Page 3 of 7
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 13:00
by TerribleTerry
[quote="Terry D"]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.
[quote]
The fact that part time or casual boxing fans thought Tyson had a good chance against Lewis is immaterial.
My dad, like yours, picked Tyson to cream Lewis in a handful of rounds. I, like you and any other boxig affeciando worth his salt, knew better.
Lewis was not definitively instrumental in Tyson's decline in my opinion. His victory was more a very public and notable statment that Tyson was damaged goods; too far gone to ever regain his brief, brilliant peak.
For those who followed the sport closely and understood it intimately, these facts were there for all to see post Holyfield.
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 14:17
by stujones
Terry D wrote:One thing that I have noticed, not really applicable to this forum, is that those who agree that Lewis had the beating of Tyson can give decent break-downs and reasons as to why. The majority of Tyson fans just say "Tyson in his peak would knock Lewis out inside a few rounds", you say "explain" and they say "he just fooking would alright".
That to me is the situation in a nutshell.
He was just too quick on his feet and with his hands and he had the chin to take Lewis' shots (as proven).
Lewis didn't like fighting at an outstanding pace, when pressed intensely he would struggle, but yes, would ultimately find a way to win (Mercer, Holyfield II, Briggs - 2 of these were razor tight cards in many peoples eyes)... he loved comeforeward fighters who didn't fight at a great pace... Tua, Holyfield 1, Botha etc etc. Tyson wasn't this and Tyson was a more natural and better pressure fighter than Mercer, Holyfield and Briggs.
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 15:23
by stujones
Terry D wrote:stujones wrote:Terry D wrote:One thing that I have noticed, not really applicable to this forum, is that those who agree that Lewis had the beating of Tyson can give decent break-downs and reasons as to why. The majority of Tyson fans just say "Tyson in his peak would knock Lewis out inside a few rounds", you say "explain" and they say "he just fooking would alright".
That to me is the situation in a nutshell.
He was just too quick on his feet and with his hands and he had the chin to take Lewis' shots (as proven).
Lewis didn't like fighting at an outstanding pace, when pressed intensely he would struggle, but yes, would ultimately find a way to win (Mercer, Holyfield II, Briggs - 2 of these were razor tight cards in many peoples eyes)... he loved comeforeward fighters who didn't fight at a great pace... Tua, Holyfield 1, Botha etc etc. Tyson wasn't this and Tyson was a more natural and better pressure fighter than Mercer, Holyfield and Briggs.
Didn't mean you Stu, more the types who don't post on here if you get my drift.
Mercer forced a pace because he could get a really good jab going, Tyson owuld not do this and would definitely not push Lewis the way Holyfield did. I think 100% that Lewis would drop the pace on Tyson and beat him up.
As for Briggs. Lewis got caught and looked a little off-balance, it was not a knock-down and his eyes looked fine, reminded me of a non-KD version of what happened when Toney got clipped by Jones. Lewis then beat the piss out of Briggs. I think Briggs' performance gets overrated, great heart but he got mullered in my mind.
Good point re Briggs performance - I am only bringing it up because if a average fighter like Briggs just through rushed pressure could force Lewis into making major errors - then so can Tyson.
Not sure why you dismiss that Tyson couldn't copy Mercer's style - Tyson's jab was an underated weapon - he KO'd Biggs with a jab.
What Holyfield did difference in the second fight was put his punches together a bit better and didn't "skip" in, when Holyfield was boncing on his feet it gave Lewis the time to work his shots and keep Holyfield out of bay. I don't think there has been any heavyweight in boxing history who puts his punches together like Tyson, who never "skipped".
Tyson wasn't just a mauler, it was relentless but always effective aggression.
Yes, the arguement will be the Lewis could do a Tucker or Smith but add a bit more aggression, but history shows that when Lewis was under QUICK pressure - he would make mistakes. When it was someone like Tua in there he would react to hold - cause he needed that time to think.. and super lethargic Tua gave him the time - Tyson wouldn't. Even a mentally unstable McCall showed for about 30 seconds that Lewis could make mistakes under pressure (before he just broke down in the ring).
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 19:10
by stujones
In my opinion, they were instinctive errors - whilst they were never cost him a fight (complacency cost him vs Rahman and being raw cost him vs McCall) - they were errors he couldn't afford against a more natural, harder hitting, better combination punching, fighter like Tyson was.
For me, its a consistent flaw - if I was coaching a fighter against Lewis, I would be encouraging pressure - preferably of a double jab (admittedly, but thats something Tyson had in his arsenal) - and be on him quick. Don't give the big man the time to get going, don't give the chess player the time to think.
For the most part Lennox Lewis completely dominated Zelko Mavrovic - but ther was one brief spell in the fight when Mavrovic threw caution to the wind and he brought out errors from Lewis. Zelko gave Lewis time to regroup - and Lewis went back to dominate.
Much was brought up in the build up to Lewis vs Tyson on their young sparring sessions in the early/mid 80's. Okay Tyson was much much closer to his prime than Lewis. However, I think its key to note that Tyson apparently dominated the first two days worth of sparring - then Lewis got to grips after the 3rd/4th day and proceeded to dominate. In the cauldron of battle though, Lewis won't have days to think "how am I going to get to this guy" - he has minutes.
All of his best, most clinical displays - Morrison, Botha, Tua, Golota, Butler - they all gave him breathing space. Tommy Morrison bizarrely didn't fight his fight from the opening bell.... great Lewis win, but if there was any fighter who dissapointed me it was Tommy that night. Whether he over done it in the gym, or under done it, or just psyched out - he fought like a
crab - just like Tua did.
Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 19:55
by stujones
Lewis' in ring flaws though came against fighter who were didn't hit as hard, didn't have the same ferosity and didn't have the same ability as Tyson of 1987/1988 - As mentally tough and brilliant Evander Holyfield was - I think the 1999 version of him would have struggled with Tyson 1987.
In same ways its similar to your arguement that Tyson looked good but against fighters not half as good as Lewis. Lewis looked bad against fighter who fought similar (not exactly the same but the same pressure) as Tyson and not as good.
The Mercer and Holyfield rematch scores are still often discussed today - there are a few that think he lost both. I thought Holyfield won the rematch, but Lewis beat Mercer.
My sparring situation though okay, I'll accept that they did 3 rounds each day (I think thats what I read anyway) - but its not like say - so Lewis lost 6 rounds... He had days to think about the sparring, days to prepare himself for what Tyson had. Critically, he also had a day to recover from the pace, power of Mike and regroup. This won't happen in a fight. If Tyson has done well for 6 rounds... Lewis has been hurt, Lewis' own strength and power would have been sapped - Lewis would be even more hitable.
Lewis is a chess player and fought like one - he needed time to strategically work out his tactics and to fight his best. Tyson wouldn't have offered him that time and Lewis' natural instincts when under pressure wasn't always to hold and bide time.... often that would come to the fore later on in a fight when the other fighter is tiring (like Klitchsko). Yes, he did it early against Tyson - but I really do think Tyson halved his speed of pressure from the second round.
You could be right re Morrison - whatever the reason, he didn't fight as he normally does.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 04:13
by DavidPayne
I would have backed Holyfield versus Tyson at any point in history. He just had his number.
And anything but the best of Tyson would have struggled with a peak Mercer. Granite chin, fearless, incredibly strong with a thudding jab and decent right. He may have been slow, but he ticks a lot of the boxes to beat even a peak Tyson.
Stu, if we're talking peak for peak - Lewis say 1999-2001, he has all the experienced required to think in the fight, adjust and answer Tyson's tactics, skills, assets.
Tyson, through whatever experience he accumulated, wasn't adaptable like that. Equally, he wasn't the all out action fighter we all recall. He was once he had you hurt but he picked his shots far more than mere memory suggests, and while ever he stood there behind his guard thinking and stalking, Lewis - at his best and most focused - would be slamming a left hand lead in.
The only thing that force doubt on me is Lewis was never at his best fighting shorter guys.
Ruddock, Golota, Grant, Rahman....were his most destructive performances.
I'd love to know how Tyson v Mercer, Witherspoon and McCall fights would have turned out.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 06:05
by jamesmcdonnell
At his best though Dave, Tyson didn't just 'stand and stalk' he was constant motion, bobbing and weaving before closing the gap.
Lewis' worst flaw back then was his lazy jab and his tendency to carry his head high. I can easily envisage Tyson weaving past the jab and landing a bomb to the body before ripping in one of those uppercuts.
Lewis hadn't really learnt yet to use his weight, size and leverage to maximum effect on the inside by that stage either.
If Lewis was able to establish the jab early, then yes, can see him punching Mike into passive mode, but I suspect Tyson would have gotten to him early enough.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 08:03
by stujones
DavidPayne wrote:I would have backed Holyfield versus Tyson at any point in history. He just had his number.
And anything but the best of Tyson would have struggled with a peak Mercer. Granite chin, fearless, incredibly strong with a thudding jab and decent right. He may have been slow, but he ticks a lot of the boxes to beat even a peak Tyson.
Stu, if we're talking peak for peak - Lewis say 1999-2001, he has all the experienced required to think in the fight, adjust and answer Tyson's tactics, skills, assets.
Tyson, through whatever experience he accumulated, wasn't adaptable like that. Equally, he wasn't the all out action fighter we all recall. He was once he had you hurt but he picked his shots far more than mere memory suggests, and while ever he stood there behind his guard thinking and stalking, Lewis - at his best and most focused - would be slamming a left hand lead in.
The only thing that force doubt on me is Lewis was never at his best fighting shorter guys.
Ruddock, Golota, Grant, Rahman....were his most destructive performances.
I'd love to know how Tyson v Mercer, Witherspoon and McCall fights would have turned out.
In those "prime" years he mentioned, he didn't face a fighter who offered the intensity that Tyson did. The only fighter who did offer some sort similar intensity was Holyfield in the rematch.... and for me - Lewis didn't work out Holyfield, just Holyfield legs couldn't see him through the finish line (on everyones card, still did enough on a fair few).
Tua was slow, Tyson was slow, Botha just froze, Grant got tagged,
Out of those three fighters mentioned, Witherspoon would have posed the most threat - McCall and Mercer were similar to Tyson in assests and stature (look at their performances vs Lewis) but not as good in ANY department, with the exception of their chin.
Lets not forget, past it Larry Holmes beat Mercer easily and NEARLY, oh so
nearly beat McCall. Mercer was a comeback opponent for Holyfield - I think the fact that Lewis had a struggle flattered Mercer immensley. He wasn't that good.
Witherspoon could mix it up a bit stylewise and had the booming right hand.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 08:41
by jamesmcdonnell
Mercer I think fought above himself against Lewis, and his toughness and his jab showed that Lewis had flaws, especially when not able to dominate behind his straight left.
Amazing achievement for old man holmes to beat Mercer when you think about it, shows what an incredible fighter Larry was. A league above Lewis in my book, though that's no great knock on Lewis as Holmes was one of the real greats.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 09:28
by DavidPayne
jamesmcdonnell wrote:At his best though Dave, Tyson didn't just 'stand and stalk' he was constant motion, bobbing and weaving before closing the gap.
Lewis' worst flaw back then was his lazy jab and his tendency to carry his head high. I can easily envisage Tyson weaving past the jab and landing a bomb to the body before ripping in one of those uppercuts.
Lewis hadn't really learnt yet to use his weight, size and leverage to maximum effect on the inside by that stage either.
If Lewis was able to establish the jab early, then yes, can see him punching Mike into passive mode, but I suspect Tyson would have gotten to him early enough.
Isn't the guts of the argument the comparison of prime to prime?
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 09:40
by DavidPayne
Terry,
You're on the brink of self-parody.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 09:45
by DavidPayne
I mean no offence, but the detail you went into in your Chess analogy made me smile.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 10:59
by jamesmcdonnell
DavidPayne wrote:jamesmcdonnell wrote:At his best though Dave, Tyson didn't just 'stand and stalk' he was constant motion, bobbing and weaving before closing the gap.
Lewis' worst flaw back then was his lazy jab and his tendency to carry his head high. I can easily envisage Tyson weaving past the jab and landing a bomb to the body before ripping in one of those uppercuts.
Lewis hadn't really learnt yet to use his weight, size and leverage to maximum effect on the inside by that stage either.
If Lewis was able to establish the jab early, then yes, can see him punching Mike into passive mode, but I suspect Tyson would have gotten to him early enough.
Isn't the guts of the argument the comparison of prime to prime?
Well, my point is more about what would have happened if Tyson and Lewis had fought earlier in their careers.
Prime for prime I think it's quite an even matchup, but still favour Tyson.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 10:59
by jamesmcdonnell
Terry D wrote:I like chess so I can get bit carried away talking about it. Higher level games move really fast when the pieces are all set-up and it can be pretty amazing to watch. I'm also sat in work typing the post off the top of my head as fast as possible and I'm one of those odd people who needs a lot of time to come up with something concise
Ditto.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 11:19
by Autobarn
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Mercer I think fought above himself against Lewis, and his toughness and his jab showed that Lewis had flaws, especially when not able to dominate behind his straight left.
Amazing achievement for old man holmes to beat Mercer when you think about it, shows what an incredible fighter Larry was. A league above Lewis in my book, though that's no great knock on Lewis as Holmes was one of the real greats.
I don't think Holmes beating Mercer proves that Holmes was a league above Lewis, who struggled with Mercer. Mercer was at a low point when he fought Holmes, to the point that he had to learn how to box again and - legend has it - even tried to bribe Jessie Fergusen during their fight because he was daring so poorly. The Mercer who fought Lewis was a much more dedicated fighter.
Also, Holmes did not put in some miraculous performance to beat Mercer. He was all over the ropes, in a highly defensive performance, moving around, taking rests, countering when he could, in a pretty ungainly performance. Clever boxing but Mercer-Holmes was a bit of an embarassment.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 11:38
by observer1
Well, From what i know, Tyson has one of the shortest Reaches in HW History.
I mean it was not something new to him fighting an opponent with a Longer Reach, i would say more or less all of his opponents had a greater Reach Than Him.
But thing with Tyson, he did not fight on his Back Foot keeping his opponent back from his Jab, and looking for a counter attack.
Tyson was a lot more aggressive and a Fighter that would Move Foward to negate his opponents Jab.
I really think Tyson's speed is under-looked and just dismnissed as "Not all that".
Like in a lot of his fights earlier on in his carrer, he would dodge and upper-cut. try an stay away from the Jab Range, and close enough to use his Quick Hooks, and Quick Upper Cuts.
Point is, Tyson was a Completley different person, and differ individual in 2002, and when he became champion in 86.
in 86 he was a scary mother with the means to break you in the ring. He had the Arsenal to Beat You if he was game.
in 2002 he was just a Psycho in general. Not so much In the Ring, but outside the Ring. We all say Tyson Fight Lewis then. He was running into Lewis's Punches, Throwing Punches from anywhere and a lot slower than he was.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 13:25
by stujones
Terry D wrote:
Again Stu I think you are extrapolating in-ring flaws that may have lost Lewis the odd round and imagining them losing him a fight despite the evidence pointing to the fact Lewis would overcome pressure by negating these problems. Your Lewis flaws saw him lose the odd round or moments in a round. Tyson's flaws saw him get backed-up, tied-up, cut, put over and then beaten into submission. A significant number of other fighters did the first two then failed to apply the rest. There are more fighters who have beaten Tyson according to my method than there are fighters who have given Lewis difficult rounds, let alone winning fights.
The sparring situation still is in my favour. Do you think Lewis and Tyson would sign a fight then slug it out ten minutes later in the parking lot with a bunch of people forming a circle and shouting "fight! fight!". No, they would get a training period in which Lewis would analyse Mike with Manny and apply everything needed to beat him and follow a plan. Personally I think you push it saying Mike would have done well for 6 rounds. Once again I have to point out that he did not break Tillis,Green, Smith and Tucker in the first part of the fight. All inferior fighters to Lewis.
As for the fact Lewis was a chess player. It is a weak stick used to beat him. Lower level chess might provide the image of a guy with his hand on his chin agonising after a move but when you watch top-level games the moves are fast and furious. Why? Because chess at a decent level is about knowing the opening gambits. That sets-up the game until you put endgame into place. Recognise and counter your opponents opening gambit and the game is going to be played out a certain way, often with great speed until late in the game. It is a analogous to the boxer working on all his strategy and moves in the gym then implementing them in the fight. Lewis would figure out Tyson's sole gambit, this pressure, then put the win into place. A jab and holding negates Tyson, Lewis was class at both and jabbed lazily only when not truly on.
You do get thinking games in chess but remember that these guys are always on a clock and you only get drawn-out moves when the very best play off and negate one another's gambits and approaches. Something Tyson would never do to Lewis. Lewis-Tyson would be similar to Kasparov versus a savant type park player who can bulldoze lesser lights but comes unstuck against a real expert. Lewis was an expert boxer, Tyson wasn't.
Again to return to the sparring my argument is that Tyson is mentally inferior and would lose also for this reason. Lewis standing up to Tyson in sparring does not prove your point about the minutiae of a fight years later in terms of rounds won and shared. It does back-up my claim that Lewis would have left an imprint on Tyson. Holyfield merely snatched a cue of him as a youth and Tyson was petrified of Holyfield. People must be mad not to see that. Lewis and Holyfield, and I think Bowe, had the hold over Tyson needed to beat him.
Tyson never had a hope at any time with Evander. To say otherwise is to slip into the dogmatics of being a Tyson supporter, the type of dogmatics that get him a top spot of all time on potential. You could bracket pre-Barrera Hamed and point to him as the best featherweight of all time, when he clearly is not.
In short you say Tyson could beat Lewis and possibly Holyfield. In short I say 0-3 (3).
As for Morrison, less him not fighting as he does and more him not being allowed to do anything by Lewis, who was supreme that night and you do disservice to that fact.
His flaws to pressure didn't just lose him the "odd round" - it could have cost him two fights.... this is 2 of the 3 fighters who fought at that intensity, and the other - a distinctly average Briggs, made his fight with Lewis one of the most exciting in years.
As much of a FACT it is that Holyfield and Lewis both beat Tyson, its equal that Tyson was someway past his prime..... Holyfield is an odd case, physically he was past his prime vs Tyson - but he also adapted/developed as person. He was no longer a bulked up Cruiser. I don't dispute that Holyfield would have beaten Tyson in 1990 - but would Holyfield fresh off his cruiserweight run in 1988? Would a slower, older, Holyfield in 1999/2000 and beyond beaten Tyson! You've said that ANY version of Holyfield could beat any version of Tyson - so the guy who doesn't throw punches anymore would beat Tyson of 1988? Would the Holyfield who was small and briefly hurt by Bert Cooper and Mike Dokes take Tyson's shot. He looked a much stronger man in 1996, a much bigger man... slower, with less intensity, but big enough to take Tyson's shots... and he was a better defensive fighter than Lewis.
If rumours are to believe - there might be a 3rd meeting between the two in the Summer.
Danny Williams beat the Mike Tyson of 1988 also, James Buster Douglas?, Kevin McBryde?
Nice to see your up on your chess knowledge, I aint going to dispute that with you! However, I repeat - whether its a characteristic of a chess player or not, Lewis didn't like pressure - when he did he came within a hairs breath of losing - not a lack of focus, a lack of focus is losing the odd round - but losing 4/5/6/7 (depending on your card) rounds in both fights and only coming to grips when the opponent tired - isn't a good sign. Yes, he could do the same vs Tyson - always a chance, but Mercer, Briggs or Holyfield had the innate pressure that Tyson could apply. When Lewis was under pressure he made errors, even Frank caused some problems - it was a flaw from his Pepe Correra days and was still evident in his final fight.... I aint convinced that it Tyson would land the bingo shot early, but would land enough to ware his man down, make him lose his own snap... so when Tyson made mistakes when tiring, Lewis would be too spent to do anything about it.
The strength of the man was evidence that Bruno was essentially spent after 4 rounds with a not exactly prime Tyson. Yes, Bruno had stamina issues, but his snap was gone after 3 rounds - It took Witherspoon 7 or 8 rounds, he hurt Lewis 30 seconds before he got stopped in the 8th(?) - after Tyson he was bravely getting beaten up at the end of the 3rd. Not wobbled, just out strengthed.
It is also worth noting that two brits who hads much experienced with both guys - Francis and Bruno - couldn't pick a winner in 2002. Even though both said that Lewis was alot closer to his prime, thats how much respect they had for his strength and power.
Holyfield is/was an legend - for me, out of the 3 I have him as #1 both in terms of achievement and ability. The guy was like an Ox.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 18:20
by stujones
Hang on, so Lewis who took 8 rounds of pounding Tyson to stop him can now KO him early on the basis of Frank Bruno momentarily rocking him. What did Tyson's chin improve with age? Its was a momentary rock.
Yet, Shannon Briggs momentarily rocked Lewis, and Vitali Klitchko - yet prime Tyson couldn't KO Lennox?
I've never mentioned Holmes as a great win for Tyson - no one is disputing the achievements of the two fighters - just their ability. Aside from Witherspoon, Tyson beat everyone he could... no others. Did Lewis? Okay, Lewis' generation was better... but aside from one fight - Tyson did the lot.
Tyson never rocked Lewis in their fight. He had him running a bit in the opener, but never rocked. He didn't land clean.
You still scored the Lewis vs Holyfield rematch 8-4 Lewis.... so thats still more than a "couple" of rounds in two fights (Holyfield and Mercer) that you mentioned before.
Of course Holyfield was better defensively than Lewis - Look how many times both fighters have been hurt - A chin is part of your defense also.
Regarding a young Holyfield vs a 1988 Tyson.... It would have been interesting. Holyfield learned alot about himself in wars with Bowe, Mercer, Moorer etc - invaluable experience IMO.
Smth, Tucker, Tillis, Green you can add Brian Neilson also - had one thing and one thing only in mind - survival. All they wanted to do was go the distance. Lewis wouldn't have that attitude - Lewis wouldn't have wanted to have lost on points for showing zilch aggression and Tyson would catch him, and hurt him... and then Lewis would make the mistakes he always made when uncomfortable..... two of those occasions he was out of it.
I'll disagree that Bruno was a better fighter in 1989 than 1993.... He was so much bigger and slower in 1993.
Posted: 17 Jan 2008, 20:44
by stujones
I never said having a chin was the basis of a good defense, but it helps. Tyson couldn't hurt Holyfield, not many fighters could. Lewis could get hurt, Lewis made fundemental errors when tired, under pressure and hurt - as shown in the fights I have mentioned. Tyson would punish these errors.
I'll agree to disagree on Bruno - just watch his performance in the fight, watch his performances vs the likes of Bugner leading up to that fight. His jab was so much quick, he was just so much quicker in every aspect - he wasn't quite the body builer he was in later career.
Your basis your entire arguement on a Tyson 8 and 14 years past his prime. Lewis isn't 14 years past his prime now. So what if Holyfield pounded Tyson - Tyson's love of the sport had gone, thats why he was swapping trainers all the time.
I think the fact that despite he clearly wasn't in love with the sport (and this wasn't something he started saying when he was losing, he said it in Prison - ITV documentary on Holyfield vs Bowe II) - but still went on to regain the title shows something of his innate ability. All very well to say "but Lenny had motivational problems vs Rahman" - yep true, and I have not mentioned it in my arguement once - cause Tyson had the same problems for his losses.
Never mentioned the Tucker rocked Tyson early, cause I don't think he did - he rocked him very briefly in the last round.
Tyson lost to Douglas, a damn underated fighter - who actually tipped to win the fight!!!! - cause he took the fight lightly (something Lewis has done and it cost him). Tyson lost to Holyfield cause Holyfield had an absolute cast iron jaw, great self-belief, and the fact that Tyson wasn't near his prime and it could be argued Holyfield was bang on his prime. Also, this "Holyfield had his number" - yes, you can bring in the sparring the Lewis and Tyson did - but Lewis didn't fight with the confidence in his ability to absorb the punches like Holyfield and Douglas did. Lewis fought with respect/fear of the danger of Tyson (not a bad thing)- Holyfield fought like he knew Tyson couldn't hurt him. So did Tyson hurt Lewis in those early exchanges all those years ago?
Douglas and Holyfield - the two men who beat Tyson out of the ones you mention - didn't have a survival intentions - plus Evander was a dirty bugger, something Lewis wasn't.
I'll disagree with you on Holyfield's defense regardless of his chin. Never seen Evander KO'd like Lewis has been, never seen Evander with his eyes shut and arms out taking a shot be a "blind" man (McCall had his eyes shut also). Evander didn't have bad amateur pedigree also.
How many rounds did Tyson lose when he fought Smith, Tucker, Tillis and Green - the distance fights in his prime. Naseem Hamed went the distance with Peter Buckley - doesn't mean that he wouldn't punish a fighter who showed ambition.... Its hardly a tent in his claim as a puncher or a finisher.
I'll disagree also on the Klitchsko fight - I thought Lewis was a gonner, I really did.
Posted: 18 Jan 2008, 04:19
by DavidPayne
I'm largely with Terry on this but one point I think, but one point I must counter is the assumption that IF Lewis rocks Tyson then an early finish will ensue.
Not true for two reasons. Firstly, Lewis falls back to his chess player in the highest profile clashes, he did with Holyfield who he had out on his feet in the 5th in their first fight. He should have closed the show, but stepped off and worked through to a decision he didn't get.
He didn't go all out versus Tyson when he had him, nor did Tyson fold despite taking enormous shots for round after round.
Lewis was destructive versus big lugs like Ruddock, Golota and Grant, but he was cautious when faced with guys he respected more.
He did, after all, famously not give Tua a chance he didn't have by engaging with him, he just popped and preened to an easy points win.
I know Tua is no Tyson, but it does undermine the theory Lewis coudl finish Tysone early.
Tyson took a lot of punishment to fall in all of his defeats, irrespective of his condition. And while you could argue Lewis is a bigger puncher than all of the guys that beat or shook Tyson, it is unlikely Tyson would have folded physically, even if mentally, losing a fight reduced him to a shadow of his potential.
He did after all have DOuglas on the deck for a long time, before losing.
Tyson may be an on-top fighter, but he rarely capitulated once dominated.
Posted: 18 Jan 2008, 06:34
by stujones
DavidPayne wrote:I'm largely with Terry on this but one point I think, but one point I must counter is the assumption that IF Lewis rocks Tyson then an early finish will ensue.
Not true for two reasons. Firstly, Lewis falls back to his chess player in the highest profile clashes, he did with Holyfield who he had out on his feet in the 5th in their first fight. He should have closed the show, but stepped off and worked through to a decision he didn't get.
He didn't go all out versus Tyson when he had him, nor did Tyson fold despite taking enormous shots for round after round.
Lewis was destructive versus big lugs like Ruddock, Golota and Grant, but he was cautious when faced with guys he respected more.
He did, after all, famously not give Tua a chance he didn't have by engaging with him, he just popped and preened to an easy points win.
I know Tua is no Tyson, but it does undermine the theory Lewis coudl finish Tysone early.
Tyson took a lot of punishment to fall in all of his defeats, irrespective of his condition. And while you could argue Lewis is a bigger puncher than all of the guys that beat or shook Tyson, it is unlikely Tyson would have folded physically, even if mentally, losing a fight reduced him to a shadow of his potential.
He did after all have DOuglas on the deck for a long time, before losing.
Tyson may be an on-top fighter, but he rarely capitulated once dominated.
And the Frans Botha fight - a fight in which he was losing handily, looked on the brink of completely folding - but pulled it out of the bag.
I think issues of Tyson being a "quitter" or losing a fight mentally the minute someone gave him stick for a few rounds is overated. It happend in his final two fights - but Lewis and Holyfield beat up a physically shot Tyson, a Tyson who had lost his way in his training and lost his way on how to box/fight 8 years before. However, still - after a beating - look who is there still TRYING when exhausted to land the peak punch... out of desperation, perhaps - but also showed heart. Watch the 11th round of the Holyfield fight... Tyson out on his fight, comes out and still looks to win the fight.
You bring the Douglas KD and the Botha KO - yeah it
Tyson had a life a death (and I would describe it as that) with Botha BEFORE the Lewis fight, yet according to Terrence - the "ONLY" problem Tyson had vs Lewis was mental. So what now, Botha would have given Tyson problems too now?
Now, I aint saying Tyson was a completely shot fight.... Yes, the Tyson fan in me would still be intrigued if he got into shape. His power and hand speed (though slowed) was still better than most Heavyweights. However, he couldn't sustain the training, he forgot what he learned. He was on all sort of shit - legal and illegal and he simply wasn't the fighter he was.
As I said, he stated in Jail that he was out of love in the sport and didn't want to fight... he did it as a means to an end. I personally think, that might be alot of reason why his style altered - go for the KO early and get out of there.
I maintain that Tyson post Douglas (pre Jail) was as good as the Tyson who fought Bruno (fight 1) but he was believing his hype then and he was f'd up in the head.
He wanted out vs McBride and also vs Williams no doubting that.
Posted: 18 Jan 2008, 06:50
by jamesmcdonnell
I agree, Tyson had been 'shot' relatively speaking to what he was for the best part of a decade when he faced Lewis. He was never the same fighter post Jail, still very good, but no longer good enough to beat an elite level and committed fighter who was not scared of him.
At the end of the day, I rate Lewis higher than Tyson, but still believe a peak Tyson would have beaten Lewis.
Posted: 18 Jan 2008, 09:57
by stujones
Terry D wrote:Tyson quit in Holyfield II, no doubts about that in my mind. He could not hack it.
As for quitting in his last two fights. He was all fire and brimstone for two rounds against Williams, Darkie got excited about Mike being back then the guy sits out the count when it is clear Danny is not going anywhere.
Whenever Tyson lands two consecutive punches people spledge themselves senseless and start rewriting the heavytweight top ten. It is insane.
His fitness was awful.... no evidence to suggest he wasn't more than a 6 minute fighter tops. His weight was up and he knew he was out of there. No disputing that. His injury (and that was definate geniune) did have some effect on his punch leverage - that certainly helped Danny.
He didn't want to fight anymore, he didn't for years - but is that effecting his legacy in prime for prime debates... well it shouldn't. Did Marciano always have Louis' number?
Posted: 18 Jan 2008, 10:49
by jamesmcdonnell
My take on it is this.
Post Jail, Tyson's love affair with boxing ended, due to a number of factors.
Towards the tail end of his career, Tyson was not prepared to go to the trenches any more. Against the likes of Botha (not a bad fighter incidentally), he was able to summon the punch to turn the fight, but as his fitness deteriorated due to lack of interest in training camps (he purportedly was so out of shape before one of his latter fights he got out of breath running around the block) so he was forced to rely on his early punchpower and speed to win.
Before the Ettienne fight, Tyson seemed to be looking for a way out of the fight, not turning up for training hardly at all, and then getting a Tattoo which could have barred him from fighting just a couple of days before.
I think his appetite for hurting people also diminished as he got to the tail end of his career, quite possibly as a side effect of the mood mollifying drugs he was taking as well.
Posted: 18 Jan 2008, 17:06
by observer1
he 100% against Evander??
After being Completley Fumed at him for losing in the First, and in the second, Holyfield AGAIN resorting to the Head Butts, someone like Tyson was Bound to do something stupid, i.e. Bite Him...
This is Tyson we're talking about. if he wanted to Quit, he'll quiet.
Face of the matter is, Tyson went 8 rounds with Lewis in a period of Tysons Career where he was just a Name.
We can say all we want about how Lewis was "punishing" tyson for swearing at him and his family, but thats just Dumb. Lewis has always had the tactic of Playing Defensive... Even then he destroyed Tyson, but Tyson lasted longer than a lot of others would..
You only need to take a look of tysons early Fights, His speed was shocking, and his punches could come out of nowhere..
i really dont think Lewis would have coped well with Tysons speed then, let alone the "Fear Factor" of fighting Tyson