BoxRec

The thing is, great fighters like Lewis would never have suffered from the "fear factor" when facing a prime Tyson.

That's why I don't think, in a series of fights against ANY all time great heavyweight, Tyson would come out on top.
He would have a shot of winning a single fight of course, but would never take anymore than one out of three against the likes of Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman, Frazier, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Liston, Holmes etc etc prime for prime.

They simpy would not have been intimidated by him.
if anything, Tyson would have been the one who was intimidated.

Tyson never proved his mettle and beat anything remotely resembling a great fighter during his reign(he mainly bashed up grade C heavies or guys with talent but a serious crack problem)

Tyson- Great heavyweight, but simply put, there have been greater....and Lewis is one

Terry D wrote:

stujones wrote:

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?

That's his own fault really then. People did go mad when he put a round or two together.

He 100% quit versus Evander.

Of course it his fault.... but we are judging it on a prime for prime. We are judging it before the break up to Givens (maybe even before meeting her) before King - when he lived, breath and eat the sport and was a dilligent trainer.

Not a drug taking, weight training, man who couldn't hack a 5 week camp with Freddie Roach.

Looking at the Modern Heavyweights....

Klitchko, ibramigov, Valuev, Chagaev, .... They all Rely on Raw Power, Most of them on their Reach etc.


There is nobody like how Tyson was when he showed up in 85.... and there has been nobody like him for a while now...

The only person that comes to mind is Povetskin, but he is hardly having the same impact Tyson did.

Point is, you can watch Boxing now, and you can watch the Boxing Matches when Tyson Fought,

you will notice a lot of differences..

Tysons Speed, his Agility, just his whole Name and Work Rate.

by the Time he was with Lewis, he was a Bruiser, a Brawler, Trying to fight like Modern Heavyweights, that is relying on Raw Power. He was aggressive, but he lacked the Speed for that. Also the fact of him Losing to Holyfield etc. Showing he was just ordinary. Not the Same Person he was in 86.. He lacked that Spark..

I mean a lot of Boxers want Money from their Fight, its Normal... i mean their not going to Get hurt for nothing are they...

But it was beyond obvious Tyson fought for the money, and for the money only.

he hardly wet depressed over it, like we Hatton now..

Bottom line.

85-88 Tyson Wins Lewis

So Lennox Lewis was always the perfect boxer.... of course the right hand happy, no defense fighter trained under Pepe Correra was flawless.

Lewis needed to get Ko'd by a Mike Tyson sparring partner to realise he wasn't the all round fighter. Credit where it is due, he realised something was
wrong and he got a new trainer in.

It seems like that its okay for Lewis to have years where he was better than in other years, but not Tyson.

Tyson had a decentish little spell post Jail from the Norris fight - through to the Golota fight... but after Golota he announced his retirement and his weight went up. He was inactive again and he looked piss poor vs Neilson, slow and fecked early and similar against Lennox. Whoever was training Tyson lost control after the Golota fight... not the trainers fault, only Tyson's fault.

But I, like observer am judging Tyson on the 3 year period of 1985-1988 and that Tyson was relatively in control (sticking to the same team), was a dilegent trainer and was focused on the sport.

I aint one of these Tyson fans that call Tyson the "victim" of anything, neither am I of fighters like Benny Lynch, John Conteh and several others who made wrong decisions and might have had a case of too much too soon. Does this influence my decision on their P4P global all time standing - yes.... does it on debates like a prime vs prime - no.

You, Terry, seem to like to rate fighters on how they perform when they are "shot" - I don't. People go "shot" in different ways, and at different stages. We had a similar debate on Roy Jones, this question though asked for a prime vs prime. Tyson had a prime and yes it was brief, but it was stll clear cut deterioration pre and post Rooney. Yet, you seem to dismiss this in your quotes like "the only thing wrong with Tyson vs Holyfield was...." The man said, at the time, that he was out of love with the sport - it wasn't something he used as an excuse.

Do you think Michael Gomez would beat Michael Ayers prime for prime also - cause Gomez looked better shot than Ayers did. What about Holyfield vs Toney?

This is getting algebraic now.

Terry, I think you're undermining your own argument or the debate in general which was Lewis v Tyson in their respective primes.

Whatever their respective weaknesses during those periods, or indeed the length of those periods, there is a case for a Tyson victory. I would suggest the best version of Tyson - which is clearly 1985-1988 - would pose serious threats to Lewis.

I agree the best of Lewis, say 1998-2001, would have had the ability, tools and fortitude to repel them but you cannot deny Tyson's power and speed offered him a chance of victory.

On balance I go for Lewis too, but you cannot undermine Stu's point by suggesting using his focus on Tyson prime to suggest he must make Hamed the best featherweight in history. Stu isn't suggesting Tyson is the best heavyweight in history. He's making a case that the best of Tyson could have beaten the best of Lewis.

I don't think it can be, when talking about the abilities of the two candidates, as black and white as you would suggest it is.

Out of interest, and I think this informs this debate. WOuld you say Evander Holyfield achieved more at heavyweight than Lennox Lewis, I would say that he did, despite draw and defeat to Lewis.

While I've opined on this subject plenty in the past, and largely been sat on the high horse in which you presently reside.

However, I feel compelled to throw some weight behind the Tyson argument. I don't feel it is irrelevant to shrink the argument to a prime versus prime footing. And I outlined two primes above.

Equally, I don't think anyone is equating Tyson's prime as a the ideal exemplar of the perfect fighting machine. Plenty have elsewhere but in the confines of this thread Stuart hasn't.

I also believe you're exaggerating the success of Green, Tucker, Smith et al in 'negating' Tyson - when all said and done. Tyson beat the lot. Sure Smith and Tucker showed flashes of success, Smith's coming very, very late but ultimately Tyson settled in to secure points victory over Smith, and I think stoppage over Tucker - please forgive any inaccuracies - I'm not checking as I type.

I appreciate Lewis brings a more compelling offensive arsenal of punches and greater physical advantages than those enjoyed by Tucker and Smith and it is possible to assume he enjoys greater success than those who trod before him.

I agree, we can safely presume the mental weaknesses exposed later in Tyson's career were likely present if not exposed earlier, even during his period of incredible ascent to and defence of the title. But we must presume it rather than have much demonstrable evidence.

Tyson was an on-top fighter but he never capitulated, was always dangerous even post peak when tired and disinterested - at his best one could assume he wouldn't have succumbed or become compliant in the same way he did in 2002.

And if that is the case then he poses a greater threat to Lewis, because Lewis even at his best, was cautious. Cautious, pragmatic? Choose your descriptive, but the instinctive punching, speed and power of Tyson at his best - which is where I believe this argument is being discussed - would have posed any fighter with caution at his heart problems.

I will always maintain Lewis beats Tyson, but to discount Tyson entirely is become as narrow minded as the Tyson evangelists and 'nut huggers' we all detest.

I would not back Lewis against anyone in the top ten if he came back now. He looked old, slow and out of puff against Vitali, and that was several years ago.

Even if I would, that is largely irrelevant to the argument we are having here.

Some fighters maintain a level past their best which enables them to compete without being totally outclassed at high level, like Holyfield, who remains competitive with the top 20 fighters even though well and truly past his best.

Tyson, at 5' 10 and with one of the shortest reaches in heavyweight history, was always going to have been limited in his skillset, and so to expect him to remain a threat even as long as he did was quite an ask.

It's all conjecture anyway, nobody has the right to get on their high horse in such a clearly hypothetical argument.

You're good a this Terry.

Sorry about the high horse comment, it was unnecessary. And the only 'victory' I was pursuing was an acknowledgement that to dismiss Tyson's chances completely was narrow minded. Even a Lewis die hard must accept Lewis COULD be knocked out, and Tyson possessed the power and speed to hit and knock out just about every fighter you could name - at his best.

During his prime years Lewis boxed two guys shorter than him who he respected; Tua and Holyfield. Against Holyfield, he was on top and close to stopping Holyfield - he relented and stepped off. He was cautious to the point of risking the result.

Against Tua he never engaged with a one paced, one dimensional puncher. Risk free strategy but the posturing and posing he did in that fight, the low level of his output and the fact he was prepared to sacrifice centre ring showed he could well let caution effect his chances and diminish his offensive potential.#

As an on top fighter with more speed of foot, hand and thought than Tua, a prime Tyson in the same ring would have caused Lewis plenty of problems unless Lewis asserted his reach and jab.

Caution is Lewis Achilles heel, I admit, its a small weakness but it is relevant to this debate.

Tyson fed of those types of insecurities.

Not that he didn't possess his own of course.

Your final point was cold, but very telling. Your more recent viewing of Tyson's career informs you more than my memory and snatches of you-tube.

Thankyou David, your last two posts have got my definition of a thread title and what I have been trying to say all the time.

Its not all about whose the greatest heavyweight of all times, who had the longest prime, who was better past their prime. Its about who I think would win a fight between Tyson circa 1985-1988 or Lewis circa whenever you thought his prime was (for me its 1995-1998). I'd say Tyson.

Terry, you say Tyson got taken the distance by Tucker, Smith when in his prime and this shows how easily he could be negated - but as David said, he hardly lost a round in each fight and if Lewis fought like that, he'd lose on points also (for me, Smith was borderline losing via DQ) - Lewis would have to fight different to win.

I've brought in the arguement that Lewis has been caught and had struggles with pressure power - you (quite rightly) have said, but he never lost those fights..... Same with Tyson. If I want to be pedantic, I could say Lewis struggled more in those fights, than Tyson did in his prime distance fights. Why can it be okay for one to have problems that he overcame, and not the other.

Now, you can bring in the arguement that Tyson didn't fight the quality of opponent to really judge his ability in these years and that is one I cannot argue against. Lewis beat better fighters in his longer prime, than Tyson did - thats why I have always maintained for achievement - Lewis reigns higher. However, it is not really Tyson's fault - only one top name he never fought around the time - and he did beat two guys who beat a prime Witherspoon and beat others who gave him problems. Really, in Tyson's short reign its only Tubbs and Bruno he could have swapped for Witherspoon in terms of boosting his legacy.

We don't know if Tyson would have folded mentally in his prime, maybe with good reason your assuming yes.... but I think he folded mentally when he was going through major upheaval, not in fantastic shape physically and not in love with the sport. Besides, vs Douglas I think he didn't fold mentally - he was clean KO'd, he was always looking for the finisher, physically finished but always hoping he could pull it off....vs Lewis, Williams and McBryde especially he seemed to be hoping to be KO'd. For me, he fought the Douglas fight similar to the Botha fight - he was beaten physically, he was in poor shape and had taken the fighter lightly - but never gave up hope. vs Botha he got lucky (and thats what he was).

Yes, I am a Tyson fan - no he wasn't perfect, most greats have their faults. I do think though in that short prime he stood more than a punchers any heavyweight. Does that make him the greatest heavyweight of all time.

If you seriously think Jermain Taylor's prime - he could beat Hagler, Monzon et al - then good for you. Think you will be in a major minority then. But yes, if you believe that - then in another thread entiled "Hagler vs Taylor Prime for Prime" you should say Taylor. Similarly with Naz, personally think Barrera was past his prime fighting Naz anyway and would munch him 10 times out of 10 - but yes, if you think Hamed would have beaten Lopez, Salividar, Nelson, Sanchez, Chacon, Arguello etc - then your entitled to the view.

Stu.

Your last point isn't relevant, as that is just the point Terry is making, that on your premise, you would make a case for Taylor not Terry.

i.e. 3 year prime etc.

DavidPayne wrote:Stu.

Your last point isn't relevant, as that is just the point Terry is making, that on your premise, you would make a case for Taylor not Terry.

i.e. 3 year prime etc.

Yes, but it was Terry who mentioned he could make a case (with a straight face) on the two being the greatest in their weight based on my "narrow minded terms".

Firstly, I never mentioned who was the greatest in their weight category - just who would win a perspective prime vs prime fight... and secondly Taylor? It could be argued that the man has only won one title fight. He drew against an over weight, over the hill Winky Wright.... yet a case could be made for him BEATING a prime Hagler?

Also, I have seen all of Tyson's successful title defensive in the last 2 months. I fail to see what Terry did in the Smith vs Tucker fight. They basically tried (and succeeded) to survive.

Tyson was made to look poor in the Smith fight, but Smith should really have been disqualified for holding and being negative. He held like an octopus and fouled on the inside for the majority of the fight.

I'm high on Frazier having long denigrated his ability.

Interesting perspective on Lewis v Tua, of course Lewis will also have known Tua was likely injured with a bad rib that night.

I think Tyson's ability to absorb punishment is similar to Tua, both were rarely shaken...Tyson was never knocked over with a single shot. I think there are parallels there, could Lewis have done more with Tyson than he did with Tua? Possibly. Could Tyson have done more with Lewis than Tua, bet your sweet bibby he could.

As I commented, I back Lewis too. I just think Lewis has flaws and Tyson was too good to completely disregard.

I'd have it 75-25 for Lewis. By the way I'd have Holyfield beating Lewis prime for prime.

Green = Well, not 100% cautious but he did play the percentage game and clearly did not fear Tyson, perhaps this is why Tyson twatted him outside a club.

Well according to every other Source, Mitch Started messing with him in a Mall aksing for a fight and even started on him, Tyson gave him 1 Punch.

--

that Quote i took of yours is the reason why i dont even bother much with your Posts, because its contains alot of Explicit BS, No offense.

You're failing to undersdtand the Point of Tyson in 86 and in 2002.

I mean Look at Ali for example, after taking out Foreman and Frazier, he was on Top.... At the end of his career, Brebrick beat him, when Berbrick was in his Prime one may say.

Does that mean Brebrick will beat Ali at Prime for Prime ?
Why Not ?

I'm a fan of the Lewis vs Tua fight - no doubt it was a boxing masterclass.... but Tua was no Tyson. Tua is probably the fighter who most resembles a young Tyson, but didn't have the punch selection, the handspeed or the footwork - this was apparent in fights before and after Lewis.

In these mythical debates I appreciate it always best to try and bring concrete evidence to back up your claims - and yes, Lewis did fight and beat Tyson. However, I do compare the references to that fight in similar fashion as Holmes vs Ali in 1980. Holmes toyed with a 38 year old Ali, does that mean he does the same to a 28 year old Ali? Could do, but really that fight shouldn't be thrown into it.

I'd say this is the same, that although Lewis was older - Tyson was far more shot. I think he was done in Jail - his ambition had gone, his heart had gone. I honestly think, had Bruno survived another 2 rounds, he could have taken Tyson in the rematch... and I think the same of Andrew Golota. Do I think that would have been the case pre Jail (even post Douglas) - no .... although Lewis would have beaten the pre Jail, post Douglas version of Mike. That Mike still had a bit of passion if nothing else.

Personally, I see a hypothetical match up similar to Rudduck vs Tyson 1. Even with the added shot variety, head movement and Jab that Tyson had lost post Douglas - Lewis would still have some moments (like Rudduck did) but ultimately, Tyson would be to fast, to much variety, a good fitness level and just too much for Lewis.

Terry D wrote:Ps Off the top of my head I think that fight took place outside 'Dapper Dans' in the early hours. Hardly sensible from Tyson is it? Point still stands, why not KO him legally?

for someone who has almost 6000 posts on a boxinf forum, i thought he would have understood by now that a Boxing Match is not the same as a street fight..

or do you disagree?

BTW Dappers dan is a Clothes Store aint it?

Why aint it sensible?

Terry D wrote:Ps Off the top of my head I think that fight took place outside 'Dapper Dans' in the early hours. Hardly sensible from Tyson is it? Point still stands, why not KO him legally?

Now I don't know the History of Tyson vs Green, I aint sure anybody really does. However, I do know Tyson wanted to punish Tyrrel Biggs in as painful way as possible... and it was brutal.

Tyson claimed (admitedly post fight) that he knew he could practically KO Briggs whenever he wanted from the 3rd round... but chose not too - true or not, I don't know.

Whereas he has said that he wanted to take out Holmes as soon as possible because he didn't want to torture him.

Just wandering, could this be part of the reasoning with the actual Green contest. I don't know, just sometimes Mike would think like that. He didn't go looking for every fighter that took him the distance after the fight.

stujones wrote:

Terry D wrote:Ps Off the top of my head I think that fight took place outside 'Dapper Dans' in the early hours. Hardly sensible from Tyson is it? Point still stands, why not KO him legally?

Now I don't know the History of Tyson vs Green, I aint sure anybody really does. However, I do know Tyson wanted to punish Tyrrel Biggs in as painful way as possible... and it was brutal.

Tyson claimed (admitedly post fight) that he knew he could practically KO Briggs whenever he wanted from the 3rd round... but chose not too - true or not, I don't know.

Whereas he has said that he wanted to take out Holmes as soon as possible because he didn't want to torture him.

Just wandering, could this be part of the reasoning with the actual Green contest. I don't know, just sometimes Mike would think like that. He didn't go looking for every fighter that took him the distance after the fight.

thats a good point Stu, lol, i really would not surprised at all if that was the case

My Green suggestion, was merely that - a suggestion. I fully admit I don't know the ins and outs, I aint convinced many do. I just compared it to something else Tyson said regarding how he liked to fight people he despised.... perhaps it was just based on a disagreement that night (maybe alchol fueled) - not the behaviour of a proffesional, but not sure the real relevance of it.

He didn't go after Smith, Tucker, Tillis etc.... and I don't think anyone can be sure did he go after Green, did Green find him - was it self defence or what. No-one really knows.

Lewis did not show THROUGHOUT his career he was the complete package. He didn't prepare like a champion for the first Rahman fight or for his final fight and he was far from the full package in the first five years of his pro career - under the guidance of Pepe Correra. Lewis showed tactical failings vs Briggs and Klitchsko and him being over cautious almost cost him a decision vs Holyfield.

How they beheved out of the ring means f all to me for this debate, obviously not you cause you keep mentioning it. This is not, who was the better champion or role model - this is who would win a mythical fight.

Yes, Ali adapted his style to take into account his age... was the Ali of 1972 better than the 1967 fighter - not in my opinion. Ali vs Cleveland Williams was the single greatest exhibition of boxing I have ever viewed. He was perfect, and that was his peak. He was untouchable that night. Okay, as you quite rightly say a single fight doesn't make a career - but, I repeat the thread doesn't ask who has the best career, who adapted the most when their careers decline, or why was a fighter shot, or how long their prime were.... It is asking for who would win a prime vs prime fight. If the question was asked of Ali I would think back to the Ali who fought Williams. Yes, his later career showed he had heart and a chin... and Tyson's later career failings mean he is more open to questioning (such as heart), but he also answered questions - such as his chin.

You say I am using mythical examples, and mythical scenerios for my arguement - but then your using the same but posting them as fact like "those years save him from arse kickings" - no fact behind that. Bowe never seemed to be too keen to face Mike when he was WBO champion and Mike was the WBC champion. Lennox Lewis was a raw novice pro in 1990/1991 - the right hand happy fighter would have been way to raw to beat Tyson..... Even had that fight taken place, I still wouldn't use it to argue about a Lewis circa 1997-1999 would stand no chance vs a Tyson circa 1986.... likewise I don't think the Tyson circa 2002 should be used.

There was a mark decline in his head movement post Rooney, the decline was evident in the Bruno fight. Still he was good enough to beat decent fighters and I think he was still in love with the game right the way to the second Rudduck fight. However, after Jail the hunger and love had gone.... and as I said, this wasn't an excuse - it was said before his comeback.

You have my comparison of how I perceive a Lewis vs Tyson as similar to the Rudduck fight wrong. I predict a similar style of fight in terms of the losers success as opposed to Tyson fighting in a similar way. Tyson will have the movement, but Lewis' speed of jab will cause SOME issues, and some moment of hope for Lewis' fans. Tyson won't slip them all - Holmes and Biggs got through with some vs a prime Tyson.... but it won't be enough to tend Tyson and ultimately Tyson will break him down.

Its okay for you describe how a fight would pan out, even though Lewis fought nobody like Tyson - but for me to do it is out of order?

No - life or death - in a prime for prime - I'd go for Tyson everytime.

Your making alot of assumptions on the Green incident.... I have always said I don't know the ins and out. I don't know who attack who, I don't know what was said..... but now to learn the Green "approached" Tyson - well it certainly doesn't suggest its the attack of a coward.... that Tyson jumped him from behind etc.

I never said that quote you have attributed to me..... I think I am qualified enough to know just how much boxing is psychological, it is my job. However, what I dispute is how mentally weak Tyson was before the fast cars, fast women, and before the deaths of Jacobs and D'Amato. Before he lost his "fighting guts". If the only example you can bring up to "prove" Tyson was mentally weak was a scuffle with Mitch Green out of the ring in which neither you nor I know the full ins and outs off - then sorry, I don't think that is much of an arguement.

As for Lewis being the the ultimate proffesional - all I need to say is South Africa, 2001! ..... great proffesionalism shown there. However, I don't need to mention it - cause Lewis was not at his best. He can be forgiven for the "carelessness" (your words, not mine on this ultimate proffesional) shown in fights where he has lapses in concentration - including two in which got sparked... cause we are judging the two at their best. We can forgive Lewis for being so predictable before the McCall fight that even Frank Bruno and Levi Billips figured him out, but ultimately didn't have the tools to do the job. You mentioned Smith, Tucker, Green and Tillis for Tyson - when's the last time you've seen Lewis vs Billips.

But I repeat, we are not judging Lewis on this..... NEITHER are we judging Tyson post 1990... oh and Botha vs Tyson was after that date - it shouldn't count in a debate on "prime vs prime".... if the question was "career vs career" then I wouldn't be having this debate with you.

Lewis was overweight and out of condition vs Klitchsko... just like Tyson was vs Lewis. Again not the actions of the the ultimate proffesional. Hard to judge his legs when he looked like the Michelin Man.

Lewis' over cautious nature cost him a victory over Holyfield... yes, we can
dispute the judges decision - I have done, but the fact is Lewis had an faded and ill Holyfield beat, almost to the brink of exhaustion and let him off the hook and allowed Evander back into the fight. Yes, you can say Eugina Williams doesn't know how to score a fight - but Larry O Connell?

As controvesial and costly that decision was for Lewis, it could be argued that Tyson actually scored a come from the brink KO of Buster Douglas.

As I said, what Tyson did or did not do correctly after 1989 is irrelevant in a prime vs prime debate. As I said in other debates, does Sugar Ray Leonards tactical ineptness in the Hearns rematch (who was his tactical advisor and trainer for the fight?) and his canvas tasting defeats vs Norris and an ancient Camacho ruin a chances of winning prime vs prime debates... no - cause he was not in his prime. Neither was Tyson.

Career and Legacy wise its Lewis, achievement wise its Lewis.... Historical standing its a little closer (youngest Heavyweight champion and all that)... prime for prime who was the better fighter its Tyson. Who had the longest prime and the best fighter past prime its Lewis.

Lewis was great and a fine wine is a good analogy of him. However, the bolt of lightening that was Tyson's PRIME was better. He was more versitile than you give him credit for, he hit harder than you give him credit for, and was more proffesional and mentally stronger than you give him credit for.... during the Cus/Rooney years. Oh yeah, I'm glad you think as a disciple of Cus, Teddy Atlas is tactically inept also.

No matter how long winded, well intentioned or well researched you think your points are Terrence, to state 'you cannot make a case for Tyson over Lewis' is plain stupid.

I'll keep it brief. If a talented but limited slugger with a good chin like McCall could ice Lewis, then certainly the much faster and more skilfull Tyson could.

This thread has become a little tedious to be honest, the same points are being regurgitated again and again.

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.

And Tyson didn't have an iron chin? Christ, look how many shots it took to finish him off in every fight save the McBride fight where he just thought 'oh sod this.'

Williams hit him with 27 unanswered punches, Douglas and Holyfield both unleashed a torrent of blows before he went down.

Tyson was very poor at changing the pattern of a fight once it went against him, but he was very hard to stop.

Styles make fights, but Tyson had everything McCall had in spades, except maybe the capacity to hang in there while being battered.

McCall's capacity to absorb punishment was, and seems to remain almost superhuman, but Tyson had one hell of a chin, as evidenced by how long Lewis took to dispatch him, despite there being little or nothing coming back from Mike.

McCall was a big, solid, and slow fighter with a great chin and a very decent dig, whilst Mike was a quicksilver combination puncher with dynamite in either hand. Is it so hard to envisage Lewis getting sloppy and taking a massive punch which put him down for the count. I cannot see why it is.

If anything, Lewis has to be on his toes the whole fight to win, so long as Mike still has the power and speed to throw one humdinger. Douglas very nearly came a cropper against Tyson, and had that punch landed earlier in the round, I doubt he would have survived. Tyson was up against it at that point, but he still found a punch which very nearly turned the fight.

As I've said before. I rate Lewis as a greater champion than Tyson, he achieved more over a longer period, but over the short burst, I believe Tyson was the 'better' fighter, whatever that means.

McCall is still competing at a decent level but this is irrelevant to the thread here.