How are Joe Louis's opponents any better than Tysons'?

[Boogie Nights]

due to another thread, i decided to make this one

a lot of people questioning tyson's opposition, but let's jusr respectfully break it down

Note in my view both were great fighters, and this is not a hate post on Louis

first of let's start with mike. ill select all the top names, from both records

Pinklon Thomas 29-1-1. Praised for his Sonny liston like jab, and solid chin. decision over Tim Witherspoon, and ko over Mike Weaver

Tony Tucker 35-0. Clean record, tall rangy boxer, set to unify titles with tyson, forr the piece of the undisputed crown

Tyrell Biggs 15-0, gold medalist trained by Lou Duva. nothing flashy in terms of record, but a solid decision win over veteran James Tillis

Larry Hoolmes 48-2. Considered to be past his prime. Yet he foguth on for 14 years after the tyson loss. Shutting Down undefeated Ray Mercer 18-0

Tony Tubbs 24-1 a quick, talented heavyweight. Wins over Greg Page, and James Smith. The only blemish a 15 round decision loss to Tim Witherspoon. After the tyson fight, bounced back to loose a fight many people thought he won against Rid**** Bowe

Michael Spinks 31-0. Undefeated record, one of the greatest light heavyweights, 2 wins over holmes, and a win over Gerry Cooney. pay attention to the double standardwhen he was knocked out by tyson everyone said he was a blown up light heavy, even though favouring him to win against tyson in the first place

double standard> a guy like Billy Conn gets no **** for loosing to Louis twice, and gets praised for being a good opponent. Spinks would have easily whooped him at heavyweight, yet he gets criticised for being a small stuffed duck in the pond. see a double standard?

Frank Bruno 32-2. Hard puncher, good boxer. Gave hell Lennox Lewis before the stoppage

Carl Williams 22-2 A tall boxer, held wins over bert cooper, james tillis (then 30-4), trevor berbick, and loosing to larry holmes. a fight many thought he won

Alex Stewart 26-1 all kos. The only loss to Evander Holyfield

Donovan Ruddock 24-1-1 a dangerous hard hitting left hooker with wins over Mike Weaver, James Broad, James Smith, and near murder of Michael Dokes

Andrew Golota 36-4 Not the best heavyweight, but a damn good one. He did have his way against Rid**** Bowe twice before he lost his head and got DQ'd

now compare to Joe Louis's opponents

Primo Carnera 82-7 considered a circus act. many questionable wins due to him being tied to the mob

Max Baer 40-8 Possesed one of the greatest right hands. But his Playboy lifestyle, his lazy approach in the ring, effected his legacy. Max spent more time clowning in the ring than actually fighting

Jack Sharkey 38-13-3: it's safe to say that a fighter with that many losses proves that he's not a world beater, regardless of historians praising him for being something he's not


Jim Braddock 50-25-7: Gave a wormanlike performace, a tough irishman, wins over Corn Griffin, Art Lasky and a no-decision over Maxie Rosenbloom. gets beat by about any opponent tyson has faced to make it fair

Tommy Farr 66-20-13 Not a particularly hard puncher, but a decent boxer. Wins over Max Baer, and Tommy Loughran. Good opponent

Max Schmeling 52-7-4 rematch. no need to explain, a good fighter, knocked louis out in the first fight

Tony Galento 76-23-5 he was a character, but that doesnt make up for being a fat butteball bum

Arturo Godoy 53-8-7 No complaints, solid veteran, lost to louis first time by decision, and ko in the rematch

Buddy Baer 53-5-0 A good fighter, but not as popular as his brother. pretty stuffed record. First DQ loss, and then ko in the rematch

Billy Conn 59-10-0 Good fighter, but weighing in at 174 to Louis 199. come on. i already mentioned the double standard people use for spinks. LOL imagine if a guy like spinks came in at 174 against tyson, the critics would have taken mike's head off

Jersey Joe Walcott 44-12-2 We know about the first fight. but im not gonna point fingers, it was a good opponent

so i dont understand how tyson's opponents were any worse than the fighters Louis has faced.

Joe, more than anything, gets the biggest credit for his title defences

[slicksouthpaw16]

I pay a lot of attention to the circumstances of the fighters and the quality. Larry Holmes was coming off of a two year lay off. Spinks was a blown up light heavyweight with questionable wins over Larry Holmes ect. Tyson avoided all of the elite names of his era, Louis fought and beat all of the elites and fought everyone. Tyson avoided fighting Evander in his prime, Lewis in his prime, Ray Mercer, Witherspoon, the Foreman of the 90s, Riddock Bowe and a lot of others. He was protected and with the exception of Witherspoon, i would have favored all of them over Tyson.

He also didn't react well to being pushed backward and being in hard fights, which is why i couldn't see him matching well against he all time great tough guys.

[Boogie Nights]

I pay a lot of attention to the circumstances of the fighters and the quality. Larry Holmes was coming off of a two year lay off. Spinks was a blown up light heavyweight with questionable wins over Larry Holmes ect. Tyson avoided all of the elite names of his era, Louis fought and beat all of the elites and fought everyone. Tyson avoided fighting Evander in his prime, Lewis in his prime, Ray Mercer, Witherspoon, the Foreman of the 90s, Riddock Bowe and a lot of others. He was protected and with the exception of Witherspoon, i would have favored all of them over Tyson.

He also didn' react well to being pushed backward and being in hard fights, which is why i couldn't see him matching well against he all time great tough guys.

first of did you read what i wrote?

with that if michael spinks was a blown up light heavy then so was Billy Conn. there's a double standard that exists for louis fighting conn, and tyson fighting spinks. Fair is fair

second where's the evidence that tyson ducked those challengers? for the holyfield the fight was set but fell through because he went to prison

where's the evidence that the fights went to presser but didnt happen, other than the rants and assumptions from fans?

[BattlingNelson]

due to another thread, i decided to make this one

a lot of people questioning tyson's opposition, but let's jusr respectfully break it down

Note in my view both were great fighters, and this is not a hate post on Louis

first of let's start with mike. ill select all the top names, from both records

Pinklon Thomas 29-1-1. Praised for his Sonny liston like jab, and solid chin. decision over Tim Witherspoon, and ko over Mike Weaver

Tony Tucker 35-0. Clean record, tall rangy boxer, set to unify titles with tyson, forr the piece of the undisputed crown

Tyrell Biggs 15-0, gold medalist trained by Lou Duva. nothing flashy in terms of record, but a solid decision win over veteran James Tillis

Larry Hoolmes 48-2. Considered to be past his prime. Yet he foguth on for 14 years after the tyson loss. Shutting Down undefeated Ray Mercer 18-0

Tony Tubbs 24-1 a quick, talented heavyweight. Wins over Greg Page, and James Smith. The only blemish a 15 round decision loss to Tim Witherspoon. After the tyson fight, bounced back to loose a fight many people thought he won against Rid**** Bowe

Michael Spinks 31-0. Undefeated record, one of the greatest light heavyweights, 2 wins over holmes, and a win over Gerry Cooney. pay attention to the double standardwhen he was knocked out by tyson everyone said he was a blown up light heavy, even though favouring him to win against tyson in the first place

double standard> a guy like Billy Conn gets no **** for loosing to Louis twice, and gets praised for being a good opponent. Spinks would have easily whooped him at heavyweight, yet he gets criticised for being a small stuffed duck in the pond. see a double standard?

Frank Bruno 32-2. Hard puncher, good boxer. Gave hell Lennox Lewis before the stoppage

Carl Williams 22-2 A tall boxer, held wins over bert cooper, james tillis (then 30-4), trevor berbick, and loosing to larry holmes. a fight many thought he won

Alex Stewart 26-1 all kos. The only loss to Evander Holyfield

Donovan Ruddock 24-1-1 a dangerous hard hitting left hooker with wins over Mike Weaver, James Broad, James Smith, and near murder of Michael Dokes

Andrew Golota 36-4 Not the best heavyweight, but a damn good one. He did have his way against Rid**** Bowe twice before he lost his head and got DQ'd

now compare to Joe Louis's opponents

Primo Carnera 82-7 considered a circus act. many questionable wins due to him being tied to the mob

Max Baer 40-8 Possesed one of the greatest right hands. But his Playboy lifestyle, his lazy approach in the ring, effected his legacy. Max spent more time clowning in the ring than actually fighting

Jack Sharkey 38-13-3: it's safe to say that a fighter with that many losses proves that he's not a world beater, regardless of historians praising him for being something he's not


Jim Braddock 50-25-7: Gave a wormanlike performace, a tough irishman, wins over Corn Griffin, Art Lasky and a no-decision over Maxie Rosenbloom. gets beat by about any opponent tyson has faced to make it fair

Tommy Farr 66-20-13 Not a particularly hard puncher, but a decent boxer. Wins over Max Baer, and Tommy Loughran. Good opponent

Max Schmeling 52-7-4 rematch. no need to explain, a good fighter, knocked louis out in the first fight

Tony Galento 76-23-5 he was a character, but that doesnt make up for being a fat butteball bum

Arturo Godoy 53-8-7 No complaints, solid veteran, lost to louis first time by decision, and ko in the rematch

Buddy Baer 53-5-0 A good fighter, but not as popular as his brother. pretty stuffed record. First DQ loss, and then ko in the rematch

Billy Conn 59-10-0 Good fighter, but weighing in at 174 to Louis 199. come on. i already mentioned the double standard people use for spinks. LOL imagine if a guy like spinks came in at 174 against tyson, the critics would have taken mike's head off

Jersey Joe Walcott 44-12-2 We know about the first fight. but im not gonna point fingers, it was a good opponent

so i dont understand how tyson's opponents were any worse than the fighters Louis has faced.

Joe, more than anything, gets the biggest credit for his title defences

I dont really have time to give an educated opinion, but I think this is a good question. Louis and Tysons reigns are similar in the way the reigns started.

The heavyweight division was in shambles. Pre-Louis you had a bunch of champions where nobody could establish more than a couple of defenses. The best post-Dempsey/Tunney - pre-Louis was definetely Max Schmeling. When Louis was climbing up the rankings he kayo'ed nearly all the previous belt-holders.

The post-Holmes era was the same. You had a bunch of mediocre alphabet-titleholders and Tyson came around and knocked nearly all of them out. Difference to Louis was that Tyson got a belt when he fought the first mediocre champion in Berbick. In reality he (arguably) first became the real champ when he KO'ed Spinks.

I am on my way to bed. I might check back on this if I get some energy......

[slicksouthpaw16]

first of did you read what i wrote?

with that if michael spinks was a blown up light heavy then so was Billy Conn. there's a double standard that exists for louis fighting conn, and tyson fighting spinks. Fair is fair

second where's the evidence that tyson ducked those challengers? for the holyfield the fight was set but fell through because he went to prison

where's the evidence that the fights went to presser but didnt happen, other than the rants and assumptions from fans?

There is no comparison in resume's. Louis fought and beat tougher and better opponents and he looked more impressive while doing it. Tyson ducked, Louis didn't avoid anyone and he fougnt and one of the most talented filled divisions in heavyweight history. Answer this, what elite fighter did Tyson beat? None, that my point. Louis beat every great heavyweight of his time and never lost to a fighter of the caliber of James buster Douglas.

Also, Tyson pulled out of a fight with Holyfield plenty of times. He claimed that he had an injury the first time. Then he went to prison. He was matched very carefully and was only put against fighter in which his team were confident of beating. We can compare their 10 best wins and the circumstances if you want to.

[Boogie Nights]

There is no comparison in resume's. Louis fought and beat tougher and better opponents and he looked more impressive while doing it. Tyson ducked, Louis didn't avoid anyone and he fougnt and one of the most talented filled divisions in heavyweight history. Answer this, what elite fighter did Tyson beat? None, that my point. Louis beat every great heavyweight of his time and never lost to a fighter of the caliber of James buster Douglas.

Also, Tyson pulled out of a fight with Holyfield plenty of times. He claimed that he had an injury the first time. Then he went to prison. He was matched very carefully and was only put against fighter in which his team were confident of beating. We can compare their 10 best wins and the circumstances if you want to.

you couldnt be more wrong. the best heavyweight division was in the 70s, ali faced all the best heavyweights, not louis or tyson

you're asking me what solid wins tyson had? look at what i wrote, im 100% sure you didnt read what i wrote, im sure of it

again you talking words. i asked for evidence and you're giving me opinion. where's direct proof tyson ducked the guys you've mentioned?

[slicksouthpaw16]

you couldnt be more wrong. the best heavyweight division was in the 70s, ali faced all the best heavyweights, not louis or tyson

you're asking me what solid wins tyson had? look at what i wrote, im 100% sure you didnt read what i wrote, im sure of it

again you talking words. i asked for evidence and you're giving me opinion. where's direct proof tyson ducked the guys you've mentioned?

Yes, i read your entire post. You showed some sort of bias while sizing up their best wins. How can you put down Louis wins over Walcott and Baer and pump up Tyson's wins over Razor Ruddock and Andrew Golata? Its just laughable, especially since Walcott and Baer are all time greats and neither Golata or Ruddock was ever champions. Both were fighters that were known for being good contenders and looking impressive while lossing their fights. Tyson was not in Joe Louis league when it comes to overall toughness, confidence or resume's. Frank bruno was probably the best fighter that Tyson has beaten that was at his best. Which speaks for itself considering the fact that he was no where near great. Every name fighter that Tyson was put against, he has always came up short. Evander Holyfield dominated him twice and was on his way to stopping him in the rematch. Douglas dominated and many other fighters give him fits by simply fighting him back when he was in his prime.

[Boogie Nights]

Yes, i read your entire post. You showed some sort of bias while sizing up their best wins. How can you put down Louis wins over Walcott and Baer and pump up Tyson's wins over Razor Ruddock and Andrew Golata? Its just laughable, especially since Walcott and Baer are all time greats and neither Golata or Ruddock was ever champions. Both were fighters that were known for being good contenders and looking impressive while lossing their fights. Tyson was not in Joe Louis league when it comes to overall toughness, confidence or resume's. Frank bruno was probably the best fighter that Tyson has beaten that was at his best. Which speaks for itself considering the fact that he was no where near great. Every name fighter that Tyson was put against, he has always came up short. Evander Holyfield dominated him twice and was on his way to stopping him in the rematch. Douglas dominated and many other fighters give him fits by simply fighting him back when he was in his prime.

first of all i tried to be as fair as possible in my assesment. and you're isolating my comparrison, i didnt compare golota, and rudock to anyone, i simply stated each man's opponents.

i broke everything down, and didnt try to make my posts too opininated. now it's your turn

tell me xactly what makes max baer, and jersey joe wallcot better or all time greats? try to keep the pattern i set. tell me about their biggest victories, and their overall quality.

i dont need your opinion, give me facts, the history. just like i did, and then ill consider your response serious

[slicksouthpaw16]

first of all i tried to be as fair as possible in my assesment. and you're isolating my comparrison, i didnt compare golota, and rudock to anyone, i simply stated each man's opponents.

i broke everything down, and didnt try to make my posts too opininated. now it's your turn

tell me xactly what makes max baer, and jersey joe wallcot better or all time greats? try to keep the pattern i set. tell me about their biggest victories, and their overall quality.

i dont need your opinion, give me facts, the history. just like i did, and then ill consider your response serious

You tried to be fair in your assestment? I must have missed something. How did you break anything down? Look at the way you put down Louis's performance and tried to pump up Tyson's wins like they were somthing that they weren't. you discribed the Spinks fight as being a great performance, then you put down Louis win over Conn and stated that Conn weighed in a light heavyweight. You talk about Louis loss to Scmelling, but never mentioned the fact that Tyson was knocked out by James buster Douglas and couldn't get rid of Mitch Green, Jesse Fuergeson, Tony Tucker, James Tillis and other non elite boxers that gave tyson problems by simply fighting him back.

What makes them all time greats? The plenty of fights that they had and their resume's. They fought anyone and under any circumstances and both captured the heavyweight title in one of the best era's. Walcott has some great wins and was a natural light heavyweight. Two wins over Charles, Harold Johnsn, Joey maxim and Joe Louis(in my opinion). He was definitely a great fighter. Bruno, Thomas, Tucker, Ruddock and Golota looks foolish when compared to them.

[StarshipTrooper]

Okay, this is bordering on the rediculous now. Crusaders belong back in the Middle Ages not in the 21st century on a boxing forum.

due to another thread, i decided to make this one

a lot of people questioning tyson's opposition, but let's jusr respectfully break it down

Note in my view both were great fighters, and this is not a hate post on Louis

first of let's start with mike. ill select all the top names, from both records

Pinklon Thomas 29-1-1. Praised for his Sonny liston like jab, and solid chin. decision over Tim Witherspoon, and ko over Mike Weaver

A fighter who squandered his talent via ******* use.

Tony Tucker 35-0. Clean record, tall rangy boxer, set to unify titles with tyson, forr the piece of the undisputed crown

Broke his hand in the second round and STILL made a close fight of it with Tyson. Notice Iron Mike never fought him again?

Tyrell Biggs 15-0, gold medalist trained by Lou Duva. nothing flashy in terms of record, but a solid decision win over veteran James Tillis

Considered the biggest flop of the 84 Olympic team. If there was ever a "never was" among Tyson's title challengers this guy was it.

Larry Hoolmes 48-2. Considered to be past his prime. Yet he foguth on for 14 years after the tyson loss. Shutting Down undefeated Ray Mercer 18-0

Solidly past his prime AND coming off a 2 year layoff. The fact that he fought another 14 years doesn't change the fact that it was another 14 years past his prime.

Tony Tubbs 24-1 a quick, talented heavyweight. Wins over Greg Page, and James Smith. The only blemish a 15 round decision loss to Tim Witherspoon. After the tyson fight, bounced back to loose a fight many people thought he won against Rid**** Bowe

This is the obese joke that Tyson had trouble landing on.

Michael Spinks 31-0. Undefeated record, one of the greatest light heavyweights, 2 wins over holmes, and a win over Gerry Cooney. pay attention to the double standardwhen he was knocked out by tyson everyone said he was a blown up light heavy, even though favouring him to win against tyson in the first place

A natural Light-Heavy with NO impressive wins at Heavyweight. Was the recipient of questionable judging against Holmes and was fortunate enough to catch Gerry Cooney after he became a mental basket case.

double standard> a guy like Billy Conn gets no **** for loosing to Louis twice, and gets praised for being a good opponent. Spinks would have easily whooped him at heavyweight, yet he gets criticised for being a small stuffed duck in the pond. see a double standard?

Conn didn't get wacked out in 90 seconds after pissing himself from fear on his way to the ring.

Frank Bruno 32-2. Hard puncher, good boxer. Gave hell Lennox Lewis before the stoppage

This was a good win for Tyson. I have a lot of respect for Bruno but I've never laboured under the impression that he was a top flight Heavyweight.

Carl Williams 22-2 A tall boxer, held wins over bert cooper, james tillis (then 30-4), trevor berbick, and loosing to larry holmes. a fight many thought he won

I'm actually shocked anybody would have the gonads to bring this fight up considering the ref stopped the fight after Tyson gave Williams a dirty look.

Alex Stewart 26-1 all kos. The only loss to Evander Holyfield

Stewart had just had the s*** beat out of him by Evander Holyfield and its seriously questionable if had recovered by the time of the Tyson fight. As it is Stewart rolled over with little resistance in the first round.

Donovan Ruddock 24-1-1 a dangerous hard hitting left hooker with wins over Mike Weaver, James Broad, James Smith, and near murder of Michael Dokes

These, I believe, are Tyson's finest performances and among my favorite all-time fights. I certainly don't have any critiscism for Mike on these.

Andrew Golota 36-4 Not the best heavyweight, but a damn good one. He did have his way against Rid**** Bowe twice before he lost his head and got DQ'd

This one has me scratching my head. Boxing's biggest head-case Golota quits on his stool early against a shop-worn Tyson and it gets used?

now compare to Joe Louis's opponents

Primo Carnera 82-7 considered a circus act. many questionable wins due to him being tied to the mob

Strawman. No one ever brings this fight up because no one considers Carnera a worthy opponent. Comparable to Tyrell Biggs in quality, if not size.

Max Baer 40-8 Possesed one of the greatest right hands. But his Playboy lifestyle, his lazy approach in the ring, effected his legacy. Max spent more time clowning in the ring than actually fighting

Max Baer was an extremely dangerous opponent with one punch KO power who killed 3 men in the ring. Comparable to Ruddock, maybe a bit better.

Jack Sharkey 38-13-3: it's safe to say that a fighter with that many losses proves that he's not a world beater, regardless of historians praising him for being something he's not

An up and down fighter who, when he was on, could outbox anyone. Comparable to Quick Tillis.

Jim Braddock 50-25-7: Gave a wormanlike performace, a tough irishman, wins over Corn Griffin, Art Lasky and a no-decision over Maxie Rosenbloom. gets beat by about any opponent tyson has faced to make it fair

A journeyman who, again, isn't usually brought up because he was an accidental champion. Comparable to Trevor Berbick, probably better.

Tommy Farr 66-20-13 Not a particularly hard puncher, but a decent boxer. Wins over Max Baer, and Tommy Loughran. Good opponent[/QUOTE]

Good boxer, fine defensive skills. No one really similer on Tyson's resume

Max Schmeling 52-7-4 rematch. no need to explain, a good fighter, knocked louis out in the first fight[/QUOTE]

A very underated fighter who was a fine boxer-puncher. Comparable to Tony Tucker but no where near as tall.

Tony Galento 76-23-5 he was a character, but that doesnt make up for being a fat butteball bum

Not a lot of talent but a VERY dangerous puncher who could take beating as well. Another comparable to Bonecrusher Smith but not quite as good.

Arturo Godoy 53-8-7 No complaints, solid veteran, lost to louis first time by decision, and ko in the rematch

Tough, frustrating fighter who could soke up punishment and frequently outlast his opponent. No one really similer on Tyson's record.

Buddy Baer 53-5-0 A good fighter, but not as popular as his brother. pretty stuffed record. First DQ loss, and then ko in the rematch

Another dangerous puncher. Not as talented as his brother. Similer to Frank Bruno though I think Bruno was better.

Billy Conn 59-10-0 Good fighter, but weighing in at 174 to Louis 199. come on. i already mentioned the double standard people use for spinks. LOL imagine if a guy like spinks came in at 174 against tyson, the critics would have taken mike's head off

A lightning fast fighter who could out-box anyone (something Michael Spinks couldn't claim). Also more gonads by far than Spinks. Again, there really isn't any slick boxers on Tyson's record to compare him to.

Jersey Joe Walcott 44-12-2 We know about the first fight. but im not gonna point fingers, it was a good opponent

Louis was past his prime when he faced Walcott. Still, Walcott was a fine fighter, a VERY clever boxer-puncher who was a problem for anyone. Comparable to the past-prime Holmes of Tyson's record.

so i dont understand how tyson's opponents were any worse than the fighters Louis has faced.

Joe, more than anything, gets the biggest credit for his title defences