Both these guys were unique fighters. But who do you think was the one most ahead of his contemporaries? Tyson had the greatest combination of speed, power and accuracy that we've seen to this day, but in a technical sense I don't really see him as an improvement of previous D'Amato adepts such as Patterson. Louis also had great physical assets, but perhaps not as freak like as Tyson's. On the other hand, I think he really looks a generation ahead of his contemporaries in terms of balance, poise and accuracy. So who do you think was the true 2.0 version of the two?
I guess that something a bit like Tyson comes along more often than something a bit like Louis. I don't think either of them relay represented anything new, merely good use of what was already known.
Its a tough question, Louis was greater, but Tyson always had an uphill battle due to the size difference between him and his opponents and even then 90% of the time he still won. If both were to switch opponents, which one would perform better? I think there lays your answer.
I think Tyson was the more unique, the more "advanced". I think Louis was the more perfected. Not sure this answers your question.
I think the smoothness and accuracy in his movements that Louis showed for a HW was something new at the time. Just as SRR was ahead of the guys his size. Concerning Tyson... Seeing a 220 lbs fighter attack with the same speed and fluid accuracy (but even more ferocity) as 185 lbs Patterson did was certainly something new, even if the moves really weren't. That's my take anyhow.
I disagree, both men were unique. Lots of Tyson wannabes have come and gone, not one of them was anything close to Tyson. Morrison, Mercer, Tua, Briggs, Wilder etc can any of them claim they outboxed a guy with skills and size like a Tony Tucker? Morrison came the closest by outboxing a 40 year old slow ass George Foreman. Tyson could knock you out, brawl with you, outbox you and he did show some glimpses of counter punching (Botha, Mathis) A fighter like Tyson only comes around once.
Not for me. I don't like to compare between eras in boxing any more than I'd like to hypothesize about how Pele would do in the Prem or La Liga nowadays. He was clearly the giant of his time and that's what matters for me really.
I could throw Jack Dempsey and Floyd Patterson into the argument. Granted they were smaller. When we start going into the lower weight classes, a few people come to mind.
The point i was trying to make was to see who would handle the others opposition better, that would give an idea of who was a better fighter. Louis was more complete and kept his toolset for a longer period, but Tyson during his short peak was close to perfection.
I was referring to heavyweights only. I was mainly focusing on the guys who came after Tyson But yeah i forgot about Dempsey, but between Jack and Mike there was what 60 odd years?
Louis was more dominant in his era, a great era, by the way. The Bum of the month club had amazing fighters.(Tony Galento, Buddy Baer, Tony Musto, Billy Conn, Arturo Godoy, Lou Nova, Johnny Paycheck) Tyson had a very short prime and didn't fight the best fighters of his era.
what are you talking about? he fought all the relevant heavyweights of his era? Holmes, Spinks, Holyfield and Lewis?
Not sure either of them was "ahead of" their times. They were just better than the men of their particular times. In Tyson's case that wasn't very long at all.
