better puncher - mike tyson or joe louis?

[CarlosG815]

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.

I agree with everything you've said. Sbleeder doesn't have to be a fan, but how can you not respect him as a fighter?

I have read, through numerous posts, bash everything about Tyson's style from his power, style, footwork, defense, etc.

SBleeder, you speak very negative of Tyson, now I'm going to ask you to show me on film where Tyson had sloppy footwork and maybe we can understand where you're coming from.

[StarshipTrooper]

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.

It's pretty well documented that Tyson patterned practically everything about himself as a fighter on Dempsey. To Tyson, Dempsey was "The Man" and I have to laugh at a lot of the Tyson nuthuggers who denigrate Dempsey (NOT saying you're one of THOSE) when Tyson would probably b1tchslap the ****ers for downing Jack if they were so unwise to do so in his presence.

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.

Tyson never had a problem coming forward (though I think his bobbing from side-to-side gets overrated). Tyson's issues were when an opponent kept him turning: He couldn't punch and turn at the same time because of his very stocky build. It was just his body type.

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.

Tucker came to win and didn't go into survival mode until after he broke his hand. Prior to that he showed that Tyson was very vulnerable to uppercuts.

Tillis came to survive but discovered that Tyson decelerated after 6 rounds and started to actually fight Mike. To late to salvage the cards by that point.

I wouldn't say Thomas came only to survive: He fought cautiously but he DID fight. He showed that Tyson could be outboxed by keeping him turning and sticking him with the jab. Thomas' problem was he didn't have the tools to keep it up all fight long and it was pretty clear that he would eventually get caught.....and was.

Poet

[BKM-]

I'd much rather get hit by Tyson than Louis.

Tyson's power is overrated imo. Very few of his knockouts were of the one-punch variety; generally his kos were scored against opponents who were already hurt.

That's generally the case with almost all one punch KO artists. That's a professional athlete trained to fight that they are trying to finish with 1 single blow, it happens rarely. And Tyson and Louis would even do it against opponents much larger than them. It's amazing really.

Now, as for this topic, it's a difficult choice but I gotta say I've never seen someone who could generate so much power from such SHORT punches like Louis and that makes him unique. One of a kind.

[Sugarj]

I agree with everything you've said. Sbleeder doesn't have to be a fan, but how can you not respect him as a fighter?

I have read, through numerous posts, bash everything about Tyson's style from his power, style, footwork, defense, etc.

SBleeder, you speak very negative of Tyson, now I'm going to ask you to show me on film where Tyson had sloppy footwork and maybe we can understand where you're coming from.

Tyson seems to get a bit of a rough deal from critics and boxing fans right now. But I think as the years pass he'll be more appreciated.

His second career 1995-2005, while full of excitement and controversy seems to have tainted many against him. The reduction in technique, the ear and leg biting, the **** allegations, drug taking and the KO losses alienated many fans and I do understand this.

But taken in isolation his prime 1985-1989 was terrific. Certainly one of the better heavyweights in history prime for prime. I fail to understand how anyone who appreciates boxing could not appreciate prime Tyson. He was a textbook lesson in the peak a boo style.

[Greatest1942]

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.

Man, I very much doubt Jacobs had any such elusive footage, and you can depend on my information that there is no such footage you speak off.What footage jacobs used is a matter of conjecture and even if he used the previous films vs Alis I have every doubt the missing frames of those days will allow such a possibility. My best friend is a PHD in imageing techniques and he assures me it was near impossible to that back then. I don't argue with people about this, its no use, but this is the truth. I don't believe Jacobs knew some secret way vack then to dit which todays doctorates can't do. For your knowledge my friend now a days I work my live li hood in IT and I know every well the nuances of computers, films and all the stuff, better than the average person because I depend on it for my livelihood. So I am pretty sure about what I state.

Louis broke the gold pieces. Didn't just uproot the teeth.And as I stated earlier he had Tony Galento in the air vertically from 1/4th of an inch genuinely.About your dentistry comment and ****ty film, More than one person states so , and I am content to take their opinion. Now if you come up with gold was not so developed back then I can't help...Its absurd to argue.Breaking gold is not quite equal to dentistry I hope?

As for your harder arguement I can say that statictically from the injuries Louis inflicted vs that of Tyson I will go with louis.

Has it ever appeared to you that pictures in HD or from Tyson's era better potray violence than from Louis's era. IF I film tyson with those ****ty black and white film his punches won't look so hard to you, the way you go about seeing this. Keep in this in mind.

So, I have to rely on written evidence of gold teeth and teh Bradoock affair, which are supported by numerous evidence. They are corroborated too much to be false. Tyson never did this kind of damage, and if he did it would have been written about to.

And about Tyson's side to side maneuvering that you stated in another comment it was not something to go GA GA over. His build didn't help him to be fair.

[Greatest1942]

Tyson seems to get a bit of a rough deal from critics and boxing fans right now. But I think as the years pass he'll be more appreciated.

His second career 1995-2005, while full of excitement and controversy seems to have tainted many against him. The reduction in technique, the ear and leg biting, the **** allegations, drug taking and the KO losses alienated many fans and I do understand this.

But taken in isolation his prime 1985-1989 was terrific. Certainly one of the better heavyweights in history prime for prime. I fail to understand how anyone who appreciates boxing could not appreciate prime Tyson. He was a textbook lesson in the peak a boo style.

Everyone appreciates him,and I can also say in some cases he is overrated too.

[Sugarj]

Man, I very much doubt Jacobs had any such elusive footage, and you can depend on my information that there is no such footage you speak off.What footage jacobs used is a matter of conjecture and even if he used the previous films vs Alis I have every doubt the missing frames of those days will allow such a possibility. My best friend is a PHD in imageing techniques and he assures me it was near impossible to that back then. I don't argue with people about this, its no use, but this is the truth. I don't believe Jacobs knew some secret way vack then to dit which todays doctorates can't do. For your knowledge my friend now a days I work my live li hood in IT and I know every well the nuances of computers, films and all the stuff, better than the average person because I depend on it for my livelihood. So I am pretty sure about what I state.

Louis broke the gold pieces. Didn't just uproot the teeth.And as I stated earlier he had Tony Galento in the air vertically from 1/4th of an inch genuinely.About your dentistry comment and ****ty film, More than one person states so , and I am content to take their opinion. Now if you come up with gold was not so developed back then I can't help...Its absurd to argue.Breaking gold is not quite equal to dentistry I hope?

As for your harder arguement I can say that statictically from the injuries Louis inflicted vs that of Tyson I will go with louis.

Has it ever appeared to you that pictures in HD or from Tyson's era better potray violence than from Louis's era. IF I film tyson with those ****ty black and white film his punches won't look so hard to you, the way you go about seeing this. Keep in this in mind.

So, I have to rely on written evidence of gold teeth and teh Bradoock affair, which are supported by numerous evidence. They are corroborated too much to be false. Tyson never did this kind of damage, and if he did it would have been written about to.

And about Tyson's side to side maneuvering that you stated in another comment it was not something to go GA GA over. His build didn't help him to be fair.

I must admit I've never found any welterweight footage of Ray. Jacobs and Cayton had the Big Fights Inc films, if anyone had welter footage of Ray they would. But I accept that they might not have.

As I said in my last post '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.'

But your maths is wrong regarding missing frames from Robinson's time. Ali threw his jab as synchronised by Jacobs in less frames than Robinson. Any missing frames from the Robinson film would exacerbate the punch being slower still. But I agree with your friend, I would hate to try and synchronise punches from 60 odd year old film.

But dont get too excited by the gold teeth affair and the lifting of Gallento. You seem to be very impressed by the whole story telling aspect, a bit like Mr Bert Sugar. We dont know much about Uzcudun's teeth and frankly I've seen the Gallento fight many times and never thought there was anything superhuman.

Another patronising comment about my interpretation of black and white footage! Lets just say I shuddered more at Max Baer's right hand power than Louis's. The Schmelling fight comes to mind.

And when did I comment on Mike Tyson's side to side manoevering? I said his footwork was 'alright'! Nothing 'GaGa' there

[Greatest1942]

I must admit I've never found any welterweight footage of Ray. Jacobs and Cayton had the Big Fights Inc films, if anyone had welter footage of Ray they would. But I accept that they might not have.

As I said in my last post '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.'

But your maths is wrong regarding missing frames from Robinson's time. Ali threw his jab as synchronised by Jacobs in less frames than Robinson. Any missing frames from the Robinson film would exacerbate the punch being slower still. But I agree with your friend, I would hate to try and synchronise punches from 60 odd year old film.

But dont get too excited by the gold teeth affair and the lifting of Gallento. You seem to be very impressed by the whole story telling aspect, a bit like Mr Bert Sugar. We dont know much about Uzcudun's teeth and frankly I've seen the Gallento fight many times and never thought there was anything superhuman.

Another patronising comment about my interpretation of black and white footage! Lets just say I shuddered more at Max Baer's right hand power than Louis's. The Schmelling fight comes to mind.

And when did I comment on Mike Tyson's side to side manoevering? I said his footwork was 'alright'! Nothing 'GaGa' there

I am not patnorizing you my friend, I have a good view about you.

Firstly I know they had it synchrnonized, I just that even a PHD today in imaging will find it hard to do it accurately. I am not kidding. I have the words of a god damn researcher about imaging technology , who knows better than us I suppose?

I am not excited by what Louis did, but I know that he did more than Mike Tyson ever did.Even in the case of Galento its not something that is very common is it?I only know Gold is gold and pure physics says its as hard to break in 1938 as in 2010.NotWhat you don't know doesn't matter here.Anything else?

Baer was a harder puncher than Louis or Tyson IMO so don't bring him here.

Just to add one more thing a Ko punch travelling 6 inches will look less hard than one travelling 12 inches on film...you know that I suppose..Louis always threw short extremely short punches which might give you this illusion that it wasn't as concussive.Never mind you can have your opinion, that why we are all here to debate.

And Lastly I might not agree with one statement you say but still I have every amount of respect for you...never think that I am patnorizing you or stuff like that

[Sugarj]

I am not patnorizing you my friend, I have a good view about you.

Firstly I know they had it synchrnonized, I just that even a PHD today in imaging will find it hard to do it accurately. I am not kidding. I have the words of a god damn researcher about imaging technology , who knows better than us I suppose?

I am not excited by what Louis did, but I know that he did more than Mike Tyson ever did.Even in the case of Galento its not something that is very common is it?I only know Gold is gold and pure physics says its as hard to break in 1938 as in 2010.NotWhat you don't know doesn't matter here.Anything else?

Baer was a harder puncher than Louis or Tyson IMO so don't bring him here.

Just to add one more thing a Ko punch travelling 6 inches will look less hard than one travelling 12 inches on film...you know that I suppose..Louis always threw short extremely short punches which might give you this illusion that it wasn't as concussive.Never mind you can have your opinion, that why we are all here to debate.

And Lastly I might not agree with one statement you say but still I have every amount of respect for you...never think that I am patnorizing you or stuff like that

Well it looks like we agree on the subject of Baer. Ha ha.

Dont worry about me taking offense at anything, I'm a very easy going guy. There are plenty of trolls and newbies that someone like yourself will walk over in terms of knowledge. But on the subject of fight films I'm very well researched and I like to think objective.

As a gesture of goodwill, I will conceed that Louis had possibly the finest short punches I've ever seen.

Laters fella

[Greatest1942]

Well it looks like we agree on the subject of Baer. Ha ha.

Dont worry about me taking offense at anything, I'm a very easy going guy. There are plenty of trolls and newbies that someone like yourself will walk over in terms of knowledge. But on the subject of fight films I'm very well researched and I like to think objective.

As a gesture of goodwill, I will conceed that Louis had possibly the finest short punches I've ever seen.

Laters fella

Since I work a lot on imaging techniques I will like to tell I have very good tech knowledge about that too. Thats why i can tell you that I know what I am saying about jacobs, Louis or old film stuff. Never mind...
Yep we do agree sometimes it seems