Page 2 of 7
Posted: 07 Jan 2008, 10:38
by Autobarn
People always have this "what if", this perfect, ideal version of Mike Tyson. The fact is that his primelasted 2 years, and he beat some seriously fvcked up, if talented, people. Lewis made about 16 title defenses & spanked some huge men, which says a lot more about his consistency and championship mentality, in spite of 2 bad losses of focus (1 of which actually made him a better fighter).
Lewis has that size, style, strength, ability to lean on an opponent - to wear Tyson out. And the power in his long punches, when he makes the space for them, to dish out a prolonged beating on just about any Tyson.
Posted: 07 Jan 2008, 11:19
by DavidPayne
I haven't read this thread verbatim. However, a couple of observations. Re watching Tyson tapes actually highlighted far more patience and shot selection than I recalled watching a prime Tyson as a youngster.
It's easy, and probably lazy to just recollect a frenzied all out assault, as he often was when trying to recapture the form of his youth. But in reality, Tyson was more studious, economic and methodical than I'd remembered. That isn't to say he wasn't terrifyingly quick, powerful and fearsome but he wasn't quite what I'd recalled.
I too point to the guys that tied him up, smothered him, bored him and began to show his inability to find ways through bigger, tougher less brittle fighters - like Ruddock and Smith.
Add Lewis' thudding power and swifter hand speed and I think, prime for prime Lewis wins - however, that isn't to say Tyson wouldn't have won one out of 3. Because he could have done.
As for achievement, Lewis and Tyson are comparable, but Lewis victory over Holyfield edges Tyson's resume for me.
Bias? Possibly.
Posted: 07 Jan 2008, 11:42
by Carbo
A quick question for the Tyson proponents: who is the best fighter Tyson beat?
Posted: 07 Jan 2008, 12:22
by Carbo
Terry D wrote:Carbo wrote:A quick question for the Tyson proponents: who is the best fighter Tyson beat?
As in best and able at that time? I'd say Tony Tucker. He was young and skilled. Holmes was old. Spinks was small and shit scared.
Tony Tucker: that says alot.
I guess I should wait until I get more response, but I strongly suspect it won't get any better than that.
Posted: 07 Jan 2008, 13:41
by stujones
I've never truly bought the Spinks is shit scared theory..... the US commentory on the fight is interesting. They actually say that Spinks' machoism was his undoing. Tyson caught Spinks with a peach.
Larry Holmes is a different matter, he did look like he was there for the pay day.
Biggs was a very talented boxer, but it was unfulfilled - I personally think had Tyson not been around, Biggs would have been champion from 1987-1990 (Holyfield)... However, Michael Grant looked the part at one stage too.
So I would say Thomas was the most skilled, was the best fighter most near his peak.
Posted: 07 Jan 2008, 13:54
by BAMBI
I blamed the knee twitch-injury for the tyson loss. (against williams)
Posted: 07 Jan 2008, 14:05
by Matt W
I think Spinks was very intimidated. He didn't sound confident in the build-up either.
I agree Lewis was very faded in the Rahman rematch. His legs nearly went from a jab in round 1 if memory serves.
Another point related to what Terry says is that you often here excuses from the loser, yet it is rare that everything goes perfect during a fight and its build-up for the winner too. The difference is if you win it doesn't matter anyway. Buster Douglas is a classic example of that.
Tyson had bad out-of-the ring problems when he fought Spinks as well didn't he?
Posted: 08 Jan 2008, 13:32
by stujones
Terry D wrote:stujones wrote:I've never truly bought the Spinks is shit scared theory..... the US commentory on the fight is interesting. They actually say that Spinks' machoism was his undoing. Tyson caught Spinks with a peach.
Larry Holmes is a different matter, he did look like he was there for the pay day.
Biggs was a very talented boxer, but it was unfulfilled - I personally think had Tyson not been around, Biggs would have been champion from 1987-1990 (Holyfield)... However, Michael Grant looked the part at one stage too.
So I would say Thomas was the most skilled, was the best fighter most near his peak.
Not a chance for Biggs in my opinion. He was not a professional fighter. Titles may have been tossed around until Evander arrived.
I think a fit and focussed Witherspoon would have given Tyson problems and it was close to happening until the 3-knockdown rule stepped in.
I agree with that - Witherspoon showed when he was pushing 40 he was still dangerous. He came close to fighting for the Heavyweight title in the late 90's.
Posted: 08 Jan 2008, 14:07
by stujones
Some sort of an agreement - Witherspoon was good, but Tyson would have beaten him to
But its a bit like Bowe and Lewis - I never thought Bowe could beat Lewis, but he is the one key name missing in his resume.
Posted: 08 Jan 2008, 14:55
by jamesmcdonnell
stujones wrote:I've never truly bought the Spinks is shit scared theory..... the US commentory on the fight is interesting. They actually say that Spinks' machoism was his undoing. Tyson caught Spinks with a peach.
Larry Holmes is a different matter, he did look like he was there for the pay day.
Biggs was a very talented boxer, but it was unfulfilled - I personally think had Tyson not been around, Biggs would have been champion from 1987-1990 (Holyfield)... However, Michael Grant looked the part at one stage too.
So I would say Thomas was the most skilled, was the best fighter most near his peak.
Holmes wasn't there for the payday, he was and is financially secure. He took the fight because as far as he was concerned he was still the indisputed champion, after he retired following the controversial losses to spinks.
He took the fight because he thought he had it to beat Tyson.
Spinks looked absolutely terrified entering the ring, he was already looking for the exits.
Would have been interesting to see what Holmes could have done after a couple of warm up fights against Tyson, he was in piss poor shape for the Tyson fight, and entering a fight rusty against someone as sharp as Tyson was then was not smart.
Posted: 08 Jan 2008, 15:01
by Matt W
Holmes himself realised this hence his admission that he considered heading back to his dressing room on the way to the ring. Don't think he was scared of Tyson as such, but he knew he wasn't ready to fight him.
Posted: 08 Jan 2008, 18:29
by stujones
jamesmcdonnell wrote:stujones wrote:I've never truly bought the Spinks is shit scared theory..... the US commentory on the fight is interesting. They actually say that Spinks' machoism was his undoing. Tyson caught Spinks with a peach.
Larry Holmes is a different matter, he did look like he was there for the pay day.
Biggs was a very talented boxer, but it was unfulfilled - I personally think had Tyson not been around, Biggs would have been champion from 1987-1990 (Holyfield)... However, Michael Grant looked the part at one stage too.
So I would say Thomas was the most skilled, was the best fighter most near his peak.
Holmes wasn't there for the payday, he was and is financially secure. He took the fight because as far as he was concerned he was still the indisputed champion, after he retired following the controversial losses to spinks.
He took the fight because he thought he had it to beat Tyson.
Spinks looked absolutely terrified entering the ring, he was already looking for the exits.
Would have been interesting to see what Holmes could have done after a couple of warm up fights against Tyson, he was in piss poor shape for the Tyson fight, and entering a fight rusty against someone as sharp as Tyson was then was not smart.
I personally think alot of the Spinks being petrified talk was based around his pre fight press conferences when he was taking the mick of other fighters being petrified... so it kind of got inplanted into the brain of reporters etc. I do think he tried alot of psychology and experience to out psych Tyson - the hallabalu about who enters the ring first... that back fired.
It kind of reminded me of Barrera vs Hamed enterance. Spinks/Hamed knew he needed some edge to pull it off - didn't happen. However, don't think either were scared... just my opinion.
I agree with Matt W on Holmes... Holmes wasn't scared - but knew / realised he was going to lose (a bit like Jim Watt vs Arguello) - but I geniunenly think Spinks thought he could win all the way through.
Posted: 08 Jan 2008, 19:07
by jamesmcdonnell
I think it probably dawned on Holmes just what a mistake he had made only right near the last minute.
He would probably have had more chance a few years later when he was at least active, rather than coming out of retirement to face a totally fired up Tyson.
Posted: 15 Jan 2008, 17:47
by stujones
Surely Holyfield did that though.... in a combination of both fights. Tyson was younger, in better shape (for both) and while he was in even better shape physically in the rematch - he looked petrified in the stare down.... something that only looked "back" for the Saverese fight.
Posted: 15 Jan 2008, 18:53
by observer1
Prime Tyson, i still think an 80's Tyson would Take Lewis.
His Speed and Coaches would have him set to beat Lewis Anyday,
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 06:24
by jamesmcdonnell
I have to say Tyson's mystique was badly tarnished by the time he got to Lewis.
I agree with Stu, Holyfield proved the Douglas loss wasn't a fluke or a 'one off.'
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 07:06
by jamesmcdonnell
Lewis certainly buried that mystique. No arguments there.
However, only the delusional could really have believed that Tyson was capable of beating Lewis at that stage, he was mentally shot and disinterested in the game by that point.
I don't personally believe Tyson had any real interest in the sport outside of making a living after he left jail where Don King made sure he ended up to avoid being taken to court over missapropriated funds.
As you say, he was capable of bowling over stiffs based on his former reputation, but so what, they were stiffs, and he was even as a diminished fighter a terrific puncher with a fast start, enough to whack them out.
Facts can be interpreted a number of ways Terrence as we all know, citing them doesn't mean one opinion is more valid than another, it's a matter of how you choose to spin those facts.
I don't believe that the Lewis beatdown was instrumental in Tyson's decline. Tyson entered that fight knowing he was going to lose, he had a go in the 1st round, but after that, just took his lumps and went out on his shield, which I actually admired him for. He could have refused to come out, but instead took one hell of a beating from Lewis.
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 07:38
by jamesmcdonnell
Tyson was fighting once a year post Lewis, it's hardly surprising his fitness, desire and form declined. He was also old, with a style which suited a young flexible fighter.
Age withers us all, and the decline tends to accelerate near the end.
Getting hammered into the ground like a tent peg certainly couldn't have helped, but I feel it was more a symptom than a cause of anything.
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 07:40
by jamesmcdonnell
I feel you are trying to squeeze the facts into holes to suit your gut instincts that Lewis was the catalyst for Tyson's disintegration.
The disentegration was gradual.
Tyson was hammering useless bloody fighters post Holyfield, christ he looked awful against fat tub of shite Brian Nielsen for god's sake! He was actually behind on points if I remember at the time of the stoppage, and looked like an old man.
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 08:00
by jamesmcdonnell
Yes, I think you are right. Tyson actually seemed happy after Lewis beat him up. Remember how he kissed Lewis afterwards, and hugged Lewis' mum, it was all very strange.
I also remember him stooping to help Clifford Ettiene up after knocking him out.
I really don't think Tyson wanted to beat people up for a living any more in the latter stages of his career, it was just his only means of making money.
Does anyone know if Tyson is still managed by shelley finkel?
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 08:19
by stujones
Terry D wrote:A good few of my mates went for him by KO. My dad as well. In fact I vividly recall a bunch of us being at mine watching the football shortly after Rahman I and them asking me if I'd changed my opinion. I said "no!" and got a load of gyp about how Lewis would get hammered by Tyson, had no chin Etc. I went and stood in the garden to get away from the abuse and just thought "we'll see you bunch of c*nts!" His supporters put the 'fanatic' into 'fan' and did so right up to Lewis.
If you say Lewis was not instrumental in the decline, and for my purposes the decline of his myth, then how do you explain that he went 1-2 with losses to McBride and Williams post-Lewis? If he was so finished mystique wise post-Holyfield why did he go on a winning run? Against marginally better foes also. Sometimes facts is facts. Lewis blew away the myth and left the way free for a mediocrity like McBride to beat Tyson.
Tyson's one last shred of myth was the idea that he was the best 4-round fighter on the planet. That died a death in the Lewis fight when it was revealed he could barely managed a few rounds before imploding.
Tyson came out of the Holyfield bouts with the fear factor intact. He came out of Lewis with nothing but a few paid bills and respect from genuine fans for his ability to take a beating, but none for his ability to flip a fight.
I think the only fear factor Tyson had after the Holyfield bouts was - expect the unexpected - watch he doesn't bite your ears, legs, punch after the fight is stopped or break your arms. If Tyson returned now, that would still be there - cause he did what he did to Botha on several occasions vs McBride.
Personally, I think Tyson's punching power is being overlooked by you Terry..... it seems like every fighter Tyson beat he beat before he got into the ring with you... not the fact that he hits like a mule.
I personally don't think any of Tyson's opponents post Holyfield II were beaten before they got into the ring - just for that mini run he went on under Don Turner - he got into good shape. He was awful vs Neilson and I went from tipping Tyson, to tipping Lewis when I heard his weight.
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 10:34
by Goz
Good thread to read as I love reading about Lennox and Tyson but I kind of lost the thread about who was trying to prove what as time went on!!
For what it's worth I think prime Lewis beats prime Tyson.
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 11:31
by observer1
its easy to conclude Mike Tyson had very little Chance of Beating Lewis in 2002.
He really had to much exterior motives to worry about his hunger for a Solid Boxing career.
I mean him kissing Lewis and his Mother at the end of the fight showed e was relieved to got his money and the whole thing was over, and never really cared about the loss..
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 11:43
by TerribleTerry
observer1 wrote:its easy to conclude Mike Tyson had very little Chance of Beating Lewis in 2002.
He really had to much exterior motives to worry about his hunger for a Solid Boxing career.
I mean him kissing Lewis and his Mother at the end of the fight showed e was relieved to got his money and the whole thing was over, and never really cared about the loss..
His use of zoloft and other anti depressants/mood stabilisers cant't have helped in the run up to the Lewis fight - an intertesing read by Jack Newfield outlines Tyson's fears and misgivings at that advanced stage of his career, pre-Lewis:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sports/features/5637/
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 12:50
by TerribleTerry
Terry D wrote:He was on medication during his winning run.
Was he? Cant say I ever remember it being reported during the mid-late 80s.