Lennox Lewis-Mike Tyson

[jamesmcdonnell]

Never said he wasn't, not amazing in any department except chin, but good in most except his movement.

I always thought that McCall had the tools to be a much better heavyweight than he was, certainly he was physically gifted, and had talent, but never made the best of it.

However, he was a notch below Lewis or Tyson and quite a big notch.

One question Terrence. Do you think McCall would have beaten a prime Tyson? Personally I cannot see Tyson getting blasted out with one punch.

[Ezzard]

I agre that Tyson had a sound chin and is unlikely to be taken out by one shot but in many fights (including pre-Douglas) one shot would drastically change Tyson's effectiveness and performance.

Tyson had a fragile ego. That's obvious enough. The moment his mental resilience was put to the test he threw his hand in.

A great front runner. Tyson could take out anyone. There's a good chance he'd get to Lewis but Lewis has the tools and the game plan.

[Matt W]

Liston & Patterson perhaps?

[stujones]

Lewis did get careless vs Rahman and McCall - yes an arguement could be made that Lewis never lost when he was "on" his A game.... good point.

Couldn't the same be applied to Tyson.

Yes, Lewis won fights when he wasn't on his A game - Klitchsko, Briggs etc.

But then didn't Tyson beat similar level fighters like Rudduck, Bruno (twice), Golota when not on his A game.

Tyson chin was needed to pull out a win from the jaws of defeat vs Botha. Also Rudduck showed some ambition and Tyson took some big shots in their first fight - Tyson got the stoppage in the following round.

I think you better watch the Billips fight again..... you said World champions like Smith and Tucker showed how easy it was to negate Tyson - then an semi pro journeyman like Billips showed how a small guy with a chin could catch and hurt the low guarded Lewis..... Unlike Smith and Tucker, Billips took a few rounds vs Lewis.

Bit of a pattern here - Mercer, Billips, McCall, Holyfield - Small heavyweight with a good chin.

Lewis was great no doubting that, no dispute - but he wasn't the ultimate proffesional that you make him out. There are instances when he was ill prepared and there are instances where he fought the wrong tactics. Never scored a lucky punch win you claim..... I personally think he was a tad "fortunate" he got hurt by a tiring Bruno - who went for the kill and got
whacked.

Your arguement regarding McCall and Tyson just shows your point of view - seems like it doesn't bother you if, when and how fighters have had enough. Just so that McCall has more "fighting guts" at 40 than Tyson had a similar age, doesn't mean this was always the case, and it doesn't mean that Tyson never had it.

He showed against Douglas when he was under prepared (yes, his fault - but can I mention South Africa again) that he had bottle and heart. He didn't quit there, he didn't shit his load. He got done, by a very underated fighter I must add, but he kept trying and trying. Just like Ali stuck it out in his first fight with Leon Spinks.

Regarding polar opposites - Leonard vs Hagler maybe, Steve Robinson and Naseem?

[jamesmcdonnell]

Never said he wasn't, not amazing in any department except chin, but good in most except his movement.

I always thought that McCall had the tools to be a much better heavyweight than he was, certainly he was physically gifted, and had talent, but never made the best of it.

However, he was a notch below Lewis or Tyson and quite a big notch.

One question Terrence. Do you think McCall would have beaten a prime Tyson? Personally I cannot see Tyson getting blasted out with one punch.

I cannot see Tyson stopping McCall either. or cowing him. It would be a clinchfest, possibly Tyson on points but never discount a man who cannot be KO'd.

McCall did well in the Seldon fight, despite Seldon seeing his own arse somewhat. He had some ability did McCall.

I'm not being a coont. Pro-Tyson arguments boil down to:

Lewis got caught by McCall and Rahman, so Tyson would win. Due to power and fear factor.

Most then concede that Lewis was complacent in those fights and never lost when 'on', so he would not walk onto a Tyson shot.

The fear/power factor negates the complancency, and Tyson fans have nothing beyond that.

Lewis was complacement in the fight with McCall, McCall was instructed to exploit an obvious opening that Lewis left after/when throwing the right by Eddie Futch.

You are being rather disingenuous here Terrence.

I didn't say that Tyson would win because McCall and Rahman did, I said that given those results, to say Tyson could never win against Lewis was rather ludicrous. You make it sound like it would have been a virtual fluke if Tyson won, despite him being MUCH better than either of those men in his prime, and more importantly, MUCH faster.

[stujones]

Plus, how many times did Lennox stop a fighter if the contest went into the 7th Three times.... Tyson, Phil Jackson, and Bruno. Besides the Holyfield rematch I am struggling to think of another fighter Lewis rocked when the 8th round rang.

Now for me that indicates that either Lewis power deteriorated as a fight wore on, his snap went... or Lewis realised that he couldn't get the job done the short route decided to take it the distance.

Nothing wrong with that, but for Tyson - who scored more later half KO's than Lewis - its been dubbed almost a cardinal sin that he realised that Smith, Tucker et al were going to survive so he elected to seal a points win.

[stujones]

Again, assumptions that you class as fact. So what great performance has Rudduck put in post Tyson. Why is it not possible for being whacked ten bells by one of the hardest punchers in the devision history - not affect his future.

Oh and why wasn't he just caught cold by Lewis.... its okay to bring up that as an excuse for fighters who done well vs Lewis, but not for fighters who done well vs Tyson.

Hang on now, I'm learning something new here - Green was the one who "approached" Tyson in the clothes shop, and it was Green who alledgely had a gun.... and its Tyson who was the "bully"..... Without all the facts, sounds like a case of self defence.

What Tyson did in and out of the ring in his later career is irrelevant... He was a changed man in the ring post Rooney and possibly (hard to judge either way, no EVIDENCE EITHER WAY) a changed man out of it. Sure there were rumours of steriod use in his Cus D'Amato days, but no indication that Tyson was taking other mind altering substances, that he was taking in his later career.

You yourself have said that Tyson didn't show consistency with the jab in his early career, or didn't go to the body often in a us Tyson "nut huggers" claim early in his career. But he got the job done everytime, and not once did he look close to losing.... so what does that indicate - that the man was versitile.

Tyson vs Bruno 1 got messy cause Bruno tried to negate Tyson the way Smith and Tucker did.... After the first, Bruno would try the odd jab and cling... However, Bruno's resistance isn't as good as Tucker's and Smith, and Tyson knew the KO was coming, so he fought it slightly different inside... but he still took far too many shots in the fight - the rot was in.

No Botha did not hit him with hudinging blows, he never had that in his arsenal anyway. However, at that stage Tyson was pretty much a 6 round fighter and his guard was dropping, and Botha went for the kill. He looked to be there for the taking.. Perhaps Mike was a tactical genius that fight and lulled him into a false sense of security - I'm sure Lewis would have been had he had a similar fight. Couldn't the exact same thing you've mentioned on how Tyson beat Botha be attributed to Bruno. Frank softened Lennox up with the jab, had his big traditional fade, but was still on top but guard dropping. Hurts Lewis, goes for the kill and gets tagged by a desperate Lewis. Essentially both Botha and Bruno elected to change their tactics (both with good reason) and both walked onto a finisher.

Tyson caught Botha with a booming straight right hand, floored Briggs with a jab, floored Spinks with a body shot (followed by an uppercut) and his famed punch was his left hook. Yeah, really predicable.

As for whether it was Tyson's chin that saved him from those fights - thats
was a silly suggestion made by you that can always be turned in any fight that finished with a stoppage. Was it Ali's chin that saved him vs Foreman, or was a lack of condition in the heat from Big George or a lack of experience? Was it Leonard chin that saved him vs Hearns, or was it Hearn's own vulnarbility? Was it Marciano's chin that saved him vs Walcott, or was it his own power?

[observer1]

Hey Terry, If Douglas took the ReMatch, who Who Would win..

Considering this Time, Tyson, even with his new "Baby Sitter" Corner men had the Basic Boxing Equipment this time.

[stujones]

I only brought in the Tyson finishing shots, because you brought up that Lewis KO'd Bruno with a left which shows he wasn't all about the right hand. Tyson was slightly more than a left hook, but yet according to you couldn't jab and couldn't body punch.

Tyson did look OKAY against Bruno in the rematch, but Bruno was a petrified stationary target who completely froze. Tyson didn't have the movement, there was no jab, it was hook, hook, hook, swing, swing, swing. Thing was all of them tagged Bruno cause he froze.

Had Bruno not frozen we probably would have had a similar fight as Bruno vs Tyson 1. Tyson wasn't the same fighter post Spinks... its clear as day in victory and in defeat...gone was the jab, and working the man over. Replaced with every shot looking to be a killer KO. This wasn't the case in his early career - watch the Briggs fight. Tyson got away with it in other post 1988 fights - he looked like an animal vs the very decent (fringe world level), but scared shitless, Alec Stewart - but again it was wild with more misses the connections... but Alex Stewart didn't capitilise and he made Tyson look good.

But contary to your believes - Tyson didn't only look good when the opponent froze. Larry Holmes didn't freeze, might not have been in tip top condition but as strong mentally as your going to get. Tyrell Biggs didn't freeze, Pinklon Thomas didn't freeze, Berbick didn't freeze, Smith did yes.

Your quite right, Bruno wasn't as durable as Smith, Tucker et al.... but thats why Tyson SETTLED for a points win with them guys, and not Bruno.... How do you think he would have fought Lewis? His chin isn't as bad as some people have made out, but he aint Marciano is he.

Your quite right regarding Bruno vs Lewis - no it wasn't a whitewash... the fact is, Lewis had some early success, but still couldn't figure out Bruno out, still didn't implement a game plan that was working - still down on the cards.

Botha was making Tyson look a fool, yep - but Tyson was a shot fighter. Trevor Berbick made Ali look a fool, John Honney made Michael Ayers look a fool.

I'm sorry I do have to laugh that your basing the Rudduck not being caught cold cause he actually got up from the KD.... He was out on his feet, it one of the most brutal KD's I have ever seen - his legs just fall a different way to his head - its almost comical the way he fell. The fight should have been stopped with him on his feet eyes in orbit (remind you of anyone), he did amazing to actually beat that count - but it would have been many many minute before he would have gained his legs. A minute rest was never going to be long enough. All Lewis did was have the opportunity that Oliver McCall never got the chance to have in their first fight and decapitate a wounded, gone, target.

I'll give Lewis the credit for landing the perfect punch on a cold Rudduck, and won't suggest that 17 rounds with Tyson had no effect on Rudduck's punch resistance (although glad you've now retracted - well you didn't repeat it - that this could DEFINATELY not be a possibility).

It is not illogical, to say Tyson had the "David Reid Syndrome"..... It is obvious even in winning performances like Bruno, Tubbs and even a 90 second blow out of Carl Williams that the movement wasn't as it was, the working his way in wasn't the same - essentially he lost his finese. The Tyson of 1987-1988 would never have allowed Bruno back in the fight, and he would have sensed that Bruno wasn't out of it in the first. Is it compleately illogical that a man in his mid 20's is deemed shot.... read some of the archive posts from some of the older poster on the likes of Barry McGuigan - he certainly wasn't that sharp vs Cabrerra.... man, look at the post being made now on Hatton being a faded fighter.

As for what Atlas says, yes he was there - but he was a little bitter. Other friends who were around (and came back to the fore at the end) such as Steve Lott (I believe) have said that Ronney was his biggest loss. I am not that sure, but didn't Cus essentially have to chose between Atlas (as a coach) and Tyson and he selected the later? If thats not quite right, I know Atlas has his reasons for not being a Mike Tyson fan.

Rooney might not be the greatest trainer of all time, and might not have been the dalai lama - but he was what worked for Tyson. Emmanuel Steward is a great coach who worked wonders for Lewis, but even with Steward if the "bond" isn't right it won't work (Naz) - for Rooney and Tyson - they were a team.

No I haven't dropped the idea that Tyson carried greater power beyond 7, cause Tyson hurt more fighters in the 8th and beyond than Lewis did, and Tyson has scored 1 KO in the Championship rounds, something Lewis has never done. However, I was merely bringing that up in response to your claims that Tyson faded even in his pomp.... if he did, then so did Lewis.

So Tyson didn't weather good blows vs Rudduck then? Didn't weather good blows vs Bruno... okay not the greatest names, but pretty much the best available at the time.

[observer1]

Tyson took some deadly shots against Ruddock, and is quoted as saying "that ruddock punckes like a Mule Kick".

and you never answered the Question..

If Tyson took the Fight serious, and even with his 1990 Corner men, had a Rematch with Douglas, [With Tyson having the basic Boxing Equipment in his Corner this time], who would win?

Also assuming Douglas did not eat himself out of shape

[jamesmcdonnell]

I cannot see Tyson stopping McCall either. or cowing him. It would be a clinchfest, possibly Tyson on points but never discount a man who cannot be KO'd.

McCall did well in the Seldon fight, despite Seldon seeing his own arse somewhat. He had some ability did McCall.

I'm not being a coont. Pro-Tyson arguments boil down to:

Lewis got caught by McCall and Rahman, so Tyson would win. Due to power and fear factor.

Most then concede that Lewis was complacent in those fights and never lost when 'on', so he would not walk onto a Tyson shot.

The fear/power factor negates the complancency, and Tyson fans have nothing beyond that.

Lewis was complacement in the fight with McCall, McCall was instructed to exploit an obvious opening that Lewis left after/when throwing the right by Eddie Futch.

You are being rather disingenuous here Terrence.

I didn't say that Tyson would win because McCall and Rahman did, I said that given those results, to say Tyson could never win against Lewis was rather ludicrous. You make it sound like it would have been a virtual fluke if Tyson won, despite him being MUCH better than either of those men in his prime, and more importantly, MUCH faster.

As far as I'm aware Manny Steward trained McCall for that one, he even pointed the fact out to Lewis when Lewis interview trainers. Ritchie Giamattchi(? Can never spell it) was interviewed as well but weeded out.

How many times have I said it would go 9-1, as ludicrous as that sounds in itself unless you factor in how each man would deteriorate with the fights, how one may get cowed etc. Lewis by KO or DQ and Tyson by KO around 4.

Again, in the rematch situation, I'm point to the fact that it was what Lewis did in and around those fights that gives him points. He was frozen out, imagine that happening to Tyson back then? He'd have gone postal and fooked boxing off.

Tyson had the fault lines, like a block of marble, it can look impregnable but you tap the faultline and it falls apart.

Whoops, meant to say Manny Steward, had Riddick Bowe going through my head at the time I guess.

Who cares what Tyson would have done if he'd been frozen out, again irrelevant to this argument Terrence.

Tyson had fault lines, Lewis had flaws, no heavyweight is perfect.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Sorry, but it is irrelevant. You are completely speculating what would have happened had Tyson been frozen out, (which would never have happened given his immense ticket selling power), as 'evidence' that his mental frailty ensured Lewis' victory over him at any stage.

Can you not see how spurious that is?

The lengths you are willing to drege up minutiae as 'evidence' to support an entirely fictitious hypothetis as to who would have won in a totally impossible peak match between two heavyweight champions of yesteryear, does not make your argument any more convincing or effective, and certainly makes it no more elegant.

I am going to continue to disagree with you on this one, no matter how much material you drag up Terrence, the fact is, I haven't the inclination to do so just for the purposes of bragging rights for proving the frankly impossible, namely who would have won a contest which never happened.

My argument is simple, despite all of Tyson's well documented flaws in both his psyche, and to a lesser extent his fighting style, I believe they would all have been rendered moot, because the stockier, faster more aggressive fighter would have gotten to the more cautious, slower and less active Lewis early in the fight and rendered him unconscious, or would have made Lewis negative and won a points verdict with Lewis holding and spoiling to survive.

Now we can continue ad nauseum on this one, but that's my gut feeling, and if I could be bothered I could construct lengthy posts on the subject I would go through with a fine tooth comb and bring up various fights and pieces of information on the subject to support this hypothesis, but truthfully I cannot be arsed to do 'research' for an argument on a boxing forum.

At the end of the day, given that this is an entirely hypothetical situation, I feel such effort is only warranted if I were to write an article on it, which I'm considering doing just as a way back into writing after a long break.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Just something to throw into the mix re: Lewis' condition vs Vitali - he accepted that fight on a couple of weeks' notice after training for Kirk Johnson who he would have beaten with an arm tied behind his back. That Lewis agreed to the change shows his confidence and character I think.

totally agree.

Lewis showed incredible balls to take on a dangerous foe like Vitali, when he was preparing for a bout with Free Willy just two weeks before.

Can you imagine any other recent heavyweight champ doing that? I certainly cannot.

While Vitali is only a footnote in the division, he was certainly a way more dangerous proposition than 'flubber.'

[Matt W]

Terry I'm intrigued - tell me more about this 'guy instinct'

[Matt W]

Terry I'm intrigued - tell me more about this 'guy instinct'

The smell of potential shit wafts to the nostrils, never happens to women

Which explains how you get women....

[stujones]

Read back Stu, Tyson could jab when it was the right punch to use but given his size and style it rarely was. Instead we are to suppose, like Jones, he had one of the all-time great jabs based on a few instances. Where was the great jab against Douglas, or Evander, nearer in size. Absent. Why? Because he could not put it to work all the time. Same with the body shots.

Bruno was a stationary target and made Tyson look good in fight II. Well Ruddock was hardly Locche was he? Perhaps he was a stationary target who made Tyson look good. Lewis also, only Lewis looked better. As for not answering your claim about Tyson blowing Ruddock's punch resistance. Think about it. Tyson stopped him in the first bout, he went the distance in the second. Seemingly his punch resistance was A-ok, in both bouts actually because fight I was stopped with him on his feet and protesting. Why? Because when Donovan loads-up he leaves himself wide-ope and the shots he takes look huge. Witness the Morrison bout where he was wide-open.

Tyson did not take Ruddock's punch resistance, if he did fight II would have been different, it would have been a KO. You are flat-out wrong, although at this point you are about to say that Tyson had conveniently deteriorated once again in fight II. Your basis for this?

I suppose when Ruddock lost by stoppage earlier in his career that he had dreamt of Mike the night before and this lost him his resistance, then he regained it, fought Mike and lost it in one fight, regained it in the second, and then lost to Lewis because he had lost his punch resistance via Mike even though he had just gone 12 with Mike (and probably would have in fight I). Or perhaps he was just easy to catch clean, not quite as easy for Mike as Lennox though. Maybe Lewis was better even at that moment.

Tyson did not look good post-Spinks? As I said in the articles this never-never land prime is laughable. I can do the same for Hamed and Taylor and make huge claims for them, although you missed that point completely.

When Tyson was at his best he had the fear factor. As for Holmes not freezing. That is some kind of point? The old man was there for the money and had not prepared for the fight. Hardly a huge test for Tyson, even given Holmes' ability.

How would Tyson have fought Lewis. Fast start, caught with a right in the first, plenty of clinching, backed-up, knocked down, cut, and then knocked out. Dispute it all you like but show me a time Tyson did not show this pattern in losing (discounting the times he quit of course).

Lewis may have been in a tough fight with Bruno but according to you this was the guy who gave Mike a tough fight and perhaps, if he lasted, would have won the second bout with Mike. Hardly any shame in Lewis KOing him is there? According to you.

So Tyson was absolutely shot when he was out-boxed by Botha. Even though you claim he picked-up some form in the bouts after Botha. Again you make yet another contradictory 'point'. Tyson got out-boxed because he could be out-boxed. Or are you going to add 'impossible to out-box' to the list that includes 'had a flexible prime depending on my mood', 'scored more KO's late in a fight, even though he didn't', 'was only mentally troubled after he had married Givens, even though evidence exists to the contrary', 'was unstoppable in his prime, apart from the time people stopped him working, but we don't count them', and on and on.

The movement was gone versus Carl Williams? Watching the fight the other night I was sure Tyson timed Williams and closed him down before stepping in with a left hook as Williams dropped his right hand. In writing pretty much all of Tyson's career off to prove your 'points' you are missing out on some decent performances. Who is the Tyson fan here? The guy watching the fights or the guy who is not?

You also say Tyson scored a KO in the 'Championship rounds', surely you don't mean Ribalta (that was a rhetorical question because you clearly do). Championship rounds happen in a Championship fight. Lewis KO'd more people beyond 7, one of them was Mike Tyson. You did yourself up like a kipper with that one.

As for the mystical elements that Rooney brought. You think he wasn't just another 'yes, yes, 5-5-1 to the body' man? Cus was weak in regards to Mike. Atlas took exception to Tyson molesting a female member of the local community (a charge I've not seen Tyson dispute) and pulled Mike up on it. Mike ran crying to Cus and Cus had to choose Tyson (and doing the wrong thing by Mike by effectively robbing him of control) or Atlas (making the right moral choice and keeping a person who was speaking the truth about what was going to happen in the long-term). Cus made his choice, and another nail was put into Tyson's coffin.

I've still yet to see the die-hard Tyson fans make a decent argument for him over Lewis. There isn't one, so they won't. I'm even having to do a lot of the legwork in regards to his fights!

Again, Tyson had certain axiomatic flaws, if you were strong and skilled enough to expose him you could subjugate him, tie him up, back him up, cut him, and then stop him. How can we know this? It happened. Lewis was the just and destined final nail in Tyson, it was written before they were born that Lewis would have the better career, be the better fighter and finally put Tyson down. You are pinning your hopes on a Disneyland prime that includes the Spinks win but not the Ellis, Green, Tucker and Smith (who we are to assume were all better and tougher than Lewis?) bouts. A selective prime? I think not. You cannot use the materials at your disposal.

It wasn't Lewis who put Tyson FINALLY down, neither in fact or in logic. It was Kevin McBride and it was the 17 stone fighter that fought Lewis.

I have always maintained that the reason why Tyson looked good in some fights post Spinks and not in others cause of his punch and cause the opponents froze. Saverese (caught cold), Francis (always vulnerable), Golota (quit). The Golota fight was interesting, cause I maintain to this day that Tyson had shot his bolt and was fading at the time Golota walked out. They were a selected band of fighters, designed to make Tyson look good.... Michael Spinks et al were not.... Yes, those wins got some Tyson fans into a frenzy about whether he was back.... he clearly wasn't but at least he was in some shape and was fighting regularly (unlike prior to the Botha fight).

BTW I have a Tyson career set and a Lennox Lewis set for most of his fights... I watch them frequently. Tyson got caught by Williams coming in on one or two occassion (of course in a 90 second blow out you cannot call it a bad display, same with Tony Tubbs) - it was a nice shot that Tyson landed against Williams - but hey, he caught Botha with a peach and all.

Glad you watched Tyson in action recently, just like you so clearly obviously watched Lewis vs Billips also.

I've not called either fight with Rudduck a "poor" performance. It was an off peak performance, but up there in terms of his approach and style with post Spinks, championship wins.

I'm still lost at your claims regarding how the fact that Rudduck went the distance in fight 2 and got stopped in fight 1 was evidence that his chin was still strong for the Lewis fight... perhaps, maybe, it was the 10 rounds ON TOP of the 7 rounds that caved in his resistance. Maybe, just maybe - Tyson giving him a 10 round general beating affected many aspects of his game. Rudduck did not show bad punch resistance in the first fight... it was a controvesial stoppage.

Jermain Taylor has never looked good. He didn't look good winning the title, and he didn't look good defending it. Hamed, you can make some claims about - and people did. Look how many people think a "prime" Hamed would have beaten a prime Barrera - same question as being asked here.

I never said Bruno gave Tyson a tough bout... although yes, I do think in fight 2 he MIGHT have beaten Mike had he lasted - cause Tyson was a 5 round fighter at best in the days. FACT is he didn't.

Lewis didn't stop more people beyond round seven.... its equal. Lewis hurt less fighter beyond round 8.

As for Rooney, again its just your theory that he was just a yes man.... any facts behind this. The fact they split showed he had some opinions. Whatever he was, it worked - colleagues who are still involved with Mike said it. Far more reliable sources than Teddy Atlas - who I heard last night claim that Sonny Liston had more heart than Mike... might be true, but Sonny quit a few times.

I'm glad you've now not mentioned again that Rudduck could definately not have been caught cold cause he barely survived the first round.

I have not been flexible on his prime.... its 1985 through to 1988. Yes, I include these "bad" near shut out wins he had that went the full route.... cause I don't think they were particularly bad performance. Again, as a Lewis fan, what is wrong with being contented with points win - what is wrong with doing some rounds.

So Tyson now only beat fighter who had the fear factor, other than fighters he was better than... Holmes in it for the money?, thats been discussed on another thread - and I was firmly put into my place that he wasn't - by people who have followed Holmes career more than me. He was/is a successful buisnessman. He didn't prepare properly no, but he fought for the right reasons and with the right attitude.

So your breakdown of fighters whose style gave Lewis one or two problems, might indicate his versistility.... but to me it indicates that a number of styles gave Lewis problems.... why cannot Tyson's be one, he never fought anyone remotely like Tyson.... and likewise, Smith, Tucker etc did not fight remotely like how Lewis would. If they did, they'd lose also.

Your constant making of hearsay and labelling them as facts is now really getting tedious BTW. I'm with James on that score also.

[observer1]

Larry Holmes was exhumed to make Tyson look good, Biggs was rushed and made Tyson look good. Tubbs was not what he was once, and made Tyson look good. Spinks was small, and made Tyson look good. Smith was a known commodity, and made Tyson look bad.

lmao.

Larry Holmes was past his Best Yes, Thats for Sure, but you make it as if he was finished. he had 24 more fights after Tyson, iirc.

Although it was Tysons Prime, he Lasted 4 Rounds.

4 years later, He faced an undefeated Holyfield, went 12 rounds and lost in a UD.

he also had some pretty decent wins over the course of the 90's.

So, Surely you cant dismiss Holmes as a nothing fight...

Spinks was small? as in what? height? reputation? He was undefeated Champ ffs..

[observer1]

Point is Holmes had never been stopped before, and he got stopped.


your point of him being out of shape is the same point we're saying about tyson when he fought Lewis, and pretty much everyone after Rooney.

Unlike Most HW's, Tyson never had the Problem of Controling his Desire to eat food, he had problems with his Wife screwing him over, His Rape-Case, beeing screwed over by Don King from time to time.

Im sorry but if you give Larry Holmes an excuse because he could not control his temtpation to eat burgers, then you gotta cut tyson some Slack over his Domestic issues

[Max Molyneux]

Could Tyson have only been mentally past It? Who at 24 would be physically past their prime?

I don't think It was ever physical, It was always mental for Tyson.

[DavidPayne]

Larry needed a tune up before Tyson, but he was jaded when he retired.

Been interesting thread this, but I think we've exhausted everything haven't we?

[stujones]

When did I ever say Rudduck showed a bad punch resistance for the Tyson fights... 1) I said he was caught cold by a peach of a shot and never recovered.... 2) I still maintain that a 10 round contest of a slug fest ontop of a 7 round fight could affect someones punch resistance AFTER the fight. It happens. Could I be doing Lennox a great disserves.... possibly, is it though impossible that it cannot be the case - nope.

Oh no, of course cause he stumbled back to the corner with his legs disobeying his mind - but yes, the minutes rest was ample time for him to recover and show he was warmed up.

If your harping on about my knowledge of the Mitch Green as a lack of 1) I never brought it up or ever proclaimed to be the bible of knowledge of this instance. 2) Neither of us were there, neither of us know the full ins and out - so your "facts" are based on secondary or bias evidence - so its a moot point.

Actually it was not Lewis who drew the line under Tyson - watch the post fight analysis with the likes of Watt on Tyson vs Etteine - words to the effect of "if Tyson can get down in weight after just 3 weeks, what could he do if he could maintain his concentration in training camp" - STILL people were not writing him off - there was still a vibe than an inshape Tyson could regain the title. He fought Williams and the weight was up.

Tyson's prime went when he changed his trainer.... Lewis' prime occured when he changed his. Its not a compleately illogical factor. Naseem Hamed could also be mentioned here aswell.... was he ever the same fighter after he left Ingle? Even if you think thats B/S, then certain events can also affect a young fighters future career - many experts claim Joe Bugner was never the same fighter after killing a man in the ring, or more recently Eubank post Watson. Certainly if there was a prime for prime debate with Chris involved I would only consider his post 1991 career on the basis if we learned something new that wasn't proven in his prime years, such as a chin. Isn't it possible that the death of Jim Jacobs might have had some bearing? No excuse, his "fault" that he left Rooney, his fault for teaming up with Givens - but all possible, and logical reasonings for his marked deterioration in the Frank Bruno fight.

So we have exhausted Tyson's career and we have both said that from 1986-1989 the only other fighter Tyson could have faced that posed a danger was Tim Witherspoon. Granted, he wasn't in the greatest era of all time - but essentially he beat the best out there and like the days of Jack Johnson - they even brought out and old great out of the wood work because everyone knew the current generation were not up to the task. Now all of a sudden, your making it sound like he was matched carefully even in his championship day - sorry, he beat the best that was out there.

I'm sorry but you have now completely lost me on this "Tubbs had seen better days - so was made for Tyson" malarky. Tubbs lost a close one vs Witherspoon but did beat Smith - oh and took Riddick Bowe to a close point loss 2 years after. So how was he brought in to make Tyson look good. It wasn't a vintage Tyson display, but I fail to see why Smith was "known" and Tubbs et al were not.

Never a fan of Tyson the man.... he's a prized prick who wasted

[jamesmcdonnell]

Larry Holmes was exhumed to make Tyson look good, Biggs was rushed and made Tyson look good. Tubbs was not what he was once, and made Tyson look good. Spinks was small, and made Tyson look good. Smith was a known commodity, and made Tyson look bad.

lmao.

Larry Holmes was past his Best Yes, Thats for Sure, but you make it as if he was finished. he had 24 more fights after Tyson, iirc.

Although it was Tysons Prime, he Lasted 4 Rounds.

4 years later, He faced an undefeated Holyfield, went 12 rounds and lost in a UD.

he also had some pretty decent wins over the course of the 90's.

So, Surely you cant dismiss Holmes as a nothing fight...

Spinks was small? as in what? height? reputation? He was undefeated Champ ffs..

Holmes was coming off a two year layoff, and trained for about three weeks before the bout. His timing was off and he wasn't ready for a beast like Tyson. I think he would have lasted longer or possibly the distance with better preparation.

[hitman_hatton1]

Ps Tyson-Ruddock II was 12-rounds not 10, a qualifier I think.

yep.

tyson was no1 with all 3 sanctioning bodies at the time.

then he goes and rapes the beauty queen.

and does his back in before fighting evander.

my one big regret in boxing history is never getting tyson-holyfield in 1991. :(

[TheOneIsHere2008]

ZL: Would a mentally and physically prime Tyson have struggled with a Lennox Lewis or Riddick Bowe?

GC: Yeah, absolutely. Guys who would hit him back.

ZL: Would Tyson’s height disadvantage and short arms also pose problems for him against those giants?

GC: I’d say yes.

http://www.fightbeat.com/judgejake/clancy.htm

GC=Gil Clancy

[yiddo14]

Tyson in his prime would have whupped Godzilla, Buster Douglas and Lewis all at once if he wanted.
Thats how Tyson rolled you see...never, ever beat any great fighter, but had a load of cock sucking glory hunting wanabees licking his nut sacks for a while back in the early 90s....

Tyson, prime for prime would have been eaten by Bowe, let alone monsters like Lewis and Holy you SERIOUSLY DUMB pudenda.