Prime for prime, best heavyweight ever - head to head

Prime Tyson beats any boxer past and present in the ring.

 

There was nothing premature about the McCall stoppage. Lewis was on the corner of Alltheway and ***** streets...

 

I think it is rather stupid to say x fighter can't win or would lose vs y fighter when those 2 fighters are from different generations.

It is dumb. Why? Because there are SO MANY things that separate them - not just talent and skill.

First off all, the rules of boxing has changed. Rounds have changed (Ali fought in the 15 round era). So has the weight classes.

Second is training and nutrition. With modern cardio, high elevation, nutritional supplements, etc. - modern fighters have the advantage that modern classic fighters do not. And you can't easily separate that from a fighter. IF Ali had modern conditioning, his punching power might be better? That is a big if. How do we know?


I would ALWAYS pick a modern fighter to beat a classic fighter (say Lewis vs Ali, or Klit vs Holmes). But that does not make the modern fighter GREATER than the classic fighter. Greatness should be measured what they accomplished with their peers. And Ali accomplished more than anyone.

So short answer is - Lewis would beat all of them but Ali is still greater than him by a good wide margin. You could fit 12 Butterbeans between them.

(but in my heart, I would love 88 Tyson to KTFO every single one of them in 3 rounds or less)

 

Prime Joe Frazier Beats prime Tyson.

 

Don't do it! lmao. I rate Joe Frazier so much higher than Tyson, although on a strictly H2H basis Tyson would TKO Frazier in the early rounds 9 times out of 10.

The question is, who fairs better amongst the two against the ATG heavyweights from every era? I can never seem to decide, my imagination gets the best of me.

 

Ali. As far as Tyson, he would have a meltdown by the 11th round once he knew he couldn't KO Ali. Whether it be twelve or fifteen rounds, it would be the same outcome. Ali was ahead of his times with the training and conditioning he was put through so Lewis would lose via decison. There is a lot of what if's. What if Lewis was not trained by Manny, would he be the same fighter that many love or hold up high as an ATG?

 

I go with Larry Holmes versus any HW at his prime.

 

Ali

 

I'm not even going to spend all day debating this with you, rather I'll leave you with a few points.

1. You asked "why he was so dominant?" Ok, let me tell you why. Because he fought the likes of Tommy Farr, Harry Thomas, Jack Roper, "Two Ton" Tony Galento, Red Burman, Al McCoy, Gus Dorazio, Tony Musto, Buddy Baer twice, etc. Do you get it? Have you ever heard of the "bum of the month club"? He was outboxed easily by Billy Conn, so just imagine what Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes would have done to him. I don't think "one of the most complete fighters ever" gets outboxed so easliy. Yes, he did come back and get the KO and that's what counts in the end.

2. You said "His composite punching skills are the best seen from any HW in history in my eyes. He could switch from body to head with any punch in the book effortlessly." Ok, how about a prime Mike Tyson or Floyd Patterson? Have you ever seen any footage on those guys? Even Evander Holyfield. Joe Louis was a slow, stalking heavyweight. Muhammad Ali once said he was like a mummy. I know Ali said the same about Foreman, but Louis also fit the description.

3. Ok, first you say "The no head movement statement is irrelevant. He kept his head in the perfect off-center stance, rather than dead center." Then a contradiction follows "He did have head movement, he also had upper-body movement". Ok, did he or not? I, like any other knowledgeable boxing fan, know that Louis' head only moved when his opponent's punch landed on it. He had no head movement and slow foot movement. He fought very well against guys like himself.

4. Another "smart" thing you said was "He is probably as complete a heavyweight as we have ever seen." Complete fighters have head movement, foot movement and know how to bring their jab back as fast as they shoot it.

5. Lastly, I would like to say that Joe Louis is a great fighter. I never said he wasn't great, I just said he is overrated. How would Louis deal with a prime Ali's fast hands and feet? Or Larry Holmes for that matter? Or how about Lennox Lewis' skilled size? Imagine that shaky chin vs. a young George Foreman or even Sonny Liston. I'm not saying he would definitely lose to ALL of those men, but it is VERY possible. I could list a lot of heavyweights that I think could beat Louis. It's all speculation though, so why waste my time. I've wasted enough of my time responding to your nonsense.

 

H2H though? I don't think so.

 

an ALI-Tyson trilogy would end up 2-1. saying that because Tyson can win on the first with quick footwork. If he does win though, he won't be able to repeat that performance on a rematch.

 

Muhammad Ali - The Greatest!!!

nuff said!!!!

 

That's because you have no real arguement here.

They weren't ATG heavyweights, but the likes of Farr and Galento were still very good fighters. He dominated the division for years against all-comers and all styles of fighters. Are you going to completely ignore the wins over top 20 HW's Schmeling and Walcott then? Or against Baer-conqueror Braddock?

Yes, he got out-boxed by Billy Conn, who just so happened to be an elite fighter who was a world-class boxer with speed, intelligence and a great ability to read his opponent. But the thing is as you say, Louis got the knock-out. That's what matter's. Even on a night when he was struggling he round a way to win. And he was dominant in the rematch.

Tyson had fantastic offensive skills, but Louis was a more complete offensive fighter. He probably had the better jab - although I feel Tyson's is often under-rated but it wasn't really a tool of his - and was a better counter puncher.

And yes I have seen footage. And it's masked. It's poor quality 1930's/40's film. If you actually take the time to watch it in slow motion closely, you will see the subtle technical skills of Joe Louis. There's a big video up on youtube on the very same subject, I suggest you go and watch that.

Louis was not slow. That's an idiotic thing to say. He was quick, believe that. And to compare him to Foreman in style shows your clear lack of knowledge. Louis in stance first of all was completely different. He had the perfect classical stance with his head off-center out of his opponents line of attack. He turned his body side on to minimalise the target, and his hands and arms to protect his center line of defence and body.

He was also a far better technical fighter than Foreman, who was about size, presence, power and raw out physical strength. Louis had power, but he wasn't that big of a heavyweight. He was quicker than Foreman, with a better jab and far better technique and variety of punches with a more accomplished defensive skill-set.

It's not a contradiction. I didn't say 'he didn't have no head movement' at first, did I? I just said it's irrelevant anyway because his stance meant he could get away with not constantly moving his head. Yet I'm telling you that he did anyway.

He had head movement, he had foot movement and he had an excellent all-round jab. You've clearly never seen him fight. I suggest you go and watch some footage - preferrably the video I mentioned earlier - before I continue to debate and school you.

Well Louis himself fancied the job against Ali for several reasons. Firstly, Ali struggled against a good jab. Look at the Ken Norton fights, or the Doug Jones fight. A good jab foiled him because he didn't have the guard to see it off. He merely tried to lean back out of range of it or slip it. That's okay with the likes of Liston, who's jab had everything but speed, because he could see it coming. Louis had one of the most powerful jabs in HW history and it was quick and accurate like the rest of his punches.

He also noted that Ali didn't protect his body properly. Louis could hit the body as good as most at HW and he had the power to wear Ali's energy down and try to take away some of that footspeed. And then he could go about switching his punches up from head-to-body-to-head again from all angles with power, pace and precision.

Would he of been able to defeat Ali? I don't know. But to say he loses to MANY heavyweight's in history is ridiculous. You clearly haven't stuided Louis at all, and are probably going off some terrible late 30's footage that's 2 minutes long and shows nothing. Go and watch him in depth, in slow-mo, closely and find some good quality footage and you will see the fighter he really is, because you clearly don't have a clue.

 

Have you all gone NUTS!

Who the hell said Buster Douglas didn't beat a prime Tyson! Tyson was undefeated and only 24 years old when Buster beat him like a drum. There was no talk of of Tyson not being 'prime' before that fight and he was a massive favourite to win.

He got found out and that is the problem, you can't just expunge the Douglas defeat like it never happened. It did happen, he got badly beat and as a result you really have to question his so called greatness.

Sorry guys time to move on.... Tyson just isn't the one

:hi::thumbsup

Legion - Life is **** and then you die