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

[StarshipTrooper]

unbelieveable that 12 people voted for louis, shows that they are still centuries behind and hold the view that anything old is better

This coming from someone who thinks everything NEW is better

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

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.

I DID answer your post: You simply didn't like the answer so, as usual, you disregarded it. The truth is fanboys like you BORE me ****less anymore and I really can't be arsed to give **** leeches the time of day: Consider yourself lucky I even bothered to respond to you at all. You can suck on Tyson's rectum all you want but I prefer to discuss boxing with people that actually think. Nuthuggers I have no time for.

Ps. Saying Joe Walcott was NOT a great fighter proves that you either no nothing about boxing or you're too blinded by your predjudices to make any kind of rational evaluation of boxers.

PPs. You seem aweful hung up on size. Are you overcompensating in some way for physical deficiancies you may have? If size was as important as YOU seem to think it is, then A. Valuev would be undefeated Heavyweight champion, and B. You would deparately running around in search of your first lay

Poet

[slicksouthpaw16]

slicksouthpaw also declared that the era in which louis fought had the best heavyweights. more like the worst. maybe he never heard of the seventies.

he also said max baer and joe walcott were all time greats....after that i pretty much lost all the respect for him as a poster. but it's okay, he's only 17, ill give him a pass.
.

Seems like you are the only one thats losing respect around here. When people agree with you on something, then you are fine with them. But when they disagree, you call them childish names and doesn't respect their opinion. Its interesting, especially since few people agree with you on this subject.

[StarshipTrooper]

Seems like you are the only one thats losing respect around here. When people agree with you on something, then you are fine with them. But when they disagree, you call them childish names and doesn't respect their opinion. Its interesting, especially since few people agree with you on this subject.

No kidding right? It's one thing to take shots at Baer: Hell Max never took himself all that seriously. Walcott is a different story: In addition to being a great fighter he was one of the most respected men the sport's ever produced. NO ONE should be dissing Jersey Joe.

Poet

[duffgun]

Spinks was a solid heavyweight, He beat Holmes in the first fight although he should have lost that second one, And i thought Spinks did well in the Cooney fight he got hit a few times by Cooney and it never seemed to hurt him. I think he gets a bit underrated at heavyweight because of what Tyson did to him.

[slicksouthpaw16]

No kidding right? It's one thing to take shots at Baer: Hell Max never took himself all that seriously. Walcott is a different story: In addition to being a great fighter he was one of the most respected men the sport's ever produced. NO ONE should be dissing Jersey Joe.

Poet

Exactly, he would be clowned on any forum if he was to doubt Walcott's greatness. There are even fighters today like Hopkins ect that has styles that resemble Walcott. The funny thing is and the reason why i laugh at this thread, is the fact that he pumps up contenders like Golota and Ruddock and make them seem like all time greats when they were never champions. Then he goes and bash Conn, Baer, Walcott, Galento( who was called a bum by prospect) and Braddock. All of these fighters are known and certainly has a higher status than Ruddock or Golota. An example of a biased poster at his best.

[StarshipTrooper]

Exactly, he would be clowned on any forum if he was to doubt Walcott's greatness. There are even fighters today like Hopkins ect that has styles that resemble Walcott. The funny thing is and the reason why i laugh at this thread, is the fact that he pumps up contenders like Golota and Ruddock and make them seem like all time greats when they were never champions. Then he goes and bash Conn, Baer, Walcott, Galento( who was called a bum by prospect) and Braddock. All of these fighters are known and certainly has a higher status than Ruddock or Golota. An example of a biased poster at his best.

Golota WAS a good fighter who had all the tools to be an ATG.....that being said, he was also a head case who quit in every big fight he was in. All the talent in the world gets you nowhere when you're quitting on your stool or delibrately getting yourself DQed.

Poet

[Boogie Nights]

Exactly, he would be clowned on any forum if he was to doubt Walcott's greatness. There are even fighters today like Hopkins ect that has styles that resemble Walcott. The funny thing is and the reason why i laugh at this thread, is the fact that he pumps up contenders like Golota and Ruddock and make them seem like all time greats when they were never champions. Then he goes and bash Conn, Baer, Walcott, Galento( who was called a bum by prospect) and Braddock. All of these fighters are known and certainly has a higher status than Ruddock or Golota. An example of a biased poster at his best.

i give credit and respect anyone who can come up with valid points, which you havent done.

also why are you lying, how am i pumping anyone up, i guess you're illeterate or didnt read what i wrote, here's what i wrote about golota and ruddock

Donovan Ruddock 24-1-1 a dangerous hard hitting left hooker with wins over Mike Weaver, James Broad, James Smith, and near murder of Michael Dokes

Andrew Golota 36-4 Not the best heavyweight, but a damn good one. He did have his way against Rid**** Bowe twice before he lost his head and got DQ'd

can you read the text???? now look at what i wrote about walcott and max baer

Max Baer 40-8 Possesed one of the greatest right hands. But his Playboy lifestyle, his lazy approach in the ring, effected his legacy. Max spent more time clowning in the ring than actually fighting

Jersey Joe Walcott 44-12-2 We know about the first fight. but im not gonna point fingers, it was a good opponent

it appears i gave them (walcott and baer) more credit. this has nothing to do with puming anyone up, i simply pointed their best wins.

i also included braddock, galento, and carnera on louis record.....am i pumping them up for louis?

also why are you picking out the names golota and ruddock for comparisson (they were solid wins) why not pick holmes, spinks, or tony tucker.

you showed your lack of knowledge when you declared tyson ducked half of the division, when half of those guys were still not around, or just came fresh on the scene when tyson went away. this proves you were talking out of your ass and didnt even bother to check you facts

you're also said that louis fought in the best heavyweight era i dont know whether to call you an idiot or a ****** (sorry but i just couldnt help it)

and you said baer and walcott were all time greats, i already commented on them and gave them all the credit they deserve. they didnt have enough stats to be all time greats. max baer never took his career serious. joe walcott was considered to be a journeyman, even when joe's promoters matched him for the fight. among many of his losses he lost to a guy 11-15 you call that an all time great?

outside of beating light heavyweight ezzard charles (and also loosing to him twice) what else has he done?

consider yourself son

[Boogie Nights]

I DID answer your post: You simply didn't like the answer so, as usual, you disregarded it. The truth is fanboys like you BORE me ****less anymore and I really can't be arsed to give **** leeches the time of day: Consider yourself lucky I even bothered to respond to you at all. You can suck on Tyson's rectum all you want but I prefer to discuss boxing with people that actually think. Nuthuggers I have no time for.

Ps. Saying Joe Walcott was NOT a great fighter proves that you either no nothing about boxing or you're too blinded by your predjudices to make any kind of rational evaluation of boxers.

PPs. You seem aweful hung up on size. Are you overcompensating in some way for physical deficiancies you may have? If size was as important as YOU seem to think it is, then A. Valuev would be undefeated Heavyweight champion, and B. You would deparately running around in search of your first lay

Poet

i like how you used valuev as an example of a big guy, but you never included all the good big guys like lewis, bowe, among others

i dont reply to insults, or ******ed and idiotic posts, basically you've showed your bias when you pinned your lies on tyson

i agree with themapples, you're a ****sack, who doesnt deserve the time of day

goodbye

[them_apples]

Every other sport in the world has progressed and bettered previous records, why the hell should boxing be any different. It's plain obvious that Tyson was faster, more physically powerful and technical than Louis. Louis was good in his heyday but wouldn't last 2 rounds with a guy like Tyson, Holyfield or Lewis.