How does Joe Louis do against these fighters?

[sonnyboyx2]

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.

GJC... explain your post to me because i cannot understand what you are getting at mate.... you say you favour the 10 fight senario... but name for me when did this ever happen in boxing history?....what is the logic

[StarshipTrooper]

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.

Only in the eyes of a hard-core Tyson KoolAid drinker. The fact that you DO rate Tyson as the GOAT destroys your credibility in the eyes of pretty much every intelligent objective poster on this site. Have a nice day!

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

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....

More tripe from Boxing Scene's own Psycho Boi

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.

Considering I mentioned before that I rank Tyson at 9 or 10 on the ATG how does that translate into me asserting that Tyson isn't an ATG? This is either pure selective reading on your part or downright ******ity. Considering I also pointed out thank I rank Lennox at 13 (that's 3 or 4 spots BELOW Tyson since you're obviously challenged by simple arithmatic) that kind of exposes you as either a liar or a fool now doesn't it?

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

GJC... explain your post to me because i cannot understand what you are getting at mate.... you say you favour the 10 fight senario... but name for me when did this ever happen in boxing history?....what is the logic

[Equinox]

Louis was levels above Liston imo. Foreman wouldnt be able to get Louis out of there in their primes so I believe Joe beats him based on better skill. The only person who I could really see beating Louis is Tyson in his prime, I can just see him weaving and dodging himself in for some killer shots at Joe.

[CarlosG815]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]
Considering I mentioned before that I rank Tyson at 9 or 10 on the ATG how does that translate into me asserting that Tyson isn't an ATG?

Why do you rank him so high if he fought all fluffs and couldn't go into later rounds?

You don't make any sense and now you are contradicting yourself. You can't discredit everything about the guy, but then say it's ok because you rank him 9 or 10. It makes you look ****** when you contradict yourself so obviously.

I'm just happy my point of view isn't contradictory and that I can stick to my opinion so that's it's clear to everyone, regardless of whether they agree or not.

[StarshipTrooper]

Why do you rank him so high if he fought all fluffs and couldn't go into later rounds?

You don't make any sense and now you are contradicting yourself. You can't discredit everything about the guy, but then say it's ok because you rank him 9 or 10. It makes you look ****** when you contradict yourself so obviously.

There are different levels of greatness. That's why they have ATG RANKINGS in the first place: To distinguish those levels amongst greats. Apparently to you a fighter is either the GOAT or they suck.

Marciano loses stature because of HIS lack of quality opponents but I don't see you bitching about that; so do the Klitschkos: So don't act like factoring in strength of opposition is some unheard of concept.

I'm just happy my point of view isn't contradictory and that I can stick to my opinion so that's it's clear to everyone, regardless of whether they agree or not.

Translation: You take you views of Tyson as a tenet of faith rather than an objective view of reality.

Poet

[GJC]

GJC... explain your post to me because i cannot understand what you are getting at mate.... you say you favour the 10 fight senario... but name for me when did this ever happen in boxing history?....what is the logic

Like I said there is no logic to a ten fight scenario but it certainly helps me in my mind rate a match up. With these fantasy fights there is not fantastic logic behind many of them to be honest given difference in eras and some of the more ludicrous p4p match ups I see such as Pac v Ali etc.

Happy to name a couple of times it has happened in history though, Langford v Wills or McVea off the top of my head and probably a fair few permatations of those guys if you throw in Jeanette too. Probably a fair few others too.
Its still all very hypothetical as Langford and Wills had a fair few years between them so you could say the dozen odd fights they had probably still didn't establish who was the better man given the difference in primes.

[The_Demon]

reading through this interesting thread.carlosG has made it clear he is just a tyson nuthugger,thats why he got so upset when poet gave some constructive criticism to mike and presented him with the cold hard facts

sonnyboy has made it clear hes just a fu.cking idiot,once again

[GJC]

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.

Top 10 ish ATG HW for my money.
Got to say though I would have put forward beating Bruno, Tucker and Ruddock rather than most of the guys you did to make your case for Tyson.