Joe Louis vs. Mike Tyson

[MrGuy]

Go to 8.30 of this clip. The decision is the referee did NOT err. I have less than zero interest in idiotic claims that Octavio Meyran somehow wanted to " save " Douglas. Controversy? Possibly. A mix up between the ref and the timekeeper? Perhaps.



But this conspiracy shite about Tyson being intentionally denied victory is pure bollox.

So I will ask you, exactly what skills you think Tyson had that could possibly bother either the greatest or 2nd greatest Heavyweight EVER? By the way if you believe Tyson was washed up when Lewis KO'd him, what the fuk does that make Joe when Marciano KO'd HIM?

And if Holy was Tyson's kryptonite what the hell does that make Williams and McBride, who were NEVER more than domestic level fighter at ANY time in their careers. For someone who claims not to be a tyson fan you are doing a pretty good job of acting like one, with all these half baked excuses for his defeats.

You do realize by the time he suffered those defeats later on, was a pro for close to 20 years.

Who the fuk are you whinging about now?

Louis is rated based on what he did. Not who he could beat

.

Seriously!! Are you on drugs, or are you simply stupid?

You laugh because Foreman lost to Young, but wont explain how Louis almost lost to what would now be a super middleweight.

I will try my best to give you a clue. If you are too stupid to grasp the clue, I suggest you ask members of your family. Or if they are equally as stupid, perhaps you could trawl the internet and search for a carer. Here is the clue.

I ALMOST won the lottery in October 2015. All I needed was 2 more numbers, and I would have won more that 100 million Euros.

All that ranting. Yet no explanation as to how a super middleweight almost beat him. Highlight almost all you want. It doesnt take away from the embarassing fact he still almost lost to him.

[Kalan]

Louis was gone when he faced Marciano -- just like Tyson was equally gone when he faced McBride and Williams... Those fights are not relevant because both fighters should be judged on their peak career fights... Not when they were getting old and just trying to make an honest living so they could support their wives and children.

Douglas and Lewis aren't relevant because Louis never faced anyone 6'4" X 232 or 6'5 X 250 who had that combination of size, speed, strength, punching power, and boxing skill... When Louis faced a 174-pound guy who could box well---like Billy Conn---he got beaten for 12 rounds... When Tyson faced a 212-pound guy who could box well, in the person of Undefeated Lineal Heavyweight Champion of the World Michael Spinks... The smaller and weaker Spinks got crushed pronto... A guy his size facing the speed and power of a prime and ripped 218-pound Mike Tyson was like pissing into a hurricane.

[MrGuy]

All that ranting. Yet no explanation as to how a super middleweight almost beat him. Highlight almost all you want. It doesnt take away from the embarassing fact he still almost lost to him.

No ranting sonny boy, just plain FACTS.

Now run along and ask your mama to ALMOST put you to bed.

I would but she's still laughing over Louis vs Conn.

[MrGuy]

Imagine that.

A so called ATG, fights a plum who has already lost 4 ALL by KO, gets splattered by said plum, who then has another 8 fights, and loses 6 of them.

GTFOH.

And this cretin is gonna beat Joe Louis.

The whole idea of the McBride fight was so the rapist scum could go out on a winning note, and the useless filth even got that wrong.

On the other hand he almost didnt get beat by someone who weighed 171 lbs.

[Kalan]

Imagine that.

A so called ATG, fights a plum who has already lost 4 ALL by KO, gets splattered by said plum, who then has another 8 fights, and loses 6 of them.

GTFOH.

And this cretin is gonna beat Joe Louis.

The whole idea of the McBride fight was so the rapist scum could go out on a winning note, and the useless filth even got that wrong.

On the other hand he almost didnt get beat by someone who weighed 171 lbs.

Right... And Mike didn't get knocked stiff (Louis made no attempt to get up) in his prime by Schmeling who weighed 192..

Nobody can even picture The Tyson who crushed ATG Michael Spinks and made easy work of ATG Larry Holmes getting knocked out by anybody who weighed 171 or 192... Iron Mike would crush either like a roach.

[Controversial]

Right... And Mike didn't get knocked stiff (Louis made no attempt to get up) in his prime by Schmeling who weighed 192..

Nobody can even picture The Tyson who crushed ATG Michael Spinks and made easy work of ATG Larry Holmes getting knocked out by anybody who weighed 171 or 192... Iron Mike would crush either like a roach.

I agree. Tyson gets criticised for losing to Douglas aged 23 however Louis was 22 when Schmeling knocked him out, a fighter who would be a cruiserweight today.

Schmeling was aged 32. He was 6'1" and 192lbs with a 48-7-4 record and 76" reach
Douglas was aged 29. He was 6'4" and 232lbs with a 29-4-1 record and 83" reach

Louis never had a Grade A chin and people think he could take Tysons best shots !!

I take no notice of Tysons losses to McBride and Williams. Even Lewis to an extent. Anymore than I give Holmes and Berbick credit for beating Ali or Marciano credit for beating Louis.

[Controversial]

On the other hand he almost didnt get beat by someone who weighed 171 lbs.

There was no almost didn't get beat in the Tyson / Douglas fight ( whatever the fuk that is supposed to mean ) that boy got well and truly smashed.

I think the point is no fighter that size would come close to beating Tyson, whereas they gave Louis a hard time. I don't like these mythical matchups with old time heavyweights because sheer size will be a factor in most cases, of course there are exceptions. Fighters should be ranked as they were at the time, Louis was great for his time but I don't believe that means he would be great today. At the end of the day boxing was different then, no CW division, depleted talent pool due to WW2 and lots of LHWs fighting as HWs.

Tyson was considered small when he fought, Haye at 6'3" and 15.7 stone is now considered small. Liston and Foreman would be small. The reason the Klits dominated wasn't because they were fantastic fighters, it was because they were big and knew how to use it to their advantage.

If Tyson and Louis fought at some point Tyson would land on him and that would decide the fight. Louis' chin wasn't his best asset.

[Ambling Alp II]

And size is vastly overrated with heavyweights. If we actually look at real results when a great fighter under 200 pounds actually fought someone over 220, he won almost every time.
It's borderline if Louis and Tyson fit these guidelines. Louis was usually (though not always) over 200 and Tyson was usually around 220.

The point is that have to look at how good they were and forget the needle on the scale.
I agree that Louis did not have a great chin. Tyson was certainly capable of taking him out. But I am going to raise something that for some reason nobody points out" Tyson really didn't have that great of a chin either. While Holyfield and Douglas had some pop, they were certainly not on Louis level in the power department.
Obviously neither had glass jaws, but they didn't have iron chins either. Both were capable of taking the other out. The question is what is more likely.

Louis was also a very accurate puncher; accuracy is important even though it's rarely talked about. Louis would be landing on Tyson more than vice versa.

[Syntax Error]

But when met with someone like a Douglas a Lewis or a Holyfield it wasn't worth a cup of cold piss. .

İt wasn't worth a cup of what..?

1- Douglas was saved by the grace of that referee in that fight, last time I checked. He was counted out and lost the fight literally in the first place. Or.. that was a headbutt(!?) So, what kind of an ignorance is this...

2- vs. Lewis: İt was "washed-up" Tyson. This example only worths a cup of cold piss.

3- vs. Holyfield: Was not peak. Also styles makes fights, and Holyfield was Tyson's Kyriptonite..

I'm not a Tyson fan. But facts are facts.
And despite his inferior size, his accomplishments were outstanding.

Joe louis of that era: 6 or 7 out of 10 Tyson takes it.
Joe louis nowadays (hypothetical)version: 8 out of 10 Louis takes it.

Douglas was not counted out; he beat the referee's count: that is all he had to do.

[MrGuy]

Anyone who gets thrashed, humilated then KTFO by Buster Douglas isn't even entitled to dream about beating Joe Louis, never mind actually get in the ring with him.

Tyson would do exactly what he did against Buster, NOTHING. He would be too busy eating punches to throw anything worthwhile in return, but with Joe it would be all over inside 6 rounds. He wouldn't just use the jab to pile up points, he would use it to execute those fast accurate combinations. Tyson looked a useless mug against Buster, so a guy with Louis' class would completely ridicule the clown.

The Schmelling fight was Ring Mag fight of the year in 1936, the humiliation of Tyson by Douglas wasn't even up for consideration. We also know what happened when Joe rematched Schmelling, shame Tyson lacked the guts to rematch Buster.

If fact the only guy Tyson did have the guts to rematch after being beaten by him, ended up truly exposing the beast. Rather than take yet another humiliating towsing the filth bit the guy so he could be thrown out. A greater example of cowardice would be hard to find.

And this is the kind of shite you want to put in with Joe Louis.

Any version of Douglas is champion in the era of Louis.

[MrGuy]

And size is vastly overrated with heavyweights. If we actually look at real results when a great fighter under 200 pounds actually fought someone over 220, he won almost every time.
It's borderline if Louis and Tyson fit these guidelines. Louis was usually (though not always) over 200 and Tyson was usually around 220.

The point is that have to look at how good they were and forget the needle on the scale.
I agree that Louis did not have a great chin. Tyson was certainly capable of taking him out. But I am going to raise something that for some reason nobody points out" Tyson really didn't have that great of a chin either. While Holyfield and Douglas had some pop, they were certainly not on Louis level in the power department.
Obviously neither had glass jaws, but they didn't have iron chins either. Both were capable of taking the other out. The question is what is more likely.

Louis was also a very accurate puncher; accuracy is important even though it's rarely talked about. Louis would be landing on Tyson more than vice versa.

Douglas and Holyfield basically had to hit him over and over again with clean shots over several rounds, to take him out. Certainly dont think he was chinny.

[Kalan]

And size is vastly overrated with heavyweights. If we actually look at real results when a great fighter under 200 pounds actually fought someone over 220, he won almost every time.
It's borderline if Louis and Tyson fit these guidelines. Louis was usually (though not always) over 200 and Tyson was usually around 220.

The point is that have to look at how good they were and forget the needle on the scale.

Great athletes are getting bigger… How many Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds did we see in the first 60 years of the 20th Century??? … How many Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds have we seen in the last 60 years???

Your “weight guidelines” are deliberately contrived and arbitrary... They’re designed to disregard the most OBVIOUS size mismatches in Heavyweight History… Everybody but YOU recognizes the role size played in the following fights.

Jim Jeffries won all his fights with Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons because of his much greater size and strength… He wasn’t a more clever or skilled boxer then Gentleman Jim – yet he trashed him twice because he could take everything… When Jeffries went in with a taller fellow who was well over 200 pounds (Jack Johnson) he got trashed.

Johnson chased after Burns for years and finally found somebody to put up a fortune so Burns would meet him.. Although a very small Heavyweight by today’s standards, Johnson was described by Jack London as a “Colossus facing a Pygmy” cuz the size difference was so stark. Burns was so small he could barely land a punch on Johnson who toyed with the diminutive Burns and tortured him “I certainly wanted to ladle out Burns’ 30,000 dollars’ worth of punishment” before knocking him out.

Floyd Patterson avoided the huge and powerful Sonny Liston for years until President Kennedy said he would love to see the 2 fight... When they finally met it was obvious size and strength played the major role in the matchup, since Sonny smashed the much smaller Patterson like he was squishing a little mouse… Patterson wanted a rematch – and it was another squish job.

Joe Frazier was another very teeny Heavyweight who faced the colossal George Foreman, who was 4 inches taller, with arms and shoulders that were twice the size of the diminutive Smokin’.. Foreman battered the little tyke for 5 straight minutes and 6 knockdowns before the ridiculous mismatch was halted.

The above big men were also good athletes – or admittedly they would NOT have won… But their victims were ALSO good athletes.. So it wasn’t athletic ability that decided those matchups... The big difference was size and strength.. Anybody who doesn’t think size matters when matching great athletes, should ask why we don’t dispose of weight divisions..

Why was the cruiserweight division installed??? Because the size of great Heavyweights has been dramatically increasing in the last 2 generations – just as the size, strength and speed of basketball and football players has increased substantially since the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s, the size of the greatest Heavyweight boxers has thrusted upwards.

As I said, it was very common to see Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds for the first 60 years of the 20th Century... How many Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds have we seen in the last 60 years??? In the future we are EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to see ANY Lineal Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds... Floyd Patterson was the last holdout, but he got CRUSHED by Sonny Liston over 50 years ago...

It’s a new day folks. The old has gone and the new and improved has arrived... Tyson would crush the undersized Louis like he did the extremely mismatched 212-pound UNDEFEATED LINEAL HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION Michael Spinks...

[MrGuy]

And size is vastly overrated with heavyweights. If we actually look at real results when a great fighter under 200 pounds actually fought someone over 220, he won almost every time.
It's borderline if Louis and Tyson fit these guidelines. Louis was usually (though not always) over 200 and Tyson was usually around 220.

The point is that have to look at how good they were and forget the needle on the scale.

Great athletes are getting bigger… How many Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds did we see in the first 60 years of the 20th Century??? … How many Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds have we seen in the last 60 years???

Your “weight guidelines” are deliberately contrived and arbitrary... They’re designed to disregard the most OBVIOUS size mismatches in Heavyweight History… Everybody but YOU recognizes the role size played in the following fights.

Jim Jeffries won all his fights with Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons because of his much greater size and strength… He wasn’t a more clever or skilled boxer then Gentleman Jim – yet he trashed him twice because he could take everything… When Jeffries went in with a taller fellow who was well over 200 pounds (Jack Johnson) he got trashed.

Johnson chased after Burns for years and finally found somebody to put up a fortune so Burns would meet him.. Although a very small Heavyweight by today’s standards, Johnson was described by Jack London as a “Colossus facing a Pygmy” cuz the size difference was so stark. Burns was so small he could barely land a punch on Johnson who toyed with the diminutive Burns and tortured him “I certainly wanted to ladle out Burns’ 30,000 dollars’ worth of punishment” before knocking him out.

Floyd Patterson avoided the huge and powerful Sonny Liston for years until President Kennedy said he would love to see the 2 fight... When they finally met it was obvious size and strength played the major role in the matchup, since Sonny smashed the much smaller Patterson like he was squishing a little mouse… Patterson wanted a rematch – and it was another squish job.

Joe Frazier was another very teeny Heavyweight who faced the colossal George Foreman, who was 4 inches taller, with arms and shoulders that were twice the size of the diminutive Smokin’.. Foreman battered the little tyke for 5 straight minutes and 6 knockdowns before the ridiculous mismatch was halted.

The above big men were also good athletes – or admittedly they would NOT have won… But their victims were ALSO good athletes.. So it wasn’t athletic ability that decided those matchups... The big difference was size and strength.. Anybody who doesn’t think size matters when matching great athletes, should ask why we don’t dispose of weight divisions..

Why was the cruiserweight division installed??? Because the size of great Heavyweights has been dramatically increasing in the last 2 generations – just as the size, strength and speed of basketball and football players has increased substantially since the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s, the size of the greatest Heavyweight boxers has thrusted upwards.

As I said, it was very common to see Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds for the first 60 years of the 20th Century... How many Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds have we seen in the last 60 years??? In the future we are EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to see ANY Lineal Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds... Floyd Patterson was the last holdout, but he got CRUSHED by Sonny Liston over 50 years ago...

It’s a new day folks. The old has gone and the new and improved has arrived... Tyson would crush the undersized Louis like he did the extremely mismatched 212-pound UNDEFEATED LINEAL HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION Michael Spinks...

Agree with much of what you said.. However I think they've become to big. For every Lewis and Wlad, you have dozens of huge guys that jab and lay on people. So we can agree to disagree. But your point on size is very valid and common sense.

[Kalan]

Agree with much of what you said.. However I think they've become to big. For every Lewis and Wlad, you have dozens of huge guys that jab and lay on people. So we can agree to disagree. But your point on size is very valid and common sense.

I think we agree 100%....

For every "great" 6' X 200 pound fighter like Joe Louis there were 100's of guys his size who were mediocre or worse like Jack Roper, Paulino Uzcudun, Tony Musto, Arturo Godoy ... Why will anything change as athletes get bigger and stronger?

For every 6'3" X 217 George Foreman---who had the athletic gifts to crush Frazier and Norton---there were 100's of guys Foreman's size who couldn't... Francesco Damiani and Tyrell Biggs weren't very strong, smart, or fast, but had decent size.

For every great 6'6" X 250 guy like Anthony Joshua and Wladimir Klitschko, who put on one of the greatest fights in Heavyweight History, you have 100's of slow, ponderous, and unathletic guys like Michael Grant, Andrew Golota, Lou Savarese, Tye Fields, Julius Long, Ray Austin, Tony Thompson and may other also-rans.

Height, weight, reach, and overall size and strength have to be combined with "The Package." But generation by generation Olympic and World records fall because more big and powerful athletes have the package, meaning: intelligence, speed, toughness, vision, balance, reflexes, coordination, agility, courage, work ethic, character, etc.

[MrGuy]

Agree with much of what you said.. However I think they've become to big. For every Lewis and Wlad, you have dozens of huge guys that jab and lay on people. So we can agree to disagree. But your point on size is very valid and common sense.

I think we agree 100%....

For every "great" 6' X 200 pound fighter like Joe Louis there were 100's of guys his size who were mediocre or worse like Jack Roper, Paulino Uzcudun, Tony Musto, Arturo Godoy ... Why will anything change as athletes get bigger and stronger?

For every 6'3" X 217 George Foreman---who had the athletic gifts to crush Frazier and Norton---there were 100's of guys Foreman's size who couldn't... Francesco Damiani and Tyrell Biggs weren't very strong, smart, or fast, but had decent size.

For every great 6'6" X 250 guy like Anthony Joshua and Wladimir Klitschko, who put on one of the greatest fights in Heavyweight History, you have 100's of slow, ponderous, and unathletic guys like Michael Grant, Andrew Golota, Lou Savarese, Tye Fields, Julius Long, Ray Austin, Tony Thompson and may other also-rans.

Height, weight, reach, and overall size and strength have to be combined with "The Package." But generation by generation Olympic and World records fall because more big and powerful athletes have the package, meaning: intelligence, speed, toughness, vision, balance, reflexes, coordination, agility, courage, work ethic, character, etc.

Good points. But I haven't seen a record in most sports in the last 25-30 years, that wasn't artificially aided. I think evolution in sport only goes so far without help. Wlad and Lewis would provide anyone from any era a tough time. Disagree on some minor points. But agree no 180-190 pounder is wearing the belt after the 50s.

[Controversial]

And size is vastly overrated with heavyweights. If we actually look at real results when a great fighter under 200 pounds actually fought someone over 220, he won almost every time.
It's borderline if Louis and Tyson fit these guidelines. Louis was usually (though not always) over 200 and Tyson was usually around 220.

The point is that have to look at how good they were and forget the needle on the scale.
I agree that Louis did not have a great chin. Tyson was certainly capable of taking him out. But I am going to raise something that for some reason nobody points out" Tyson really didn't have that great of a chin either. While Holyfield and Douglas had some pop, they were certainly not on Louis level in the power department.
Obviously neither had glass jaws, but they didn't have iron chins either. Both were capable of taking the other out. The question is what is more likely.

Louis was also a very accurate puncher; accuracy is important even though it's rarely talked about. Louis would be landing on Tyson more than vice versa.

The difference is Louis was the heavier man in the majority of his fights (53 out of 69 fights). Forty of his opponents weighed between 12.5 and 13.13 stone, he fought many small guys.

He would be fighting one of the greatest punchers in HW history and giving a stone away to him, his punches wouldn't have the same affect on Tyson as they did on the little fellas.

Tyson had a very good chin, Douglas and Holyfield hit him with solid shots for many rounds before he went down (10 and 11 rounds respectively). Ruddock hit him with some huge punches without troubling him in 19 rounds. Tysons chin was far superior to Louis, thats the key.

The guys that beat Tyson were all pretty big, he was only 5'10". Only Holyfield was lighter in weight in their first fight.

Douglas 6'4" and 232lbs (11lb heavier than Tyson)
Holyfield 6'2"1/2 and 215lbs (7lb lighter than Tyson)
Holyfield 6'2"1/2 and 218lbs (same weight as Tyson)
Lewis 6'5" and 250lbs (16lb heavier than Tyson)
Williams 6'3" and 265lbs (32lb heavier than Tyson)
McBride 6'6" and 271lbs (38lb heavier than Tyson)

[Kalan]

[Louis] would be fighting one of the greatest punchers in HW history and giving a stone away to him, his punches wouldn't have the same affect on Tyson as they did on the little fellas.

Tyson had a very good chin, Douglas and Holyfield hit him with solid shots for many rounds before he went down (10 and 11 rounds respectively). Ruddock hit him with some huge punches without troubling him in 19 rounds. Tysons chin was far superior to Louis, thats the key.

The guys that beat Tyson were all pretty big,

There's six (6) major keys: Size, Strength, Speed, Chin, Power, and Competition.... ALL of them superior to Louis.

[Ambling Alp II]

And size is vastly overrated with heavyweights. If we actually look at real results when a great fighter under 200 pounds actually fought someone over 220, he won almost every time.
It's borderline if Louis and Tyson fit these guidelines. Louis was usually (though not always) over 200 and Tyson was usually around 220.

The point is that have to look at how good they were and forget the needle on the scale.
I agree that Louis did not have a great chin. Tyson was certainly capable of taking him out. But I am going to raise something that for some reason nobody points out" Tyson really didn't have that great of a chin either. While Holyfield and Douglas had some pop, they were certainly not on Louis level in the power department.
Obviously neither had glass jaws, but they didn't have iron chins either. Both were capable of taking the other out. The question is what is more likely.

Louis was also a very accurate puncher; accuracy is important even though it's rarely talked about. Louis would be landing on Tyson more than vice versa.

The difference is Louis was the heavier man in the majority of his fights (53 out of 69 fights). Forty of his opponents weighed between 12.5 and 13.13 stone, he fought many small guys.

He would be fighting one of the greatest punchers in HW history and giving a stone away to him, his punches wouldn't have the same affect on Tyson as they did on the little fellas.

Tyson had a very good chin, Douglas and Holyfield hit him with solid shots for many rounds before he went down (10 and 11 rounds respectively). Ruddock hit him with some huge punches without troubling him in 19 rounds. Tysons chin was far superior to Louis, thats the key.

The guys that beat Tyson were all pretty big, he was only 5'10". Only Holyfield was lighter in weight in their first fight.

Douglas 6'4" and 232lbs (11lb heavier than Tyson)
Holyfield 6'2"1/2 and 215lbs (7lb lighter than Tyson)
Holyfield 6'2"1/2 and 218lbs (same weight as Tyson)
Lewis 6'5" and 250lbs (16lb heavier than Tyson)
Williams 6'3" and 265lbs (32lb heavier than Tyson)
McBride 6'6" and 271lbs (38lb heavier than Tyson)

You really want to play the size game?
Louis KO 1 vs Abe Simon. Simon was 6'4 250
Louis KO 1 vs Buddy Baer. Baer was 6'6 255
Louis TKO 6 Primo Carnera. Carnera was 6'6 260.

Louis was stopped once in his prime. His chin was every bit as good as Tyson's. He would be landing on Louis as often as Holyfield and Douglas did but with more power. His defense was much better than Douglas and Holyfield.

[MrGuy]

And size is vastly overrated with heavyweights. If we actually look at real results when a great fighter under 200 pounds actually fought someone over 220, he won almost every time.
It's borderline if Louis and Tyson fit these guidelines. Louis was usually (though not always) over 200 and Tyson was usually around 220.

The point is that have to look at how good they were and forget the needle on the scale.
I agree that Louis did not have a great chin. Tyson was certainly capable of taking him out. But I am going to raise something that for some reason nobody points out" Tyson really didn't have that great of a chin either. While Holyfield and Douglas had some pop, they were certainly not on Louis level in the power department.
Obviously neither had glass jaws, but they didn't have iron chins either. Both were capable of taking the other out. The question is what is more likely.

Louis was also a very accurate puncher; accuracy is important even though it's rarely talked about. Louis would be landing on Tyson more than vice versa.

Douglas and Holyfield basically had to hit him over and over again with clean shots over several rounds, to take him out. Certainly dont think he was chinny.

YEP, because that is how easy it was to hit the know nothing fukwit. All these guys had to do was hit the prick once, and he turned into target practice. He had no fukking idea how to avoid punishment, because old Tomato died before they got to that page in the manual. If ever a fighter epitomised being considered as nothing more than a lump of meat ( like the film On The Waterfront ) it was that fukking idiot Tyson.

It was better than funny watching Douglas, Holy, and Lewis systematically beat the retarded filth into submission knowing his moronic IQ guaranteed he could do less than fuk all about it.

Dont let the fact he was way over the hill for two of those losses, stop you. Or for that matter he was at one point, very hard to hit. Louis once again almost got tanked by a 171 pounder, and dropped by who knows how many small guys......but Doulgas wouldnt have been champ back then................

[MrGuy]

And size is vastly overrated with heavyweights. If we actually look at real results when a great fighter under 200 pounds actually fought someone over 220, he won almost every time.
It's borderline if Louis and Tyson fit these guidelines. Louis was usually (though not always) over 200 and Tyson was usually around 220.

The point is that have to look at how good they were and forget the needle on the scale.

Great athletes are getting bigger… How many Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds did we see in the first 60 years of the 20th Century??? … How many Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds have we seen in the last 60 years???

Your “weight guidelines” are deliberately contrived and arbitrary... They’re designed to disregard the most OBVIOUS size mismatches in Heavyweight History… Everybody but YOU recognizes the role size played in the following fights.

Jim Jeffries won all his fights with Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons because of his much greater size and strength… He wasn’t a more clever or skilled boxer then Gentleman Jim – yet he trashed him twice because he could take everything… When Jeffries went in with a taller fellow who was well over 200 pounds (Jack Johnson) he got trashed.

Johnson chased after Burns for years and finally found somebody to put up a fortune so Burns would meet him.. Although a very small Heavyweight by today’s standards, Johnson was described by Jack London as a “Colossus facing a Pygmy” cuz the size difference was so stark. Burns was so small he could barely land a punch on Johnson who toyed with the diminutive Burns and tortured him “I certainly wanted to ladle out Burns’ 30,000 dollars’ worth of punishment” before knocking him out.

Floyd Patterson avoided the huge and powerful Sonny Liston for years until President Kennedy said he would love to see the 2 fight... When they finally met it was obvious size and strength played the major role in the matchup, since Sonny smashed the much smaller Patterson like he was squishing a little mouse… Patterson wanted a rematch – and it was another squish job.

Joe Frazier was another very teeny Heavyweight who faced the colossal George Foreman, who was 4 inches taller, with arms and shoulders that were twice the size of the diminutive Smokin’.. Foreman battered the little tyke for 5 straight minutes and 6 knockdowns before the ridiculous mismatch was halted.

The above big men were also good athletes – or admittedly they would NOT have won… But their victims were ALSO good athletes.. So it wasn’t athletic ability that decided those matchups... The big difference was size and strength.. Anybody who doesn’t think size matters when matching great athletes, should ask why we don’t dispose of weight divisions..

Why was the cruiserweight division installed??? Because the size of great Heavyweights has been dramatically increasing in the last 2 generations – just as the size, strength and speed of basketball and football players has increased substantially since the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s, the size of the greatest Heavyweight boxers has thrusted upwards.

As I said, it was very common to see Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds for the first 60 years of the 20th Century... How many Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds have we seen in the last 60 years??? In the future we are EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to see ANY Lineal Heavyweight Champions under 200 pounds... Floyd Patterson was the last holdout, but he got CRUSHED by Sonny Liston over 50 years ago...

It’s a new day folks. The old has gone and the new and improved has arrived... Tyson would crush the undersized Louis like he did the extremely mismatched 212-pound UNDEFEATED LINEAL HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION Michael Spinks...

Shut up you cretinous lump of shitt!!!!!!

Tell us again the sizes and weights of John Ruiz, and Roy Jones when they fought in 2003. I personally couldn't give a flying fukk, but when it suits your retarded arguments you bring it up.

You mean when Jones showed up a full 30 pounds heavier then when Conn fought Louis, to beat a big bum? Wasn't a super middleweight then. It is on film. He was in his prime hard to hit. I know fans of Lewis and Holyfield hate it, but he had been washed up for years.

[MrGuy]

You mean when Jones showed up a full 30 pounds heavier then when Conn fought Louis, to beat a big bum? Wasn't a super middleweight then. It is on film. He was in his prime hard to hit. I know fans of Lewis and Holyfield hate it, but he had been washed up for years.

No poo for brains. I mean when Ruiz weighed over 30 lbs more than Jones. It really isn't that difficult to follow if you pay attention. Then again you appear to be Murican, so allowances must be made.

Congrats you missed the point. Many heavyweights have victories over opponents who easily outweigh them. Jones was barely classified as one. The point is he still for technical purposes classified as one. While Conn didnt. Even by the flimsy standards of his time. The bottom line is Jones gained a good deal of weight for his shot. Conn didnt. Your argument is invalid.

[MrGuy]

The imbecilic arrogance of the filthy rapists fanboys is unparalleled. According to them ONLY their sex beast of a hero can beat people " heavier " than it.

Apparently great fighters like Joe Louis can't.

Idiocy taken to a totally higher level.

It was only Louis who struggled against a super middle weight.

[MrGuy]

Unless you are either retarded or Murican, or both, the answer to the above will be YES. So what the fuk is your point about weight differences?

Weight isn't as important for heavyweights once you get to a certain point genius. 210-220 pounders have routinely beat fighters that far outweigh them over the years. The other weight classes its far more important. Would you put the best welters in a tournament against the best light heavies? Of course not because they would get crushed. Conn was far to light to fight Louis and almost beat him. Thats the point. He wasn't a heavyweight then or now.

[MrGuy]

Unless you are either retarded or Murican, or both, the answer to the above will be YES. So what the fuk is your point about weight differences?

Weight isn't as important for heavyweights once you get to a certain point genius. 210-220 pounders have routinely beat fighters that far outweigh them over the years. The other weight classes its far more important. Would you put the best welters in a tournament against the best light heavies? Of course not because they would get crushed. Conn was far to light to fight Louis and almost beat him. Thats the point. He wasn't a heavyweight then or now.

" Weight isn't as important "

Are you fukking sure?

Two rights to Conn's jaw ended the fight.

And I am telling you without a shadow of a doubt those same kind of punches from a 200 - 205 Joe louis could just as easily end the fight with a 220 Tyson, due to the fact that Joe was by far and away a better fighter than the cretinous filth. So was Billy Conn by the way. With the rapist the ONLY advantage over Conn would be the weight, whereas Louis had ALL the advantages. Conn would even be taller, and have the reach advantage over the sex beast.

Tyson was bigger hitter and faster. Only advantage? We aren't playing the if he was born today game. Tyson hits him once and his goes flying across the pond.

[Kalan]

[

You really want to play the size game?
Louis KO 1 vs Abe Simon. Simon was 6'4 250
Louis KO 1 vs Buddy Baer. Baer was 6'6 255
Louis TKO 6 Primo Carnera. Carnera was 6'6 260.

Louis was stopped once in his prime. His chin was every bit as good as Tyson's. He would be landing on Louis as often as Holyfield and Douglas did but with more power. His defense was much better than Douglas and Holyfield

First off... Simon, Baer and Carnera were 3 of the easiest punched guys in the History of Heavyweight Challengers.... Any of today's top Heavyweights could wind up and hit those guys with his Sunday punch and those fights would be over before the sound of the opening bell faded away...

It would be similar to Tye Fields, Julius Long, David Price, and Gary Cornish getting World Title Shots at Anthony Joshua for the mere fact that they're so big, tall, and strong... Boxing Commissioners would be arrested for MURDER if they allowed fights like that today... But they would have been getting Title Fights in Louis's day because the competition in the Heavyweight ranks was so thin... There're many more countries developing Heavyweights today around the globe... The top ranks are filled with foreign Heavyweights... The color line was still fairly tight during Louis's prime... Black Heavyweight Challengers were as rare as hen's teeth... Foreign Heavyweights were treated pretty badly by American officials.

Your biased statements that Louis's power and defense were "much better" than Douglas's and Holyfield's were pulled out of the blue... Louis's defense was loaded with holes and he was decked 12 times -- including by inept guys like Tony Galento... Louis was decked by 192-pound Max Schmeling who had 7 losses.. Jimmy Braddock fought the great majority of his career fights at Middleweight and Light Heavyweight... Braddock didn't fight as a Heavyweight until he had about 50 fights but he decked Louis with a sharp right hand... That was Braddock's 26th loss and 1st fight in over 2 years.

The 6'2" X 218 and 6'4" X 232 perfectly conditioned Holyfield and Douglas who fought Tyson would NOT be knocked down by Braddock or Schmeling.. Douglas was fast and skillful… He had immense talent and was taught to box from the age of 5 by his father.. He only needed to train consistently and lay off the pizza, beer, rolls, sweets, goodies and constant snacking to be good – which he almost never did – but was on fire for Tyson.

Holyfield had one of the best chins ever was a a great boxer-puncher.. The only thing that stopped him was a weird heart ailment or illness.. It struck him in the 1st Moorer and 3rd Bowe fights.. For Tyson he was perfect. Extremely powerful, ripped, and conditioned to the minute. Braddock or Schmeling weighing in the 190’s were no threat to deck him.

I’m not saying they were more talented than Louis or punched harder for their size...but they were so much bigger. They were better boxers because their competition was so much better and stronger. They got hits on Tyson that Louis couldn’t because Joe wasn’t big or strong enough to matchup well with Tyson – and Louis got outboxed for 12 rounds by somebody who weighed 174 – which is NOT going to happen to modern day Lineal Heavyweight Champions.