Tomasino wrote: ↑08 Jan 2018, 20:43yes yes but did you ever see mikes biceps, they were huge compared to louisAmbling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Jan 2018, 16:11 His point was that often a lighter fighter beats a heavier fighter. The needle on the scale doesn't win you fights.
If it was, Louis would have lost to guys much bigger than Tyson.
Tyson was more powerful than Douglas. He was also faster. And he still lost.
You are ignoring many factors. Louis was taller and had a longer reach. He had a better jab. He was better defensively. He was tougher. He was a more accurate puncher. He was a smarter fighter than Tyson who unlike Tyson had a Plan B.
All you keep saying is that Louis would not be able to take Tyson's power. As if Louis would have just stood there wide open and let Tyson nail him.
Since Louis was more accurate and better defensively, Louis would land more often and would be more likely to land his best shot first.
What happens if Louis nails Tyson with a major shot? You seriously don't think he could hurt him? Louis was one of the best finishers the sport ever saw when he hurt a guy.![]()
Always love it when people who like to pick out the numbers ignore it when it doesn't favor their guy. Usually with the more modern fighter, people will point to the stats that will usually favor them (WBS title defenses, win/loss records, etc.) They can't even do that with Tyson, so we are going with weights of the fighters (and carefully chosen their opponents), as if that is some full proof system. Then it gets ignored when it's pointed out that Louis beat fighters who weighed than Tyson.
People that love to point out heights and reach are quiet about it this time.
Tyson weighed more than Louis and Louis had a fight where he struggled against a smaller guy. Nothing more to see here.
Just crazy to talk about fighting ability, isn't it?