joe louis vs (prime) mike tyson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cockey cockney

A PRIME Tyson on his night, runs right through any heavyweight in history IMO. I really think he was unstoppable.

---

im not going start another debate but he was not unstoppable nowhere near it and that showed against james tillis + tony tucker + buster douglas

---

You haven't mentioned any fighters who have fought Prime Tyson except Tony Tucker... He easily mowed through Tillis, and Tucker was knocked around virtually ever round. The Tyson that fought Holyfield stopped using his head movement, and combination punches, he just came in with one punch and allowed Holyfield to counter him... same with the Tyson that fought Lewis and so on... When he fought Holmes who still had good footwork, and as deadly a jab as ever he easily avoided it, and he countered effectively... I say he beats Louis in 6 or less.

---

no he didnt tillis won 4 rounds so did tucker and i did hear tucker injured his right hand in training he gave tyson some troubles oh right so holmes at 38 still had great jab and good footwork no he didnt and he hadnt fought for two years see thats what i dont get people say holmes was quite good but tyson at what 24 or 23 was *out of his prime* watch 78 to 80 version of holmes then watch that holmes who had two weeks to train and ur see alot of difference and i mean hell of alot and still gave tyson some trouble until he got caught that night was nowhere a prime holmes plus holyfield was more out of his prime than tyson i wernt hearing when he crushed bruno and seldon that tyson was out of his prime no one give holyfield a chance because of his age plus of his heart problems year before tyson fight plus how shit he looked in 3rd bowe fight

Your ignorant, I have watched Holmes on many nights and like when he fought Gerry Cooney and Shavers, and when he fought Tyson, and he was more or less the same Holmes... and he didn't do anything to Tyson he barely hit Tyson with ANY jabs which he had never had trouble landing on anyone before, and say what you want, but that was the same jab of the younger Holmes. Also in the Tellis fight some two of the judges scored it 6-4, but the other who got the most accurate score was 8-2... Mike Tyson was winning a larger percentage of the rounds in that fight. The tucker fight he dominated there are no two ways about it. As for Holyfield be old, thats all great and dandy, except he was in terrific shape when he fought Tyson, and Tyson was still physically in good shape, but it was his mind that was his enemy... That is a bigger factor than pretty much anything else in boxing. Tyson wasn't using any hit movement, or throwing combinations against Evander, and Evander was being cheap because ever time Tyson would get in and catch him off guard he would just hold Tyson, and when he was prepared then he would counter. Evander was special that night, but he wasn't holding he probably still would have lost the first night. As for the second fight Tyson had Evander hurt until Evander decided to headbutt Tyson blatantly which led to Tyson being a maniac. Also did Evander look like the man who fought Bowe in the third fight? NO so stop using that as an excuse. Evander was in prime shape, and he fought as well as he had ever foughten before then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Your ignorant, I have watched Holmes on many nights and like when he fought Gerry Cooney and Shavers, and when he fought Tyson, and he was more or less the same Holmes... and he didn't do anything to Tyson he barely hit Tyson with ANY jabs which he had never had trouble landing on anyone before, and say what you want, but that was the same jab of the younger Holmes. Also in the Tellis fight some two of the judges scored it 6-4, but the other who got the most accurate score was 8-2... Mike Tyson was winning a larger percentage of the rounds in that fight. The tucker fight he dominated there are no two ways about it. As for Holyfield be old, thats all great and dandy, except he was in terrific shape when he fought Tyson, and Tyson was still physically in good shape, but it was his mind that was his enemy... That is a bigger factor than pretty much anything else in boxing. Tyson wasn't using any hit movement, or throwing combinations against Evander, and Evander was being cheap because ever time Tyson would get in and catch him off guard he would just hold Tyson, and when he was prepared then he would counter. Evander was special that night, but he wasn't holding he probably still would have lost the first night. As for the second fight Tyson had Evander hurt until Evander decided to headbutt Tyson blatantly which led to Tyson being a maniac. Also did Evander look like the man who fought Bowe in the third fight? NO so stop using that as an excuse. Evander was in prime shape, and he fought as well as he had ever foughten before then.

---

im ignorant yet ur one saying one that fought cooney + shavers is more or less same holmes at 38 ur stupid and what makes it laughable is that people say tysons out of his prime at 24 but yet holmes is more or less same at 38 .. plus holmes had two weeks to train and was ring rusty and still gave good account of himself holyfields always in good shape he looked in good shape for 3rd bowe fight but we all know what happened its not an excuse he was never quite the same after 3 rd bowe fight he didnt have same stamina or ect tyson threw combos against bruno in 2nd fight and so what if he had holyfield hurt in 2nd fight doesnt mean he would of won he had holyfield hurt in 1st fight in 5th round then holyfield knocked tyson on his a** next round

Tyson was starting to throw combinations in the second fight that he never did in the first fight... Why else would Holyfield resort to headbutts in that fight when he didn't in the first fight. Also, like I've said a million times Mike Tyson wasn't past his prime PHYSICALLY but he was mentally not in the sport, like other great fighters such as Zab Judah who could probably beat almost anyone today p4p except Mayweather if he had the mental fortitude to actually fight. Mike Tyson was totally different than the fighter pre-Douglas(which he came in out of shape, and was mentally not in the fight before it happened). So Tyson was already past his prime before he ever got out of jail. Even against Bruno in the second fight he showed little to no head movement, and his combinations were hesistant, and would have never gotten off against Holyfield who like I said before would tie up Tyson at the earliest oppertunity, and IMO should have had points taken away because he was fighting like Ruiz. I never said Holmes was in his prime when he fought Tyson, but he still had footspeed, and handspeed comparable to before, and most importantly his jab was the same. Now Roy JOnes Jr. is still exceptionally fast at 38, Ali kept alot of his handspeed when he got a little older. THe point is unlike at any other time in his career Larry Holmes had no chance against Tyson who was too fast, and too strong for him. Tyson also beat Spinks whom at least tied with a "better" Holmes than the one who faced Tyson.

And next time you call me stupid next time try and putting You're or you are stupid" instead of "ur stupid' because really doesn't demonstrate your wealth of intelligence to rest of us humble mortals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

And next time you call me stupid next time try and putting You're or you are stupid" instead of "ur stupid' because really doesn't demonstrate your wealth of intelligence to rest of us humble mortals.

---

ur calling me ignorant because im saying holmes wernt in his prime his handspeed was nowhere near the same thats why i called u stupid i apologize if i stepped out of line but all im saying that holmes was shadow of his former self

And I disagree, I usually call people ignorant and the like not in anger so I also apologize because it is a better way to make people listen to what your saying. IMO Holmes didn't ever really lose the speed off his jab until much, much latter on.

Louis would of got his head knocked off by the bigger faster Tyson

Tyson wasn't bigger...Joe Louis was 6'2 and in his prime weighed a good 200 pounds...yeah Joe stood flat footed for the most part but he knew his range he had a good defense and he hit hard as hell.

I think Tyson has become vastly overrated and some people would pick him to beat George Foreman or Muhammed Ali or whoever just because he was "so fast" or Marciano and Dempsey because he was "so powerful"....I don't think Mike Tyson is an all-time great, and when I say that I mean he wouldn't beat any of those guys either.

The best fighter Mike Tyson could beat in the history of boxing would probably have to be Ken Norton or Gerry Cooney.

Even so Tyson for 3 rds would be a hhhhhhhhandfull for anybody. but with Mike who I like a lot probably had it all to soon plus all the problems that went with it

.....Joe Louis for 3 rounds was tough as well.....don't let color tv ruin it for you, Joe Louis was a baaaaaaad man.


On top of that Joe Louis was one of the best BOXERS ever to be heavyweight champ...so I don't think Mike Tyson would have been able to intimidate him or pummel him within the first couple of rounds. Even an OLD Joe Louis went pretty far with Rocky Marciano!

Joe Louis as CHAMPION had the bum of the month club...whereas Tyson as champion sat around and got ring rust

You don't get 25 successfull title defenses by being an average boxer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Tyson wasn't bigger...Joe Louis was 6'2 and in his prime weighed a good 200 pounds...yeah Joe stood flat footed for the most part but he knew his range he had a good defense and he hit hard as hell.

I think Tyson has become vastly overrated and some people would pick him to beat George Foreman or Muhammed Ali or whoever just because he was "so fast" or Marciano and Dempsey because he was "so powerful"....I don't think Mike Tyson is an all-time great, and when I say that I mean he wouldn't beat any of those guys either.

The best fighter Mike Tyson could beat in the history of boxing would probably have to be Ken Norton or Gerry Cooney.

---

Hmmm.. wellll......no disrespect to a guy with 187,054 post on the forum......BUT....
imo tyson D - st - roys Louis first round KO. i remember tyson against berbick. berbick was big strong all around really good fighter not a super star but very good. with a great chin! gone the distance with some good fighter and only one previous ko. tyson made him look like sh*t!

The old vs new is so hard just because all athletes are so much improved over the years. an Olympic gold medalist in 1950 wouldnt make a college track team today,and its true in EVERY sport. True holyfield handled tyson,but that doesnt make tyson less of an all time great (atg) it just makes evander one as well. True holmes was past it but still had the jab and again tyson murdered him. And holmes was considered an atg at the time. Now.....put louis in a time capsule...born same year as tyson...same nutrition and training.......then who knows.

I cant think af anyone tyson doesnt beat. maybe some would survive ie lose and not be KO'd but none to beat him in his top prime. mayeb foreman has a punchers chance because he was SOOO heavy handed but i dont think so.tyson too hard to hit ,too awkward, punches from odd crouch and moving posture too fast! I've re convinced myself! YEs he's a fool and a bum now....but in the day............flashback to berbick doin the chicken walk tryin to get up......sigh.........he was THE MAN

i'll try a cc for the 17.7 posts per day average you have!! :o 8) :boxingmatch: (hope those worked, im new here)

As a matter of fact its not trueTrack really took of after the 64 Oylimpics more people took up athletics. Thats when the money started coming in and something followed close behind plus tracks improved. Lyle I didnt say Tyson would beat him just said he would make it interesting with anyone. Youre right the camera does lie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by landmine950

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Tyson wasn't bigger...Joe Louis was 6'2 and in his prime weighed a good 200 pounds...yeah Joe stood flat footed for the most part but he knew his range he had a good defense and he hit hard as hell.

I think Tyson has become vastly overrated and some people would pick him to beat George Foreman or Muhammed Ali or whoever just because he was "so fast" or Marciano and Dempsey because he was "so powerful"....I don't think Mike Tyson is an all-time great, and when I say that I mean he wouldn't beat any of those guys either.

The best fighter Mike Tyson could beat in the history of boxing would probably have to be Ken Norton or Gerry Cooney.

---

Hmmm.. wellll......no disrespect to a guy with 187,054 post on the forum......BUT....
imo tyson D - st - roys Louis first round KO. i remember tyson against berbick. berbick was big strong all around really good fighter not a super star but very good. with a great chin! gone the distance with some good fighter and only one previous ko. tyson made him look like sh*t!

The old vs new is so hard just because all athletes are so much improved over the years. an Olympic gold medalist in 1950 wouldnt make a college track team today,and its true in EVERY sport. True holyfield handled tyson,but that doesnt make tyson less of an all time great (atg) it just makes evander one as well. True holmes was past it but still had the jab and again tyson murdered him. And holmes was considered an atg at the time. Now.....put louis in a time capsule...born same year as tyson...same nutrition and training.......then who knows.

I cant think af anyone tyson doesnt beat. maybe some would survive ie lose and not be KO'd but none to beat him in his top prime. mayeb foreman has a punchers chance because he was SOOO heavy handed but i dont think so.tyson too hard to hit ,too awkward, punches from odd crouch and moving posture too fast! I've re convinced myself! YEs he's a fool and a bum now....but in the day............flashback to berbick doin the chicken walk tryin to get up......sigh.........he was THE MAN

i'll try a cc for the 17.7 posts per day average you have!! :o 8) :boxingmatch: (hope those worked, im new here)

---

yea but before tyson beat berbick in two someone had already beat berbick in one round and larry holmes won every round against berbick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

As a matter of fact its not trueTrack really took of after the 64 Oylimpics more people took up athletics. Thats when the money started coming in and something followed close behind plus tracks improved. Lyle I didnt say Tyson would beat him just said he would make it interesting with anyone. Youre right the camera does lie

---

ere are the figures I have for the 100 meter dash. I'm not taking
into account steriods, just the best times over the years.

Seconds Year
12 1896
10.8 1900
10.6 1924
10.3 1932
10.2 1960
10 1964
9.9 1968
9.84 1996



According to these records it appears than runners achieve a 2.16
second faster rate of speed every 100 years. based on this average
historical increase alone and assuming it will be consistent, and
calculating that increase from the slowest rate of 12 seconds, it
would seem that in approximately 500 years (from 1896)
ie 2396 a runner could run the 100 meter dash in zero
seconds flat!