Prime Joe Louis vs. Prime Tyson(86-89)

I think Louis would knock Tyson out.

Louis had a great style to deal with Tyson, and at about 6'2 and with longer arms than Tyson, he's gonna score heavily with his deadly straight "one-two" combination.

Tyson would have his moments, but Louis was the better fighter. In quite a tough fight, I'd expect Louis to win by stoppage.

 

Last time i check he beat both of them, by knockout. What about Tyson? Could he take the shot of a journeyman, say... James Douglas?

 

Joe Louis beat a lot of big punchers, took their shots too, like the Baer brothers for example. Those guys were big strong bangers.

So let's not act like Louis would be easy to knock out.

 

Douglas was no journeyman. He was a ranked contender with a fair amount of size, skill, experience,athleticism, and who showed up at his career best. It took not one, but many flush shots over a 10 round period before Tyson finally fell, and he spent more time crawling around looking for his mouth piece then he did trying to get up. He also had some of the most unproffesional clowns in boxing, working his corner, who tried to reduce his swelling with a bag of disolved ice water.

Most importantly, this was not the best rendition of Tyson. For those who are honest, and not trying to use this one performance as a gauge to make a case for a past great beating him, it should be rather apparent.

 

Okay, so i will say Louis '39-42. He never lost during that period, hence he cannot lose this fight. :nut

He went down from one shot. Just ask Holyfield. Louis was knocked down more often, but he literally fought 30 guys who were ranked in the ring top10. Tyson something like half that. So it's no surprise that he got knocked down more often.

True. I never said it was one shot, either.

 

Louis definately showed that he could handle a bigger man who could punch. In all honesty though Sonny, when you've watched clips and replays of guys like Abe Simon, buddy baer and Primo Carnera, were you really that impressed with them? I mean sure they were big guys who were ranked contenders, but I was never paricularly thrilled with their skills on film. I imagine that it was BECAUSE of their size in an era where most men were typically smaller on average that they were able to acheive any real degree of success. There is a huge difference between a big man who is skilled and just a plain big man. Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, Larry Holmes, and even Wlad Klitschko were talented big men who were leagues above Baer, Simon and Carnera in terms of skill, agility, etc. In fact, despite his self confidence issue and fragility, I think Gerry Cooney was probably as good or a bit better than those 3.

 

I think this is true although Carnera was not that bad. I don't think Cooney was better than either of Louis' big guy opponents.

By the way, you could add Douglas to that list. You won't often see a 6'4" 235lbs boxer fight the way he did against Mike Tyson.

 

I'm going with Louis on this one. Although he was KO'd by Schmelling and Marciano, look @ the stiuations. He was young and overconfident against Schmelling, and he took a lot of punsihment from Schmelling before getting KTFO. We all know Marciano's KO record, and Louis was pretty long in the tooth when they fought. Again, Louis took a beating from Rock for 8 rounds before finally being stopped. A weak chinned fighter does not last as long as Louis did against these guys. It was also mentioned that he took on some other serious punchers throughout his career and beat them all.

There is no way I will underrate Tysons power and speed, but the competition in his hey-day was not all that great, so he tended to look more indestructible than he would against truly great fighters, guys in Louis caliber.

Louis was a pretty smart fighter. He would know that Tyson was more dangerous than anyone else he had faced, so early he would employ more of a defensive strategy than in other fights, countering with stiff jabs and bombs when the openings are there. Mid-fight, after weathering the early storm, Louis would become more offensivley oriented and eventually impose his will on Tyson for a late round KO.

 

Louis by KO in 9

 

I think Cooney had a better jab, better hook, better footwork, and probably more power in both hands than did Carnera or Simon. Buudy Baer was probably a little stronger, but Cooney had superior boxing skills. The only area where I see Cooney being inferrior to these three men is his ability to take it against a fighter like Louis, but none of them held up real well either. I would also take my chances on betting on a 1981 version of Cooney to beat or at least give hell to Baer, Simon and Carnera. If he came out aggressive in the early rounds, he might be able to finish them before they lured him into deeper water. Their skills on film were not pretty to watch. Bad defense, insufficient jabbing, poor footwork, limited punch selection, punches that were often telegraphed......You name it....... I'll give Louis credit for demolishing them with little effort, especially given that he fought two of those guys during a 7 month period where he faced a total of 7 challengers on a monthly basis. But if we're honest, they were not particularly talented fighters, and it doesn't make me feel any different to know that they shared the same ring with men who were hall of famers.

As for your comment about Douglas, I agree for the most part. James Douglas between 1988-1990 was in his prime, and although he beat an ill prepared Tyson, was about as well prepared as any challenger could be. He had a well polished jab, right cross, uppercut, footwork, and was in great shape. He looked good at 225 Lbs and being 6'4". He was also 28 or 29 years old I believe, and had some decent wins over Berbick, Page, McCall, and Cobb. A lot of people on this board will roll their eyes at this next comment, but its not out of the question for me to think that if THIS version of Douglas ( not the one who fought Tucker ) had fought Louis, he well may have been the best contender he faced, due to the fact that he possesed a complete all around package, whereas many of Louis's foes didn't.

 

I think there's a difference between come-forward and crowding. I think Tyson was a potent 'coming in' fighter; but Joe liked a guy coming in, too. I don't think Tyson, once he got inside, was as dedicated an infighter as some other guys.
Really, both these guys excelled at medium-short range; it should be a spectacular fight.
(Also, I'm not sure about handspeed, either. I think Louis tended to punch a bit straighter, and that's a very important factor).

 

I think Joe was a very Quick starter, just that Tyson got the ball rolling a bit quicker, and he has all the physical advantages in his favor.:good

 

Why dose he have all the physical advantages in his favour?

Louis has comparable firepower and a significant advantage in reach. An extra 5" of reach is far more usefull in this context than and extra 7lbs of body mass.

By far the bigest factor working against Tson in this fight is the fact that he is going to be the one coming forward into fire. A factor that is seemingly overlooked by most here.

 

i think tyson knocks him out pretty early say round 2-3

 

I think that stylisticaly Tyson is at a huge disadvantage.

How many times when two punchers have fought has the man coming forward actualy won?

It is verry rare for a good reason. When a puncher hits you the last thing you want to be doing is coming forward. When the puncher coming forward wins it is either due to-

A. a big diference in quality in favour of the guy coming forward

or

B. a big diference in durability in favour of the guy coming forward eg Hagler Hearns.

Tyson is clearly not a league above Louis qualatativley. He is more durable but it is not exactly a Hagler Hearns type disparity.

Louis is going to back up just enough to keep Tyson walking into those bombs and nobody could take what Louis could dish out coming forward for long.