Holyfield Predicted Tyson To Beat Lewis In 2002

He KTFO Both in 1997.
I think Tyson himself was respoinsible for that, While Lennox was cleaning out the division, Tyson was having his circus act fights with the Norris, the Savarese and Nielsens. By this time Lennox was intent on securing his legacy whereas Mike was....well i dunno what he was thinking.

The Brooks trained Tyson with the short dreads may have put up a better fight than he fat bald whale in 2003

Brooks himself said he knew tyson hadnt trained for the Lewis fight, because at the press conference fight, when Tyson threw the left hook against the bodyguard.....he missed.


Lewis timed it right when they did fight. However Tyson said he did want a couple of more fights to get into shape. Now he could be telling the truth here because he looked shite against Neilson, or he was lying because he was scared of Lewis and eventually fought him because he was backed into a corner.....

 

no amount of training would have sorted that out, lack of coordination = shot.

tyson had no control over his career post-prison, and if he was scared of anyone it was of his own shadow. i see his career post-holyfield as a footnote.

 

He DID beat Golota who beat Bowe. And thats about it really.

He simply didnt care anymore because he knew he didnt have it anymore. The Holyfield fights not only proved that to us, but to Tyson himself. If he couldnt beat "old and shot" Holyfield he may as well give it up (which is what he did)

 

agreed. holyfield>tyson>lewis.

 

Holyfield+Tyson> Lewis. :good

Holyfield> Tyson :think

 

yeah i know it's close, difficult choice. arguments could be made for either. pound for pound obviously holyfield though.

 

Its hard to judge Tyson 2bh.

Lennox did everything you could ask for, dominated his era, avenged his losses etc

Holyfield consatntly beat the odds and beat some top names.

We saw a glimpse of Tyson at his best from 86-88, then he flushed that down the toilet. From his 20 year career....he only spent 3 years at his best (85-88 after that it was all downhill.

Alot of people make it out like Tyson was crap all along and he then got exposed by better fighters. This isnt really the case her, he was a totally different animal in 88 to what he was in 90, he fought holyfield after 3 years in prison and then fought Lennox 15 years past his best...its hard to rate a guy like that.

Its his own fault at the end of the day

 

yeah a lot of factors need to be taken into account. i tend to look at top wins and depth of wins. holyfield is better than the other two in both of these departments, and i think it's competitive between lewis and tyson. i just feel that tyson cleaned out the division in a very non-discriminatory manner, going 37-0 over a five year period. i always felt that lewis thought a great deal about who to fight next, and even then, he got caught out by rahman. tyson lost his lineal title gallantly against douglas - he took a real beating from an inspired opponent (there was nothing inspired about rahman even on his best day). for my money, tyson was a greter 'champion' than lewis.

 

I agree. Holyfields resume is just awesome.

Tyson and Lewis both ruled their divisions.
Both had some stinky boring fights.
However Tyson looked unbeatable and he was crushing all opposition. Both lost to journeymen they shouldnt have lost to
However Lewis got to avenge his losses, whereas Tyson never got a chance to get his hands on Douglas (Who lost to Holyfield and then later lost to Savarese) he also went into prison in what would have been his most important years legacy wise. (Holyfield, Moorer, Bowe, Lewis, Foreman, Morrison)
Lewis finished his career on top.
Tyson finished his career with lots of question marks and failed potential.

However Tyson underestimated DOuglas, he didnt train and showed up out of shape. He also wasnt KTFO by one single punch. Id give the edge to Tyson.

 

avenging losses doesn't really do it for me in and of itself. if tyson had knocked out douglas in a rematch in a single round, would it have enhanced his legacy? not overly. it can sometimes be good to avenge a close loss, especially if it was a controversial decision (like louis walcott or recently martinez williams), but douglas was so clearly a one fight wonder.

lewis got sparked out, and no number of avenged losses can change that. also, things like 'finishing your career on top' does nothing for me. if lewis had fought when he was shot and racked up losses, it wouldn't affect his legacy (just like i don't think holyfield's legacy is being tainted now).

 

I agree with you. But you have to admit...Tysons whole career is constantly questioned due to the Douglas loss. Im not saying this, this is just the general consensus. Ive always regarded it as a fluke loss, but others see it as Tyson got exposed etc etc.

If he had beat Douglas in a rematch, that would shut up about 90% of Tyson critics

 

oh right is that the consensus? fair enough! i just thought it was pretty obvious that douglas was experiencing a one-off level of form.

tyson was getting exposed, if by exposed you mean smacked square in the face repeatedly, ever since he stopped bobbing a weaving (post-spinks). he was still winning fights because of his chin and power. against douglas he met someone whose chin, power, and punch output were greater than his (on that night). met his match? yes. exposed? no.

it would shut people up, but for the wrong reasons. tyson beating douglas in a rematch would have meant little, as the first fight was a remarkable one-off. does anyone doubt that tyson would have beaten douglas in 1991? or even a couple of months later! it's hardly foreman/frazier-esque, which would have ended the same way no matter what. now that's getting exposed.

 

I agree, but Douglas would've needed to be in-shape for the rematch, if he came in the shape he did for Holy, people would say he could only beat a fat Buster.

 

[/quote] it would shut people up, but for the wrong reasons. tyson beating douglas in a rematch would have meant little, as the first fight was a remarkable one-off. does anyone doubt that tyson would have beaten douglas in 1991? or even a couple of months later! it's hardly foreman/frazier-esque, which would have ended the same way no matter what. now that's getting exposed.[/quote]

Youll be surprised to know, there are people on here who actually believe Douglas would beat Tyson everytime they fought. Just search around :good

 

Wishful thinking on Holyfield's part.

Holyfield had just beat Rahman and was in line for a shot at a title.
He'd come close to winning against Lewis the second time they had fought but the public had little interest in a third fight. Lewis had even less interest.

If Tyson had KO'd Lewis, Tyson-Holyfield 3 would have been a natural match-up and the biggest fight out there in financial terms.
And Holyfield would always find Tyson an easier opponent than Lewis.