better puncher - mike tyson or joe louis?

[Miburo]

Tyson punched harder but Louis was a sharpshooter. Depends on your definition.

[Greatest1942]

Good Lord,

It takes a long time to reply to every point and I dont have much time.

I complimented the Braddock punch. It was great, it broke a gum shield. I dont doubt that other gumshields have been broken in the passage of time. People have had jaws broken, lost teeth, have had nasty tongue and lip damage. Jack Johnson removed Ketchel's teeth! Was Johnson a much harder puncher than Louis? I dont think there was much in it.

On the subject of Schmelling's spinal injury, neither of us are spinal surgeons. The punch is what it is! It didn't look terrifying, but it was in a dubious area. Childish has nothing to do with it.

I dont know why you mentioned that Robinson thought Louis had faster hands than Ali, when you then went on to say that you think Ali had faster hands. Perculiar. As you know, I think Ali had faster hands.

I've got a good copy of the Baer film, its the big fights Inc copy. The one you'll also find on You Tube. Its just a touch speeded up, I dont think a better one exists.

The poll concerns who is the 'better puncher'. 2 thirds favour Louis. I've said in my very first post on the thread that it is a close call. I just favour Tyson's slight speed and power advantage. Others may prefer the accuracy and economy of Louis, no hard feelings for Louis voters.

I've said on this thread that Louis had the better jab. Read it if you will.

I didn't ignore that Louis knocked people cold, I know he did, I've seen him do it hundreds of times. I just said that Tyson did it too.

Nuthugging Tyson? Naa, read my last paragraph of my last post. I rate Louis higher! Am I being the 'ass' here?

Nothing personal, I like you and your posts and I'm sure I agree with you on many subjects.

Tyson fought bums, Louis fought bums. I'm not comparing records and non of my posts did. My posts about bums concerns people who were knocked out cold by each fighter. Of course Louis has the better resume and record. My posts concern punching.

If you put it this way I have nothing against you...except
1) You said Tyson Ko'd people cold and held that as sanctioning his power against Louis, I just say louis did it often too. The way you are putting it now mate, its fine...But initially you didn't see that.

2)My point of bums I gave you an exampel of a Louis who stiched that punch combo past his prime, Tyson well matched it barely in his prime.

3)The Baer fight is a good one you own, no doubt from the refrees movements you can see its a touch sped up...But does it seriously hamper Louis's combo;s vitality.

Never mind, I agree with you a lot too you can see that in a lot of other threads too. Lets leave here.

[Sugarj]

If you put it this way I have nothing against you...except
1) You said Tyson Ko'd people cold and held that as sanctioning his power against Louis, I just say louis did it often too. The way you are putting it now mate, its fine...But initially you didn't see that.

2)My point of bums I gave you an exampel of a Louis who stiched that punch combo past his prime, Tyson well matched it barely in his prime.

3)The Baer fight is a good one you own, no doubt from the refrees movements you can see its a touch sped up...But does it seriously hamper Louis's combo;s vitality.

Never mind, I agree with you a lot too you can see that in a lot of other threads too. Lets leave here.

No problem fella,

Bottom line for me is what I see. Several of the other enthusiasts on here know me as fight film fan, a bit of a geek really! I'm more biased by what I see than what I read......and hand on heart I just think Tyson punches a touch faster and a little heavier. Dont get me wrong, I can think of faster punchers than Tyson and heavier hitters too in heavyweight history. I just never cease to be impressed by the speed and power of 85-89 Tyson. Louis amazes me too of course, I just find myself wincing a bit more when watching Tyson. There are many other attributes of Louis that I favour over Tyson.....but they are for another thread.

One day I'll have to conceed that a modern day heavy is faster than Patterson or Ali. Or that a modern day heavy has a more concussive right than Foreman or Shavers. I just hope that I'll be honest enough to admit it when it happens......and in time it probably will.

Take care.

[Greatest1942]

No problem fella,

Bottom line for me is what I see. Several of the other enthusiasts on here know me as fight film fan, a bit of a geek really! I'm more biased by what I see than what I read......and hand on heart I just think Tyson punches a touch faster and a little heavier. Dont get me wrong, I can think of faster punchers than Tyson and heavier hitters too in heavyweight history. I just never cease to be impressed by the speed and power of 85-89 Tyson. Louis amazes me too of course, I just find myself wincing a bit more when watching Tyson. There are many other attributes of Louis that I favour over Tyson.....but they are for another thread.

One day I'll have to conceed that a modern day heavy is faster than Patterson or Ali. Or that a modern day heavy has a more concussive right than Foreman or Shavers. I just hope that I'll be honest enough to admit it when it happens......and in time it probably will.

Take care.

Well , good points...but let me state why I made that Sugar Ray quote :-
To you Ali> Tyson in handspeed. I made a quote where Sugar said Louis had him beat there...So inference if we accept his view Louis > Tyson there.

And somehow I never think Tyson's power is over the top, because in terms of destructive ability I think Louis beats Tyson handily. Bear in mind some of his destructions are not even on film. I will like to make a point here if you saw Louis beating his lesser oppoenets like you daily see Tyson I will assure you will see a more destructive sight. Louis vs walcott at that age had much faster handspeed than Mike even 5 years younger. But still I have no doubt you have your views and to me its fine.

[Sugarj]

Well , good points...but let me state why I made that Sugar Ray quote :-
To you Ali> Tyson in handspeed. I made a quote where Sugar said Louis had him beat there...So inference if we accept his view Louis > Tyson there.

And somehow I never think Tyson's power is over the top, because in terms of destructive ability I think Louis beats Tyson handily. Bear in mind some of his destructions are not even on film. I will like to make a point here if you saw Louis beating his lesser oppoenets like you daily see Tyson I will assure you will see a more destructive sight. Louis vs walcott at that age had much faster handspeed than Mike even 5 years younger. But still I have no doubt you have your views and to me its fine.

I see the point about Sugar Ray. I dont think he would have said that had he known the results of Jim Jacob's synchroniser test which had Ali's jab faster than Ray's own. If Louis was indeed faster than Ali then that would in turn make Ray's slower than both heavyweights. Poor Ray, ha ha. I actually think Ray had faster hands than Louis.

I've tried to see every available fight of Louis, he is very destructive.....fantastic. I'm no doubter at all.

I never thought that Tyson's hands got really slow into his 30s, its just that his accuracy and combination work became poorer. He wasn't as fast as his peak, but I wouldn't say his hands were sluggish even towards the end. His hands looked pretty lively against Julius Francis. Also at near 40, his hands didn't look too slow early on against Danny Williams for example, despite the ending. But hell, I'm only rating Tyson prime for prime so never mind.

[Greatest1942]

I see the point about Sugar Ray. I dont think he would have said that had he known the results of Jim Jacob's synchroniser test which had Ali's jab faster than Ray's own. If Louis was indeed faster than Ali then that would in turn make Ray's slower than both heavyweights. Poor Ray, ha ha. I actually think Ray had faster hands than Louis.

I've tried to see every available fight of Louis, he is very destructive.....fantastic. I'm no doubter at all.

I never thought that Tyson's hands got really slow into his 30s, its just that his accuracy and combination work became poorer. He wasn't as fast as his peak, but I wouldn't say his hands were sluggish even towards the end. His hands looked pretty lively against Julius Francis. Also at near 40, his hands didn't look too slow early on against Danny Williams for example, despite the ending. But hell, I'm only rating Tyson prime for prime so never mind.

That test I have a difficulty subscribing too, because Jacobs might have been testing Sugar's slowest with Ali's fastest. And trust me a lot of guys who saw ALi and Louis had similar opinions. So Sugar was a not an irregularity.

You test a guy who is 38 with a 23-25 man and say see this guy is quicker...Give me a break...That way I am sure Tyson,Holmes, Louis at 23 occasionally jabbed faster than the Sugar ray at 42!!! He could have bothered to compare the left hook or the straight right too.

Anyways read this “Louis hit Braddock so hard, the sweat and water from his hair sprayed as far as Row 6. He knocked Paolino Uzcudun’s gold teeth in so many directions, the ring looked as if somebody had stepped on a railroad watch.” Its hard to picture Tyson doing better than that.

[SBleeder]

To be honest ThemApples did touch on Tyson's late round workrate issue and lack of infighting.

I'll be damned if I can think of any other weaknesses in prime Tyson precluding him from being a 'complete fighter'. Unless you want to judge him on his lack of height and reach....which he actually dealt with very well.

Footwork was often quite sloppy. Never could fight while moving any direction other than forward. Essentially, he was one of the most un-adaptable fighters I've ever seen. His style worked great against the type of fighter it was designed to work against... but Tyson guys like Quick Tillis and Tony Tucker showed that he was a one-trick pony.

[CarlosG815]

Footwork was often quite sloppy. Never could fight while moving any direction other than forward. Essentially, he was one of the most un-adaptable fighters I've ever seen. His style worked great against the type of fighter it was designed to work against... but Tyson guys like Quick Tillis and Tony Tucker showed that he was a one-trick pony.

Tyson had great footwork. Watching Dempsey it appears to me that Tyson tried to model his footwork after him, and actually had a more perfected style.

He could fight coming forward, and did a great job of maneuvering side to side without being hit and putting himself in the best possible position to throw a hard punch. There is plenty of film showing Tyson coming in forward to throw combo's then getting to the side and landing vicious uppercuts or hooks.

A one trick Pony because those guys only came to survive and laid on him? They came to survive and go 12 rounds, they didn't come to win. They did not expose any weakness, IMO.

[Sugarj]

That test I have a difficulty subscribing too, because Jacobs might have been testing Sugar's slowest with Ali's fastest. And trust me a lot of guys who saw ALi and Louis had similar opinions. So Sugar was a not an irregularity.

You test a guy who is 38 with a 23-25 man and say see this guy is quicker...Give me a break...That way I am sure Tyson,Holmes, Louis at 23 occasionally jabbed faster than the Sugar ray at 42!!! He could have bothered to compare the left hook or the straight right too.

Anyways read this “Louis hit Braddock so hard, the sweat and water from his hair sprayed as far as Row 6. He knocked Paolino Uzcudun’s gold teeth in so many directions, the ring looked as if somebody had stepped on a railroad watch.” Its hard to picture Tyson doing better than that.

I'd like to think that a big fight collector and all round ring enthusiast like Jacobs would be impartial enough to test as close to prime Robinson as possible. He very well might have had some of the elusive welterweight footage of Robinson. Big Fights Inc of course haven't released everything to the public domain, that I'm aware of.

I personally couldn't pick between the jabs of Ray and Ali and wouldn't care who was a smidgen faster. These are two of my idols.

As for poor Uzcudun and his gold teeth, hell who knows how good his dentistry was, or the attachments/filings in the mid 30s. All I know is that the film is too rough to make a proper opinion. It doesn't matter, I dont think there is too much to separate Tyson for Louis powerwise. I just think Tyson has the edge.

All the best.

[Sugarj]

Footwork was often quite sloppy. Never could fight while moving any direction other than forward. Essentially, he was one of the most un-adaptable fighters I've ever seen. His style worked great against the type of fighter it was designed to work against... but Tyson guys like Quick Tillis and Tony Tucker showed that he was a one-trick pony.

His footwork was alright, he was quick on his feet, cut off the ring as fast as anyone. He was good at circling. No one could say he was a guy with two left feet.

Sloppy? When? Naturally everyone makes some mistakes, I've seen Ali off balance. It happens, but his body of work in his prime was by no means a lesson in poor footwork, his form was largely very good.

As for Tillis and Tucker. They won a few rounds each. Good for them, they were quality opponents. I watched the Tillis fight again last week, he was in great shape and put up an excellent fight against Mike. It wasn't close in the scoring but he did well. As for Tucker, unbeaten and with an excellent amateur heritage.....I'm delighted he made a good fight of it.

Of course Tyson fought them going forwards, they were both opponents who went backwards well. Naturally Tyson's style wouldn't ever be to dance like Ali, Holmes or Walcott, his reach disadvantage would make this foolish.

I cant say I've come across many who criticise prime Tyson's footwork. Perhaps you're one of few?

Adaptable? In his prime he was fairly adaptable. He fought and defeated guys of just about every style, movers, aggressive types, tall or short. He was no Ali or Tunney on the imagination front, but who was? Many ATG heavyweights were essentially unadaptable....but their talent and style got them through the tough fights.

Never mind, not everyone is a Tyson fan.