Joe Louis's resume vs. Tyson Fury's resume

[LoadedWraps]

How is this joke of a thread still going?

Fury has one win over a good fighter who was 39 years old. And he did it while landing 5 punches per round. Let's not even bring up that before Fury's win, Wlad was seen as crappy, exposed, previously KTFO, fighter who was fighting in the weakest HW era ever.

As soon as Fury won, you're comparing him to Joe fuking Louis? Let's compare Salka to SRL while you're at it.

Salka isn't a young hunry undefeated lion who happens to be the lineal champ, the kingpin of a deep HW divison, and a physical prototype HW monster who has no business losing to any man on earth we know of. Poor comparison.

[j0zef]

Salka isn't a young hunry undefeated lion who happens to be the lineal champ, the kingpin of a deep HW divison, and a physical prototype HW monster who has no business losing to any man on earth we know of. Poor comparison.

Dude, obviously the comparison is an exaggeration, but Fury's got NOTHING.

He beat Wlad. Wlad was seen as weakest HW champ in weakest HW era. Go back and look in the Fury-Klitchko thread. "Brewster exposed him", "Glass chin", "overrated bum", etc. And he was almost 40 years old.

Fury has done NOTHING else. Who did he beat? Chisora? Cunningham, who even though he weighted a million pounds less than Fury managed to drop him?

And "young hungry lion"? Is that a joke? Fury was talking about retirement a few months ago, and had to postpone his rematch because of an "injury", during which his fat ass was seen at a bar.

Joe Louis is one of the HW legends, while Tyson Fury wont even crack a Top200 list at this time.

[DreamerUSA]

Mention one of Louis's opponents that wouldn't get blasted into another dimension by David Haye, lol. All those small guys with primitive skills wouldn't stand a chance.

Do you seriosly think Schmelling or Baer would stand a chance against Haye?

Charles and Walcott are not that good. Their records are full of losses to guys who are not even worthy of tying David Haye's shoes.

This is'nt a head to head debate, its a resume debate.

[LoadedWraps]

LOL. That's an exaggeration too! BTW I am of the opinion Louis had a fuller resume but if the two fought Tyson would do whatever he wanted with him. Not to mention the fact that back then those fighters were fighting every other week. The training, ability to study opponents, nutrition etc have all come on leaps and bounds over the years. Things get better. This is why I find it funny when people list fighters from 60 years ago as some of the best ever. They were the best of their times, but I never saw the same level of skill in old fighters as modern ones. Nigel Benn said it best the fighters of yesteryear have little chance against the fighters of the day as everything is always improving. This is why in ever sport records are always broken, but because in boxing there is no measuring stick, a lot of people fall for the old 'they don't make em like that any more' kind of opinion.

Well, that's not entirely true when it comes to boxing, because the pool of talent was much larger then and that leads to a deeper talent pool.

We have come along way as far as studying fights, modern medicine, nutrition, and science, but as far as pure boxing methodologies, techniques, practices, and wisdom, I would say the sport is not nearly as rich as it once was.

The past gave us elite fighters of technical capabilities that we don't see often today: Marciano, Walcott, Locche, Robinson, Burley, Benton, just to name a few. What we know know, we know because of what worked, what was discovered then.

I favor Fury over Louis but that's only partially because of his physical advantages, I still give the edge to the better boxer and fighter as a whole even when in a size discrepancy, but I also happen to think very highly of Fury as a technical boxer and thus will always favor him because the combination of his abilities, with his size, give him an unparalleled advantage in fantasy fights, and real ones.

[j0zef]

LOL. That's an exaggeration too! BTW I am of the opinion Louis had a fuller resume but if the two fought Tyson would do whatever he wanted with him. Not to mention the fact that back then those fighters were fighting every other week. The training, ability to study opponents, nutrition etc have all come on leaps and bounds over the years. Things get better. This is why I find it funny when people list fighters from 60 odd years ago and longer as the best ever. They were the best of their times, but there was never the same level of skill in old fighters as modern ones. Nigel Benn said it best the fighters of yesteryear have little chance against the fighters of today as everything is always improving. This is why in every sport records are always being broken, but because in boxing there is no measuring stick, a lot of people fall for the old 'they don't make em like that any more' kind of mindset and overrate the old greats.

This thread is about resume for the era, not head to head.

In virtually every sport the fighters of ~50 years ago would be minced meat for today's contenders.

[Larry the boss]

Fury beat a 41 year old Wlad who was many years past his prime and Fury has yet to defend his title even once. Louis won his title at a much younger age by beating a champion still in his prime. Fury won the title in one of the most boring and least action fights ever seen. There were no hard punches landed by either man. Louis won his title with one of the most vicious 1st round knockouts ever seen. Louis successfully defended his title a record 25 times and beat everyone there was to beat. Fury is already considering retirement. You might be the only boxing fan alive who thinks Fury's resume is superior to the resume of the legendary, all time great Joe Louis. Some English boxing fans overrated their country's best boxers and you are guilty of doing that to the extreme.

He won the title from Jim Braddock..not Schmelling

[LoadedWraps]

We don't see them in the same form but the best bits have been taken from them. Boxers are constantly getting better and that's not just my opinion but the opinion of nearly all active coaches and fighters. Go watch the interview with Ali and M. Tyson where Ali is explaining how the fighters of today are better, and how he believed Tyson would have beat him. Foreman has said about the newer generations too (although Tyson didn't want him). Benn is on record talking about it. They all know.

The boxers who were great of the older times could do many things that you couldn't get away with doing to a modern fighter. That is why you don't see the same kind of output and results from certain styles.

In regards to Fury he is the most technical Heavyweight on the scene right now but a lot of people who don't have an in depth knowledge of boxing just can't see it no matter how much you tell them. We just have to let Tyson keep racking up the wins.

To be fair, fighters' and coaches' opinions I take with a grain of salt, their opinions should be respected but they are still just opinions, and I am also a fighter and reserve my own opinions as well and when it comes to history and the state of boxing I disagree and wouldn't hesitate to say so to them on the spot.

Ali vs Tyson is just one fight, just two fighters, and without really analyzing that particular fight much, I think it's a close fight just going off of styles and resumes, but I certainly would not bet money on Tyson just because he comes from a more modern era. Tyson wasn't even that large for a HW fighter, which is one of the main advantages modern HW's have.

Also, you mention things fighters could do in the past that they can't do know. Like what exactly? This isn't football where the rules have drastically changed in the last 30 years.

I certainly don't think the modern era has better fighters, today you can get much farther with much less in your toolbox. Today you are protected and managed in a way that can shelter you from threats, and where you don't fight often at the top. In the past you had to truly beat threats to make it to contention and you had to defend your title often. There was less time in between fights and championship fights were longer. Give me the fighter who has been significantly more active and has not been "matched" favorably, and has real defenses, over a fighter with roughly 25ish wins, who has fought 1-2 times a year for 3 years and who has gotten by on a simple 1-2 combo depending on a straight right to hurt his opponent, all else considered equal.

As far as Fury, I agree, most people don't see it, or don't want to see it. Like you said, all we can do is keep watching and waiting for him to prove what I believe - that he is the Achillies of boxing - a modern day Joshua. A modern day Goliath.

[TOBYLEE1]

Hands down this is one of the most ******ed threads ever on this board.

Hence that the TS hates americans and that is underlying agenda

[TheBoxingXpert]

Not English here, but the TS has made good points. I think once Fury defends his titles against AJ, Wilder, Parker, Briggs, Povetkin, and Ustinov, I think not only does Fury blow Louis away, but he may very well go down as the HW GOAT when it's all said and done. I don't see anyone in the division who is a serious threat. In 10 years, that may change, but it also may not.



Charles and Walcott are great wins and great names on any resume, any version of them. Just stop.

If it's such a great thing to beat Walcott and Charles, then why did they lose 18 and 25 times? Too many bad nights?

[j0zef]

Hands down this is one of the most ******ed threads ever on this board.

Hence that the TS hates americans and that is underlying agenda

That's it! I was guessing racist or stupid.. didn't think of nationalistic. Good call.