Does Lewis get to little or to much credit for beating Holyfield and Tyson

The last think a fighter loses is his power, goes the truism. Tyson, for the final stage of his career, was as big a one shot puncher as he had ever been in his career. He hit Lewis with full leverage left hooks and didn't even budge him, because Lewis was expecting the shots and was prepared (set) for them.

Let's be honest here. People who crow on about Lewis's glass jaw fully expected Tyson to at least badly hurt Lewis when he landed with power shots. If that had happened then people would be saying stuff like "Tyson's still devastating" or "Tyson not as shot as we thought". Because, however, Lewis took the Tyson single shots and then proceeeded to methodically grind down Tyson in a competent but reasonably risk-free manner we now get the mantra that "Tyson was just a shell of his former self" and suchlike.

Before Lewis, Tyson's 6 fights after the 2nd Holyfield bout went an average of just over 3 rounds. After Lewis, Tyson knocked out Clifford Etienne in a single round. So the power and the ability to deliver it was still there, even if the rapid combinations of his youth were no longer evident. Yes Tyson was not the same fighter he was in 1988 but a shell? Hell no.

 

Well nobody reallywent to war with Foreman, or told the tale without their lumps if they did.

Tell me, are you of the opinion the fight with Foreman took something out of Holyfield career wise? It sure would not have been much IMO.

No arguement here, Holmes had to go thru hot water to beat a lot of guys Tyson could put away with ease.

Not sure on this one, interesting thought. Depends on the individual maybe, Tyson the KO artist had a smaller top span than Holmes, but due to mental reasons. Holmes had to wade thru a lot of water yet had superb longevity, as did Ali, a great example for me.

No arguement and i never said contrary, but i still rate Lewis better than Holyfield full stop.

 

I was in tune with the betting. I took 4 $50 bets off friends as i was a fan of Lewis and thought he would win, but i will say i was uneasy until it became apparent Lewis had the answers and was going to leave Tyson staring at the ceiling at some point.

 

I've been anxiously waiting for you and Dop to come to the party

:happy

 

Well if you want to say they were past it at 35 [Tyson] and 36 [Holyfield] you cant then talk as if the passage of more time since fighting Lewis didnt make any further difference to their performances. Tyson quit against McBride 3 years later at almost 39, Holyfield "beat" Ruiz in their first fight a year and 5 months later after the first Lewis fight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Agreed,

although John Thomas clearly believes that Holyfield was in his prime against Lewis.

 

Where did i say that? No need to get carried away mate lol. I'm just trying to get Lewis fair due for the win. The man could still fight some and anyone saying different is kidding themselves.

 

That's just an insane insinuation.

Quote where he said or even slightly suggested that Holyfield was in his prime against Lewis? If you provide it then i will shut up. For now.

He made the fair assesment that Holyfield was not at his best but still a very game, skillful warrior as he went the distance twice and went on to beat two top10 contenders after, he may even win a title again right now, a good 8 years later!

 

You're forgetting about the fact that he completely dominated the cruiserweight picture and faced Tillis, Thomas and Dokes as his forst three fights at a higher weight class. He could have just as easily started with someone like Bobby Crabtree. I disagree with you that Dokes looked like old man river from the waste down in that fight. This was quite possibly the best version of Dokes that I had ever seen.
I'll agree that Pinklon was past it, however I think its interesting how you point out when fighters are past their prime when it conveiniences you. Thomas was 30 years old against Holyfield. In a long ago debate, you tried to credit Thomas with beating Mike Weaver, even after I told you that he was 34 years old and hadn't beaten a ranked fighter in nearly 4 years, not to mention would lose in one round to J. Smith shortly after the Thomas fight. You were adamant about this being a quality win and pressed on. Bert Cooper, James Douglas and 100 year old Foreman were also much better wins than you're giving him credit for.

Holy was not even 100% for the Bowe trilogy. By November of 1992, Holyfield's activity in the ring had diminished to maybe 1 or 2 fights per year as opposed to his usual 3. He was 30 years old ( same age that Thomas was when Evander beat him. ) His most recent outing was a lackluster performance against Holmes, while Bowe was fighting every 2-3 months tearing up the division. Yet Evander managed to take Bowe 12 in the first fight, and defeat him in the second. In the third bout he had hepatitius A and was returning from a layoff. You can think whatever you want about Lewis, but personally I think Evander would beat any version of him when in his prime.

Oh but age along with wear and tear has nothing to do with anything. In that case, why don't we just say that Gerrie Coetzee was in his prime when Bruno lamblasted him one round.

Now that you've introduced me to this new found logic of yours, I must say that I kind of like it.

 

[/QUOTE]

Holyfield can go on fighting guys like Vinny Madelone uniil he's freakin 60 if he so chooses. It doesn't mean ****. Evander was shot against Lewis. No if's and's or but's about it. Anyone who says differently needs their head examined.

You boys from abroad should try watching more footage of American fighters before commenting on them. Christ the shits getting deep around here!!!

 

Wow, just...wow.

Tyson's last 6 fights before Lewis:

KO 5 Francois Botha:

Tyson was actually being outworked and perhaps even outpointed by Botha. Ferdie Pacheco commented that "this isn't even half of Tyson, not even half..." just before Tyson got saved by his power. I was mortified that Botha, in all honesty a mediocre fighter, was able to do so well against Tyson.

NC 1 Orlin Norris:

What could we glean from this fight? It lasted a round because Tyson hit him after the bell and Norris hurt his leg. Tyson always has a storming first round, but what about the 4th, 7th, the 10th....? We never found out.

KO 2 Julius Francis:

This was the slow, plodding journeyman type that Tyson always enjoyed feasting upon. Francis also looked scared to death in there and barely hit back. Tyson has been knocked in the past for fighting exactly this type of guy.

KO 1 Lou Savarese:

About the only time Tyson looked pretty good, but what sort of benchmark was Lou Savarese anyway? Again it ended early, so questions about Tyson'a ability later in fights were not answered here.

NC 3 Andrew Golota:

The only thing consistent with Golota was that he was a nut. He gets up off the floor and fights back, only to give up later. In any event, Tyson wasn't having it all his own way and Golota seemed to be getting back into it before he gave up.

KO7 Brian Nielsen:

The rather skilless and light-hitting Nielsen was basically a tough punch bag, and absorbed Tyson's punches before giving up. Tyson looked frustrated at his inability to finish Nielsen off.

So, in his last six fights, we have only two that lasted into the middle rounds (Botha and Nielsen) two finished inconclusively (Norris and Golota) and two finished early. (Savarese and Francis)

Of the two that lasted into the middle rounds, Tyson failed to convince in either. His opponents were light-hitting and although tough, were not expected to put up much of a fight.
Tyson's early KO's over Savarese and Francis proved nothing, because we always knew he could hit. What we wanted to see was a fight that stretched a few rounds and got Tyson some work. His quality of opponent left much to be desired here as well.

Norris and Golota were credible opponents, but Norris got injured and Golota quit. Sure, Tyson looked fairly good but again (and not wanting to sound like a stuck record) Tyson in the early rounds always looked good. His performance in the middle and later rounds was the million doller question that was not answered in either fight.

His performances here are consistent with what I've been saying all along: that Tyson at this point in his career was a good 2 or maybe 3 round fighter. In a fight that lasted more than 3 rounds, he failed to impress against even mediocre competition.

So, how does a guy that is about 16 pounds over his best weight and with a 3 round window of opportunity for a knockout (because there was no way in hell he could win on points and he was mediocre in the middle rounds as proven) be installed as only a 7-5 underdog?

We can talk about the "ifs" on Lewis, but what about the "ifs" on Tyson?

Tyson fans wanted to see Mike come back hungry and knock out legitimate opposition because we were sick of all the false dawns. We were tired of stories of Tyson's streetfights, of his dope habit, of his lack of fire in the gym...he was fighting sure, but against never-wases and has-beens and 19 rounds in 5 years and 6 fights doesn't equate to a whole lot of fighting time.

 

yeah I still at a lost why Tyson was favor over Lewis.

 

We need to get a sensible and realistic perspective on this statment. A shot fighter is generally regarded as a fighter who's skills and abilities in the ring have slipped so far that the fighter in question is a mere shadow of what he once was. I have to use my own eyes here, not being privy to the inner workings of Evander's camp, but the Holyfield I saw against Lewis looked lively and competitive. OK, he certainly wasn't prime but Holyfield still retained a good deal of his former ability and most importantly, his chin and ability to absorb heavy punishment.

One of the signs of a shot fighter is that a previously granite chin begins to let them down. Lennox Lewis is one of the biggest heavyweight punchers of the last 25 years, of all time in fact, yet he could not floor Holyfield, despite nailing him multiple times. Yet James Toney, a fighter who has not stopped any heavyweight opponent inside the distance Holyfield aside, rocks and floors Holyfield in round 9 of their fight. Is James Toney a bigger heavyweight puncher than Lennox Lewis? Of course not, by any definition it's nonsensical. The reason why Toney floored Holyfield and Lewis didn't was that the Holyfield that Toney faced was shot.

So to summarise...

The Evander Holyfield that Lennox Lewis faced was not shot. The Evander Holyfield that James Toney faced probably was.

 

Still waiting for that quote from JT where he said that Holyfield was in his prime against Lewis.


By the way, a "shot" fighter does not beat top10 ranked contenders.

You're being very negative in your assesement, i think.

Yes, Botha had won many if not all 4 of the first 4 rounds.
But Tyson delivered perhaps the most beautiful one-punch KO of his career despite looking sloppy and somewhat out of shape.

You can say Golota quit all you want, but you seem to ignore that Tyson getting through with good punches had everything to do with that.
And he did make it through the 6th round while scoring a stoppage, so he was a little bit more than a 3 round fighter.
I'm not saying that these fights sealed his legacy, but if anything, they demonstrated his still tremendous power and handspeed early on.


I mean, of course there were a lot of "if's" on Tyson, i never denied that. And it turned out that the if's were true: he was not what he used to be. But he did still have great power and handspeed for a few rounds and Lewis took them well.

And Tyson was not 234 lb for the fight. There was something wrong with the scales.

 

Well i'm just sticking by your statement, which is 88-91. You made the dates and you also made mention of "heavyweights" so i'm forgetting nothing. Everybody knows he dominated the cruisers and cleaned them out.

You're forgetting that a guy like Michael Spinks jumped all the way from 175 and took on the best Heavyweight in the world without a tuneup to speak of in the division. And beat him. No Babbsy Crabtree for him, or even a faded Dokes or shot Thomas or Tillis.

It was actually stated among experts that tho he looked great up top you could see by his legs that he was worn.

Lets be honest, there was not much to compete with for all the hype. Great talent but never took advantage of it. The best first career Dokes went life and death with a Weaver i reckon nipped it. I'll split with you here. The Dokes that fought Holyfield was likely the best Dokes we saw in that he was training properly and clean but unfortunately much of his talent had eroded due to both mental and physical wear and tear. This version gave us a glimpse of what Dokes may have been capable of had he only combined this level of committment before much of his talent had been squandered.

And you don't? Thomas was rooted when he fought Holy, no if's or buts. You guys make out Holy is shot in this thread, but this one is a far cry from no if's or buts.

And? How old is Lewis here vs Holyfield? 34? How about we say he was shot too if we are going by age?

How about we talk about convenience again, this time your way. Would you care to tell the good peeps about Weaver's little fight before this J.Smith fight you mention? The one right after the Thomas loss. You know the one, this guy was possibly the hottest prospect in the division and had given Holmes hell just before fighting Weaver.

Who's convenient now?

And i still am! Weaver showed that by absolutely poleaxing!!! Carl Williams next fight that he had still been a very dangerous opponent, even if past his best.

Which certainly helped his longevity! How do you know Holyfield wasn't 100%? Care to nominate a %? Personally i rate his Tyson win as easily his best victory ever. Tyson was still one very dangerous mofo and Holyfield put him to the sword. Because he was disappointing and lost a couple to Bowe we'll just put him over the hill.

You should know by now that age is a very variable figure when it comes to peaks and primes and the like. To even begin to compare Holyfield at 30 to Thomas is to lose ground.

Like Holyfield tore up the division 88-91 i bet

You make it sound like Holyfield winning 1 out of 3 was a fantastic achievement for him. Newsflash - it did more damage than good. Holyfield beating Tyson 2 out of 2 is much better than the trilogy here.

Yes, we've established that we disagree here.

You're clutching at straws again and taking things way out of proportion as you are wont to do.

Lets just say John Thomas "CLEARLY" believes Holyfield was in his prime against Lewis.

A lie.