How are Joe Louis's opponents any better than Tysons'?

[Thunder Lips]

Becoming a single father after the death of his girlfriend, Michael Spinks was only a part time boxer after the very close Holmes' fights. Two fights in as many years and over a year off before facing Tyson. Spinks gave up his title because he refused to fight the dangerous Tucker and instead knocked out the equally inactive Cooney for bigger money, who was a shell of his former self which wasn't that great to begin with. Tyson's people literally dragged Spinks back into the ring to have the name and recognition for his resume, little else. Tyson had much better wins.


Billy Conn was busy and undefeated in the past three years leading up to the Louis fight and made a great account of himself.

[Boogie Nights]

You tried to be fair in your assestment? I must have missed something. How did you break anything down? Look at the way you put down Louis's performance and tried to pump up Tyson's wins like they were somthing that they weren't. you discribed the Spinks fight as being a great performance, then you put down Louis win over Conn and stated that Conn weighed in a light heavyweight. You talk about Louis loss to Scmelling, but never mentioned the fact that Tyson was knocked out by James buster Douglas and couldn't get rid of Mitch Green, Jesse Fuergeson, Tony Tucker, James Tillis and other non elite boxers that gave tyson problems by simply fighting him back.

What makes them all time greats? The plenty of fights that they had and their resume's. They fought anyone and under any circumstances and both captured the heavyweight title in one of the best era's. Walcott has some great wins and was a natural light heavyweight. Two wins over Charles, Harold Johnsn, Joey maxim and Joe Louis(in my opinion). He was definitely a great fighter. Bruno, Thomas, Tucker, Ruddock and Golota looks foolish when compared to them.

okay dude, you reaching far too in. i didnt pump anything or anyone. i didnt include losses. you make it seem like i put it in big bold letters that louis got knocked out by schmeling. i simply said good fighter, who knocked out louis in the first fight, that's it. because i mentioned him as an opponent in the rematch so i brought it up as part of his wins. you are just putting words in my mouth

the thing between conn and spinks wasnt a comparisson, i mentioned that there was a double standard between them.

ill say it again, whenever conn is brought up in the discussion of louis everyone says that he was a good fighter, because he gave a difficult fight to louis. i bet you if he would have been knocked out in the first round by louis people would be saying the same thing that they said about spinks, a blown up light heavyweight. because tyson made it an easy fight, all of a sudden spinks is a small guy.....WTF is that buddy?

spinks fought holmes in 30 rounds total. a blown up lightheavyweight couldnt do that. Spinks also climbed into the ring, with dangerous and hard hitting 6'5 240 pounds Gerry Cooney. and although cooney was past it, he was much larger than tyson, and physically presented much more danger to the smaller spinks who knocked him out brutaly. size was not an issue for spinks

if he was such a blown up clown, than why is it people were still picking him to win againt tyson????


max baer, and joe walcott are all time greats? wishful thinking. baer was considered a clown and a womanizer, and spent a great deal partying and out drinking when he should have been training. a ton of physical talent, one of the greatest right hands, but no heart in what he was doing. even in his title fight with max schmeling he was clowning. a good fighter, but not even close to all time great. i reckon he would have been even greater than louis if he had actually dedicated his time to boxing, but he didnt, and his legacy is diminished because of it

walcott is famous for his fights with charles, his so called robbery and rematch with louis, and of course the 13th round with rocky. he hasnt won any big fights officially, so dont try to make him into something he wasnt. a good fgihter, but not an all time great. ill say very good fighter, but nothing above that

tell me, if the division was as good as you claim, then how come historians called louis title defences as bum of the month club?

you misinterpet a lot of what i say, and turn it around without providing any facts to your arguements. so far everything what you said was your own opinion and how you view everything. that;s not enough, and hardly is the truth

[Boogie Nights]

Becoming a single father after the death of his girlfriend, Michael Spinks was only a part time boxer after the very close Holmes' fights. Two fights in as many years and over a year off before facing Tyson. Spinks gave up his title because he refused to fight the dangerous Tucker and instead knocked out the equally inactive Cooney for bigger money, who was a shell of his former self which wasn't that great to begin with. Tyson's people literally dragged Spinks back into the ring to have the name and recognition for his resume, little else. Tyson had much better wins.


Billy Conn was busy and undefeated in the past three years leading up to the Louis fight and made a great account of himself.

no one dragged anyone into the ring. it was an event in the making. Spinks was stripped off his IBF belt for not facing Tucker, but it was an offer for only $1.5 million to cooney's 5 million. which would you take? do the math. after that, spinks retained his recognition as a linear world chamion

the wait for tyson meant more money, the event was built as "Once and for all". alot of people picked the so called blown up light heavy to knock out mike.

[Boogie Nights]

Poet

i appreciate the fact you took your time to go over my post piece by piece. but still i see biase in your posts, it's like you completely refuse to give tyson the nod, and forcefully say that guys like ruddock and bruno were good. at least you picked 2 opponents to give praise for. SUCCESS

but you say how thomas blew his career on *******, i agree he did. but leading up to the fight, he cleaned up, called angelo back in his corner and wanted to rise to the occasion. the fact that he wanted angelo to be in his corner speaks volumes about his motivation to beat tyson. he didnt show up for a payday, he showed up to win. he couldnt, because tyson was just too good, give the man some credit, is that so hard??

you say tucker broke his right hand, that's just talk. where's proof, he ****** his hand up so what? the fight wasnt that close, tyson outjabbed him, and besides the uppercut in the first round was in no danger at any other time in the fight. he didnt want to fight him again>>? what you're talking about, after the tyson loss, tucker dissapeared for 2 years and came in at 250 pounds for his next fight, fighting cans for the rest of his career. again this is proof that you refuse to give tyson any credit what so ever, and accusing him of ducking tony, when he wasnt even around after that.

yes holmes was definetly past it. had he been in his prime the fight would have went a little differenty, even i admit it. but even if he was past his prime for the next 14 years, he did have some moments. hilite win over undefeated ray mercer, who later would put lennox lewis through hell. against ray, he was able to use his classic jab, tyson wouldnt allow it. dont you think tyson had a little bit to do with that? again no credit....

and yes tubbs showed up overweight, and got his ass ****** up for that. do you still think tony tubbs was still a bad fighter??? you just dont want to face it do you, poet?

read what i said about michael spinks in my other post, but it would be pointless, because i doubt you'd change your opinion

and you're right about conn, he didnt get knocked in 91 seconds, instead he ****** louis up around the ring like a rag doll, literally. imagine what tyson would have done to louis. and PLEASE dont even imply that conn was better than tyson, im asking you not to do it, because it would be plain redicilous. ill ask you again to not even put conn into the same lague with tyson, OKAY?

it's their problem if stewart, and williams went down in the first round. the fight with carl was a questionable stoppage, i admit. but i doubt had the fight went on, anything would have been different.

you refusing to give the nod to tyson for stewart. the recovery after holyfield had nothing to do with it, mike's right hand did. here you are clearly refusing to give mike credit with your speculations

andrew golota was a mental case, but he was no bum and nowhere near it. definetly not a great, but it was a great win for tyson. deal with it

still you wont admit that the majority of fighters tyson faced were bigger than the opponents louis has faced. getting thrown around the ring by 174 pound conn was embarassing.

[Thunder Lips]

This article is very spot on.

http://arcaneknowledge.org/sports/linealprob.htm


"When Michael Spinks refused to fight the eminently capable Tony Tucker, he opened the road to forfeiture of the title. If ducking Tucker was not sufficient grounds for stripping Spinks, the accomplishments of Mike Tyson in convincingly winning the championships of all three sanctioning bodies made him the undisputed champion. It is unrealistic to insist that Spinks continued to be the true champion after Tyson had won universal public acclaim and offical recognition as champion by defeating Tucker. No knowledgeable boxing fan seriously believed Spinks could defeat Tyson, who was considered invincible at the time. Had the Tyson-Spinks “Superfight” never occurred, Tyson would have been recognized as the undisputed champion by virtue of unifying the titles. Thus it is revisionist to make Spinks the champion until his defeat by Tyson in 1988. Spinks’ first-round knockout loss to Tyson reinforces the likelihood that Spinks would have been an incapable opponent even against Tucker. Thus the Tyson-Tucker fight was a fight between the top two heavyweights in addition to being a title unification bout, and Tyson emerged as the true and undisputed champion. "


Article from the day that describes Tyson and King chasing Butch Lewis and Spinks, who were giving them the run around until the money was too good to turn down.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

When the fight did happen the odds were lopsided, 6-1 in Tyson's favor. Few gave Spinks a chance.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

For someone who makes himself out to be older you certainly have a bad memory of something that really didn't happen that long ago.

[Boogie Nights]

This article is very spot on.

http://arcaneknowledge.org/sports/linealprob.htm


"When Michael Spinks refused to fight the eminently capable Tony Tucker, he opened the road to forfeiture of the title. If ducking Tucker was not sufficient grounds for stripping Spinks, the accomplishments of Mike Tyson in convincingly winning the championships of all three sanctioning bodies made him the undisputed champion. It is unrealistic to insist that Spinks continued to be the true champion after Tyson had won universal public acclaim and offical recognition as champion by defeating Tucker. No knowledgeable boxing fan seriously believed Spinks could defeat Tyson, who was considered invincible at the time. Had the Tyson-Spinks “Superfight” never occurred, Tyson would have been recognized as the undisputed champion by virtue of unifying the titles. Thus it is revisionist to make Spinks the champion until his defeat by Tyson in 1988. Spinks’ first-round knockout loss to Tyson reinforces the likelihood that Spinks would have been an incapable opponent even against Tucker. Thus the Tyson-Tucker fight was a fight between the top two heavyweights in addition to being a title unification bout, and Tyson emerged as the true and undisputed champion. "


Article from the day that describes Tyson and King chasing Butch Lewis and Spinks, who were giving them the run around until the money was too good to turn down.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

When the fight did happen the odds were lopsided, 6-1 in Tyson's favor.

since when does someone's opinion count for truth. which is what the author is aiming for. the article makes spinks into a ducker which he clearly wasnt. a smart businessman maybe. gerry cooney, despite being past his prime, presented more danger physically for spinks, being bigger and more powerful than tucker. the only danger tucker presented was a low pay day, and his boxing skill. that's not as scary as having cooney's 5 million dollar left hook to the face.

spinks was given a good chance against tyson

why dont you tell me about the real subject thunder lips, instead of focusing on one thing. were joe louis opponents better than tyson's. i absoloutely do not think so.

[Thunder Lips]

since when does someone's opinion count for truth. which is what the author is aiming for. the article makes spinks into a ducker which he clearly wasnt. a smart businessman maybe. gerry cooney, despite being past his prime, presented more danger physically for spinks, being bigger and more powerful than tucker. the only danger tucker presented was a low pay day, and his boxing skill. that's not as scary as having cooney's 5 million dollar left hook to the face.

spinks was given a good chance against tyson

why dont you tell me about the real subject thunder lips, instead of focusing on one thing. were joe louis opponents better than tyson's. i absoloutely do not think so.

The NY Times article pretty much confirms everything as well so it goes beyond one man's opinion. Yeah, Spinks was given a good chance against Tyson. The fight was hyped but almost everyone knew who was walking out the winner, Tyson had already fooled many saps like myself into thinking he was an Invincible God.

[Boogie Nights]

The NY Times article pretty much confirms everything as well so it goes beyond one man's opinion. Yeah, Spinks was given a good chance against Tyson. The fight was hyped but almost everyone knew who was walking out the winner, Tyson had already fooled many saps like myself into thinking he was an Invincible God.

still the question remains

why dont you tell me about the real subject thunder lips, instead of focusing on one thing. were joe louis opponents better than tyson's? i absoloutely do not think so.

care to comment?

[LondonRingRules]

still you wont admit that the majority of fighters tyson faced were bigger than the oppoenets louis has faced. getting thrown around the ring by 174 pound conn was embarassing.

** Not really embarrassing. More like Louis probably overtrained so as to not appear to be too big next to Conn and was over confident in his capabilities.

It's curious that you forget about the final result, that of Conn absorbing a brutal KO. It's no different than what you are saying that Tyson's opponents were better than those of Louis. You framed your argument wrong though and don't have enough knowledge to comeback on the Tyson haters who have forgotten how spectacular he was. He made people forget about Ali, he did.

Any fighter can be picked apart, but for Tyson's first 4 yrs, he was the most perfect heavyweight ever invented for the pro game. Nobody's record can stand up, not even close. Then his world blown asunder, and boom, he's just a big punching journeyman fighter making hundreds of millions of dollars on his reputation.

You need to understand, Tony Tucker beats every fighter on most any heavy champion's record, but he'll never be in the HOF like Fitz, Corbett, Peter Jackson, Sailor Tom, and Choynski were for Jeffries. So it becomes heresy to suggest Tucker's better than them.

Does anyone really think that Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, London, Cooper, Mildenberger, Williams, or even Liston that Ali fought would have a chance against the Tucker that Tyson put on the run and won a lopsided victory? It's heresy to suggest Tucker is better than them because this is Ali and many consider him the greatest thing since lamb chops met teriyaki.

You really need to big up another fighter other than Tyson. The guy destroyed the best career in boxing history before he turned 22. He became the ex-con/WWE/3 ring circus act that used to be known as Mike Tyson, the greatest heavyweight in history.

His recent history is too pitiable to garner rational debate. The bible on Tyson has yet to be written. It cannot be written until everyone dies and researchers have access to the full range of documents they need since most everyone associated with Tyson cannot be trusted to tell the truth today. Even so, much will be destroyed. Too much liability and reputation involved.

[Boogie Nights]

** Not really embarrassing. More like Louis probably overtrained so as to not appear to be too big next to Conn and was over confident in his capabilities.

It's curious that you forget about the final result, that of Conn absorbing a brutal KO. It's no different than what you are saying that Tyson's opponents were better than those of Louis. You framed your argument wrong though and don't have enough knowledge to comeback on the Tyson haters who have forgotten how spectacular he was. He made people forget about Ali, he did.

Any fighter can be picked apart, but for Tyson's first 4 yrs, he was the most perfect heavyweight ever invented for the pro game. Nobody's record can stand up, not even close. Then his world blown asunder, and boom, he's just a big punching journeyman fighter making hundreds of millions of dollars on his reputation.

You need to understand, Tony Tucker beats every fighter on most any heavy champion's record, but he'll never be in the HOF like Fitz, Corbett, Peter Jackson, Sailor Tom, and Choynski were for Jeffries. So it becomes heresy to suggest Tucker's better than them.

Does anyone really think that Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, London, Cooper, Mildenberger, Williams, or even Liston that Ali fought would have a chance against the Tucker that Tyson put on the run and won a lopsided victory? It's heresy to suggest Tucker is better than them because this is Ali and many consider him the greatest thing since lamb chops met teriyaki.

You really need to big up another fighter other than Tyson. The guy destroyed the best career in boxing history before he turned 22. He became the ex-con/WWE/3 ring circus act that used to be known as Mike Tyson, the greatest heavyweight in history.

His recent history is too pitiable to garner rational debate. The bible on Tyson has yet to be written. It cannot be written until everyone dies and researchers have access to the full range of documents they need since most everyone associated with Tyson cannot be trusted to tell the truth today. Even so, much will be destroyed. Too much liability and reputation involved.

i like reading your posts, and i agree, but let's not make the man into some science project. those who love the sport, and appreciate boxing for what it is, for the beauty of the violence, dont need anyone telling them how great mike was. those like Poet have a different prefrence on the situation, far fetched from reality.

and i was exactly on point with my conn arguement. i did not forget about the brutal ko, either in the first or second encounter. but ko, at least to me, and id bet for many viewers, was not as graphic, or as fascinating as it was to watch a much smaller man doing his hit and run work for the previous 12 rounds. and having his way too. i did not forget the ko at all, it's more likely that people forgot the sustained action that proceeded before that. the bombing of the bomber.

and of course there's the double standard as ive mentioned before. i reckon had spinks gone at least 7 rounds with tyson there wouldnt be any talk of him being "blown up". but tyson made it easy for him in those 91, and had to suffer in the process. maybe in fact he did walk out of that fight a looser, not spinks.

in truth i cannot grasp why tyson get tossed so viciously around the palookaville. the man was great. i hate this talk of him folding under pressure. simply not true. mike had the heart, maybe not enough desire, but certainly enough heart.

P.S ill get back to you on the wills dempsey subject when i have the time, interesting piece you wrote, but that's another story