BoxRec

Who wins?

Mike tyson wins by KO, joe louis was the best of his era but as time moved on boxers developed better skills and tyson's aggressive style destroyed good boxers when he was in his prime.

when louis fought marciano he was well past his prime but tyson was even more aggressive than marciano was and probably stronger and better conditioned.

northern wrote:Mike tyson wins by KO, joe louis was the best of his era but as time moved on boxers developed better skills and tyson's aggressive style destroyed good boxers when he was in his prime.

when louis fought marciano he was well past his prime but tyson was even more aggressive than marciano was and probably stronger and better conditioned.

Not so sure about that... sometimes it seems like the other way around

In the past there were FAR fewer distractions for fighters. That's why although time has passed, and some things have improved....like the science of training, and diet.....that has been neutralized by the myriad of distractions fighters have. In the past a fighter could focus like a lazer on his craft....now fighters can be busy playing with lazers instead of training.


My long winded way of saying...in this case....the older era fighter is likely to take the more modern...FAR MORE DISTRACTED and weak willed fighter apart in the later rounds.

Joe would do a number on Tyson. KO9.

Joe had more skills, a better jab and the combination punching required to discourage Tyson's attack. Mike liked to clutch on the inside and Joe would punish him for this.

BoxBuzz wrote:In the past there were FAR fewer distractions for fighters. That's why although time has passed, and some things have improved....like the science of training, and diet......

I think this is not true. The 'science of training' for boxing is not any more developed today than it was in Louis's time . . the fighters of that time period actually got superior instruction and were in better condition. All one needs as proof is to look at the fights.

As for diet, the medical community still can't decide what's what in terms of most healthy . . low carb? high carb? high protein? lots of meat? little to no meat?

Boxers back then pretty much relied on the standard rule of lean meats and vegetables; cut out sweets. Any advances made since then are more than eclipsed by the omnipresence of snacks and fast food which were not commonplace until the 1960s, and even then not nearly as widespread as today.

Dempsey...I don't disagree completely with you.

Sounds like we fully agree on the increased ease of getting a hooker, or a drink, or a drug, or a toy...lol

Distractions are greater.

But it's all about the individual in the end....anyone can be disciplined if they make that CHOICE.

Or perhaps in Mikes case have the independent capacity. Seems he did ok as long as he had the Crutch of his best mentor...and on his own...it was a more challenging world. Also...let's face it....Tyson was recognized as having great potential...and was served quite a few early round KO victims to both whet his appetite and encourage his faith in himself. Not that Louis didn't have his easy paydays as well, but in the beginning he was a bit more of his own man....and that served him well when he aged, and had to call upon that inner strength which he seemed to possess on his own.


It would seem to me...that over the years...the gestalt compiled knowledge of training, and diets, and films on fighters would serve the BEST MINDS and MOST DISCIPLINED fighters of our current era, a distinct advantage. At least for those who can integrate this into their success formula.

And there was something about the ethic of old....that I imagine serves the older fighters well.

BoxBuzz wrote:Dempsey...I don't disagree completely with you.

Sounds like we fully agree on the increased ease of getting a hooker, or a drink, or a drug, or a toy...lol

Distractions are greater.

But it's all about the individual in the end....anyone can be disciplined if they make that CHOICE.

Or perhaps in Mikes case have the independent capacity. Seems he did ok as long as he had the Crutch of his best mentor...and on his own...it was a more challenging world. Also...let's face it....Tyson was recognized as having great potential...and was served quite a few early round KO victims to both whet his appetite and encourage his faith in himself. Not that Louis didn't have his easy paydays as well, but in the beginning he was a bit more of his own man....and that served him well when he aged, and had to call upon that inner strength which he seemed to possess on his own.


It would seem to me...that over the years...the gestalt compiled knowledge of training, and diets, and films on fighters would serve the BEST MINDS and MOST DISCIPLINED fighters of our current era, a distinct advantage. At least for those who can integrate this into their success formula.

And there was something about the ethic of old....that I imagine serves the older fighters well.

What is "the ethic of old"?

It's hard to argue that there aren't more distractions now than then -- though I'm sure there were plenty of distractions available to fighters of the past.

Maybe one of the biggest differences is activity in the ring. In this sense, Tyson was a throwback, in his first two years as a pro fighting 15 times in 1985 and 12 times in 1986, whereas in his first two years as a pro, Louis fought 12 times in 1934 (July - December) and 11 times in 1935.

In 1941 Louis defended the heavyweight title 7 times. Tyson and Holmes at most only defended their titles 4 times a year.

What is The "ethic of old" you ask? ....It could be what you would say to win a round in Jeopardy

or.....you could Just look it up in the "Book of answers"

lol.

Just my way of saying that I think that there was a work ethic that sort of came along in a world where boxing was the sport center of the universe, and where there were far fewer distractions.

Just a conceptual construct. Your welcome to borrow it sometime...just bring it back when your done with it.

BarryWashington wrote:Tyson was no way in hell better conditioned than Marciano

Man this upset me

Joe Louis would have messed Mike up, they are a world apart. Mike's biggest weakness was with guys that weren't afraid of him and Joe Louis wasn't afraid of anyone. He just kept coming forward no matter what.

I don't see Mike pulling a Tyson TKO number on Joe Louis, but I see Joe just wearing him down with a constant barrage of combos and pressure all fight until Mike quits.

I see this as a bad matchup for Louis . I rank him the #1 heavyweight BTW. I could definitely see Tyson winning by knockout

Seems like we have some radically different opinions here.

louis 115:113 tyson

magicrp wrote:louis 115:113 tyson

Corinthians 15:13

Cutman Scabbers wrote:

magicrp wrote:louis 115:113 tyson

Corinthians 15:13

If there’s no resurrection of the dead, then Christ hasn’t been raised either.

If there’s no resurrection of the dead, then Louis can't beat Tyson.

Amen

Joe Louis was from an era where Heavyweights resemble the current day Crusierweights in size.

In historical terms, its a 190-200lb Louis against a 220lb Tyson. I couldn't see a much smaller Louis KO-ing Tyson.
If it were a Jou Louis by 1980s physical standards and they were comparable in size I would favour Louis.... however as they were its Tyson by KO.

The smaller 195lb Roy Jones did beat Ruiz in 2003, but it was punch and run... and John Ruiz was no prime Tyson

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Joe Louis was from an era where Heavyweights resemble the current day Crusierweights in size.

In historical terms, its a 190-200lb Louis against a 220lb Tyson. I couldn't see a much smaller Louis KO-ing Tyson.
If it were a Jou Louis by 1980s physical standards and they were comparable in size I would favour Louis.... however as they were its Tyson by KO.

The smaller 195lb Roy Jones did beat Ruiz in 2003, but it was punch and run... and John Ruiz was no prime Tyson

I agree. I posted something recently showing average weights of various fighters in all their title defences, Louis's average weight was 203lbs and Tyson's was 218lb. As great as Louis was in that era I can't see him having the power, strength or chin to beat Tyson. He didn't have a A+ chin anyway. Tyson within first few rounds. To give a stone away to someone like Tyson isn't an easy task.

Duch wrote:

Cutman Scabbers wrote:

magicrp wrote:louis 115:113 tyson

Corinthians 15:13

If there’s no resurrection of the dead, then Christ hasn’t been raised either.

If there’s no resurrection of the dead, then Louis can't beat Tyson.

Amen

Joe has more courage than Tyson. Tyson would be sorely outfought. Louis wins by TKO in round 7 or 8.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Joe Louis was from an era where Heavyweights resemble the current day Crusierweights in size.

In historical terms, its a 190-200lb Louis against a 220lb Tyson. I couldn't see a much smaller Louis KO-ing Tyson.
If it were a Jou Louis by 1980s physical standards and they were comparable in size I would favour Louis.... however as they were its Tyson by KO.

The smaller 195lb Roy Jones did beat Ruiz in 2003, but it was punch and run... and John Ruiz was no prime Tyson

Louis was a bigger man than Holyfield and Evander sure managed to kick his a$$.

dempseyfire wrote:

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Joe Louis was from an era where Heavyweights resemble the current day Crusierweights in size.

In historical terms, its a 190-200lb Louis against a 220lb Tyson. I couldn't see a much smaller Louis KO-ing Tyson.
If it were a Jou Louis by 1980s physical standards and they were comparable in size I would favour Louis.... however as they were its Tyson by KO.

The smaller 195lb Roy Jones did beat Ruiz in 2003, but it was punch and run... and John Ruiz was no prime Tyson

Louis was a bigger man than Holyfield and Evander sure managed to kick his a$$.

Tyson was a bigger, faster, harder puncher than Max Schmeling who managed to kick Louis' ass.

dempseyfire wrote:
Louis was a bigger man than Holyfield and Evander sure managed to kick his a$$.

Louis's chin was no way as good as Holyfield and he wasn't stronger than Holyfield either. Size wise (height and reach) Holyfield had the slight edge as well.

dempseyfire wrote:

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Joe Louis was from an era where Heavyweights resemble the current day Crusierweights in size.

In historical terms, its a 190-200lb Louis against a 220lb Tyson. I couldn't see a much smaller Louis KO-ing Tyson.
If it were a Jou Louis by 1980s physical standards and they were comparable in size I would favour Louis.... however as they were its Tyson by KO.

The smaller 195lb Roy Jones did beat Ruiz in 2003, but it was punch and run... and John Ruiz was no prime Tyson

Louis was a bigger man than Holyfield and Evander sure managed to kick his a$$.

Holyfield was 215 pounds, a prime Louis was 195-205lbs ... plus Holyfield beat a past his prime Tyson??

The End wrote:I see this as a bad matchup for Louis . I rank him the #1 heavyweight BTW. I could definitely see Tyson winning by knockout

i agree with this! people seem to love to say that anybody that wouldnt be afraid of tyson would easily beat him. and while maybe he did have that slight bully mentality, you also had to have a great chin, elite mental and physical tougness, fitness and good boxing ability to beat mike tyson. and even with all of those things, theres still a possibility you get clipped and put away in the first 4 rounds.
i think joe louis is in the top 3 heavyweights of all time, but that doesnt mean he beats everyone else so easily. stylewise, against tyson, it doesnt bode well that he didnt have that fastest feet in the world and he definitely could be hurt if tyson landed the right shots! (and those things arent a knock on Louis, thats just my opinion).

if they fought ten times, id bet that tyson would win a couple no doubt.