BoxRec

I will give Tyson the benefit of the doubt and put him in his absolute prime, as stated by his fans, against Lennox Lewis, Buster Douglas*, and Evander Holyfield.


It's 88 Tyson v 90 Holyfield, v 95 Lewis, v 88 Douglas

How does he fare

*Don't ask me but his fans suggest he was past his prime for Douglas due to emotional problems, marital discord, management problems , et cetera.

He beats all three, & all three, by KO.

Don't buy that bullsh!t, myself, that he was, "past his prime," against Douglas. That's just fanboy excuse-mongering. I can accept he was out-of-sorts, but that's it. He was not past his prime, or anything of the sort. I do think he'd knock out Douglas 99 times from 100, though --- does anyone truly see it any other way?

I think Lewis was more in his prime around 2000 than 1995, but I get what you're saying.

He loses to Holyfield who knew how to fight him physically and mentally and was also just simply better.

Lewis would by the favourite. He has all the stylistic advantages. Everyone likes to talk about Lewis’s chin. Yes, he could be KO’d. I think though he’d be cautious and minimise the risk of that happening. It’s close but I go with Lennox in a 70-30 split. The last thing my uncle (amateur boxer and boxing nut) ever said to me was that if Lewis and Tyson ever meet to bet heavily on Lewis. This was at the time when Tyson was the Second Coming.

Douglas did win and to say anything else is to countenance the nonsense that gets peddled out endlessly…so I’ll just stick with the result.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:He beats all three, & all three, by KO.

Don't buy that bullsh!t, myself, that he was, "past his prime," against Douglas. That's just fanboy excuse-mongering. I can accept he was out-of-sorts, but that's it. He was not past his prime, or anything of the sort. I do think he'd knock out Douglas 99 times from 100, though --- does anyone truly see it any other way?

I think Lewis was more in his prime around 2000 than 1995, but I get what you're saying.

Holyfield, he of the losses to Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe, and thirty four years old, was supposed to be the "shot" fighter when he fought Tyson.

Ezzard wrote:He loses to Holyfield who knew how to fight him physically and mentally and was also just simply better.

Lewis would by the favourite. He has all the stylistic advantages. Everyone likes to talk about Lewis’s chin. Yes, he could be KO’d. I think though he’d be cautious and minimise the risk of that happening. It’s close but I go with Lennox in a 70-30 split. The last thing my uncle (amateur boxer and boxing nut) ever said to me was that if Lewis and Tyson ever meet to bet heavily on Lewis. This was at the time when Tyson was the Second Coming.

Douglas did win and to say anything else is to countenance the nonsense that gets peddled out endlessly…so I’ll just stick with the result.

Nothing to do with British pride

But I like Lennox. He's in my top five of favorite fighters with Ali, George Foreman, Ray Robinson, and Ray Leonard. I like they way he carried himself when Tyson was making a fooling out of himself.


I also liked when he said of David Tua "it's going to take more than a fancy haircut to beat me." I also like that he had the discipline to quit on top. That alone, makes him special.

He could never beat Evander and I don't think he could beat the Douglas he faced in Tokyo. Lewis is a 50/50 fight for me. I thought Lennox was a bit intimidated against the shadow of Mike for a round and a half. If he came out like that against a prime version he would be in trouble.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He could never beat Evander and I don't think he could beat the Douglas he faced in Tokyo. Lewis is a 50/50 fight for me. I thought Lennox was a bit intimidated against the shadow of Mike for a round and a half. If he came out like that against a prime version he would be in trouble.

I just remain puzzled that the Tyson fans can continue to argue that we can't judge him for any fight after 1989 and even if we confine his career to the years from 1985-1988 we need to see something in the fights he had during that time that suggest he would have beat boxing's all time greats.

ThatOne wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:He beats all three, & all three, by KO.

Don't buy that bullsh!t, myself, that he was, "past his prime," against Douglas. That's just fanboy excuse-mongering. I can accept he was out-of-sorts, but that's it. He was not past his prime, or anything of the sort. I do think he'd knock out Douglas 99 times from 100, though --- does anyone truly see it any other way?

I think Lewis was more in his prime around 2000 than 1995, but I get what you're saying.

Holyfield, he of the losses to Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe, and thirty four years old, was supposed to be the "shot" fighter when he fought Tyson.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

Is there a point you had?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:He beats all three, & all three, by KO.

Don't buy that bullsh!t, myself, that he was, "past his prime," against Douglas. That's just fanboy excuse-mongering. I can accept he was out-of-sorts, but that's it. He was not past his prime, or anything of the sort. I do think he'd knock out Douglas 99 times from 100, though --- does anyone truly see it any other way?

I think Lewis was more in his prime around 2000 than 1995, but I get what you're saying.

Holyfield, he of the losses to Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe, and thirty four years old, was supposed to be the "shot" fighter when he fought Tyson.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

Is there a point you had?

Yeah, Holyfield was supposed to be the "shot" fighter and nobody was saying Tyson was "shot" until after he lost; especially the Vegas oddsmakers. It's a backwards looking excuse.

If we could put these four fighters into a round-robin tournament I think the results would go:

Tyson beats Douglas
Lewis beat Holyfield
Tyson beat Holyfield
Lewis beats Douglas
Holyfield beats Douglas
Tyson beats Lewis.

that is all.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I can accept he was out-of-sorts, but that's it. I do think he'd knock out Douglas 99 times from 100, though

X2

"Yeah, Holyfield was supposed to be the "shot" fighter and nobody was saying Tyson was "shot" until after he lost; especially the Vegas oddsmakers. It's a backwards looking excuse." - ThatOne

Am I to take it you're saying Tyson was prime when he fought Holyfield? Is that what you're getting at?

If so, I do not agree. This bout is Tyson vs. Holyfield, prime-for-prime. I don't think either man was in that state in 1996-97.

However that fight is very relevant. Tyson was closer to his prime than Holyfield. He was four years younger (30 and 34) and had less wear and tear. Holyfield was something like 80% of his best and beat Tyson who was something like 90% of his best. It stands to reason that if they were both at their absolute best, Holyfield would have won even easier.

Tyson without the ability to intimidate was compromised in his potential. Those he could not intimidate usually did much better against him. And a few like Holyfield and Lewis stole and ate his lunch. I think Cus kept him out of those fights as he knew exactly what might happen. Foreman was even on the "avoid" list for the combination of inability to be intimidated and for the fact that he probably would have had a good night just like Holy and Lewis did.

Even at his best Tyson was not unbeatable, though while the show lasted it was highly entertaining for all of us.

Crease wrote:If we could put these four fighters into a round-robin tournament I think the results would go:

Tyson beats DouglasLewis beat Holyfield
Tyson beat HolyfieldLewis beats Douglas
Holyfield beats Douglas
Tyson beats Lewis.

that is all.

Well im pretty sure that's proven to be incorrect.

Ambling Alp wrote:However that fight is very relevant. Tyson was closer to his prime than Holyfield. He was four years younger (30 and 34) and had less wear and tear. Holyfield was something like 80% of his best and beat Tyson who was something like 90% of his best. It stands to reason that if they were both at their absolute best, Holyfield would have won even easier.

You do know that Tyson spent a number of years in jail and was a notorious partier, right? I'm a firm believer that Tyson was still prime, albeit ill-prepared, when he lost to Douglas, but by the time he was released from prison his skills and desire had eroded significantly. OTOH, Holyfield was generally regarded as somewhat of a gym rat, and didn't spend any time in jail.

I still think Holyfield would have been a very tough fight for a prime Tyson, but to say that the post prison Tyson was 90% of what he was in his prime just doesn't seem reasonable.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"Yeah, Holyfield was supposed to be the "shot" fighter and nobody was saying Tyson was "shot" until after he lost; especially the Vegas oddsmakers. It's a backwards looking excuse." - ThatOne

Am I to take it you're saying Tyson was prime when he fought Holyfield? Is that what you're getting at?

If so, I do not agree. This bout is Tyson vs. Holyfield, prime-for-prime. I don't think either man was in that state in 1996-97.

His prime is so narrowly defined by his fans that it's hard to determine what it is. They seem to argue backward, that every loss he suffered came as a result of him being out of his prime, so he can't be hold accountable for any loss he suffered after 1988 or when he was twenty three years old.

According to his fans, it's as if he's not responsible for any loss after his prime ended at the age of twenty three, and the boxing public is supposed to believe that if he faced any of his contempories as well as the All Time Greats prior to 1988 when he was twenty three years he would have beat then. No other boxer, living or dead, has ever been held to such a low standard.

Crease wrote:If we could put these four fighters into a round-robin tournament I think the results would go:

Tyson beats Douglas
Lewis beat Holyfield
Tyson beat Holyfield
Lewis beats Douglas
Holyfield beats Douglas
Tyson beats Lewis.

that is all.

Who did Mike Tyson beat from 1985-1988 that suggests he could beat Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield?

Douglas already beat Tyson in his prime.

I'd strongly favor Holyfield over Tyson.
-For their 1996 fight Holyfield was maybe at 75%, Tyson 65%, but even making them even, look at how one-sided the fight was. Prime for prime it would have been more competitive early but Evander still dominates the later rounds.

Lewis I'd give a slight edge to prime for prime, like 55-45. He had the style to give Mike fits and also the perfect power punch (the uppercut) to put Mike somewhat in a shell. At the same-time, Tyson's FOOTSPEED (the big X factor why he was such an inferior fighter post-prison) and explosiveness would've also caused Lennox stylistic nightmares, and I think Lennox's natural timidity vs guys he viewed as a threat (just watch the McCall rematch debacle or both Holyfield fights) would cause him to lose rounds he otherwise should be winning.

ThatOne wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"Yeah, Holyfield was supposed to be the "shot" fighter and nobody was saying Tyson was "shot" until after he lost; especially the Vegas oddsmakers. It's a backwards looking excuse." - ThatOne

Am I to take it you're saying Tyson was prime when he fought Holyfield? Is that what you're getting at?

If so, I do not agree. This bout is Tyson vs. Holyfield, prime-for-prime. I don't think either man was in that state in 1996-97.

His prime is so narrowly defined by his fans that it's hard to determine what it is. They seem to argue backward, that every loss he suffered came as a result of him being out of his prime, so he can't be hold accountable for any loss he suffered after 1988 or when he was twenty three years old.

According to his fans, it's as if he's not responsible for any loss after his prime ended at the age of twenty three, and the boxing public is supposed to believe that if he faced any of his contempories as well as the All Time Greats prior to 1988 when he was twenty three years he would have beat then. No other boxer, living or dead, has ever been held to such a low standard.

Yes...but we've already established plainly that neither of us buy into that garbage --- so why continue to re-iterate it?

Ambling Alp wrote:However that fight is very relevant. Tyson was closer to his prime than Holyfield. He was four years younger (30 and 34) and had less wear and tear. Holyfield was something like 80% of his best and beat Tyson who was something like 90% of his best. It stands to reason that if they were both at their absolute best, Holyfield would have won even easier.

LOL, Alp, c'mon man. 80%, 90%, therefore by mathematical equation Holyfield must always have been better?

You are throwing out arbitrary percentages here, with no rhythm or reason behind them, which just happen to come out supporting your argument.

Yeah, that percentile calculation was comedy. Though I must say, Holyfield always being better is the correct algorithm.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"Yeah, Holyfield was supposed to be the "shot" fighter and nobody was saying Tyson was "shot" until after he lost; especially the Vegas oddsmakers. It's a backwards looking excuse." - ThatOne

Am I to take it you're saying Tyson was prime when he fought Holyfield? Is that what you're getting at?

If so, I do not agree. This bout is Tyson vs. Holyfield, prime-for-prime. I don't think either man was in that state in 1996-97.

His prime is so narrowly defined by his fans that it's hard to determine what it is. They seem to argue backward, that every loss he suffered came as a result of him being out of his prime, so he can't be hold accountable for any loss he suffered after 1988 or when he was twenty three years old.

According to his fans, it's as if he's not responsible for any loss after his prime ended at the age of twenty three, and the boxing public is supposed to believe that if he faced any of his contempories as well as the All Time Greats prior to 1988 when he was twenty three years he would have beat then. No other boxer, living or dead, has ever been held to such a low standard.

Yes...but we've already established plainly that neither of us buy into that garbage --- so why continue to re-iterate it?

But even in this threads there are folk(s) who believe a Prime Tyson beats Holyfield and Lewis.

Count me among them, but it doesn't eman I take their excuses for Tyson's losses seriously.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Count me among them, but it doesn't eman I take their excuses for Tyson's losses seriously.

You just overrate his chances against a man he would never bet on himself against.