How does Joe Louis do against these fighters?

[StarshipTrooper]

Typical Lennox Lewis nuthugger logic.. "if they fought in a 10 fight series".... when in the History of Boxing have any 2 fighters ever fought in a 10 fight series - answer: NEVER yet Lewis nuthuggers always come out with that same line, "if they fought 10 times Lennox wins 7" what ****ing bull...and like all Lewis nuthuggers they hate Mike Tyson, they hate Tyson and argue about when his prime was, they argue that it was not between 86-90 but that it was more like 86-02 so as to make out that Lewis never beat a zombie when he beat Tyson....

Didn't have to look to hard to find one of my boxing posts did you? Sorry o Lame One, but one-off fights are NOT a good way to determine how one fighter does against another as anything can happen in a one-off fight. Or is this concept too difficult for your admittedly low intellect to grasp?

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

Typical Lennox Lewis nuthugger logic

PS. Sonnygurl's definition of a Lewis nuthuggery is anyone who doesn't think Lennox would lose to any Heavyweight ranked in the top-100. I happen to rank Lewis #13 all-time: Hardly the ranking of a Lewis fan-boi. The utter absurdity Sonnygurl's warped views of Lennox is he'll in one post say Lennox is a top-25 Heavyweight then in the next post will name 50 Heavyweights who are better than him

Poet

[GJC]

.. "if they fought in a 10 fight series".... when in the History of Boxing have any 2 fighters ever fought in a 10 fight series - answer: NEVER

Got to say Sonny I always favour the 10 fight scenario. I know its a stretch but so is transporting Fitz or Rid**** Bowe through time when you think of it

For example ignoring the Marciano v Louis fight they actually had, and thinking along the lines of who do I think would win?
IMO I rate Louis over Marciano but one off it could well be a coin toss between the two of them, Marciano has a lot of plus factors that could get to Louis short term. Over the long term the better man win's, bit like backgammon, poker etc etc
Over ten fights i'd fancy Louis to win 6 or 7 of them.

[CarlosG815]

A nuthugger are we? Must be if you're getting all butt hurt over someone not genuflecting over Leg-Iron Mike the way you do. Film doesn't lie but the quality of opposition doesn't lie either. I've seen fighters come and I've seen them go. If there is one constant among boxing fans it's their propensity to pull their puds over fighters that get spectacular KOs over tomato cans then wonder WTF happend when they get smacked when they step up in class.

Poet

Name calling is a last resort used when you have nothing else of logic or relevance to add to a conversation. What you've just posted says nothing except that you're an immature 41 year old guy that can't think of anything else to say.

If it were true, I wouldn't care. I don't believe Tyson was as great as I think he is because I'm a fan and I just "like" him. I say the things I say because that's what I see when I watch his film. The fact of the matter is Tyson didn't just KO tomato cans. He KO'd legit contenders.

Marvis Frazier was a highly touted prospect - Decimated

Berbick was champion and a contender - Decimated in hopeless fashion

Pinklon Thomas was thought by some to be the best fighter in the world, some believed he was 2 or 3 behind Tyson and Spinks - he was destroyed

Biggs was undefeated when he fought Tyson, Olympic gold medalist, a top contender at the time - he cried.

Larry Holmes was a legend and his record speaks for itself. Yeah he was older but he's the same age as Mosley is today. He could have beaten many contenders at the time - Destroyed and embarrassed by Mike.

Michael Spinks was undefeated and was a top contender. Everybody had been wanting to see a Tyson/Spinks fight because many believed Spinks might be able to do the job - He was defunk'd in no time at all.

He took out many top contenders, I'm not going to go through them all, as I'm sure you already know. You can play it off like he's an overly hyped boxer, but there is a reason he's regarded by many as possibly the GOAT. Oh, but you must know different because you can see things that others can't or are missing. Give me a beak dude.

[StarshipTrooper]

Name calling is a last resort used when you have nothing else of logic or relevance to add to a conversation. What you've just posted says nothing except that you're an immature 41 year old guy that can't think of anything else to say.

I call it like it is: Slavish devotion to a particular fighter and gross overestimation of his abilities = nuthuggery.

If it were true, I wouldn't care. I don't believe Tyson was as great as I think he is because I'm a fan and I just "like" him. I say the things I say because that's what I see when I watch his film. The fact of the matter is Tyson didn't just KO tomato cans. He KO'd legit contenders.

I have every Mike Tyson fight in my collection with the exception of the never filmed Sims fight and I have watched them many times. I have also watched film of most of the all-time greats in most of the weight classes. I'd hazzard to say I've probably watched considerably more fights than YOU have.

Marvis Frazier was a highly touted prospect - Decimated.

Marvis may have been highly touted by his dad but by no one else. Not to mention he had already been KOed in 1 round by Larry Holmes.

Berbick was champion and a contender - Decimated in hopeless fashion.

The worst beltholder in Heaqvyweight history and the poster-boy for everything that was wrong with the Heavyweight division in the 80s.

Pinklon Thomas was thought by some to be the best fighter in the world, some believed he was 2 or 3 behind Tyson and Spinks - he was destroyed.

Fresh out of rehab for coke addiction and a shell of what he had been prior to snorting his career up his nose.

Biggs was undefeated when he fought Tyson, Olympic gold medalist, a top contender at the time - he cried.

A never was who's management jumped at a chance for a big payday because they knew it was only a matter of time before he was exposed as a pretender.

Larry Holmes was a legend and his record speaks for itself. Yeah he was older but he's the same age as Mosley is today. He could have beaten many contenders at the time - Destroyed and embarrassed by Mike.

A clearly past it Larry Holmes who hadn't fought in 2 years AND was out of shape.

Michael Spinks was undefeated and was a top contender. Everybody had been wanting to see a Tyson/Spinks fight because many believed Spinks might be able to do the job - He was defunk'd in no time at all.

Michael Spinks was an ATG LIGHT-Heavyweight but even his trainer Eddie Futch admitted he was never and outstanding Heavy. His claim to fame at Heavyweight was lifting the title off a past it, unmotivated, and out of shape Larry Holmes; getting a gift decision in a rematch with Holmes, and beating notorious head-case and big-fight choker in Gerry Cooney.

He took out many top contenders, I'm not going to go through them all, as I'm sure you already know. You can play it off like he's an overly hyped boxer, but there is a reason he's regarded by many as possibly the GOAT. Oh, but you must know different because you can see things that others can't or are missing. Give me a beak dude.

Era's are not created equal. A top-contender in the 1980s = a journeyman in an average era. BTW, the only people who regard Tyson as the GOAT are his most dementedly rabid fans. His objective fans do not regard him as the GOAT. Check with Them Apples and Iron Man on this: They are 2 Tyson fans who are actually objective in how they evaluate him.

Poet

[CarlosG815]

The same could be said about a lot of fighters that big contenders faced in the past. Actually, since half of what you said is objective speculation, I could say it about every fighter.

Lets talk about era's where boxing was run by the mob and every fight was fixed. Let's throw out Marciano's accomplishments because odds are most of his fights were fixed.

We could sit here and say every guy Louis fought was fixed or tomato can, and when he fought a decent fighter from another country he got dismantled.

But we don't do that. We look at fighters in their era and judge them based on who they beat, how they beat them, and what they're strengths and weaknesses were based on film.

You've given Tyson zero credit and have actually gone out of your way to discredit his victories and legacy. How can anybody do that and legitimately believe they know anything about boxing?

[StarshipTrooper]

The same could be said about a lot of fighters that big contenders faced in the past. Actually, since half of what you said is objective speculation, I could say it about every fighter.

Lets talk about era's where boxing was run by the mob and every fight was fixed. Let's throw out Marciano's accomplishments because odds are most of his fights were fixed.

We could sit here and say every guy Louis fought was fixed or tomato can, and when he fought a decent fighter from another country he got dismantled.

Only one problem: Allegations like that require proof, which you don't have. Evaluation of particular boxers boxing historians have always done and always will.

But we don't do that. We look at fighters in their era and judge them based on who they beat, how they beat them, and what they're strengths and weaknesses were based on film.

Maybe YOU don't do that but practically every boxing historian out there takes the strength of era into account when evaluating fighters: It's not just WHAT you do, but WHO you do it against and WHEN you do it against them.

You've given Tyson zero credit and have actually gone out of your way to discredit his victories and legacy. How can anybody do that and legitimately believe they know anything about boxing?

How can anybody hang on a fighter's nutsack the way YOU do and legitimately believe they know anything about boxing?

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

Even at his peak Tyson was never as good as his most rabid fans make him out to be. Fighters who generate a lot of offense ALWAYS look spectacular against C level competition and given the right match-ups against B level as well. Rating Heavyweights soley by their peak years I would rate Tyson around 9th or 10th among the ATGs. While I've always stressed that it's possible for any ATG to beat any other ATG on any given night (barring a prohibitive style mis-match such as Tyson, Frazier, and Marciano against Foreman), if they all fought in a 10 fight series I would expect Tyson to a sub .500 record against those occupying the 1 through 8 spots.

Poet

This was my orginal post. Anything intemperate or objectional in there?

This is his response that kicked over the hornet's nest:

That's a bull**** statement and you know it. Just because he made everybody look like a 2nd rate boxer doesn't take anything away from his greatness.

You, like most people, pick a few of Tyson's awesome qualities and forget about everything else and talk as if his other abilities are mediocre just because they may be slightly overshadowed by his other more obvious superior skills (hand speed, punching power, combination's).

Film doesn't lie, and when you watch film, you can not put together a string of supreme boxing talent with many fighters the same way you could with Iron Mike, unless you can show otherwise.

Louis is disposed of, and suffers more punishment than Marciano dished out to him.

Now THAT is the post of someone pissed off that someone doesn't rate their favorite fighter as high as THEY do. Clearly he's taking my placement of Tyson in the 9 or 10 range all-time as a personal affront.

Poet

[CarlosG815]

This was my orginal post. Anything intemperate or objectional in there?

This is his response that kicked over the hornet's nest:



Now THAT is the post of someone pissed off that someone doesn't rate their favorite fighter as high as THEY do. Clearly he's taking my placement of Tyson in the 9 or 10 range all-time as a personal affront.

Poet

No, your opinion isn't that important to me, honestly. This is what took away what little credibility you had.

Originally Posted by poet682006 View Post
Even at his peak Tyson was never as good as his most rabid fans make him out to be. Fighters who generate a lot of offense ALWAYS look spectacular against C level competition and given the right match-ups against B level as well.

That's just a ridiculous statement and makes you sound dumb.

[sonnyboyx2]

I call it like it is: Slavish devotion to a particular fighter and gross overestimation of his abilities = nuthuggery.




I have every Mike Tyson fight in my collection with the exception of the never filmed Sims fight and I have watched them many times. I have also watched film of most of the all-time greats in most of the weight classes. I'd hazzard to say I've probably watched considerably more fights than YOU have.




Marvis may have been highly touted by his dad but by no one else. Not to mention he had already been KOed in 1 round by Larry Holmes.



The worst beltholder in Heaqvyweight history and the poster-boy for everything that was wrong with the Heavyweight division in the 80s.



Fresh out of rehab for coke addiction and a shell of what he had been prior to snorting his career up his nose.



A never was who's management jumped at a chance for a big payday because they knew it was only a matter of time before he was exposed as a pretender.



A clearly past it Larry Holmes who hadn't fought in 2 years AND was out of shape.



Michael Spinks was an ATG LIGHT-Heavyweight but even his trainer Eddie Futch admitted he was never and outstanding Heavy. His claim to fame at Heavyweight was lifting the title off a past it, unmotivated, and out of shape Larry Holmes; getting a gift decision in a rematch with Holmes, and beating notorious head-case and big-fight choker in Gerry Cooney.



Era's are not created equal. A top-contender in the 1980s = a journeyman in an average era. BTW, the only people who regard Tyson as the GOAT are his most dementedly rabid fans. His objective fans do not regard him as the GOAT. Check with Them Apples and Iron Man on this: They are 2 Tyson fans who are actually objective in how they evaluate him.

Poet

How would you possibly know if you have watched more fights than anyone else.... just another exaggeration from you which you spew-out on a daily basis.

Marvis Frazier was very highly touted and had an excellent amateur and pro record, beating world title challengers, Zouski, Bugner & Tillis as well as undefeated James Broad & Funso Banjo, former world cruiser champion Bernard"Bull"Benton, future heavyweight champion Bonecrusher Smith and rough, tough Jose Ribalta and losing to undefeated Larry Holmes..... so once again an incorrect call from you with your vivid exaggeration.

Trevor Berbick was far from the worst champion in history, that accolade goes to Hasim Rahman who only managed a close points victory over 45yr old Berbick when Rahman was in his prime.... so once again incorrect call..

Pinklon Thomas was a very decent fighter and nowhere near as bad as you are trying to make out, certainly not as bad as what Tony Tucker was when Lewis fought him in 93 and not in the same league as McCall was for the 2nd Lewis fight, only days out of the rehab....but like all Lewis nuthuggers they love to try to belittle the accomplishments of Tyson.

Biggs was the undefeated Olympic champion so far from an exposed pretender... yet Lewis still fought him 4yrs later even tho Biggs had 3 more KO defeats on his record... so once again an incorrect call from your you and again vivid exageration.

Larry Holmes was Not past it, he went on to win the WBO title and challenge twice more for the Heavyweight title going 23-3..... once again an incorrect call

Michael Spinks the first lightheavy champ to move up and win the title and against an outstanding champion in Larry Holmes.. Spinks out-jabbed & out-fought Holmes in 2 fights over 30 rounds with both fights being excellent quality boxing from undefeated fighters, Holmes was in excellent physical shape and not "out of shape" as you try to imply... Spinks defeated the European champion Tangsted the butchered 6ft 7ins former title challenger Gerry Cooney... Spinks vs Tyson was a fantastic match-up as the betting showed 4/6 & 1/1....

To claim as you repeatedly do that Mike Tyson is not an ATG is ridiculous and a typical Lennox Lewis nuthugger comment... almost every boxing correspondent and historian has Mike Tyson as one of the top 7 or 8 heavyweights in the history of the sport, legendary trainers like Johnny Tocco & Angelo Dundee say he would have been a match for any heavyweight in history, Jim Jacobs & Bill Cayton proberbly the two greatest historians of all times said Mike was one of the ATGs.... yet you make your typical Lewis nuthugger claim that Tyson was a load of bull.... once again incorrect call from a clown who knows nothing whatsoever about boxing.