How are Joe Louis's opponents any better than Tysons'?

I wouldn’t classify ALL of either man’s opponents as being better than ALL of the other’s. But I think if we were to take a few of Louis’s top guys like Schmeling, Conn, Pastor and Walcott, they may have a case for being more disciplined outside the ring as well as having better fundamentals. To be sure, they weren’t physical giants. But they were certainly highly skilled and utilized every tool they had.

Now let’s look at one of Tyson’s opponents ( and not necessarily his best but a prime contender. ) Tyrell Biggs…. He had everything… Olympic gold medal… undefeated record… managed by the Duvas. Was 6’5”, 225 lbs and 28 years of age.. didn’t have to hold a job or do anything but train. The man had no discipline outside the ring. Blew off workout sessions to get high. Then when he fought Tyson he was there to get hit. To be clear this wasn’t Tyson’s BEST opponent but he was certainly one of his top title challengers when Mike was at his best, and just a prime example.

In contrast Billy Conn trained his ass off for Louis, did what his trainers told him to do and never stopped moving in that ring.

I don’t know if I’ve answered the question of the thread and I could certainly be wrong. But Over the years I’ve begun to dismiss the idea that just because some athletes came in a later period doesn’t guarantee being better. Yes many of them were bigger, stronger and in a few cases faster. Hell some later guys were even more skilled than their predecessor athletes. But many of them also don’t use everything they’ve got or have the discipline required to compete at the top level. In Louis’s time if you wanted to make money and a name for yourself you had to do it with sweat, blood and smarts..

 

Schmeling > literally all of Tyson's wins.

 

There were more of them.

That at least is beyond dispute.

 

For their respective eras? In that Louis beat more fighters who were ranked as the world's best HW aside from himself, than Tyson did.

 

Imo, they were for their time, just as Tysons were.

 

Louis was more consistent in beating high rated guys but thats just in general he had the longest reign in history for any division. His losses were never anything to b ashamed of either all solid fighters HOF worthy. Imagine if Tyson had anywhere near that discipline?

 

P4P - 4
H2H - 0

 

To Tysons credit he pretty much fought every top fighter apart from Spoon and Holy, in an underrated era.

 

Never said was good, just that they fitted in for their time. If I'm being honest, a lot of those guys that went 4 or more rounds with Louis, probably wouldn't last 2 with Tyson.
But they did OK for their time.

 

Not really, Schmeling was like 194 when he faced Louis, to Louis' 198. He's a way better fighter than anyone Mike's beaten.

 

Overall, each had some very good opponents but neither man's group of opponents was of a particularly high quality. That happens with almost any man who makes a lot of successful title defenses. There aren't that many high quality fighters in any one era that are going to cause great fighters to struggle. It's the same for 1960s Ali, Wladimir Klitschko, Naoya Inoue and many others. Whether it's skill, discipline or motivation most lack at least one of these which is why they aren't ATGs themselves.

 

LOL, why dont you start a thread with a poll if old Schmeling has any chance vs Tyson...................he aint making it out of the second round, even post prison Tyson ko's him flat, mismatch.