Lennox Lewis, still doesn't get enough respect

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 21 Apr 2006, 05:17

never mind that he had riddick bowe running away from him all his career, and never mind that he beat Holyfield twice. Lewis gets nowher enear the respect he deserves from yank writers. farhood did a piece of whether mayweather jr is an all time great, which he approaches from the "adversity" angle. i.e. he hasn't come thru much adversity. then he gives an example from other modern day notable, of course one of them being Lewis. i.e. that 'i remember Lewis getting stopped twice'

now, didn't lewis rally through some deep shit vs shannon briggs and a 6' 8 monster who could fight called vitali klitschko? doesn't the klitschko fight in particular show how Lewis - in atrocious shape vs the man everyone decided could be the besy heavy since Holmes - can come through trouble?

anyhow, that isn't the examle that really took the piss. check out Katz' article on TSS. he's done another lovey dovey piece on Byrd, here's an extract:

"let us stop now and praise Byrd for his amazing accomplishments so far, to have gone up against the biggest and baddest for all these years – the only ones he missed were Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis, neither of whom wanted to be embarrassed by the stylish southpaw – with the foreknowledge that he would be unable to really dent his opponent. For an Olympic middleweight to take on such as both Klitschko brothers, Ibeabuchi, David Tua, Holyfield, Foul Pole Golota et al, knowing he couldn’t hurt them, says reams about his bravery."

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 21 Apr 2006, 05:26

I don't think Lewis wanted any part of Byrd. Not for fear of losing but he knew he would struggle to look good. I think he dismissed the fight saying nobody would want to see that but then took the bigger challenge in fighting Vitali. No way would old Tyson have gone near Byrd.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2006, 05:42

Well, Byrd does deserve some respect, he's taken on some monstrous punchers in his career and to be fair, he did deserve a shot against Lewis, who I think would have beaten him with ease, but that's not the point.

The talk about him being a natural middleweight is utter bollocks however, look at the guy's build, he might have made middleweight as an amateur, but he's clearly a light-heavy/cruiserweight in build.

Freiheit · Post by **Freiheit** » 21 Apr 2006, 05:44

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Well, Byrd does deserve some respect, he's taken on some monstrous punchers in his career and to be fair, he did deserve a shot against Lewis, who I think would have beaten him with ease, but that's not the point.

The talk about him being a natural middleweight is utter bollocks however, look at the guy's build, he might have made middleweight as an amateur, but he's clearly a light-heavy/cruiserweight in build.

When people talk about amateur middleweigts they also tend to forget that the limit is 165 not 160.

yiddo14 · Post by **yiddo14** » 21 Apr 2006, 05:46

Too much is made of these so called middle-weights coming up in divisions to face 'bigger' men.

Nobody forces a fighter to move up in weight.
It's a risk they take and them only.
It's like they always have an excuse if they lose or get knocked out,they can point to the sizer difference.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 21 Apr 2006, 05:46

katz almost seems to be implying that not only did Lewis not want part of Byrd, but that Byrd would have either beaten him or made him look like crap

byrd, who has kept his titles on decisions he could well have lost, wouldn't have had half of a chance to beat Lewis

yiddo14 · Post by **yiddo14** » 21 Apr 2006, 05:51

basically,if byrd gets battered by wlad and ike ,then lennox completly destroys him in 3 rounds.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 21 Apr 2006, 05:59

i appreciate the career of byrd, and i think he might have been a great light heavy/cruiser, but being a heavyweight was the biggest mistake of his career. yes, he won a great fight vs mccline, and was awesome vs tua. but he's been in deep shit too many times and some would say rescued not by his skills but sympathetic judges

then again, maybe he wouldn't have been an excellent 190. he apparently got a lucky decision vs arthur williams, in his home town

byrd is between a rock and a hard place vs 'super heavies'. if he moves away/boxes on the outside he can reach them. if he goes forward he gets picked off. either way he gets outboxed and battered. lucky for chris, mccline can't box outside and has short arms. i admire his guts and defensive skills, but despite this combination, it gives byrd SEVERE limitations as a heavyweight

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 21 Apr 2006, 06:55

Just trying to give the other side of the arguement but Lewis wasn't a destroyer in every fight. There is no way he was going to throw as many shots as Ike did and go all out for the KO, he didn't have the stamina to do this. Byrd (who isn't great by any means regardless of his size) did in his prime have the ability to make people look bad and sometimes Lennox when not up for a fight would struggle to look good.

Towards the end of his career I don't think he saw any point in fighting Byrd as he knew he only had a few fights left.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2006, 06:58

Yep, I agree, Lewis usually went for the big guys aggressively, it's notable that against shorter opponents he tended to break them down or box them to a standstill. He liked big, immobile opponents best as he could just leather the shit out of them. Shorter guys like Tua, Tyson, even Morrison he didn't go for straight away.

Byrd would have probably made for a very boring fight with Lewis jabbing his way in and busting Byrd up late on, but looking ordinary in doing so.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2006, 07:16

I think Ali would have Ko'd Lewis, he liked fighting big slow guys. Lewis was fast for a guy his size, but compared to Ali, he's like Foreman.

Holmes would have had too much speed and workrate for Lewis, but it would have been a close one.

too much is made of Lewis' size, there were guys Lewis' size back in the 1950's, and little guys like Marciano made mincemeat of them. Not saying the Rock would have beaten Lewis, because I don't think he would have.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 21 Apr 2006, 07:24

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yep, I agree, Lewis usually went for the big guys aggressively, it's notable that against shorter opponents he tended to break them down or box them to a standstill. He liked big, immobile opponents best as he could just leather the shit out of them. Shorter guys like Tua, Tyson, even Morrison he didn't go for straight away.

Byrd would have probably made for a very boring fight with Lewis jabbing his way in and busting Byrd up late on, but looking ordinary in doing so.

Totally agree with the thread and this post. It will take too long for me to go through why Lewis was so good and too be honest I don't think he ever reached an absolute peak. I think in an era like the 70's you would have seen the best of Lewis because of the challenges. He was always bad when he lacked motivation and became complacent. When he was up for fight he was awesome. I think this post hits the nail on the head. He would outbox and break down the smaller guys but angianst the dangerous guys he would take them out sooner rather than later. As for Bryd Lewis would have been at his worse because he wouldn't see it as a challenge. Then again seeing Byrd can't punch Leiws could go fo an early Ko knowing he wouldn't be Koed himself.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 21 Apr 2006, 07:25

Terence wrote:Lewis was massively underrated by most people. Katz just gets a bee in his bonnet about a guy and won't let it go.

Lewis was at his best versus Tua and Morrison and in particular the Tua fight, he put on a clinic. I'd favour Lewis over Byrd but what can the guy do? He'd fought everyone.

In terms of skill I put Lewis up there with Holmes, Louis and Ali; in head to head I don't see Holmes or Ali Ko-ing Lewis and Lennox would have given them problems.

Great post!

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 21 Apr 2006, 07:29

Terence wrote:I'm not sure, I'd give Lewis a better chance than Foreman. Unlike George Lewis wouldn't have falen for the rope stunt. Plus Lewis, for my money, was way past his best when he fought guys like Rahman and so on, the Lewis who fought around the time he hammered Morrison was a tough test for anyone. He was working his lefts much better back then and I'd give him a good shout versus Ali, if it was over fifteen though I'd lean for Ali to pull it out.

Against Holmes I'd give Lewis a really good chance to win a chess match. Holmes slates Lewis but maybe there is a hint of the green eyed monster there. A 1970's heavyweight claimed he'd envisage Lewis getting beaten by most decent 1970's heavyweight but I cannot see it. Lewis had a really good repotoire and that takes you a long way in the heavies. He'd have KO'd this mythical "Peaked for 4 secs and only I saw it Tyson" everyone wets themselves over. Pity he never got the chance to hammer Mike sooner.

Terence I'm loving your posts! I'm very similar in my opinions on Lewis.

James no way would Ali Ko Lewis. Ali was did not have great one punch power. He may outpoint him but he would never KO him. But I think Lewis would have too much for Ali. And he could certainly knock Ali down. Angelo Dundee said in an interview that he thought Lewis had the beating of Ali.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2006, 07:34

Terence wrote:I'm not sure, I'd give Lewis a better chance than Foreman. Unlike George Lewis wouldn't have falen for the rope stunt. Plus Lewis, for my money, was way past his best when he fought guys like Rahman and so on, the Lewis who fought around the time he hammered Morrison was a tough test for anyone. He was working his lefts much better back then and I'd give him a good shout versus Ali, if it was over fifteen though I'd lean for Ali to pull it out.

Against Holmes I'd give Lewis a really good chance to win a chess match. Holmes slates Lewis but maybe there is a hint of the green eyed monster there. A 1970's heavyweight claimed he'd envisage Lewis getting beaten by most decent 1970's heavyweight but I cannot see it. Lewis had a really good repotoire and that takes you a long way in the heavies. He'd have KO'd this mythical "Peaked for 4 secs and only I saw it Tyson" everyone wets themselves over. Pity he never got the chance to hammer Mike sooner.

Mmmm. Tyson at his peak was very very fast, and that I think could have spelt disaster for Lewis, especially a young Lewis who had a habit of leaving his chin out to dry. It was the speed and fluidity which Tyson lost pretty fast and had already begun to lose by the Douglas fight. You've got to give Mike his due, for all his flaws he was a tremendous 4 round fighter and started like every fight like a Rodeo Bull. Lewis could take a while to warm up sometimes, and he'd have had to have been at the top of his game to cope with someone that fast and hard hitting.

The Tyson Lewis faced I don't think even wanted to be there, surprisingly Lewis even admitted as much in a recent interview, which I give him tremendous credit for. What tyson must also be given credit for is his tremendous capacity to absorb punishment, he took one hell of a kicking against Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis before finally going down, and was unlucky not to be awarded the KO against Douglas, as that count was slow, and Douglas was completely on queer street and couldn't have made it to his feet even a 10th of a second earlier.

Migz · Post by **Migz** » 21 Apr 2006, 07:38

Arsenal wrote:
Terence wrote:I'm not sure, I'd give Lewis a better chance than Foreman. Unlike George Lewis wouldn't have falen for the rope stunt. Plus Lewis, for my money, was way past his best when he fought guys like Rahman and so on, the Lewis who fought around the time he hammered Morrison was a tough test for anyone. He was working his lefts much better back then and I'd give him a good shout versus Ali, if it was over fifteen though I'd lean for Ali to pull it out.

Against Holmes I'd give Lewis a really good chance to win a chess match. Holmes slates Lewis but maybe there is a hint of the green eyed monster there. A 1970's heavyweight claimed he'd envisage Lewis getting beaten by most decent 1970's heavyweight but I cannot see it. Lewis had a really good repotoire and that takes you a long way in the heavies. He'd have KO'd this mythical "Peaked for 4 secs and only I saw it Tyson" everyone wets themselves over. Pity he never got the chance to hammer Mike sooner.
Terence I'm loving your posts! I'm very similar in my opinions on Lewis.

James no way would Ali Ko Lewis. Ali was did not have great one punch power. He may outpoint him but he would never KO him. But I think Lewis would have too much for Ali. And he could certainly knock Ali down. Angelo Dundee said in an interview that he thought Lewis had the beating of Ali.

i agree with you there... Ali wouldnt Ko lewis but he could beat him with his dancing style and speed and on points.. but i think if Lewis would of got a hold of Ali Ali would of been in big trouble.. so in a prediction if these two fighter fought in the same era i would expect it being a trilogy similar to that of Ali vs Norton with Lewis winning the first by an easy dicision Ali out doing Lewis in the second but then i say Ali by a clear UD in the third... just my opinion could be wrong!!!

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2006, 07:45

You don't need one punch KO power to knock someone out. As I recall ?George Foreman landed on his backside against Ali, and yet Foreman would go the distance with Briggs and Holyfield some 15 years past his prime.

Ali had a good KO record, especialy in his earlier years, and Lewis wasn't a guy who could fight at a sustained pace for round after round, even as a young man, which is just a fact when a guy is over 6'4" and 240+ lbs. Ali could fight at a terrific pace for 15 rounds in his prime (pre suspension), and even as an older fighter fought at a far more hectic pace than Lewis would have been accustomed too.

Lewis would have had enormous difficulty landing a bomb on Ali, as he liked to fight on the outiside, and Ali despite being the shorter man had the same reach, as well as a more consistent jab, faster hands and better combination punching.

I could well envisage Ali stopping an exhausted Lewis in the last 3rd of the fight. When Ali had someone hurt, he was a very vicious fighter, look at the absolute pasting he gave Foreman and Cleveland Williams (opposite ends of his career, but same sustained pounding).

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 21 Apr 2006, 07:49

i would give a prime Bowe a better chance of beating Ali than Lennox.... styles make fights...

Bowe had a good jab and was probably the best inside fighting big man ever... Ali couldnt fight on the inside at all...

Bowe had good stamina and a good jab too....

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2006, 07:52

Terence wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Terence wrote:I'm not sure, I'd give Lewis a better chance than Foreman. Unlike George Lewis wouldn't have falen for the rope stunt. Plus Lewis, for my money, was way past his best when he fought guys like Rahman and so on, the Lewis who fought around the time he hammered Morrison was a tough test for anyone. He was working his lefts much better back then and I'd give him a good shout versus Ali, if it was over fifteen though I'd lean for Ali to pull it out.

Against Holmes I'd give Lewis a really good chance to win a chess match. Holmes slates Lewis but maybe there is a hint of the green eyed monster there. A 1970's heavyweight claimed he'd envisage Lewis getting beaten by most decent 1970's heavyweight but I cannot see it. Lewis had a really good repotoire and that takes you a long way in the heavies. He'd have KO'd this mythical "Peaked for 4 secs and only I saw it Tyson" everyone wets themselves over. Pity he never got the chance to hammer Mike sooner.
Mmmm. Tyson at his peak was very very fast, and that I think could have spelt disaster for Lewis, especially a young Lewis who had a habit of leaving his chin out to dry. It was the speed and fluidity which Tyson lost pretty fast and had already begun to lose by the Douglas fight. You've got to give Mike his due, for all his flaws he was a tremendous 4 round fighter and started like every fight like a Rodeo Bull. Lewis could take a while to warm up sometimes, and he'd have had to have been at the top of his game to cope with someone that fast and hard hitting.

The Tyson Lewis faced I don't think even wanted to be there, surprisingly Lewis even admitted as much in a recent interview, which I give him tremendous credit for. What tyson must also be given credit for is his tremendous capacity to absorb punishment, he took one hell of a kicking against Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis before finally going down, and was unlucky not to be awarded the KO against Douglas, as that count was slow, and Douglas was completely on queer street and couldn't have made it to his feet even a 10th of a second earlier.
I totally disagree James, Douglas was looking at the ref and rose to the count that was toiled in front of him, he looked like he could rise earlier but did the right thing in going off the ref.

I think with Tyson people talk about the bursts of speed and the combo's but that peek-a-boo style in inherantly flawed and can only be good for a year or two. Your guard is far too tight and unless you can affect constant bobbing you are going to block your own vision and have to wind-up on every shot, especially a hooker like Tyson. People talk about the Tyson destruction of Biggs but watching the fight recently I was struck by how many lead left-uppercuts and left-hooks Biggs pinged Tyson with. Even in that fight Tyson had that same flaw he always had, he'd drop his left or right to his waist depending on what hand he led with. I watched Tyson-Ferguson the other night as well and Tyson was again pretty conservative when the initial rush had faded. He just marched into clinch after clinch and crowd pressure did for Jesse. Main thing about Tyson is that people are incapable of seeing the pattern in his losses. Tyson comes out fast and blazes, his foe blazes back and Tyson backs up and does that little "gee myself up skip" then walks into clinch after clinch, gets cut, goes down and gets battered. If the pattern is in every fight I think it must be his fighters flaw.

In Lewis-Tyson Mike came out firing in round 1 and Lewis caught him with an uppercut and a straight right, Mike did not want to know after that. He is your dictionary flat track bully and at any age and in any arena I'd fancy the calmness and confidence of Lewis to intimidate Mike, who seemed to find guys like Lennox and Evander (hardly "street" guys) very imtimidating due to their confident air. I actually like Mike as a man, as a fighter I do not rate him at all and know that is near sacrilige in boxing but I think history will vindicate that, the man could not respond to a challenge and that is what sportsmen, great ones anyway, must do.

I'm not a big Mike Tyson fan either, but I see his flaws and talents in equal measure.

I've watched the Tyson v Douglas fight several times recently, and I can say with great confidence (only my opinion of course) that Douglas was completely fucked. He looked like he was wading through Mollases when he rose, and barely made it to his feet at 9 1/2 of the ref's count, despite having 15 seconds to get up.]

I know that Tyson could be halted in his tracks, but Lewis wasn't that kind of fighter who liked to meet an onrushing opponent head on, he liked to bust people up from distance. Holyfield was able to win because he was always an excellent inside fighter (something Mike certainly wasn't), and just met him like a Bull. Douglas threw tonnes of leather from the outside and showed great mobility and workrate to break Tyson down, but it took a lot of work to establish and keep the other hand and even then he had to survive an almighty scare.

Tyson was a decent champ, but his peak was too brief to be one of the very best heavyweight champs, but in retrospect this is true of most heavyweight champs, few were dominant for long. People rave about Frazier, but his peak was brief, and he is given far too much credit for his fights with Ali. That was an example of two mens' styles conspiring to produce great fights, bit like Bowe and Holyfield 1 and 2.

Lewis had some big technical flaws early in his career, which I think the well oiled version of Mike would have found and exploited. Lewis was really much better in his early 30's, but by then, Tyson was pretty much done.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2006, 08:02

I've never seen Liston v Cleveland Williams, heard it was a real barn burner. Liston had a serious beard on him and could take it as well as dish it out. ali's style was horrible for Liston though because he couldn't really get a bead on him.

Mensa07 · Post by **Mensa07** » 21 Apr 2006, 08:04

Katz' love for Chris Byrd has long been a recurring theme in his writing.

As are the childish swipes he takes at other (noticably non-americans) fighters, Lennox 'the Cowardly Lion' Lewis, Vitali 'Chicken Kiev' Klitschko, while all the time never missing a chance to big up his Byrd. (sorry).

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 21 Apr 2006, 09:05

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think Ali would have Ko'd Lewis, he liked fighting big slow guys. Lewis was fast for a guy his size, but compared to Ali, he's like Foreman.

Holmes would have had too much speed and workrate for Lewis, but it would have been a close one.

too much is made of Lewis' size, there were guys Lewis' size back in the 1950's, and little guys like Marciano made mincemeat of them. Not saying the Rock would have beaten Lewis, because I don't think he would have.

totally disagree with you on Holmes. i know Lewis struggled in a couple of fights with good jabbers, but

Larry was not a particularly physically strong guy. When he fought big men he usually struggled in some way or other, like when he fought Carl Williams (who really beat him) and even Bone Smith. Even in his peak, he was always getting hurt, vs men like a raw Mike Weaver, Renaldo Snipes, and Shavers. Of course Larry deserves credit for getting up from these wicked shots & winning, but you have to wonder how he'd do vs a finely tuned, powerful, big and immensely strong guy that was prime Lewis. They were too crude to put him away. Could have been different with Lewis.

there were big men Lewis sized in the earlier days, but look at the state of the ones that were around in the, say, Joe Louis era, like Buddy Baer. they were grotesque unfit barroom brawlers. Lewis is one of the few Big men to have good tools

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 21 Apr 2006, 09:12

Terence wrote:Lewis was massively underrated by most people. Katz just gets a bee in his bonnet about a guy and won't let it go.

Lewis was at his best versus Tua and Morrison and in particular the Tua fight, he put on a clinic. I'd favour Lewis over Byrd but what can the guy do? He'd fought everyone.

In terms of skill I put Lewis up there with Holmes, Louis and Ali; in head to head I don't see Holmes or Ali Ko-ing Lewis and Lennox would have given them problems.

i remember katz saying lews had too much trouble with guys like tony tucker, and that the guys who kos him rahman and mccall, wouldn't have made joe louis' bum of the month - to be great

really stupid.

i've just watched larry holmes vs david bey - a very raw fighter - and just seen holmes drop just about the 1st six rounds. is larry not great then?

lewis never got gift decisions, which holmes did vs witherspoon and car 'truth' williams, he got better with age

as for rahman and mccall, they detonated huge punches on lewis. and they wouldnt have struggled to beat Two Ton Toney Galento, one of the better bum of the monthers

on the subject of big guys/super heavies, the best one holmes beat was Gerry 'One Arm' Cooney, who not only fought one handed but seldom used more than one punch - the Left Hook

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 21 Apr 2006, 09:32

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think Ali would have Ko'd Lewis, he liked fighting big slow guys. Lewis was fast for a guy his size, but compared to Ali, he's like Foreman.

Holmes would have had too much speed and workrate for Lewis, but it would have been a close one.

too much is made of Lewis' size, there were guys Lewis' size back in the 1950's, and little guys like Marciano made mincemeat of them. Not saying the Rock would have beaten Lewis, because I don't think he would have.

The Ali who fought Liston yeah would beat Lewis but not the Ali who fought Foreman.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2006, 09:41

Terence wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Terence wrote: I totally disagree James, Douglas was looking at the ref and rose to the count that was toiled in front of him, he looked like he could rise earlier but did the right thing in going off the ref.

I think with Tyson people talk about the bursts of speed and the combo's but that peek-a-boo style in inherantly flawed and can only be good for a year or two. Your guard is far too tight and unless you can affect constant bobbing you are going to block your own vision and have to wind-up on every shot, especially a hooker like Tyson. People talk about the Tyson destruction of Biggs but watching the fight recently I was struck by how many lead left-uppercuts and left-hooks Biggs pinged Tyson with. Even in that fight Tyson had that same flaw he always had, he'd drop his left or right to his waist depending on what hand he led with. I watched Tyson-Ferguson the other night as well and Tyson was again pretty conservative when the initial rush had faded. He just marched into clinch after clinch and crowd pressure did for Jesse. Main thing about Tyson is that people are incapable of seeing the pattern in his losses. Tyson comes out fast and blazes, his foe blazes back and Tyson backs up and does that little "gee myself up skip" then walks into clinch after clinch, gets cut, goes down and gets battered. If the pattern is in every fight I think it must be his fighters flaw.

In Lewis-Tyson Mike came out firing in round 1 and Lewis caught him with an uppercut and a straight right, Mike did not want to know after that. He is your dictionary flat track bully and at any age and in any arena I'd fancy the calmness and confidence of Lewis to intimidate Mike, who seemed to find guys like Lennox and Evander (hardly "street" guys) very imtimidating due to their confident air. I actually like Mike as a man, as a fighter I do not rate him at all and know that is near sacrilige in boxing but I think history will vindicate that, the man could not respond to a challenge and that is what sportsmen, great ones anyway, must do.
I'm not a big Mike Tyson fan either, but I see his flaws and talents in equal measure.

I've watched the Tyson v Douglas fight several times recently, and I can say with great confidence (only my opinion of course) that Douglas was completely fucked. He looked like he was wading through Mollases when he rose, and barely made it to his feet at 9 1/2 of the ref's count, despite having 15 seconds to get up.]

I know that Tyson could be halted in his tracks, but Lewis wasn't that kind of fighter who liked to meet an onrushing opponent head on, he liked to bust people up from distance. Holyfield was able to win because he was always an excellent inside fighter (something Mike certainly wasn't), and just met him like a Bull. Douglas threw tonnes of leather from the outside and showed great mobility and workrate to break Tyson down, but it took a lot of work to establish and keep the other hand and even then he had to survive an almighty scare.

Tyson was a decent champ, but his peak was too brief to be one of the very best heavyweight champs, but in retrospect this is true of most heavyweight champs, few were dominant for long. People rave about Frazier, but his peak was brief, and he is given far too much credit for his fights with Ali. That was an example of two mens' styles conspiring to produce great fights, bit like Bowe and Holyfield 1 and 2.

Lewis had some big technical flaws early in his career, which I think the well oiled version of Mike would have found and exploited. Lewis was really much better in his early 30's, but by then, Tyson was pretty much done.
We'll have to agree to differ on the Douglas thing as I recall him being as clear as you can be after being dumped, I wouldn't put my life in it though, although he fought back well.

I feel that whilst it is true Lewis did not meet guys head-on his jab did and prime or no prime once a guy lets Mike know he is there to fight it is all over bar the spanking. Inside or out if you let Tyson know you are there for a fight early on he cannot take it and only once do I recall him meteing out his own punishment (versus Ruddock who was a fairly average heavyweight with a solid dig). For all his early flaws Lewis had a good jab and used his bulk well, he could move as well and that spells disaster for Tyson.

I do concede though the pre-McCall Lewis had stylistic problems but I just feel that the fact they knew one another and Tyson knew Lewis had a strong mental backdrop would favour Lennie. I think that even back then Lewis was smart and Tyson is always a defeat waiting to happen. Tim Witherspoon, fit and firing, would have beaten the hell out of Tyson.

I'd loved to have seen Tyson-Liston and did a dream fight on it recently, I modelled it on Liston-Williams. I'd lean for Liston as when Tyson commits to throw he does drop his guard and I cannot see past that Liston jab busting Tyson up and taking him out. Liston had much underrated balance early-on, against Patterson his balance was sublime, best I've ever seen when delivering hooks and uppercuts. Plus Floyd was no mug, to KO him the 2nd time with only 4 seconds more elapsed (plus don't forget Floyd took two counts or maybe three in fight II) is a grand achievement. Pity Liston was far better as a young, hungry challendge than a title holder.

I've got Liston-Williams II knocking around somewhere if you want me to mail it to you, do you live in the UK?

That would be fantastic terrence me old china, yeah I'm in London, I'll PM my address.

Agree on Tyson v Liston, Tyson would have shit his pants when Liston glared at him as they touched gloves.....nobody except Ali could have outintimidated Liston. Tyson's intimidary looks were borne out of a deep seated fear, whereas Liston was the real McCoy, a hard hard man from the bowels of poverty and squalor.

As for whoever said Larry wasn't that physically strong, it's not about physical strength, the guy had underrated power and a very nice repetoire of shots, as well as what is probably the best jab in the history of the division (faster than Liston's, harder than Ali's), tremendous workrate, stamina, a good fighting brain and the best powers of recovery I've ever seen in a heavyweight.