What Did Joe Louis Do Better Than Mike Tyson

Better jab imo. Could box better from the outside. Better inside fighter.

 

Agree. And I’ll also add that Joe Louis was the best combination puncher of all time. His precision and timing was unmatched. Another thing he did better than Tyson was regain composure when he was hurt or floored to come back and win.

 

-Jabbed more consistently (Tyson had a good one but neglected it).
-Better at parrying.
-Better inside fighter.
-Higher overall ring IQ.
-Was better at making adjustments mid fight.
-More heart (got off the floor to win multiple fights, Tyson didn't do it once).

 

Joe Louis had what in Tyson slang would be called "better spirituality" than Mike Tyson. Joe Louis only lost fights when the opponent was really better.

 

Can't think of anything Louis didn't do better than Tyson. Head movement, maybe?

 

• Carried knockout power into the late late rounds
• Was psychologically unshakable
• Better combinations

 

At the very least, Tyson was more durable than Louis and had a much better defense, even if he didn't sustain it as long.

 

I kind of agree about durability, Tyson could take a hell of an ass whuppin, he took a fair few - but that was his lack of defense, which Louis had the better of.

 

Fight inside,and jab.

 

I don't see them as being similar enough to make such a comparison particularly useful.

Louis was definitely the more versatile of the two.

 

Tyson hit harder with one shot, but he was much
more predictable with his combination punching
than Louis.
Louis's intuitive combo punching , his ability
to hit where the opening will be was 2nd to
none.
Louis had better technique, could get better
power in a shorter distance than Tyson.
Louis had very little wasted motion with
power shots, reduced his opponents
ability to anticipate what was coming.
Head to head, I'd pick Tyson to beat
Louis because of his better defense,
and ability to absorb punishment.
But Louis was the better fighter
offensively .....

 

Joe Louis was better than Tyson (and just about every other fighter in history) at remaining the best fighter in the world for 12-years, winning every fight he contested during that period.

I appreciate that isn't the technical or physical comparison (plenty of good examples of which have already been made) the OP asked for, but, if nothing else, it heavily hints Louis was better than Tyson at remaining disciplined and motivated, whilst possessing the greater versatility and resolve, which is required to win when having an off night and/or fighting at a stylistic disadvantage.

 

Indeed. Each of them cultivated the weapons that best equipped them for their respective but quite divergent styles.

That said, I would hazard that aggressive Boxer-Punchers like Louis, who tended towards fighting in the pocket, needed to be comparatively multifaceted.

 

What does better even mean ?

Better dis better dat......jab combo etc etc

Fought in a entire different era of skill and size.

Tyson fought significantly more big man with skill.

Tyson had never come from behind to beat a Middle weight..

Tyson was never put on his azz by a genuine Bum in Galento.

There was never a "A Bum of the month club" during Tyson reign.

Best vs Best , there is not ONE of Louis's opponents that would succeed vs Tyson and I would be absolute amazed if Conn and Galento lasted more than two rounds combined..................stiff open as a Barn door Baer.........Schmelling lol...Carerra lol..Journeyman Walcott.......that leaves us with Moore who aint got the chin ......

By best I mean both foes switched full on.