Joe Louis vs Mike Tyson! Who Wins?! Breakdown with Footage!

I give my take on the mythical matchup. If I had to choose one fight between former heavyweight champions in their primes, this would be it!

[@user-bk9fk2tq2z]

Is it just me, or weren't heavyweight boxers in the 1980s more fluid than Joe Louis era boxers in general?

[@ascendediam]

I have also been told mutiple times by lunatics these odd quotes I don't know boxing/I don't know what I'm looking at as if I am blind/quotes by said boxer says otherwise/watch highlights yet highlights are selected best moments/how was this era a novice era if they were professionals yet leaving out no one made pro fighting like these guys in 70s-90s

[@ascendediam]

Some crazy slow person named nycinstyle kept saying my video is wrong, and ali said how great rock was, and how ali knows boxing well that's correct since ali for a fact knew no one made even midcard fighting like these novices in the 70s,and then the wacko said how ali said rock was better then frazier when ali was just being humble, anybody knows with good vision Joe was way more advanced yet foreman was in the same era who fought guys who had the same advances as others in the same era He kept speaking on rock only instead of the other people in my video as if all these guys didn't all have the same novice like tech and flaws, these people just are really crazy and slow man

[@ascendediam]

some crazy idiot days ago said my video showing rounds of how these guys fought side by side with people george fought on my page is a opinion of george fighting way more advanced people in both ages how is showing exactly how fighters fought and showing advances in tech/fluidity/defense/fluidity/angles an opinion ? The average amateur in 70s-90s were way more advanced than this whole Novice era

[@ascendediam]

On forums, lunatics said marciano would beat mercer, yet no one even made mid card fighting like they did in that novice-like era in the '''' ''70s-'90s, tony wasn't much bigger than rocky and he had to stay away cause ray hit so hard, this man tony was way more advanced than that whole rocky era Tony was almost koed in the 1st from a hard jab from ray and Tony was used to taking shots from his real class which would be Rock's lhw, on top of Tony fought guys with way better tech than they did in Rock's era

[@malikrehankhanzaeitribespa9488]

i think Tyson is tougher than Louis !!

[@ascendediam]

These are highlights showing the best moments, both missing multiple movements and flaws from opponents and the person matched h2h, which means it's very flawed and fiction versions of fighters. My video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought. In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on people Mike fought? , he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs. guys in the 70s-90s,so how is this a good match?

[@baragentledragon]

Just an opinion, from a humble ex boxer Ali fan, I love Louis, but , honestly, Prime, first round, Tyson would ko Joe, for sure... Different class.

[@yujirogoggins4389]

Thank you

[@Pedro_Le_Chef]

These guys are absolutely not in a different class. Louis is considered by many to be the Goat and by most to be no less than #2 heavyweight of all time.

[@ascendediam]

@@Pedro_Le_Chef video on my page shows wlad was way more advanced than the whole louis era,it even in his 3rs pro match

[@ascendediam]

@@Pedro_Le_Chef try naming a hw louis fought who would make pro in 70s,oh thats right you cant,

[@user-bk9fk2tq2z]

@@Pedro_Le_Chef Still would probably lose to Mike Tyson.

[@ascendediam]

these are the comments from a guy in the comments who isn't sane name is oneshot I watched full matches of Joe Louis's fights not highlights. He was very explosive and fast when he wanted to be. You can say that boxers that came after were more advanced with less flaws all you want and diminish his skills all you want, but pretty much every boxing expert and fan agree he was the most technically complete boxer in heavyweight history you compared one of Louis's opponents to one of the best best fighters in the 80's. How does that translate to Louis's own skill? You say fighters from this era don't have good blocking and clearly haven't seen Louis's amazing defense and head movement. How he prevents his opponents from throwing counters when he does, how he prepares to duck one if it does come, how he'd parry his opponents punches with both his lead and rear hand, how he'll constantly change angles to make sure he doesn't stay straight in his opponents line of fire. You say he was flat footed and slow, but you forget that he was trained to not move around a lot and only do so when he needed to. That's exactly what he did. They fight fifteen rounds and he saves his stamina by doing what he does. Your video proved nothing about Louis's ability and only showed a direct comparison between a couple clips of one of his opponents and someone more modern. H The video is a direct comparison between two fighters from two different eras, not analyzing the eras of fighters as a whole, and most certainly not Joe Louis You should look up videos of his head movement and defense if that's what you believe. His defense was one of the best the heavyweight division has seen to this day. The average fighter in the 70-s and 80's aren't beating the greats of the 30's and 40's. Technique didn't improve anywhere near as much as you think It only compared Primo to Wlad and didn't showcase really any other fighters. You can't take just two people and generalize the whole eras with just those two, especially if one is one of the best and the other is one of the worst The average fighter in the 80's-90's may be better than one from the 30's-40's. They just aren't better than the greats of that era His defense wasn't horrendous but it definitely wasn't good. Joe Louis didn't waste punches, had real defense, much better punch technique, pivoted to control space, was faster and more accurate, didn't throw wide hooks and uppercuts but controlled and accurate punches that could knock you out or rattle you from 6 inches away or at arms length. He was far better at all of that then either version of Georg Old George was better than young George and yet he was still inferior to Louis in every category except for punching power and chin. If he was far slower and more flat footed than Louis, had worse technique,

[@ivanayala9501]

Tyson Win (prime vs prime)

[@ivanayala9501]

@@ascendediam 😂

[@ascendediam]

@@ivanayala9501 These are highlights showing the best moments, both missing mutiple movements and flaws from opponents and the person matched h2h, which means it's very flawed and fiction versions of fighters my video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought, does in that video does that version of Joe look like he actually or anybody from his time look like they would land anything on people Mike fought? he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs guys in 70s-90s, so how is this a good match? Any average amateur from the eras I named beats all of those guys in the louis era in the 1st, why you said prime no idea

[@ascendediam]

@@ivanayala9501 It's not a coincidence followers who make these matchups of era's use highlights, cause if they did them the right way like me the real boxing fan would easily be able to see every obsolete/outdated tech in the older era,and would clearly see the newer era average person would easily be way to advanced in timing/tech/angles used/defense and clearly would show they would destroy that older era person, so instead of doing it that way, pick best moments from highlights use fictional versions without hardly any flaws shown or obsolete tech use and it seems more fair and fun

[@yujirogoggins4389]

Mike Tyson KOs him. Louis has no defense

[@oneshotman45]

You should look up videos of his head movement and defense if that's what you believe. His defense was one of the best the heavyweight division has seen to this day.

[@oneshotman45]

@@ascendediam Copy and pasting your reply to me on multiple comments is crazy.

[@ascendediam]

@oneshotman45 ​​ no cause those are highlights you lazy follower,in full matches he fought like this and his whole era very overextending a lot of times to the body and was hesitant in most movements. Didn't don't fight from range much,they leave themselves open a lot of times, and a lot of times they will just throw to the body and not protect themselves. use mostly counters when up close. The lateral movement is very basic. They don't seem to be able to punch from range while doing it smoothly. They have to stop then punch most of the time. Their feet are mostly tiptoeing So you don't notice any of this?,every fighter of this era had these problems,yet you're here saying they would be dominant,this exact same way?,how when the average bum in the 70s-90s were way less flawed and way more advanced Cause this shows in this match and with prim and joe,not every fighter had all these flaws from this era,but they all had some of these flaws and outdated techniques every last one Joe would be destroyed 1st round

[@yotamdude5866]

Saying Joe Louis has no defense is like saying a door doesnt have a handle

[@ascendediam]

@yotamdude5866 very overextending a lot of times to the body and was hesitant in most movements. Didn't don't fight from range much,they leave themselves open a lot of times, and a lot of times they will just throw to the body and not protect themselves. use mostly counters when up close. The lateral movement is very basic. They don't seem to be able to punch from range while doing it smoothly. They have to stop then punch most of the time. Their feet are mostly tiptoeing Cause this shows in every match and with prim and joe,not every fighter had all these flaws from this era,but they all had some of these flaws and outdated techniques every last one Joe would be destroyed 1st round

[@ascendediam]

This is a mismatch. Joe fought in a novice era compared to the average 70s; in full matches, they all had these flaws and obsolete technology in Joe's time. very overextending a lot of times to the body and was hesitant in most movements. They don't fight from range much; they leave themselves open a lot of times, and a lot of times they will just throw to the body and not protect themselves. use mostly counters when up close. The lateral movement is very basic. They don't seem to be able to punch from a distance while doing it smoothly. They have to stop and then punch most of the time. Their feet are mostly tiptoeing. These are from full matches; no one, as I said, made midcard fighting like this in the 70s and 80s; those who advanced those styles by a lot; Joe and his whole era would be destroyed in the first by the average guy in those years. None of these breakdowns are done correctly when having two era's fight; they are done from the best moment's. My way isn't done that way; my way is showing every flaw and obsolete or updated tech used. This is the correct way,and as I said when matching Joe exactly how he fought, not the best moments, him and his whole era were novices compared, they look horrible.

[@kerrymandanny8135]

It's a tough one but if I had to bet my life on it I'd probably say Louis. Anyone of the two could win in multiple ways so it really is hard to chose but I think Louis would have the experience and IQ to withstand the onslaught and take mike out In round 6 to 8. I think it would be all about weathering the storm and if he does picking mike apart from round 4 onwards. He would catch a tired mike and put him down for the count. But If it went the other way it would be Tyson taking him apart early. Very interesting fight and one that I would give anything to see.

[@baragentledragon]

I love the probably bit, your a wise man :) but, i wouldnt bet my life on it, Louis is not in the same class as Tyson, in the class of raw savagery, Tyson is clearly the winner, obviously still keeping it all in a fun expression of respected opinions :)

[@kerrymandanny8135]

@@baragentledragon I wouldn't be comfortable choosing either for this one its really tough theres alot of variables too that people might forget. For example which Tyson would turn up?? The Tyson after 1990 is very beatable. If buster Douglas could do it then a prime joe Louis could too. But prime Tyson could very well beat Louis half to death so to me it's not as easy to predict. Theres a lot to it. I could never underestimate joe Louis I think people do it far too much.

[@kerrymandanny8135]

Also when I say bet my life I mean if I had to chose between them in a life and death situation lol I know that would never happen but if I had too I I would pick Louis because he is definitely more consistent in training and I'm fighting too. Tyson could turn up out of shape or struggling with mental health issues I literally just finished his book 2 nights ago and the stuff going through Tyson's head before and during fights was insane a lot of self doubt and especially after cus dies Wild parties during camp that is if he even bothered to have a proper camp in the first place and under the fact that any time tyson faced anyone some bit great he was beaten very soundly. If the bites didn't happen In the holyfield field he would have been beaten pretty badly. I know styles make fights and all but I hold joe Louis in higher standards than anyone Tyson lost too so I dont think its beyond the realm of possibility that Louis would win. Then again Tyson could destroy him in one round lol so that's why I would be hesitant to chose. It really could go either way but I would give the slight advantage to joe.

[@baragentledragon]

I wouldnt attempt to underestimate such a Master as Louis, but, we are talking about in their primes, so , my logic prevails here, Buster Douglas was actually quite phenomenal against Tyson, who was at that time plagued by all sorts of habits, like coke and probably too many women and late nights, I think Tyson would have beaten Douglas in his prime. @@kerrymandanny8135

[@baragentledragon]

@@kerrymandanny8135 Ok brother, i respect that :)

[@user-bk9fk2tq2z]

Come on, I think some of you need to take off your nostalgia goggles. Yes, Joe Louis did achieve more in his prime than Mike Tyson did...true. Joe had loads more title defences and he was an undisputed World Champion for longer than Mike Tyson. However, heavyweight boxers were bigger, faster, stronger and more skilled in general in the 1980s compared to Joe Louis' era. Joe Louis had trouble with small heavyweights who were not fast. Mike Tyson would maybe be the fastest heavyweight Joe has ever encountered when it comes to foot speed and hand speed. Mike Tyson in his prime had all sorts of angles and movement. And Mike, of course, was very powerful in his flurry of punches and even his one punch was very hard. Joe Louis was very efficient and he was dominant in the ring in his time...and everything was easy peasy to him for the most part...but he fought in an era when heavyweights were slower and smaller and less skilled compared to the heavyweights of the 1980s and even in that time, Joe Louis struggled and had losses. Even Schmeling from Germany saw a major flaw in Joe's boxing and that made Schmeling beat Joe...and then, to Joe's credit, Joe beat him up and won the rematch. Mike's chin is good, but not very good, and that could be a problem for Mike. Mike is heavier than Joe and he is faster in foot speed (I think) than Joe and he has faster hand speed (I think) than Joe. Both have very good boxing IQ, but I think Joe might be better in boxing IQ. Because boxing has become better and more evolved in the 1980s compared to Joe's era...and because of Mike's advantages, I think Mike Tyson will win against Joe Louis. In my opinion, both Joe Louis and Mike Tyson are both overrated, but Joe Louis is even more overrated than Mike Tyson. At least with Mike Tyson...people say that he should be in the top 10 or top 15 or top 20 of all time...which is reasonable. But for Joe Louis, people say that he should be on the number 1 or number 2 spot for greatest boxers of ALL TIME and I think that is overrating Joe Louis wayyyyy too much. Like I said, Joe Louis' achievements in the ring (for his era) can put him on the GOAT spot understandably...but when it comes to head to head boxing? Nah...I think there are many boxers that could beat prime Joe Louis e.g. Mike Tyson, Larry Holmes, George Foreman, Sonny Liston, Muhammad Ali, Lennox Lewis.

[@ascendediam]

these are the comments from a guy in the comments who isn't sane name is oneshot I watched full matches of Joe Louis's fights not highlights. He was very explosive and fast when he wanted to be. You can say that boxers that came after were more advanced with less flaws all you want and diminish his skills all you want, but pretty much every boxing expert and fan agree he was the most technically complete boxer in heavyweight history you compared one of Louis's opponents to one of the best best fighters in the 80's. How does that translate to Louis's own skill? You say fighters from this era don't have good blocking and clearly haven't seen Louis's amazing defense and head movement. How he prevents his opponents from throwing counters when he does, how he prepares to duck one if it does come, how he'd parry his opponents punches with both his lead and rear hand, how he'll constantly change angles to make sure he doesn't stay straight in his opponents line of fire. You say he was flat footed and slow, but you forget that he was trained to not move around a lot and only do so when he needed to. That's exactly what he did. They fight fifteen rounds and he saves his stamina by doing what he does. Your video proved nothing about Louis's ability and only showed a direct comparison between a couple clips of one of his opponents and someone more modern. H The video is a direct comparison between two fighters from two different eras, not analyzing the eras of fighters as a whole, and most certainly not Joe Louis You should look up videos of his head movement and defense if that's what you believe. His defense was one of the best the heavyweight division has seen to this day. The average fighter in the 70-s and 80's aren't beating the greats of the 30's and 40's. Technique didn't improve anywhere near as much as you think It only compared Primo to Wlad and didn't showcase really any other fighters. You can't take just two people and generalize the whole eras with just those two, especially if one is one of the best and the other is one of the worst The average fighter in the 80's-90's may be better than one from the 30's-40's. They just aren't better than the greats of that era His defense wasn't horrendous but it definitely wasn't good. Joe Louis didn't waste punches, had real defense, much better punch technique, pivoted to control space, was faster and more accurate, didn't throw wide hooks and uppercuts but controlled and accurate punches that could knock you out or rattle you from 6 inches away or at arms length. He was far better at all of that then either version of Georg Old George was better than young George and yet he was still inferior to Louis in every category except for punching power and chin. If he was far slower and more flat footed than Louis, had worse technique,

[@ascendediam]

This whole video is ridiculous, it's highlights, my video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought and they look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs guys in 70s-90s It's very odd for years wackos on forums and on this site have always bragged about louis timing and punch tech from highlights, while leaving out this is how they really fought in his time from full rounds like my video shows, very overextending a lot of times to the body and are very hesitant in most movements. They don't fight from range much; they leave themselves open a lot of times, and a lot of times they will just throw to the body and not protect themselves. They use mostly counters when up close. The lateral movement is very basic. They don't seem to be able to punch from a distance while doing it smoothly. They have to stop and then punch most of the time. Their feet are mostly tiptoeing

[@benjaminbushell]

Louis broke a mans spine he punched harder than mike, he was better at almost everything Louis wins 8/10, 2/10 Tyson does hit him enough in the first 5 rounds to win by KO

[@ascendediam]

no cause those are highlights you lazy follower,in full matches he fought like this and his whole era very overextending a lot of times to the body and was hesitant in most movements. Didn't don't fight from range much,they leave themselves open a lot of times, and a lot of times they will just throw to the body and not protect themselves. use mostly counters when up close. The lateral movement is very basic. They don't seem to be able to punch from range while doing it smoothly. They have to stop then punch most of the time. Their feet are mostly tiptoeing So you don't notice any of this?,every fighter of this era had these problems,yet you're here saying they would be dominant,this exact same way?,how when the average bum in the 70s-90s were way less flawed and way more advanced Cause this shows in this match and with prim and joe,not every fighter had all these flaws from this era,but they all had some of these flaws and outdated techniques every last one Joe would be destroyed 1st round

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam ^^ Derp!

[@ascendediam]

@@BrotherPatriot i no longer respond to others who cannot alter video,he also no longer uses words in detail to people not sane or who cannot see good his page proves the opposition wrong,his video shows people joe faced and george faced,in that video,his video shows for a fact joe and his era were way less advanced in these areas tech/fluidity/timing/angles used/defense,than people in the video george fought Even no names were way more advanced in every area,since you cannot alter video to make you're words do not matter to him

[@Polar-pencil]

Louis via breaking Tyson's skull 💀

[@ascendediam]

The fiction one you made up

[@ageuzddhdtkxjgltihpuflhljm533]

For me joe louis the best of the brst joe fight for the sport and mike for the money

[@franksantucci3038]

No doubt in my mind, Both in their primes, Louis wins by KO. Unless of course he gets caught early by one of Tyson's big bombs 💣

[@milojanis4901]

I'll agree with that. Mainly because his best fights were over 80 years ago, many today disregard Louis, or forget about him entirely. Louis had it all. A very savvy boxer, with very good hand speed, and had KO power in both hands, too. He could also take a good punch. The only way Tyson wins this matchup is if he comes out swinging and tags Louis with a good shot. I know this is a possibility, but it's Mike's only chance. If Louis survives the onslaught, which is also a good possibility, Louis wins by KO before the 9th round. Louis at his best was every bit as good as, or better than, Lennox Lewis.

[@baragentledragon]

"Unless" of course he gets caught" levity also in my reply, the problem being, there is no "unless" with Tyson in his raw savage prime, therein lies the total destruction in the first few minutes of the fight ,again ,only an opinion ,and all fun, :)

[@franksantucci3038]

@milojanis4901 Louis at his very best was as good as or better than any fighter who ever lived!! Inside the ring of course...

[@franksantucci3038]

@baragentledragon it is all in fun, and your opinion is a very probable outcome.. here's mine, Tyson moves forward fast, bobbing his head and shoulders side to side rapidly with his hands covering his chin in the famous Cus D'Amato taught peek a boo style. Both Patterson and Torres used it as well. Only problem "Joe Louis " I see him clipping Tyson on the button as he comes in with his windshield wiper like advance, with the best 6" right hand in ring history. Sleep well " Iron Mike " and remember rust never sleeps... by the way, I love and respect Tyson very much, from 18 to 21 could have fought with any one, anywhere, anytime. A real thing of beauty, hell he was knocking out full grown men when he was 13. All that being said, Louis was the man...

[@baragentledragon]

@@franksantucci3038 You just adore Joe, i get you , all good brother. :) Iron Mike ,iron chin too, but hey, you really dont know , maybe The Brown Bomber could have knocked Mike out :)

[@peterlunn4768]

Tyson all day long, Louis was ponderous, Tyson too fast and punched to hard.

[@baragentledragon]

I dont see why its so difficult to figure, Louis is not even in the same class as Tyson in his prime, i see it as straight forward in terms of Tysons savagery and punching power and combinations, Louis was fantastic, but no match for Mike.

[@oneshotman45]

No he wasn't. Louis looks slow in some of his highlights, but he was an extremely fast and explosive heavyweight when he wanted to be. His punch speed and footwork are out of this world. Tyson is faster, but the gap is nowhere near as large as you think.

[@oneshotman45]

@@ascendediam I watched full matches of Joe Louis's fights not highlights. He was very explosive and fast when he wanted to be. You can say that boxers that came after were more advanced with less flaws all you want and diminish his skills all you want, but pretty much every boxing expert and fan agree he was the most technically complete boxer in heavyweight history. The best in heavyweight history or at the very least in the top 3. Btw how tf you gonna call me a lunatic follower and then be the one to go to multiple videos on my channel to insult me because I don't believe your father Mike Tyson would win? Sounds stupid af but I digress. Explain how boxing has evolved since Joe Louis's reign. Mobile fighters have existed and were numerous since before he even went pro.

[@oneshotman45]

@@cjo9966 Why even start insulting me? We could have had a civil debate. Now, you have your own opinion, and you are clearly never going to consider the slim possibility of changing your clearly fragile mind or be open to other opinions, and you also clearly don't agree with what nearly every boxing expert and analyst ever says, so how about we just end things here, yeah? Let's just agree to disagree. I've debated with too many people like you and it is tiring and pointless. You have your own opinion, and I have mine. We disagree. Now that that is established, we can now go our seperate ways, and forget each other existed. Sounds good to me. I'm certain you have more important things to be doing anyway.

[@cjo9966]

@@oneshotman45 by you saying joe could hang with a 80s guy you're automatically implying his opponents could to you do know that don't you?,cause for louis to be that advanced means his opponents were to,see how you're logic doesn't make any sense,if louis was that advanced he never would've lost or struggled with the guys he did,you should know this to if you seen any average or midcarder in 70s-80s,since they were for a fact way more advanced

[@extremevideos5508]

Yes everyone can see Joe Louis has serious advantages and there is no doubt he is a very serious operator but Mike has a better chin which I think would lead to him taking Joes punches and then Joe not being able to take Mikes. Maybe I am not giving Louis enough credit but Mike has a very huge neck which can absorb punishment. Joe Louis seems like a scary guy due to being quiet and classy and then I'm seeing this kind of highlights of him. He definitely has his own techniques of punching which I have to admit is nice to watch as a boxing fan. I would need to look at more Louis fights to get some more confidence in who I could pick but Mike was hurt by Bruno in the first round which is giving me some concern.

[@Pedro_Le_Chef]

Watch the Nathan Mann fight to see how Louis would deal with an aggressive, short and crouching fighter.

[@ascendediam]

,in full matches he fought like this and his whole era very overextending a lot of times to the body and was hesitant in most movements. Didn't don't fight from range much,they leave themselves open a lot of times, and a lot of times they will just throw to the body and not protect themselves. use mostly counters when up close. The lateral movement is very basic. They don't seem to be able to punch from range while doing it smoothly. They have to stop then punch most of the time. Their feet are mostly tiptoeing So you don't notice any of this?,every fighter of this era had these problems, So what are you giving a novice like fighter a chance vs a way more advanced one? You people are out of touch try watching full matches lazy follower

[@crabb9966]

Two top 5 heavywwights of all time in my ppinion. Hard to pick

[@crabb9966]

@@ascendediam take it easy champ

[@ascendediam]

@@crabb9966 These are highlights showing the best moments, both missing multiple movements and flaws from opponents and the person matched h2h, which means it's very flawed and fiction versions of fighters. My video foreman Louis shows exactly how Joe and his era fought. In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on people Mike/foreman fought? , he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs. guys in the 70s-90s,so how is it hard to pick

[@simaseema8573]

Obvious Mike Tyson was far better than Louis.

[@ascendediam]

On forums, lunatics said marciano would beat mercer, yet no one even made mid card fighting like they did in that novice-like era in the '''' ''70s-'90s, tony wasn't much bigger than rocky and he had to stay away cause ray hit so hard, this man tony was way more advanced than that whole rocky era Tony was almost koed in the 1st from a hard jab from ray and Tony was used to taking shots from his real class which would be Rock's lhw, on top of Tony fought guys with way better tech than they did in Rock's era

[@ascendediam]

some crazy idiot days ago said my video showing rounds of how these guys fought side by side with people george fought on my page is a opinion of george fighting way more advanced people in both ages how is showing exactly how fighters fought and showing advances in tech/fluidity/defense/fluidity/angles an opinion ? The average amateur in 70s-90s were way more advanced than this whole Novice era

[@ascendediam]

Some crazy slow person named nycinstyle kept saying my video is wrong, and ali said how great rock was, and how ali knows boxing well that's correct since ali for a fact knew no one made even midcard fighting like these novices in the 70s,and then the wacko said how ali said rock was better then frazier when ali was just being humble, anybody knows with good vision Joe was way more advanced yet foreman was in the same era who fought guys who had the same advances as others in the same era He kept speaking on rock only instead of the other people in my video as if all these guys didn't all have the same novice like tech and flaws, these people just are really crazy and slow man

[@ascendediam]

I have also been told mutiple times by lunatics these odd quotes I don't know boxing/I don't know what I'm looking at as if I am blind/quotes by said boxer says otherwise/watch highlights yet highlights are selected best moments/how was this era a novice era if they were professionals yet leaving out no one made pro fighting like these guys in 70s-90s

[@LucasMatos1984]

Joe Louis the GOAT!

[@ascendediam]

Loses way to outdated

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam Your mentality is outdated...and not needed. Stop trolling these sites and maybe you might not be called wrong so much. ;)

[@ascendediam]

@@BrotherPatriot i no longer respond to others who cannot alter video,he also no longer uses words in detail to people not sane or who cannot see good his page proves the opposition wrong,his video shows people joe faced and george faced,in that video,his video shows for a fact joe and his era were way less advanced in these areas tech/fluidity/timing/angles used/defense,than people in the video george fought Even no names were way more advanced in every area,since you cannot alter video to make you're words do not matter to him

[@user-dg8gj3wi9n]

joe louis would win in the later rounds. Mike tyson after 6 rounds he was already tired. You could see him little sluggish . In the later rounds. But joe louis has better stamina. He can really keep the pace. and Knock him out

[@ascendediam]

wrong my video shows joe and his whole era were novices compared to the average 70s-90s

[@ascendediam]

stop picking novices who nobody even made midcard fifing like in 70s-90s you exposed you don't watch full matches

[@ascendediam]

Messed up in the head person

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam

[@ascendediam]

@@BrotherPatriot i no longer respond to others who cannot alter video,he also no longer uses words in detail to people not sane or who cannot see good his page proves the opposition wrong,his video shows people joe faced and george faced,in that video,his video shows for a fact joe and his era were way less advanced in these areas tech/fluidity/timing/angles used/defense,than people in the video george fought Even no names were way more advanced in every area,since you cannot alter video to make you're words do not matter to him

[@oneshotman45]

It's tough but Tyson better get Louis out of there quick if he wants to win. Joe would have already analyzed him before going into the ring through tape and seen what weaknesses to exploit. Tyson could use his explosiveness to get an early KO, but if he doesn't and Louis is able to adapt after experiencing his style in person, Tyson is getting knocked out in the mid-late rounds. It's either Tyson by early KO or Louis by KO later on.

[@ascendediam]

Fiction fighters does you no good in public,Joe is compared to George on my page,that's how his era really fought,he would be ko'd in the 1st,find a way to make the real joe as advanced as people george fought in both careers,remember you lied saying joe moved better?,remember you said guys in 70s-90s weren't much more advanced?,lying to me did you no good

[@oneshotman45]

@@ascendediam I don't want to watch your video. I already watched one of your videos and you didn't even believe I did, so I'm not about to waste my time watching another one just for you to do the same thing. There's no reason for me to watch your video just because you love bashing Joe Louis and the 30s-40s era and want to waste both of our time by pretending you want to see and understand what I have to think about it. You probably copied and pasted the same things from the other video just like you copy and paste your comments here, and probably didn't even use post Schmeling fight Louis. You and I both know regardless of what I say you won't believe or listen to anything I say because it's not your own eyes or your echo chamber of redditors, so just stop yapping and stop pretending you will. It's honestly tiring talking to someone who has no intention to listen or even attempt to understand any other point of view or why someone else may think differently. I tried to tolerate you and just work with you but I can't deal with you anymore. So honestly just stop lying and pretending you care what I observe. It's rather annoying. Maybe when you mature and don't rely on a minority of redditors as evidence to support your argument you'll be able to understand that your opinion is in fact an opinion and not a fact, and perhaps you'll understand that other people will not always share it, and not insult them just for not sharing it.

[@ascendediam]

Hey it's all good you're now here are saying joe could study tyson to see his weaknesses,even if joe could do that,his style was coming forward nonstop,no one ever had mike in danger or beat him who fought like that,people who beat Mike had to fight him from distance/had good defense/wasnt easy to read,so see how even if you're making joe more advanced he still wouldn't have the right style?,see how you're playing make believe doesnt work? You're full of crap,all I did was expose you,you lied mutiple times,you said joe was more advanced advanced than guys he wasn't,you said primo wasn't a good person to use,yet he was cause that whole era all had the same tech flaws as each other,it wasnt 1 boxer of that era that didnt have all or 2 of the same flaws as another You won't watch my raw video cause it shows everything I said as a fact,which makes as I said you're post 2 weeks ago crap You said watch highlights,all that usally shows is best moments you said watch highlights,told you they don't matter cause its a person fighting people in their own era vs guys who used tech and flaws of that era,this goes for any boxer of a era

[@ascendediam]

​​@@oneshotman45galento is in that video who for a fact is all I could use for why mike would destroy joe,he for a fact jump coming forward to joe and stunned him and dropped him easy ,mike did that and was way more advanced and hit way harder,but hey joe would have a chance yet couldn't handle a assault like that coming forward good,I hope you had fun showing you're logic is very low and you exposed yourself even before u even spoke to you,which is why I already knew what to say to you,I already knew you wouldn't follow my video yet it's nothing but the truth,the primo vid is all I need for you're kind

[@ascendediam]

You knew you lied; that's why you won't watch that George video. Unlike you, I never was scared to watch any breakdowns because I didn’t need to. For the reasons I have always said, a breakdown only breakdowns a fighter in their own era vs. people with tech and flaws of that era. A correct breakdown is comparing it to other eras'. You know you use anything to go over my video because it's showing exactly in each movement how each era of fighters fought. Quotes can't make them fight differently, and breakdowns can't work because they're already side by side showing each era in full rounds, and all a person has to do is look closely at each era of fighters and see what they did and didn't do. You have nothing for me. You were and have been destroyed. You destroyed yourself. I only responded. See how you shouldn't lie and play make believe in public?

[@wheelchairmanjon]

Joe Lewis had trouble with speed fast guys I got Mike by knockout but man that be great fight

[@ascendediam]

These are highlights showing the best moments, both missing mutiple movements and flaws from opponents and the person matched h2h, which means it's very flawed and fiction versions of fighters my video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought, does in that video does that version of Joe look like he actually or anybody look like they would land anything on people Mike fought?, he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs guys in 70s-90s,so how is this a good match?

[@BrotherPatriot]

"...and STILL the heavy weight champion of the world, Joe Louis...!"

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam

[@sboyer1234]

I say Joe Louis

[@ascendediam]

Yup he loses way to novice like

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam ^^ Derp!

[@ascendediam]

​@@BrotherPatriot i no longer respond to others who cannot alter video,he also no longer uses words in detail to people not sane or who cannot see good his page proves the opposition wrong,his video shows people joe faced and george faced,in that video,his video shows for a fact joe and his era were way less advanced in these areas tech/fluidity/timing/angles used/defense,than people in the video george fought Even no names were way more advanced in every area,since you cannot alter video to make you're words do not matter to him

[@geechterrell9841]

Joe Louis all day

[@ascendediam]

Loses very novice like

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam ^^ Derp!

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam

[@gregorybatman]

Joe Louis wins!!! He has more of everything. He doesn't quit if he can't get you out early. He is deadly throughout the fight.

[@ascendediam]

wrong my video shows joe and his whole era were novices compared to the average 70s-90s

[@ascendediam]

stop picking novices who nobody even made midcard fifing like in 70s-90s you exposed you don't watch full matches

[@ascendediam]

liar follower you're not sane

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam ^^ Derp!

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam ^^ Derp!

[@Pedro_Le_Chef]

Louis via KO in the 10th because tyson has a good chin. Joe is the wrong guy to come into aggressively without an ability to back up or fight on the inside.

[@ascendediam]

exum was wlads 2nd match a no name way more advanced than joes era,have anybody like that in joes time you know with angles?timing?fluid?tech in full rounds?,answer is no yet that man being that advanced was destroyed, i dont need to watch anybody louis fought seen it in all louis matches/max/primo they all had the same flaws the whole era did,looks very novice like compared to the average 70s fighte

[@ascendediam]

video on my page shows wlad was way more advanced than the whole louis era,it even in his 3rs pro match hurts doesn't it?,keep exposing yourself liar

[@ascendediam]

try naming a hw louis fought who would make pro in 70s,oh thats right you cant,

[@ascendediam]

Keep exposing you don't watch matches fool tyson destroys him in the 1st and his whole era

[@BrotherPatriot]

@@ascendediam

[@Thatguyisme659]

Louis KOs him mid or late imo

[@ascendediam]

These are highlights showing the best moments, both missing mutiple movements and flaws from opponents and the person matched h2h, which means it's very flawed and fiction versions of fighters my video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought, does in that video does that version of Joe look like he actually or anybody from his time look like they would land anything on people Mike fought? he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs guys in 70s-90s See how you shouldn't say ridiculous stuff?

[@ascendediam]

It's not a coincidence followers who make these matchups of era's use highlights, cause if they did them the right way like me the real boxing fan would easily be able to see every obsolete/outdated tech in the older era,and would clearly see the newer era average person would easily be way to advanced in timing/tech/angles used/defense and clearly would show they would destroy that older era person, so instead of doing it that way, pick best moments from highlights use fictional versions without hardly any flaws shown or obsolete tech use and it seems more fair and fun

[@Thatguyisme659]

@@ascendediam not ridiculous Louis beat better fighters than Tyson lmao. No one Tyson BEAT is on the level of Jim Braddock, Max Schmelling, Tony Galento, Max Bear, John Henry Lewis etc

[@Thatguyisme659]

@@ascendediam also I've seen most of their full fights and have enough knowledge to conclude Louis is the better boxer

[@ascendediam]

@@Thatguyisme659 troll shutup

[@dwaynem7880]

Joe didn't do well with shorter guys. Mike would win this and Joe is my second favorite. But Joe would have made short work of taller guys Tyson couldn't finish and guys he lost too

[@ascendediam]

These are highlights showing the best moments, both missing mutiple movements and flaws from opponents and the person matched h2h, which means it's very flawed and fiction versions of fighters my video shows exactly how Joe and his era fought, does in that video does that version of Joe look like he actually or anybody from his time look like they would land anything on people Mike fought? he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs guys in 70s-90s, so how is this a good match? How exactly is that real joe you're favorite fighter. looks horrible , oh you meant the fictional highlight ver,that most lunatics lie/lied for years still saying how skilled he was, how he would beat guys in the 70s-90s yet never even facing anybody as advanced as even the amateurs in those years?

[@ascendediam]

It's not a coincidence followers who make these matchups of era's use highlights, cause if they did them the right way like me the real boxing fan would easily be able to see every obsolete/outdated tech in the older era,and would clearly see the newer era average person would easily be way to advanced in timing/tech/angles used/defense and clearly would show they would destroy that older era person, so instead of doing it that way, pick best moments from highlights use fictional versions without hardly any flaws shown or obsolete tech use and it seems more fair and fun

[@Bricklinsv1970]

Louis would get his licks in but Mike would eventually catch him and knock him out.

[@Bricklinsv1970]

@@ikedyson6426 that's true because it's never going to happen lol

[@oneshotman45]

It would be the complete other way around in my opinion.

[@Bricklinsv1970]

Peek a Boo light out sucka!@@ascendediam

[@ascendediam]

@@Bricklinsv1970 how would joe get shots in If he wouldn't land?,you people need to watch matches his movements was very novice like

[@MrGG1959]

Louis by early KO.

[@ascendediam]

These are highlights showing the best moments, both missing multiple movements and flaws from opponents and the person matched h2h, which means it's very flawed and fiction versions of fighters. My video foreman Louis shows exactly how Joe and his era fought. In that video, does that version of Joe look like he or anybody else would land anything on people Mike/foreman fought? , he and guys from his time look like novices compared side by side to no names Foreman fought, and in no way does anyone from that era look like they would last 1 round vs. guys in the 70s-90s,so yea jke would be destroyed in the 1st

[@justinsommerfeldt7613]

the difference between joe and mike, im pretty sure joe is faster than mike