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

[slicksouthpaw16]

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

LOL, way to lie. Me and Poet both politely disagreed with you and what did you do? You was overcome by your love of Tyson and started to call us childish names like Idiot, calling is biased and claiming to lose respect. Thats laughable, especially since few people agree with you in this thread. I have came up with valid points, but of course you ignored them and continued to pump up Tyson's resume like an all time great one.

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


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

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?

I seriously wonder if you even read the stuff that you spewing out. First, your view on Louis's resume of fighters.

Jim Braddock 50-25-7: Gets beat by about any opponent tyson has faced to make it fair.

You are owning yourself, this is too much.

Tony Galento 76-23-5 he was a character, but that doesnt make up for being a fat butteball bum

Billy Conn 59-10-0 Good fighter, but weighing in at 174 to Louis 199. come on. i already mentioned the double standard people use for spinks. LOL imagine if a guy like spinks came in at 174 against tyson, the critics would have taken mike's head off

Was this not an example of discrediting a resume and pumping up another one? Second, here's how you sized up Tyson's resume.

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

Notice how Ruddock was stopped by both Morrison and Lewis? Yet he had two fights with Tyson in which Tyson struggled badly? Thats the heart of Tyson. If you fight him back, and back him up, then he does not look impressive. Thats why i would have had fun seeing him in against a young Mercer and Bowe would have definitely beaten him.

Tony Tucker 35-0. Clean record, tall rangy boxer, set to unify titles with tyson, forr the piece of the undisputed crown

Hmmm, you don't mention the fact that Tucker was being out boxed by an unmotivated Douglas before Douglas ran out of gas. tucker wa a paper champion that fought zero quality opposition. He wasn't anything special before or after his fight with Tyson.

Larry Hoolmes 48-2. Considered to be past his prime. Yet he foguth on for 14 years after the tyson loss. Shutting Down undefeated Ray Mercer 18-0

You show your lack of respect, pumping up a past his prime Larry holmes and completely forgetting the fact that he was past his prime and had been inactive for two years. When he foguht Ray Mercer, he had tune ups and was actually in shape and motivated. A few boxing observers that i spoke to stated that Holmes actually had a shot at upsetting Tyson had he come in prepared. At least Tyson stated himself that he wouldn't have a chance against a peak Holmes. At least he knows the truth, unlike slobbing fans such as you.

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

Becuase Golota was never a champion and head a case. Ruddock was known for being in good fights, but was never an elite fighter nor champion. How in the hell does he compare to Walcott(who ****s on Tyson's resume alone), Baer, Scmelling, Conn ect. Its the circumstances in which the fighters were in as well. Any idiot could look at Holmes on Tyson's record and say ""Oh he beat Larry Holmes'' and not think about ring rust/inactivity on TOP of being years past his prime.

You still have yet to give me a great fighter that was their prime that Tyson beat. I love the way you ignore posts.

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?

Another post where you show your lack of knowledge. Those guys fought at least 10 times a year. It could burn you out, especially since Walcott didn't get a shot at a title until he was past his true prime. Him and Louis were the exact same age and louis was 23 when he got his first shot and Tommy Farr for the heavyweight championship. Walcott was 33 when he first got an oppurtunity for the title. It was motivatation.

I am enjoying seeing you blow your credibilty by disrepecting greats and showing no respect towards legends. You are offically

[Boogie Nights]

LOL, way to lie. Me and Poet both politely disagreed with you and what did you do? You was overcome by your love of Tyson and started to call us childish names like Idiot, calling is biased and claiming to lose respect. Thats laughable, especially since few people agree with you in this thread. I have came up with valid points, but of course you ignored them and continued to pump up Tyson's resume like an all time great one.


I seriously wonder if you even read the stuff that you spewing out. First, your view on Louis's resume of fighters.



You are owning yourself, this is too much.





Was this not an example of discrediting a resume and pumping up another one? Second, here's how you sized up Tyson's resume.



Notice how Ruddock was stopped by both Morrison and Lewis? Yet he had two fights with Tyson in which Tyson struggled badly? Thats the heart of Tyson. If you fight him back, and back him up, then he does not look impressive. Thats why i would have had fun seeing him in against a young Mercer and Bowe would have definitely beaten him.



Hmmm, you don't mention the fact that Tucker was being out boxed by an unmotivated Douglas before Douglas ran out of gas. tucker wa a paper champion that fought zero quality opposition. He wasn't anything special before or after his fight with Tyson.



You show your lack of respect, pumping up a past his prime Larry holmes and completely forgetting the fact that he was past his prime and had been inactive for two years. When he foguht Ray Mercer, he had tune ups and was actually in shape and motivated. A few boxing observers that i spoke to stated that Holmes actually had a shot at upsetting Tyson had he come in prepared. At least Tyson stated himself that he wouldn't have a chance against a peak Holmes. At least he knows the truth, unlike slobbing fans such as you.




Becuase Golota was never a champion and head a case. Ruddock was known for being in good fights, but was never an elite fighter nor champion. How in the hell does he compare to Walcott(who ****s on Tyson's resume alone), Baer, Scmelling, Conn ect. Its the circumstances in which the fighters were in as well. Any idiot could look at Holmes on Tyson's record and say ""Oh he beat Larry Holmes'' and not think about ring rust/inactivity on TOP of being years past his prime.

You still have yet to give me a great fighter that was their prime that Tyson beat. I love the way you ignore posts.



Another post where you show your lack of knowledge. Those guys fought at least 10 times a year. It could burn you out, especially since Walcott didn't get a shot at a title until he was past his true prime. Him and Louis were the exact same age and louis was 23 when he got his first shot and Tommy Farr for the heavyweight championship. Walcott was 33 when he first got an oppurtunity for the title. It was motivatation.

I am enjoying seeing you blow your credibilty by disrepecting greats and showing no respect towards legends. You are offically

LMFAOOO, i love how you bring 'activity' into equation and blame it on losses of fighters. this is why what im about to tell you will be especially satisfying, pay attention.
in the period of 1938 walcott only fought 6 times and lost twice to unheralded opponents, (those 2 losses were part of those 6 fights) your arguement about 'staying active and burning out' goes out the window. fighting those 6 times didnt not burn him out to get 2 losses.

but that's not all , after fighting only twice in 1944 (that's a huge activity right there) and after that, having 2 fights in 1945 he lost to a fighter with 15 losses and 13 wins LOL, i wonder what you gonna say now, that he wasnt staying too active? this is too easy, at least learn about the fighter you're defending

you talk about me avoiding you and not giving you answers, you still havent answered whom walcott has beat to get 'an all time great' status. you're using a strong choice of words and basically giving out the word 'great' as if it's a candy. you qualify a fighter as an all time great when all he did was go 2-2 with blown up ezzard charles (and yeah i use blown up the way your ignorant ass uses the word 'blown up' to describe guys like spinks) the fact that he had a good showing in fights with louis and rocky, and didnt beat neither, makes him an all time great. LOL the man was a journeyman. you cant give me any other opponent because you know it's true, you're just too thick headed to admit it....and too stubborn.

so you're saying im being disrespectful to Jim Braddock when i say every fighter on Tyson's record beats him??? HAHAHA. you're trying to make a case that braddock was a solid fighter, who between 1930-1933 (exactly 3 years) lost 21 fights????? and you making a case for him?? are you out of your mind, braddock was below journeyman status, relax dude, dont embarass yourself. he lost every other fight to opponents who had double the amount of losses on their records. again not bothering at all to get your facts straight

did you see tony galento's record? im asking a serious question, then you saying im disrespecting him. i strongly suggest you check his losses, and the losses of the opponents he beat, i gurantee you the numbers will surprise you. only in the ****iest era of heavyweights like that could galento be a contender. sorry but gain, and this time owned big.

yeah donovan ruddock lost to lewis and morrison twice, but again you fail to point out that he got those losses after the tyson fights, before that he had only one loss and beat bonecrusher smith, james broad, former hard punching champion mike weaver, and nearly killed Michael dokes who just a year earlier gave holyfield the toughest fight since qawi, (i recommend you check that fight out) again you're are you not tired of this? and since when loosing to a guy like lewis or morrison (2 and then 4 years later) is emberassing? id rather loose to them than some shmuck with 20 losses. then you try to compare him to guys like braddock, baer, galento and walcott. you're a joke. even Poet, the biggest tyson hater on the planet earth, admits that razor ruddock was a solid fighter, and says that it's tyson's best wins.

here have a look

These, I believe, are Tyson's finest performances and among my favorite all-time fights. I certainly don't have any critiscism for Mike on these.

This is coming from the man who has nothing but blind hate towards tyson, but even he, unlike you, was big enough to admit, and give credit to ruddock, and tyson's victory over him.


you say walcott's resume ****s on tyson's???? BUHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HHHHAA. GODAAAAAAMNNNNNNN, i should put that **** on signature......i mean godaaaaymmmnnnn. WOW. and then you talk about my credibility??? you got no ****ing credability on this site, with this **** you wrote......like i said it makes sense, you're 17. i cant believe im trying to have a reasonable discussion with a toddler.

i dont need to give you any great names tyson has beat, look at the list i gave you and you'll understand everything there's to know. they may not have been all time greats, but neither the guys you've mentioned, not even close, but they did have solid credentials, and were tougher than the majoriy of the competition louis has faced.

i believe that after this **** you wrote, you should leave this site and never come back here. what you wrote, and the reasons you came up with are beyond de****able

[slicksouthpaw16]

[QUOTE]

LMFAOOO, i love how you bring 'activity' into equation and blame it on losses of fighters. this is why what im about to tell you will be especially satisfying, pay attention.
in the period of 1938 walcott only fought 6 times and lost twice to unheralded opponents, (those 2 losses were part of those 6 fights) your arguement about 'staying active and burning out' goes out the window. fighting those 6 times didnt not burn him out to get 2 losses.

So was Tyson being as active as Walcott? Hes was matched soft, very soft. Him not fighting any elite boxer shows you this. What i find so luaghable and why i am enjoying this comedy, is the fact that you fail to bring up Tyson's losses. Do you notice what all of his losses have in common? The fact that he fought someone that actally fought him back.

Walcott was clearly unmotivated. Notice that when ever he reached the upper echlon, he didn't lose to any ''unhearalded'' opposition? Thats my point. Walcott has very good names on his resume and did not get a shot at the belt until he was 33 years old. I (and many other people) had him beating Joe Louis. He has very impressive names on his record such as Harold Johnson (who is underrated and has impressive names on his record such as Bob Scatterfield, Archie Moore and a peak Ezzard Charles) Ezzard Charles, Joey Maxim ect. He is cleary great and only a true morn would question that. In fact, we should post a poll asking if Baer and Walcott are great. You would again, make yourself look like a fool if front the entire forum.

but that's not all after fighting only twice in 1944 (that's a huge activity right there and after that, having 2 fights in 1945 he lost to a fighter with 15 losses and 13 wins LOL, i wonder what you gonna say now, that he wasnt staying too active? this is too easy, at least learn about the fighter you're defending

I didn't say a damn thing about Walcott being inactive. I said that he was TOO active and fought 10 times a month, which could very well burn a fighter out. Fighter today does not even fight 10 times in 3 years. Read my posts.

you talk about me avoiding you and not giving you answers, you still havent answered whom walcott has beat to get 'an all time great' status. you're using a strong choice of words and basically giving out the word 'great' as if it's a candy. you qualify a fighter as an all time great when all he did was go 2-2 with blown up ezzard charles (and yeah i use blown up the way your ignorant ass uses the word 'blown up' to describe guys like spinks) the fact that he had a good showing in fights with louis and rocky, and didnt beat neither, makes him an all time great. LOL the man was a journeyman. you cant give me any other opponent because you know it's true, you're just too thick headed to admit it....and too proud.

See above. I listed Walcott's opposition.

so you're saying im being disrespectful to Jim Braddock when i say every fighter on Tyson's record beats him??? HAHAHA. you're trying to make a case that braddock was a solid fighter, who between 1930-1933 (exactly 3 years) lost 21 fights?????

and you making a case for him?? are you out of your mind, braddock was below journeyman status, relax dude, dont embarass yourself. he lost every other fight to opponents who had double the amount of losses on their records. again not bothering at all to get your facts straight

It was the way you said it that was very disrespectful. Braddock was not great by no means, but his upset win over Max Baer was very impressive. His cinderella story is one of the most known in boxing today.

yeah donovan ruddock lost to lewis and morrison twice, but again you fail to point out that he got those losses after the tyson fights, before that he had only one loss and beat bonecrusher smith, james broad, former hard punching champion mike weaver, and nearly killed Michael dokes who just a year earlier gave holyfield the toughest fight since qawi, (i recommend you check that fight out) again you're are you not tired of this? and since when loosing to a guy like lewis or morrison (2 and then 4 years later) is emberassing? id rather loose to them than some shmuck with 20 losses. then you try to compare him to guys like braddock, baer, galento and walcott. you're a joke. even Poet, the biggest tyson hater on the planet earth, admits that razor ruddock was a solid fighter, and says that it's tyson's best wins.

I just laugh when people claim that Tyson broke Ruddock. Ruddock was out boxing Morrison and knocked out down as well before the stoppage. Wouldn't you think that his knockout lossess came into the hands of fighters that has more heart than Tyson does and more will power?

Also, Dokes didn't give Holyfield his toughest fight since Qawi. Cooper gave Evander a tougher fight. He put up a decent fight, but he was systematically broken down and stopped as well. Now i see you are trying to lie to support you pathetic arguements. Very nice. You are cleary a joke and i am wasting my time here.

you say walcott's resume ****s on tyson's???? WOW. and then you talk about my credibility??? you got no ****ing credability on this site, with this **** you wrote......like i said it makes sense, you're 17. i cant believe im trying to have a reasonable discussion with a toddler.

I said that Walcott is better than anyone that Tyson has beaten. Read my posts.

i dont need to give you any great names tyson has beat, look at the list i gave you and you'll understand everything there's to know.

i should welcome you to my sig for that. Thats classic

they may not have been all time greats, but neither the guys you've mentioned, not even close, but they did have solid credentials, and were tougher than the majoriy of the competition louis has faced.

This would look even better in my sig.

i believe that after this **** you wrote, you should leave this site and never come back here. what you wrote, and the reasons you came up with are beyond de****able

lol, are you serious? 15 people disagree with you and only 3 agree. Thats saying something kid.

[randy johnson]

The person who started this threat is probably the most intelligent Tyson fan i ever seen.You know why people praise Louis opponents and put down Tyson's?Because they have no clue about boxing and will believe anything they hear.Most of these old school so call boxing experts act like Louis,Robinson,Lamotta and Marciano are some type of gods.They could fight bum after bum but get praised for it and no matter who Tyson fought he got bashed for it.
You made some interesting points like comparing Billy Conn and Michael Spinks.You forgot to mention Billy Conn couldn't punch worth a damn (66 wins 11 knockouts)yet it took Louis 14 or so rounds to knock him out and not to mention Conn almost knocked Louis out.You failed to mention that Louis was knocked down numerous times in his career with one punch by lesser fighters than Tyson's opponents.You forgot to mention Louis pretty much avoided fighting black fighters with he exception of Ezzard Charles a blown up middleweight and Jersey Joe Walcott a cruiserweight.
The only fighters Tyson actually ducked was Foreman.I never heard of a Tyson vs Mercer fight or any other fighters you claim he ducked.Tyson is overrated like i said before...if you think he is the hardest puncher that ever lived then you are a idiot.Holyfield said Foreman punched harder than Tyson and he fought him.If you think Tyson was unbeatable then you are a fool because no man is unbeatable but Tyson on the other hand gets shafted by most boxing historians.Tyson is a top 10 heavyweight fighter.Tyson would destroy any heavyweight before Ali with ease.

[Boogie Nights]

[QUOTE=slicksouthpaw16;3615113]

So was Tyson being as active as Walcott? Hes was matched soft, very soft. Him not fighting any elite boxer shows you this. What i find so luaghable and why i am enjoying this comedy, is the fact that you fail to bring up Tyson's losses. Do you notice what all of his losses have in common? The fact that he fought someone that actally fought him back.

Walcott was clearly unmotivated. Notice that when ever he reached the upper echlon, he didn't lose to any ''unhearalded'' opposition? Thats my point. Walcott has very good names on his resume and did not get a shot at the belt until he was 33 years old. I (and many other people) had him beating Joe Louis. He has very impressive names on his record such as Harold Johnson (who is underrated and has impressive names on his record such as Bob Scatterfield, Archie Moore and a peak Ezzard Charles) Ezzard Charles, Joey Maxim ect. He is cleary great and only a true morn would question that. In fact, we should post a poll asking if Baer and Walcott are great. You would again, make yourself look like a fool if front the entire forum.



I didn't say a damn thing about Walcott being inactive. I said that he was TOO active and fought 10 times a month, which could very well burn a fighter out. Fighter today does not even fight 10 times in 3 years. Read my posts.



See above. I listed Walcott's opposition.



It was the way you said it that was very disrespectful. Braddock was not great by no means, but his upset win over Max Baer was very impressive. His cinderella story is one of the most known in boxing today.



I just laugh when people claim that Tyson broke Ruddock. Ruddock was out boxing Morrison and knocked out down as well before the stoppage. Wouldn't you think that his knockout lossess came into the hands of fighters that has more heart than Tyson does and more will power?

Also, Dokes didn't give Holyfield his toughest fight since Qawi. Cooper gave Evander a tougher fight. He put up a decent fight, but he was systematically broken down and stopped as well. Now i see you are trying to lie to support you pathetic arguements. Very nice. You are cleary a joke and i am wasting my time here.



I said that Walcott is better than anyone that Tyson has beaten. Read my posts.



i should welcome you to my sig for that. Thats classic



This would look even better in my sig.




lol, are you serious? 15 people disagree with you and only 3 agree. Thats saying something kid.

i thought you'd shut the **** up already because i already straight up and down. to think that i would spend an extra second to argue with you is ridicilous. you have shown that your reading skills are a thing of beauty. im done with you 17 year old snot eater.

[slicksouthpaw16]

You also failed to tell me the GREAT fighters that Tyson has beaten, even though i answered all of your questions and went throught the great fighters that Louis has beaten. Thats what lets me know that you are a joke.

[Verstyle]

I'd rather see fighters that have won against great opposition then a 0 on the record from someone that probably fought no ones.

[Boogie Nights]

slicksouthpaw16

you named joe maxim who was a ligth heavyweight

seriously get help. i like how you put me on ignore so i cant reply to your sorry pathetic thread. wow that's mature, at least i gave a you a chance to explain yourself, but i see it was usuless. you got a lot more growing up to do

and please tell them that i was the one who said they were not all time greats. i understand that most people will vote for them cuz they fought louis, ooohohoh wooooo, they were those warrior from the past, YEAH YEAH, bring back the old days. evryone that fought in the 50s is an all time great. **** lets slap each other on the ass

you're a pathetic joke, who knows **** about this sport. my discussion with you is over

[Boogie Nights]

lol and this idiot slicksouthpaw says that walcott fought 20 times a month, what a freakin idiot seriously. i made the post saying that he had 5 fights in one year alone and lost to a fighter with 15 losses, and slick says he lost because he was burn out fighting too much LMFAOOO

it's interesting how he was burnt out fighting those 6 times, what an idiot, WOW

and that little ***** has me on ignore, clearly i owned him to the max

[Thunder Lips]

Walcott was not groomed for greatness, he was a talented but raw journeyman/part-time boxer for many years when he picked up most of his losses. He was a family man who worked in the shipyards for crying out loud. He didn't even have a real trainer until Blackburn, which was only for a brief period of time. He was semi-retired when Felix Bocchicchio became his manager in 45, saving his career. It was in this time he developed into a great Championship caliber fighter. This is why people shouldn't just read records, there is usually more going on than just numbers. Walcott is one of boxing's great stories; Marciano, Louis, and the underrated Layne were the only losses he didn't revenge once he hit his stride and he still managed to give all three very tough fights in the process.

If your gonna bash a late bloomer like Walcott's legacy because of the way he started his career, we might as well bash Tyson because of the way he ended his career: