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

[them_apples]

due to another thread, i decided to make this one

a lot of people questioning tyson's opposition, but let's jusr respectfully break it down

Note in my view both were great fighters, and this is not a hate post on Louis

first of let's start with mike. ill select all the top names, from both records

Pinklon Thomas 29-1-1. Praised for his Sonny liston like jab, and solid chin. decision over Tim Witherspoon, and ko over Mike Weaver

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

Tyrell Biggs 15-0, gold medalist trained by Lou Duva. nothing flashy in terms of record, but a solid decision win over veteran James Tillis

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

Tony Tubbs 24-1 a quick, talented heavyweight. Wins over Greg Page, and James Smith. The only blemish a 15 round decision loss to Tim Witherspoon. After the tyson fight, bounced back to loose a fight many people thought he won against Rid**** Bowe

Michael Spinks 31-0. Undefeated record, one of the greatest light heavyweights, 2 wins over holmes, and a win over Gerry Cooney. pay attention to the double standardwhen he was knocked out by tyson everyone said he was a blown up light heavy, even though favouring him to win against tyson in the first place

double standard> a guy like Billy Conn gets no **** for loosing to Louis twice, and gets praised for being a good opponent. Spinks would have easily whooped him at heavyweight, yet he gets criticised for being a small stuffed duck in the pond. see a double standard?

Frank Bruno 32-2. Hard puncher, good boxer. Gave hell Lennox Lewis before the stoppage

Carl Williams 22-2 A tall boxer, held wins over bert cooper, james tillis (then 30-4), trevor berbick, and loosing to larry holmes. a fight many thought he won

Alex Stewart 26-1 all kos. The only loss to Evander Holyfield

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

now compare to Joe Louis's opponents

Primo Carnera 82-7 considered a circus act. many questionable wins due to him being tied to the mob

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

Jack Sharkey 38-13-3: it's safe to say that a fighter with that many losses proves that he's not a world beater, regardless of historians praising him for being something he's not


Jim Braddock 50-25-7: Gave a wormanlike performace, a tough irishman, wins over Corn Griffin, Art Lasky and a no-decision over Maxie Rosenbloom. gets beat by about any opponent tyson has faced to make it fair

Tommy Farr 66-20-13 Not a particularly hard puncher, but a decent boxer. Wins over Max Baer, and Tommy Loughran. Good opponent

Max Schmeling 52-7-4 rematch. no need to explain, a good fighter, knocked louis out in the first fight

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

Arturo Godoy 53-8-7 No complaints, solid veteran, lost to louis first time by decision, and ko in the rematch

Buddy Baer 53-5-0 A good fighter, but not as popular as his brother. pretty stuffed record. First DQ loss, and then ko in the rematch

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

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

so i dont understand how tyson's opponents were any worse than the fighters Louis has faced.

Joe, more than anything, gets the biggest credit for his title defences

first off you seem to know plenty about Tyson but next to nothing about Louis. Both ill agree didn’t have the best competition. Louis had a better career cause his reign was longer and he accomplished more.

however Tysons comp you are giving way too much credit for. The first 3 names only exist because Tyson fought them.

Holmes did go on to beat some good fighters after Tyson beat him, but you forgot to mention that he was retired and eating potatoe chips on his couch when he was offered millions to fight Tyson on 2 months notice. I don’t know how much you know about the fight game - but at that point in their career Holmes had almost no chance of winning under those circumstances.

spinks was a great light heavy. But he too was inactive for a year and was planning on retiring (it was his last fight). So spinks, being a lhw and on his last legs gets koed by mike for a nice cheque. Ill say the Spinks win was better than the Holmes win, possibly Mikes best win. But careful view into the circumstances once again leaves cherry picking energy.

now, Mike did fight some good fighters - but they all BEAT him, thats the problem. He was losing in his mid to late 20s. So we have this tiny window of the man - 2 years where he was too much for what was available at HW. And thats what everyone calls his prime.


now Louis has a whole list of bums as well on his record. But keep in mind he defended the title for 25 defenses. He had plenty of opponents to test him during that time, one which beat him and he avenged it. Later on in his career he fought some pretty good competition and beat them as well or put up a good showing.

many of Louis opponents at least tried to win. I literally saw Bruce Seldon get knocked out by a gust of wind.

the only time Louis got washed was the old broke ******* addicted 40 year old that a prime Rocky got rid of.

That being said I do agree with the initial idea. What I would disagree with is your reasons for Tysons resume being better. Louis def proved a lot more in the ring than Mike did.

[HOUDINI563]

Galento was no bum. He was a feared deadly puncher who went into his bout with Louis with 11 consecutive kos.

[Ropss]

first off you seem to know plenty about Tyson but next to nothing about Louis. Both ill agree didn’t have the best competition. Louis had a better career cause his reign was longer and he accomplished more.

however Tysons comp you are giving way too much credit for. The first 3 names only exist because Tyson fought them.

Holmes did go on to beat some good fighters after Tyson beat him, but you forgot to mention that he was retired and eating potatoe chips on his couch when he was offered millions to fight Tyson on 2 months notice. I don’t know how much you know about the fight game - but at that point in their career Holmes had almost no chance of winning under those circumstances.

spinks was a great light heavy. But he too was inactive for a year and was planning on retiring (it was his last fight). So spinks, being a lhw and on his last legs gets koed by mike for a nice cheque. Ill say the Spinks win was better than the Holmes win, possibly Mikes best win. But careful view into the circumstances once again leaves cherry picking energy.

now, Mike did fight some good fighters - but they all BEAT him, thats the problem. He was losing in his mid to late 20s. So we have this tiny window of the man - 2 years where he was too much for what was available at HW. And thats what everyone calls his prime.


now Louis has a whole list of bums as well on his record. But keep in mind he defended the title for 25 defenses. He had plenty of opponents to test him during that time, one which beat him and he avenged it. Later on in his career he fought some pretty good competition and beat them as well or put up a good showing.

many of Louis opponents at least tried to win. I literally saw Bruce Seldon get knocked out by a gust of wind.

the only time Louis got washed was the old broke ******* addicted 40 year old that a prime Rocky got rid of.

That being said I do agree with the initial idea. What I would disagree with is your reasons for Tysons resume being better. Louis def proved a lot more in the ring than Mike did.

Beat reign Lineal champ Cherrypicking lollll Spinks would beat anyone of Louis resume 1 year is normal to be inactive and good fighters didnt all beat Tyson you are just biased towards 70s featherfisted era and think Frazier is ATG and bums like Norton are great fighters best fighter Holmessy fough are Holyfield and Tyson He lost to you guys never mention that

[StarshipTrooper]

Ah yes! Boogie Knights! One of the dumbest nuthugging motherphuckers to ever slither out of the sewer and into the History section Fan-bois like him are the reason Tyson is criminally underrated now

[mrbig1]

Louis did fight the bum of the month club. Both fought in a weak era. Louis was champ for 12 years. Which means if a guy was 12 when Louis won the title. He would have fought louis when he was 23. 25 defenses is unheard of. Louis fought better fighters but not by much.

[Ivich]

due to another thread, i decided to make this one

a lot of people questioning tyson's opposition, but let's jusr respectfully break it down

Note in my view both were great fighters, and this is not a hate post on Louis

first of let's start with mike. ill select all the top names, from both records

Pinklon Thomas 29-1-1. Praised for his Sonny liston like jab, and solid chin. decision over Tim Witherspoon, and ko over Mike Weaver

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

Tyrell Biggs 15-0, gold medalist trained by Lou Duva. nothing flashy in terms of record, but a solid decision win over veteran James Tillis

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

Tony Tubbs 24-1 a quick, talented heavyweight. Wins over Greg Page, and James Smith. The only blemish a 15 round decision loss to Tim Witherspoon. After the tyson fight, bounced back to loose a fight many people thought he won against Rid**** Bowe

Michael Spinks 31-0. Undefeated record, one of the greatest light heavyweights, 2 wins over holmes, and a win over Gerry Cooney. pay attention to the double standardwhen he was knocked out by tyson everyone said he was a blown up light heavy, even though favouring him to win against tyson in the first place

double standard> a guy like Billy Conn gets no **** for loosing to Louis twice, and gets praised for being a good opponent. Spinks would have easily whooped him at heavyweight, yet he gets criticised for being a small stuffed duck in the pond. see a double standard?

Frank Bruno 32-2. Hard puncher, good boxer. Gave hell Lennox Lewis before the stoppage

Carl Williams 22-2 A tall boxer, held wins over bert cooper, james tillis (then 30-4), trevor berbick, and loosing to larry holmes. a fight many thought he won

Alex Stewart 26-1 all kos. The only loss to Evander Holyfield

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

now compare to Joe Louis's opponents

Primo Carnera 82-7 considered a circus act. many questionable wins due to him being tied to the mob

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

Jack Sharkey 38-13-3: it's safe to say that a fighter with that many losses proves that he's not a world beater, regardless of historians praising him for being something he's not


Jim Braddock 50-25-7: Gave a wormanlike performace, a tough irishman, wins over Corn Griffin, Art Lasky and a no-decision over Maxie Rosenbloom. gets beat by about any opponent tyson has faced to make it fair

Tommy Farr 66-20-13 Not a particularly hard puncher, but a decent boxer. Wins over Max Baer, and Tommy Loughran. Good opponent

Max Schmeling 52-7-4 rematch. no need to explain, a good fighter, knocked louis out in the first fight

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

Arturo Godoy 53-8-7 No complaints, solid veteran, lost to louis first time by decision, and ko in the rematch

Buddy Baer 53-5-0 A good fighter, but not as popular as his brother. pretty stuffed record. First DQ loss, and then ko in the rematch

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

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

so i dont understand how tyson's opponents were any worse than the fighters Louis has faced.

Joe, more than anything, gets the biggest credit for his title defences

Good points I think Louis gets kudos for his longevity,whereas Tyson was a comet soaring and falling inside a few years.

[QueensburyRules]

Good points I think Louis gets kudos for his longevity,whereas Tyson was a comet soaring and falling inside a few years.

- - Pretty much it save Louis was never a terribly abused juvenile delinquent that Mike was.

They both clear out their divisions post haste, but Louis mentality having been raised by loving parents much stronger than Mike who had no such anchor.

[Ivich]

- - Pretty much it save Louis was never a terribly abused juvenile delinquent that Mike was.

They both clear out their divisions post haste, but Louis mentality having been raised by loving parents much stronger than Mike who had no such anchor.

I think you will find Tyson was the one doing the abusing,and Louis' Father was in a mental home.Tyson would have turned out the same no matter what his environment imo.A great fighter for a few years,a ****ty human being for all of them its about character.

[QueensburyRules]

I think you will find Tyson was the one doing the abusing,and Louis' Father was in a mental home.Tyson would have turned out the same no matter what his environment imo.A great fighter for a few years,a ****ty human being for all of them its about character.

- - Never heard that about Louis' father, so I'm skeptical. Abusers tend to be abused as kids and Mike out on the streets as a toddler ripe for abuse.

Nor do I see Tyson as ALL BAD. Joe Louis did some bad things and both were abused financially, but Joe had class and stability overall where as Mike under proper conditions could show class, as soon as he sees someone trying to abuse him he goes off.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - Never heard that about Louis' father, so I'm skeptical. Abusers tend to be abused as kids and Mike out on the streets as a toddler ripe for abuse.

Nor do I see Tyson as ALL BAD. Joe Louis did some bad things and both were abused financially, but Joe had class and stability overall where as Mike under proper conditions could show class, as soon as he sees someone trying to abuse him he goes off.

Louis wasn't abused - looks like we got another new guy who repeats CW cliches, with no research effort, under the pretention he knows the history of the game.

Minimum research effort would have shown that the father was committed to an asylum when Louis was a toddler.

Mother remarried thus making him the second youngest of a large combined family.

The mother's great concern was the streets of Detroit when Louis became a teen, thus the famous violin lessons story.

Poorly educated, with signs of a learning disability, in particular a stammer when talking, which was probably the cause of his quiet nature as an adult. Certainly brighter than his verbal capabilities suggested.

As a child most histories suggest he was very poorly educated but loved as a child.