Tyson- What if?

So now we're counting the Bruno and Carl Williams fights, and of course not the Douglas fight. Interesting... and of course, we are now including post prison? That's obviously going to change things a little. I don't think anyone argues Ali wasn't worse or the same after 3+ years away from boxing. Thanks for inadvertently agreeing with us. I'm a Tyson fan, by the way.

 

I dont get your point. He only had 7 fights after Spinks and leaving Rooney before going to jail. Isnt that what were talking about?? Are you thinking he faced those fighters after prison? He did fight Bruno again, but I was pointing out the fights after he left Rooney and before he was incarcerated.

 

Tyson was to Mentally weak. He couldnt handle success and couldnt handle it when a fighter had his number i.e Holyfield and showed what happened when he was under pressure by biting and getting himself disqualified.

 

What's "not right" is that he was fundamentally a one-dimensional fighter all along (as you yourself described him) with a limited ability to alter or expand his style as his career progressed and he faced new opponents with an increasingly better idea of how to approach his one style.

Besides, as has already been shown, his championship career often alternated impressive performances with ones "not considered the greatest," so that in itself wasn't exactly a new sight anyway.

Just because he can beat fighters of a certain level doesn't mean he will beat every fighter of that level. Look at Tszyu in his losses, Forrest against Mayorga, or Barrera against Jr. Jones, as just a few examples - must all of them have been on the decline too just because they lost to fighters of a level they proved they can beat? Fighters of the same level still have their own individual styles and strengths, and certain fighters just have others' number.

He had beaten guys better than McCall or Bruno before that without much trouble either. Moreover, he did indeed have plenty of "shaky moments" under Steward too, such as against Briggs and Mavrovic (and later Vitali) in addition to Mercer. Your analysis also overlooks the fact that Lennox's 14-fight streak was ended by a KO loss arguably even more embarrassing than the one to McCall. There was never a time in Lewis' career when he performed consistently against any level of opponent, and he was embarrassingly KO'd under Steward just as he had been before him.

 

Your first statement says it all. Having a style like Tyson's is the biggest reason why he had to be perfect with the very things Im describing about his style. Head movement, defense, combinations, and consistentcy, and it does make a difference when you have 37 consecutive victories in a row of doing it a certain way. Same goes for Lewis. It certainly means your more successful doing things one way rather than another.
What fighters did Lewis beat that were better than Bruno and Mcall before RUddock?:huh
Vitali was his last fight, and hardly a factor in my point, just like Tysons post prison career.
His fight with Mavrovic? Getting outboxed for the majority of a fight hardly compares to beating a guy every round.
You should have been Lewis advisor, you would have saved him a ton of money not going to Emanuel Steward, he must have brain washed Lewis into thinking without him he would have been nothing. atsch
Do you honestly believe trainers are nonfactors for fighters especially on the championship level? How do they develop their skills?

 

But he often wasn't perfect with those things even during those 37 wins (or 35, if you're only counting up to the Spinks fight), as has been shown. The only reason that's overlooked or excused is because he generally won decisively anyway, and no one's looking to make the case that he was "on the decline" a few fights after any of those fights. In a nutshell, this image of a "perfect Tyson" that you project seldom, if ever appeared at any stage of his career.

Moreover, referring to the point you made about Lewis, the majority of those 37 fights were not after reaching the championship level either. He only had about 8 fights from Berbick to Spinks, and at least 3 of those were generally considered just so-so performances.

I didn't say there was necessarily anyone better before Ruddock. I meant Ruddock was a far bigger fight than either of those, and Tucker probably was too (bigger than McCall certainly).

Well Lewis was certainly something before Manny, and Manny apparently brainwashed him into thinking he could simply walk wide open into Rahman and win in South Africa...

I didn't say they were necessarily "nonfactors". However in this case, Tyson's style still differed little, if at all between the Spinks and Douglas fights regardless of the trainer (which is the main point here), and Lewis was still inconsistent and sloppy even under Steward (which is irrelevant to this discussion).

 

Thats just it, he was closer to perfect, thats why he never lost against that caliber of opponent or was as sloppy and easy to hit. I know you dont see a difference, and I think thats where this arguement is hung up and probably where we should leave it.

Same with Lewis. I think Lewis lost to Rahman because he was also underprepared not focused and got away from the things he was doing, thats why in the rematch, with the very same trainer in his corner, he was able to make such a bold statement that Rahman was not a better fighter than he was.

I respect your opinion M2Sense and I think you're one of the better posters on here, but I just cant judge a fighter on his overall body of work on paper. There are too many factors that can contribute to a fighters improvements or declines. I fighter doesnt have to be like Tyson was against Kevin McBride to be shot or incapable of consistently performing on the championship level, and there are many factors that contribute to it.