Here's another funny thing about Tyson threads. People always say his "prime" was from 86 to 88 or 89. They fail to mention that having a 2 to 3 year prime is pathetic, that Tyson beat up on mostly scrubs and decent fighters during this period, and that Tyson was only 23 years old in 1989. It's ridiculous. "Prime" unstoppable Tyson's best win was against a blown up LHW. The closest thing Tyson ever faced to Lewis during his prime was Buster Douglas. Oh wait I forget, Tyson was no longer in his "prime" when he fought Douglas at the age of 23.
Tyson had close to 40 fights in that "pathetic" time period. Whats the difference of fighting 40 fights in 5 years or 40 fights in 10 years??
I disagree with several points. First of all, I don't think Tyson was an incredibly good infighter..mid range yes. Speed, he had it in spades, combos, yup he was good, power, good but not as good as Lewis', but he makes up for it by throwing combos. Good head movement yup. but not a terribly great infighter. Secondly I think Lewis is and always has been, significantly stronger than Tyson and would be able to tie him up in the clinches. Thirdly, Lewis has an uppercut which dropped Grant like a tree, and hurt Tyson repeatedly when they fought. It was Tyson who was hurt in the first round of their fight, not Lewis, and it was due to uppercuts. Lewis' uppercut which would be his best weapon, isn't even mentioned in your analysis. Personally, what I think would happen is that if Tyson came forward, Lewis would back up, throw over hand rights, then uppercuts and then tried to hold Tyson and lean on him. He would attempt to do this repeatedly, until this wore Tyson out. I'm not saying he could do it, I don't know, but he would try. He would also jab a lot and try to control the distance between the two of them. His power, might allow him to do this.
*sigh* This is my last response to you, codeman. At least regarding this topic and given your current "hissiness." I actually have work to get done. #1 - I don't have to swear to make my points. That's part of what being a good writer/talker is. I don't mind swearing, but I don't have to swear. #2 - You're missing my usage of the term "insinuate." I don't really feel the need to explain it to a guy who looked it up to try (unsuccessfully) to score a 'technical point' against me. #3 - A pictorial representation of where we are now, as a forum community, vis-a-vis the relative arguments/writing/reasoning ability/lack-of-throwing "hissy fits" for paulfv 'vs' codeman: This content is protected codeman, that's 'you' being waved over by the ref. And, as in the picture, the figurative ESB ref has waved over you to indicate he is stopping the 'contest' for your own good (and for the good of the community, and for the good of the 'victor's' time constraints). In the picture, 'I' am off-camera with arms held aloft over my headgear. Peace, y'all, and I'm outta here! :good :thumbsup :good
Ref, I see your services are needed again, to signal's lefthook's triumph. If you would... This content is protected Thanks, ref!
Tyson beat alot of good fighters in his day they weren't great but they were good and Bruno . Holmes, Spinks and Tucker were better than Douglas and mike handled them, prime for prime its hard to pick a winner but when they fought every body saw a good version of Lewis against a shot version of Tyson.
losing to the douglas of tokyo (who mind you, would have lost to most of the ATGs including lennox) is not nearly as much of a laughing matter as losing to mcall or rahman. douglas was legimately very talented, skilled, and accomplished (KO'd several guys with the jab). this was a near his prime mike tyson but i feel if he had better guidance (all this means is someone tells him to work the body rather than headhunt!) he wouldn't have lost that fight. you can talk about the losses after lewis but even the haters won't deny this wasn't even a shell of tyson. oh well. still, not a good topic to bring up - if you're a LEWIS fan.
Lennox was an incomparably SUPERIOR fighter overall to those fighters, yes. But in terms of durability, he is right, those guys were better. Lewis is more durable than given credit for, his record shows, but those guys were granite chinned. Green & Tucker took beatings in those fights, ran, and survived to make Tyson work full time only because of GRANITE chin. Ruddock had amazing recuperative ability - something Lennox could have used in 2001. Do you realize this guy ALWAYS got up, ready to continue against guys like Lewis, Tyson, Morrison, Smith, etc...! Lewis was NOT tougher than those guys - but he was obviously far GREATER. This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
Very good post. The point of my post isn't to suggest Lewis would win, I honestly don't know who would win, but rather to suggest it could go either way and why Lewis has a reasonable chance of winning. Tyson's chances speak for themselves,
Tyson not a good infighter?? Are you kidding? 90% of his Ko's in his prime were from the inside. He had short stubby arms, and was able to get a lot of leverage on his punches on the inside. Tyson faced some really quick fighters that moved around well. He wouldnt have been hit as cleanly as he was when he fought Lewis far past his best. Tyson rarely took a clean shot during his prime because of his quickness and head movement. When he did, he showed a really good chin. A determined Tyson using his head movement and good jab to get inside would give Lewis a really tough time. So many people only remember the Tyson that came out of prision who wasnt half the fighter he was in his title reign years, but back then Tyson was a complete fighter, with devastating power and speed, and when he hurt his opponent he finished them. I remember the Lewis that was a fighter before the Mercer fight, and that lewis wouldnt have stood a chance against any version of Tyson. Lewis under Steward progressed as quickly as Tyson regressed once his team was no longer.
I suggest you read Hobgoblin's posts, this pretty much mirrors my thoughts on his abilities. If someone held him, he wouldn't break free, he allowed himself to be punshed back pretty easily, etc. He was hell on wheel's trying to get inside, and he hurt people in the process, but he wasn't one to break free of a hold and start wailing away. And you still haven't addressed Lewis' upper cut. Nor Lewis' superior strength. Basically you've done a one sided analysis and then formed your opinion, which is no doubt carved in stone. And I'm in my 40's, so not to worry, I've seen Tyson at his best, and at his best he was awesome, but I still don't buy into the myth that he was unbeatable. I believe that Ali, Lewis, perhaps Holyfield, Foreman and Liston, all could have potentially beaten him. Some would add Holmes to this list, but I don't think Holmes had the power. Basically you either have to be able to counter him, (Holyfield), outspeed and out think him (Ali), or hurt him (Foreman, Liston, Lewis). Lewis might also be able to control distance on him, which is a key component to beating him. I'm not saying these guys would beat him, but they would likely have the best chance.
I love Tyson but he SUCKED as an infighter. A fighter could EASILY clinch him and then Tyson would do NOTHING but wait for the referee to break the two. Douglas beat Tyson BIG TIME on the inside (a good chunk of the reason for his success) just as much as he did on the outside. Watch the Tokyo fight again and see how many times Douglas lands 3 punch combinations on the inside. Same thing with Holyfield - Holyfield made it an INSIDE fight and absolutely SMOTHERED Tyson. A good infighter would have welcomed that but Tyson was terrible on the inside. At the least, he didn't have the common sense to ACTUALLY fight on the inside - Holy made it an inside game and Tyson showed success when he actually did SOMETHING on the inside in round 5. Tyson at his best was a MID RANGE fighter - this is where he got most of his KOs. SMITH made him passive. If Tyson was even a DECENT infighter - his chance of having lost to Doulgas & Holy would have decreased tremendously. Great midrange fighter - HORRIBLE inside fighter. He did NOTHING. He gets a 0, an F. His POTENTIAL as infighter was COMPLETELY different. What he ACTUALLY did even at HIS BEST - was ZILCH. EVEN PETER MCNEELEY PUSHED HIM BACK! Was it because McNeeley was stronger? NO! Because Tyson did NOTHING.
What the hell r u talking about? Tyson knocked Mcneeley down in like 1.2 seconds of the first round ... yes, on inside. Tyson was a good inside fighter. Where do you think those body shots and uppercut came from? I can think of several of his KO's that were on the inside (Mathis, Ferguson, Berbick, etc).