are German, but Eddie is correct: you do not have the right to throw around racial slurs. And I am half German by dint of my Father being from Leipzig. You got one freebie; do not do it again or you will be reporter & likely banned.
You have a right to know what Sahund 2 said. You can put any language through a translator online, Google it & get the results immediately. "We can definitely continue this discussion in German........... Helmut in German is "barking".?............ Do you ever have radio silence in your brain or did you want to say *******? For you and only for you I have not only recorded a very special fanatical hurt feelings document, but have written an entire book on this phenomenon where men are directed by women's feelings....I have also personally signed it for you. Good luck to you in the evil world!" It sounds like a paranoid anti-feminist, angry aggrieved (overwhelmingly white) man rant. The same "hurt feelings" mockery he tried to insult me with-as if instead of being able to defend a racial slur, you can just pretend any audience member who objects is being too sensitive. When actually the petty thing is to mind simple disagreements & need to put down others... Or not be fair & honest enough to admit wrong & apologize if you show malice. Ironically that is being the "snowflake".
I think a lot of HWs beat Louis: Tyson, Lewis, Liston, Ali, Foreman, Bowe, Holyfield, the Klitschkos, Fury, Holmes, Frazier, Mercer, Moorer, Tucker, Lyle, Morrison, Ikeabuchi, Wilder, AJ, and even the HW version of RJJ.
