Guys arguing whether Lewis was "technically" in his prime. LOL I don't usually agree with Foreman/Dempsey often, but he's right on this one. True, Lewis was a few years past his prime, but Tyson was WAY past his prime and had degraded much more from his prime than Lewis had from his. It doesn't automatically mean Tyson would win prime v. prime, but there was scarce resemblance between prime Tyson and the Tyson who fought Lewis. At the same time, Lewis still bore some resemblance to his prime form. Lewis was past prime, but not far removed from it. Tyson was shot.
Agreed. I think style differences play a roll in terms of when a fighters prime is. Historically swarmers don't last beyond 31-32, where as boxer/punchers have a longer shelf life. But the sheer size difference would always make this a tough fight for Tyson. If he can land cleanly to Lewis' chin a few times he could win, but otherwise I think it would be a long night for him. I don't recall anyone hitting Tyson with the types of upper cuts Lewis landed, with the possible exception of Ruddock who threw it from a different angle and it never had the same impact as a Lewis uppercut. Then again, Tyson's speed could call all kinds of problems for Lewis. Like I said, hard fight to call. Posters who predict an outcome with certainty are a complete waste of time, cause it's far from certain who would win this fight.
Got to disagree there Van. Tyson ( in his so called prime ) was 30% ability and 70% intimidation, which was a deliberate tactic employed by everyone around him from Old Tomato, through Atlas and Rooney, to the humblest of sparring partners, and Lewis could NEVER be intimidated by Tyson. Some guys simply can't be intimidated and along with Douglas, and Holy, Lewis is one of them. All 3 of those guys had respect for Tyson's power, but absolutely no fear of him whatsoever.
No argument from me, but that still doesn't mean Lewis couldn't get caught with someone he didn't see coming and having a repeat of a McCall like outcome. Basically, I'm a huge Lewis fan and I think he partly (mostly) lost to Rahman in the first fight, because he didn't acclimate properly. But against McCall he was simply hit with a punch he never saw, and if Tyson does the same thing, I expect that the outcome would be similar. And as much as I like Lewis, and think he's a better heavyweight than Holyfield, when it comes only to chins, I give the edge to Holyfield by a fair amount. That's what makes this a close fight in terms of predicting an outcome. And as for Douglas, he was down in the fight, and it's hard to say if a prime in shape Tyson would have hit him hard enough to keep him down, or would have followed up and finished him off after he beat the count, or would have still have lost. This is an open question.
1. I think he lost to Rahman due to arrogance, in the sense he didn't even train properly because he was too busy making some stupid film in Las Vegas with those Hollywood muppets. 2. You are right he did get caught with a shot he didn't see coming against McCall, but was up at 6 and it is debatable whether or not he could have carried on if the ref had given him as long as they do other fighters with the asking of questions and wiping of gloves, but when the lowlife King is desperate to get his hands back on the title refs can be intimidated. It should also be remembered both Rahman and McCall were 6' 2" + guys with more than 80" wingspans, a bit different to the 5' 11" stumpy armed Tyson. 3. As for Douglas being down, he was in total control and was more angry with himself for getting caught the way he was, rather than actually being hurt, IMHO.
True about everything you said. But I really don't think the version of Tyson that Douglas fought was him well trained and in his prime. Few fighters, Duran included, have careers where they step into the ring 100% prepared, and it's pretty hard to argue that this was the best version of Tyson we've all seen. A prime, in shape, Tyson may very well have won that fight. Truth is, it's hard to say.
I have to say I mostly agree with you, but to me it just showed Tyson had no ability to adapt. I simply don't buy that a 23 year old kid was not in his physical prime, rather he just thought all he had to do was train to the minimum, turn up hit the guy and it would be all over. After all that is exactly what he had been doing up until Douglas. I would NEVER accept he trained any more or less for Buster than he did for Spinks, Bruno, and Williams.
If this is your position then you shouldn't be agreeing with Foreman/Dempsey as he maintains that Lewis was " absolutely in his prime." This is preposterous.. He was 36 years old, only fought once in over a years time, showing up at higher and higher weights, had been recently sparked by Rahman and was in the last 1-2 fights of his career. Sure he avenged the Rahman defeat, but the fact that he lost the first time around showed that the light was starting to flicker.. I don't know how any of the above can translate to anyone being prime or anywhere near it. As per your comment about Tyson being even "further" past his best than Lewis, THAT I can agree with and have always upheld the same opinion.
Don't know the answer to your last question, but I don't 100% buy the argument that: a) this was the best version of Tyson and because it was.. b) Lewis would have had a similar outcome. Certainly if point "a" is true, then point "b" makes sense, but if it's not than it doesn't. Personally I'd like to think that in their primes Lewis would win, but truthfully I honestly don't know.
I firmly believe that the version of Tyson who lost to Douglas was the same version as the one who had KO'd his previous 6 opponents in a combined 20 rounds. I don't buy the nonsense that he suddenly went down hill after Rooney left, because there must have been friction in the camp between the 2 for some time which resulted in Tyson sacking him. Yet he was still knocking guys over in short time. And yes I do honestly believe a prime Lewis beats that version of Tyson, or indeed any version from 87 onwards. Waits for some Tyson fan boy to jump into the discussion with " poor little Mikey's prime was only 85 - 86 "
