Better Finisher - Dempsey, Louis or Tyson

I disagree.

Watch an aged Louis against Walcott, down on the losing end against a great heavyweight, turn the fight around by stunning his opponent... and once stunned, it was all over.

As much as I love Mike, I never saw him do that... unless Francois Botha was a great heavyweight.

 

I would say Joe Louis.

 

Well... because he was.. wider ****nal of blows,faster,more explosive ,as accurate and a man that he had in trouble was a knocked out man,tyson was better than joe louis overall too

 

My dear.. walcott would not last 2 rounds with tyson,no cruiser (in the ring) would last 2 rounds with tyson

 

None of this would necessarily make him a better finisher.

Results are what count at the end of the day.

 

Louis for me. He had a way of stepping it up and getting the job done when his opponent was hurt.

 

Regarding the Fulton fight ,you are speaking figuratively?

 

If you take 70% of Louis' and Tyson's filmed ko's out of the equation ,there isn't a gnat's c*ck between them.:good

Louis the more clinical?

 

But Quick Tills and Blood Green go the distance?

 

I take Louis, I loved the precision of his punches when he had someone in trouble. I believe, technically the best puncher in heavyweight history.

 

Off of the top of my head from what I've seen Louis is the best, Tyson is next because he couldn't finish Douglas, Dempsey is last because he knocked down Willard and Tunney and couldn't finish them. (Willard wasn't down in the 2nd or 3rd)

 

Idk. Anyone who can make people miss with slick movement like Walcott is going to be a dangerous opponent. Any boxer leaving himself open is vulnerable, and Walcott was good at leaving people open.

Louis fought giants and mice, and sometimes the mice lasted longer.

 

Obviously I have not seen the Fulton fight, but I am satisfied that it was a bad night for Fulton.

 

A bad 23 seconds anyway.

 

And the result of tyson was better janitor..