More skilled; Louis or Tunney?

Tunney. Louis is the most talented large power puncher in boxing history but he's still a power puncher. When Louis lost his power he was still very good without it but was nowhere near as good as Ezzard Charles who could be viewed as a proxy for someone like Tunney. Louis was 36 and at his best would have been better but he would not have been Joe Louis. As Joe Louis if the fight went the distance it meant something had went wrong.

When you look at HW greats Tunney is just about the smallest point fighter to have the sort of career he's had. Especially if you exclude the Ezzard Charles/Archie Moore era or the Edwardian period. Loughran was in a tougher era than Tunney and maybe if you swap them things are different but his consistency dropped off bad. Bivins and Sharkey had nuclear peaks they couldn't otherwise maintain.

The best HWs Tunney's size or smaller are usually punchers even if we don't see them as such. Miske knocked out Fred Fulton for example. Ketchel and Gibbons were punchers. No one's gotten more out of just their boxing per capita.

 

Tunney may have had better foot speed, and lateral movement.
But other than that. It's all Louis as far skills, hand speed, and
power is concerned.

 

Louis. He was textbook.

 

Louis. He was near perfect i everything he did. Tunney was also supremely skilled, but for my money I'll stick with Joe.

 

These are two of the most influential fighters in my life, in the way I see and understand boxing.
Joe Louis is perfect technique and, if you do it right, you have it all. You have the hand speed, the power in both hands. The movements and motions are simple and effective because they are all based on the flow of your bodyweight from foot to foot.
Tunney was very sound technically and i think that a lot of the variance was due to the issues that he had with his hands throughout his career. With 41 wins by stoppage in 56 victories, the idea that he had "no power" is clearly misleading but I think it is safe to say that he didn't always hit as hard as he could have because of his hands. He moved very well and was a tremendous body puncher.

 

Id say Louis was more gifted but Tunney was a shade more skilled, id also say that H2H both at there best id bet the farm on Tunney to beat Louis

 

It's Louis.

 

Tunney was a basic ***** arm puncher who skittered about the ring and stopped to throw 1-2's. Looked good against the slow twitch and older guys we have film of him against.

Louis by a country mile.

 

I have to go with Tunney. He fought better fighters and knew how to make adjustments. Louis’ title run is a bit overrated. Great fighter but I think Tunney had more nuance and better defense.

 

Not sure that Tunney fought better fighters in the form he that he met them. Dempsey and Gibbons were great, but not by the time they got in the ring with Tunney. Certainly Greb was an ATG but Tunney outgrew him by Greb's own admission.

 

I am going to go against the trend and say that Tunney was more versatile.

He could do offense and defense equally well, and frankly seems to have lacked nothing.

 

Overall it’s Louis. H2H Tunney would move and box and last some rounds but Louis speed and Technique would make the odds overwhelming that he lands a game changing blow that decides the fight.

 

It's been nearly a hundred years since Louis' prime and people still haven't caught up to how skilled Joe Louis was. It's like a biologist who still doesn't rate the theory of evolution that much.