Lennox Lewis vs Mike Tyson, prime for prime, who wins?

I believe it does. Look what Charles Manson did to those pretty innocent women.
I think a strong force in your corner can bring a fighter to levels he never thought he could achieve. Tyson was brainwashed into thinking he was untouchable if he did things a certain way.

 

Tyson won all those fights and showed the character to get through them without fouling out or giving up. I think Tyson would have probably lost some of those fights post Rooney.

 

So "frustrated" against Bonecrusher, that he clearly won the first 11 rounds, with Smith only taking the 12th with one titanic flush bomb?
Bonecrusher was constantly clinching like a ***** between the viscious explosions of aggression in his face by Tyson & should have had points deducted, but the referee was incomptetent. Problem for Smith was, he is slow as molasses, so he felt helpless & unable to get off punches, against the lightning explosive speed of Mike.

Teenage Tyson was very green with few rounds under his belt, had no proper experience & only 19 years old in the other two fights you listed, yet I saw no "frustation" against Jameson, & the Ferguson fight was a decent performance for the teen too, between the ridiculous amount of Hugging by Jesse who was desperate to just survive.

Could one not argue Lennox was perhaps frustrated against Mavrovic or Bruno?
How about Dempsey against Sharkey & Meehan?

 

I dont think any fighter of Tyson's style could sustain that activity through the course of a long fight. Tyson brought a lot of pressure early but the pressure took a lot out of his opponent as well so it made both guys resort to a slower pace.

Tyson was a brawler, his plan B was to resort to a slower paced clinch filled fight, but I dont think Tyson fufilled his full potential or progressed much further past the Tubbs fight in ability. We never saw that version of Tyson against an elite opponent to see how they would react to that early pressure. Elite fighters usually fight back, so a guy like Lewis or Holyfield could have very well gone the way of Mike Spinks, who knows?

I dont think a fighters fortitude should be defined on his ability to turn a losing fight. I think Tyson was involved in tough fights throughout his career, I just think he had better answers at certain points but those answers for the most part were defensive or settling into going the distance, not giving up and getting impailed on the outside.

 

I actually think Peak Tyson had a great "plan B" against Peak Tucker:

After difficulty in the initial 3 rounds, while using his typical skillful brawling, Mike decided to instead elusively zip in & out with his fast feet & shotgun jab for the remaining 9 rounds, i was impressed at that adaptation to adversity.

 

Bull****. :nono
Lets have a look at some of my definitions of fighters Peaks:


Mike Tyson: '86 Berbick to '88 Spinks (8 fights)

Evander Holyfield: '90 Buster to '93 Bowe II (7 fights)

Joe Frazier: '68 Mathis to '71 Ali (8 fights)

Lennox Lewis: '97 McCall II to '00 Tua (10 fights)

Muhammad Ali: '65 Patterson to '67 Folley (8 fights)

George Foreman: '73 Frazier to '74 Ali (4 fights)


Where is the problem? :think

 

It was becoming clear that Tyson had to find an answer to clinchers. I think the body head combo was becoming more prominent in Tyson's arsenal because of it. I used the Tubbs fight as an example, because Tyson fought well both inside and out. As I said, I dont think we saw the best of Tyson and I think he could have done more on the inside against both Tucker and Smith.

 

So I suppose that every fighter that gets outclassed by another fighter who is in the same class is a game quitter.

Patterson is such a quitter because he got beaten up by Liston twice and did nothing to get back into the fight.

Felix Trinidad was a game quitter against Bernard Hopkins because he couldn't turn the tide.

Joe Frazier is such a game quitter because he kept going down so he wouldn't keep getting hit by Foreman.

( just in case some posters don't understand I'm using sarcasm to illustrate a point.)

People make much of the Ruddock fight because:

1. Ruddock has 1 punch KO power which is enough to put any fighter away including Mike Tyson if he lands enough; after all he hit harder than both Holyfield and Douglas not to mention he landed plenty.

2. Ruddock was still there. Tyson landed some monster punches in both fights and Ruddock showed that he was determined and wasn't going away. This debunks the myth that Tyson can have early success in a fight and somehow lose it as the rounds wore on simply because he's met with an opponent who won't back down.

Every fighter gets discouraged at some point but great fighters like Tyson show that when he was still a force, even if he gets discouraged (bar Holyfield 2) he'll continue to fight on.

Against Douglas: Round 8 is evidence of it. He was looking for a way to turn things around. Right before the end of the round he lands an uppercut but it grazed Douglas; Buster sort of fell into Tyson against the ropes.

At 2:40 you can see that he's looking for it, at 2:43 he lands the first right uppercut but it wasn't as flush as he needed it to be. He has the look of someone who finally found his cheat sheet to his final exam and is racing against the clock. There was almost a look of relief on his face during this sequence almost as though he finally exploited an opening in Buster's offense. At 2:50 he lands it and down goes Buster.

The next round he comes out. Aggressive but spent. Tyson may have performed well in other fights but I can't think of other fights where he fought with more desire than he did in this round. He was on shaky legs limited vision and facing a guy who that night fought like the better fighter. At 5:37 he looked for it again (right uppercut) it wasn't there and he was punished for looking. There was no quit in him; he desperately wanted to keep his belts and his undefeated record. Even when he was knocked down, he reached for his mouthpiece and tried to get up and fight as opposed to just laying there like a game quitter.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KNuAVivQkU&playnext=1&list=PLC1209FC20870BBD9&index=44[/ame]

2. Holyfield I

Watch round 10, it starts at 1:59. The first 2:30 of the round is all Tyson before Holyfield catches him coming in. He didn't have the conditioning necessary to pull the turn. But when you watch it, you can see that he was still fighting as hard as his conditioning and ability would allow him to. I don't think anyone can say that after watching this round that the sentiment of the fight was Tyson was a game loser. He certainly didn't fight like it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEM94qAEX4&NR=1[/ame]

3. Botha. No need to post anything.


The point is with Tyson his losses are not treated as his opponents wins' rather they are treated like Tyson's loss. In his losses he's a "game loser" and in his win's his opponent was scared.

You're asking Frazier would have fallen apart or Armstrong?

Well if Frazier was the same position as Tyson was in to the extent that both Holyfield and Douglas enjoyed similar success against him in their respective fights I don't see how he would have done anything different if he was in the position that he is well behind on cards in a fight where he's taking a beating. Franky I don't think Frazier could have withstood the punishment Buster dished out. (I think Frazier beats Douglas, but if Douglas was landing flush on Frazier the same way he was against Tyson I don't see Frazier taking that kind of punishment for 10 rounds if he came in under the same conditions that Mike was in).


In boxing or sports Heart is overcoming your shortcomings to the best of your ability. It doesn't mean getting off the floor to win a fight or turning the tide late in a fight ala Joe Louis vs Conn.

 

What about Frazier against Ali?
Holyfield against Bowe?

Both fighters demonstrated the ability to beat their opponent in their trilogies but failed 2 out 3 times. The point I'm making is that Tyson's shortcomings is not mental but is due largely to his professionalism and dedication to the sport not to mention his adversaries ability to carry out a coherent game plan that he was unable to adjust to. Notice most Tyson fights where he loses, he usually faces problems early in the fight. Lack of advice and perhaps ring IQ has prevented him from mounting a successful triumph in most cases even though he continues to fight hard.

Lewis was KO'd twice against inferior opponents who he dominated in the rematch on both occasions. People chalk it up to a lack of professionalism on Lewis's part. Tyson has a better chin, so something like that isn't going to happen to him so in all probability showing up unprepared against an opponent who is on top of their game can lead to situations where he either KO's his opponent as result of his own power (Bruno & Williams) or is beaten up over the course of a long fight.

Holyfield I & Douglas proves that Tyson has the mental fortitude to keep trying when things don't go his way but in both situations his out of the ring activities and his inept corner contributed to his inability to change strategy.

Botha showed what happens when you have a solid corner. Granted Tyson's power bailed him out but it was Brooks that steered him back so that he can be in a position to land that.

I wasn't just addressing you just the resident Tyson haters.