Does Anybody Go Against The Status Quo - Tyson Over Louis as a Finisher?

Tyson got out of jail alright, didnt he?

 

Making the probation service see what they want to see.

Any man who is in prison for 10 years, and has nothing else to think about, is going to get prety good at that.

 

I know this thread is getting to be 5 pages long, but I'll throw in my response..


Louis was the better finisher from a technical standpoint.. The only people who survived him during his prime years were men like Bob Pastor who basically refused to engage in head on warfare... His finishing skills were too much for his foe, once he got them hurt.. If you were in trouble against Louis, your prospects of making it out of that round were not good. Tyson was probably the more dangerous overall, but even men like Razor Ruddock and Jose Ribalta were able to go long periods against him, even when getting their asses kicked..

 

Of course Tyson over Louis. Tyson's fluent Ko-combos were textbook finishers while Louis saw his chances to land his right.

 

The only thing worse in undermining Douglas performance in Tokyo is undermining Mike Tyson the fighter.

Joe Louis was dominated and subsequently stopped by Schmeling. Louis settled the rematch unequivocally.

Douglas's stellar performance was heightened by Tyson lack or performance. Tyson never really got set evidenced by a number of factors including the subtleties of his patented pee-a-boo style, to his punch output, and his corner's lack of basic materials including an en swell something that was indicative of Tyson preparation. If you for a second think the Tyson that showed up against Spinks would lose to Douglas then you're entitled to your opinion but the consensus or "status-quo" would suggest otherwise.

By the way Tyson's performance against Spinks was a masterpiece.

 

Tyson was always going to look in shape based on the frequency of his fights,
but there is a difference between mental preparation and physical preparation.

Mike looked off from round 1. The commentary even expressed Tyson may have had a lackluster training camp. He was knocked down in sparring. He fought lazily up until the 6th or 7th round. Seemed to go through motions. I've watched the fight plenty. He was not the same.

As for the Spinks, it was controlled aggression and considering the caliber of opponent; a masterpiece. Tyson's come forward aggression made it appear as though he was lunging recklessly but his punches were well placed and were done in succession.

Just like
Louis-Schmeling 2,
Liston-Patterson I,
and Foreman-Frazier I

Tyson-Spinks deserves the mention

 

Mmm...I'll say this: the six punch combo Tyson landed on Thomas was as good a finish as I've ever seen. He rocked Pink with a left hook moments before, and followed it up with a classic case study in how to finish. Thomas had no chance once Tyson zeroed in for the kill...

The big difference between the two as I see it is that Louis never lost his ability to finish an opponent...even as a faded fighter he put together a beautiful combination to finish off Walcott in their second fight. He siezed upon a split second of opportunity and took it.
Tyson by contrast, as the 90's dawned, seemed to become far more of a headhunter and neglected some of the finer points of his game. If he rocked an opponent, he would sometimes throw wild, almost sloppy punches. Not always, but sometimes.

Louis never got sloppy. He had ice water in his veins. I swear, a bomb could have landed in mid-ring and Louis probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

I don't think the difference in finishing ability between the two is marked though...as I see it it's pretty close.

 

Hard to say because Tyson caught Spinks with a few short punches which can be equally damaging.

Fine I'll give you that.

Of course it was a prime Tyson, up until 1994-1995 is when a physical decline would have happened.

Douglas performance is obviously great but let not forget that Tyson under estimated Douglas and overestimated his ability by neglecting to show up in proper form. He clearly had an off night. A more focused Tyson would have fought with more purpose, he would have countered more and used better head movement. Watch it again, there were too many moments of inactivity for Tyson and he lack of a double jab or just a consistent jab would have helped. He was thinking in the ring and he was just as surprised as the audience and the commentators were that Douglas is showing this kind of resistance. Lets not get carried away here and pretend that Tyson in top form would be ineffective against Buster.

Agreed, the Frazier that fought Foreman was like the Tyson that fought Holyfield. Still capable but not at his peak.

If Foreman's decline is more noticeable its because Tyson is a better fighter and has better form than George.

He never showed a pattern because his 2 fights leading to Douglas didnt have the style to beat him. Tyson mauled Bruno and quickly dispatched Williams. To the public Tyson continued to look good as long as he was winning. But I vehemently disagree that Douglas would have beaten any version of Tyson. Its like saying Schmeling would have beaten any version of Louis.

People make excuses for Ali. Considering how many gift decisions that he has been the recipient of? And not to mention the FOTC? There are people who to this day score the fight for Ali. Despite a clear win for Frazier.

But just to highlight, people don't make the same excuses for Ali that they do for Tyson because Ali always gave his best. Tyson didn't always give his best and the public knows that and when they see that they know that he's far more capable fighter and they see him under perform then they rationalize it. Some make excuses for him no different than any other fighter. Difference is that Tyson is uber famous and has a very large fan base.

I always liked his fight against Pinklon Thomas, one of my favorite to watch over and over again but from a technical standpoint I think Tubbs or Biggs is really his best.

Ruddock was a really good fight. I personally think he ruined Razor after that.

 

THere was an interesting special done on HBO (which I have on VHS), after the Spinks fight where Larry Merchant and Kevin Rooney breakdown the Spinks fight in slow motion. Although the fight appears to be Tyson just steamrolling Spinks, when Rooney breaks it down in slow motion and freezes and points out certain moves in the fight, it becomes apparent just how dialed in Tyson's timing and precision was at that point in time, and why I always felt that was the pinnacle of his career.

 

The equivalent version of Louis to that version of Tyson would be the version that fought Max Baer. Physical peak, firing on all cylinders, but subtle improvments still to be made.

The equivalent version of Tyson to the Louis of the second Buddy Baer fight never happened unfortunately.

 

The Duran comparison is good.

Hold on just a second there. I never said Tyson wasn't in his prime, of course he was in his prime- he was 24. You're physical prime doesn't change according to fights; you CAN lose when you are in your prime and it happens. I'm saying that Tyson had an off night. He wasn't focused and he was far too inactive at times. A more focused version would have beaten Douglas in a competitive fight (assuming the same Douglas shows up) but to suggest that he could not beat him at all? I think that's far too unlikely not because of a superficial reason such as its blasphemous for a fighter like Mike Tyson to be unable to beat a fighter like Buster Douglas but rather because Mike Tyson had the tools and talent necessary to get the job done.



BTW Janitor,

I would have loved to see the equivalent version of Tyson to the Joe Louis from the Buddy Bear fight.

I think by 1992-1993 that could have been him.

By that time I speculate that Tyson would have beaten Lennox before Lennox became "Lennox"
And Bowe, Morrison and Mercer for that matter.

Holyfield (different thread)