Intimidation. Sonny Liston.

[Willie Pep 229]

All this bickering made me go watch Tyson-Lewis again.

Anyone know the back story as to why there was a human wall (security) between the fighters at the fight's start?

[billeau2]

The biggest measure is when it's proven in the ring. Tyson never beat a great fighter who was in his prime. The others did.

He was good head to head, but seeing the obvious that Lewis and Holyfield would always beat him doesn't make him a bum.



That would have been a good start but it would have taken years to develop.

He was a small heavyweight and in order to close the grappling gap he would have needed to be exceptionally strong in that department, not just average.

I don't blame Mike for this, I blame the overrated Cus. He should have worked on this from the start instead of throwing his hands up and having no answer.

I agree that competition is a measure of greatness, but if you go and look at who some of the ATG's fought at heavyweight you would find that many such fighters never fought great competition. This is something I have brought up before and seems a problem that haunts the heavy weight division particularly.

Joe Louis is an example, Dempsey to some degree, despite Tunney. Jack Johnson who fought primarily smaller men... So Tyson is not alone in this regard.

Holyfield and Lewis both fought really good competition. Holly did lose to a lot of those guys though, to be fair. You guys at your age have seen a lot of good fighters since that golden era of the 70's when the division was more stacked than Dolly parton in a skintight blouse! in my case, at 55 I was also "spoiled" watching fights like ali and FRazier, Foreman, even guys like Jimmy Young and Spinks had talent to spare. There was a rising tide that picked up all boats so to speak.

If I really wanted to argue the point I would say: Tunney and Spinks were two of the best light heavies ever to fight in the heavyweight division, and that Tyson, like Dempsey, beat a great fighter who was better as a light heavy, but was indeed a great fighter. Because if one looks at Dempsey's record he beat a lot of cagey, tested fighters with skills, guys like Gunboat and Fireman Flyn, but hardly ATG fighters. Tyson beat a lot of similar guys who had skills and could have been a lot better, but never arrived.

The grappling is a part of boxing that was neglected. Tyson could perhaps had been better in that department. Thing is nobody was considering the value of the inside game. Its a shame because its a range that can make a fighter great when trained properly. My understanding from what I can make of it? The more you go back the more the fighters were trained as grapplers. Corbett actually is on tape showing Tunney how to tie up a hand and smack the guy around with the other. The movement is very Ju Jutsu like, you trap the arm... gentlyand push towards the guy as you belt away.

Its hard to say if this ability was natural or trained. I do think you are correct that Tyson was not necessarily the most physical heavyweight in tight. As compared to someone like Big George who could really control a man in that range, or Marciano even. Holly did also have some chops inside.

[billeau2]

All this bickering made me go watch Tyson-Lewis again.

Anyone know the back story as to why there was a human wall (security) between the fighters at the fight's start?

Oh you know...nothing really Unless you consider the threat of someone wanting to eat your children! As Tyson said.

[Tatabanya]

I've referred to the Tyson that gives you wet dreams from the start. I already know those games, and the excuses "post-spinks" aren't gonna work on me.

Of course they won't. You're biased, like all Tyson haters.

It remains ironic that this is your way to try to downplay his losses but when it comes to Holyfield you use his losses way post-prime against him. Only the lowest of boxing IQ's would refer to the James Toney or even Ruiz losses.

I specified that Byrd and Toney beat him when he was older, you just pretend not to read. Losing (and drawing) against Ruiz is a shame at every age, and the same can be said about Tyson losing to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. But hey, Ali lost to Trevor Berbick in his final fight...

Again, he was always extremely physically weak in the clinch, always kept up his flashy pace for the early part of the fight only, always one dimensional and always lost focus throughout fights that didn't end in early KO's and never beat anybody great back then either.

In the 86-88 era he was too superior to fighters who were considered valid opponents at that time, it was not his fault if he knocked out people in a few rounds rather than going the full distance, which he did without problems against titleholders. Not anybody's fault if you were not born in 1986; the heavyweights of that time were not ATG (except Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks, the latter of course as a light-heavy), but they were considered good fighters, at least on the same level - if not superior - of many people that gave Holyfield and Lewis problems.

A one trick pony who would quit when it got too tough. Holyfield and Lewis overcame adversity many times and showed many different styles and tactics. They are far, far above your man.

Bias. Holyfield and Lewis "overcame adversity" against fighters who would have not lasted the distance against the younger Tyson. Consider this: a third-rate version of Tyson forced a prime Holyfield to bring out his very best to win. Enough said.

Lewis beat Holyfield, Klitschko, every man he ever faced and 11 world champions in total if I'm not mistaken.

Holyfield beat Bowe, Foreman, Tyson, too many world champions to count and regain the HW title more than anybody in history. He's also the GOAT Cruiserweight as a side note.

Tyson beat: 0.0 great fighters. Fought in the second or best HW era ever and faced less than half of the best, all of whom beat him badly.

Yes, for some reason in your biased mind the mediocrity through which Holyfield and Lewis built their reigns of terror while "overcoming adversity" (biblical pompousness, again!) is classified as an endless list of "world champions", whereas the ones Tyson beat in a few rounds were all slouches. Just to pick randomly, Oliver McCall, Michael Moorer, Michael Grant and Vaughn Bean are acceptable; Frank Bruno, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs and Pinklon Thomas are not. Just think that Bruno gave a prime Lewis hell, whereas Tyson disintegrated him twice, the second time after three years in jail.

Oh, and I'd be ashamed to quote the Klitschko "win" even if I were a biased Lewis fan.

Good back peddling.

It's actually "backpedaling", Rev. IQ Balboa.

[Tatabanya]

All this bickering made me go watch Tyson-Lewis again.

Anyone know the back story as to why there was a human wall (security) between the fighters at the fight's start?

There had been chaos at the press conference, Tyson attacked Lewis and bit him on a leg while the two were on the floor. After that, a journalist shouted "put him in a straitjacket!", which ignited one of Tyson's most famous intoxicated rants. All of this is easily available on YouTube.

Tyson was finished then. He was addicted to psychotropic drugs and alcohol but needed the money, which put him at great risk against a hard-punching fighter like Lewis. That fight was a champion vs a drug addict, basically. Lewis still brags about that "win", poor man.

[Willie Pep 229]

Oh you know...nothing really Unless you consider the threat of someone wanting to eat your children! As Tyson said.

Your 10 second Mike Tyson moment of the day, enjoy!

[Rusty Tromboni]

Show me where Williams backed Liston up on his heels like Holly did to Tyson ok? Ill wait. Williams is at puncher's length, he does not ever attempt to come in and make Liston punch with his weight on his heels. Do I have to post the second one also? and are you going to tell me how good, or bad, such and such a fighter is? or are you going to understand that the point made is HOW Holly did what he did to Tyson.

OK, if we want to be obtuse there's no evidence of Williams doing to Liston EXACTLY what Vander did to Tython.


But Williams wasn't as good as Holyfield, and Liston was at his best while Mike was at his worst.

Holyfield specialized at getting in and getting off on bigger and badder men than Liston, though.

So, yeah, you're not COMPLETELY wrong.

[Rusty Tromboni]

It really isn't, none of his flashy explosive moves are. It's a 12 round fight, 36 minutes. He's muscle bound and it uses too much energy. It's a very flawed system.

If you look at Tyson's highlight videos where he executes the moves well in the early rounds of his fights, it may appear he can do it all day.

Then you watch his entire fights and you see the same thing every time: the flashy moves decrease and are almost non-existent by the middle of the fight.

You know why? because the Tight Defend Style is designed to KO the opponents early and if it goes the distance, it should have accumulated enough points by the latter portion of the fight when Tyson is fading rapidly. It's not a style designed for long gruelling fights, that's why he loses to all the greats who would take him to deep waters.

This is a sobering statement. Too often with guys like Tyson and Jones people get too hung up on the HL Reels.

That being said, we really can't be sure what Tyson was capable of or wasn't.

He was still a developing fighter when severed from Rooney. And that school of Boxing was still developing. Certainly age and nileahe would've affected Tyson,but that doesn't rule out his potential to adapt.

Plenty of fighters who didn't fight with that style wore themselves out. Plenty of fighters, though, adapted. Look at Duran vs Barkley... he's unrecognizable to the guy who smashed Marcel.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I agree that competition is a measure of greatness, but if you go and look at who some of the ATG's fought at heavyweight you would find that many such fighters never fought great competition. This is something I have brought up before and seems a problem that haunts the heavy weight division particularly.

Joe Louis is an example, Dempsey to some degree, despite Tunney. Jack Johnson who fought primarily smaller men... So Tyson is not alone in this regard.

Holyfield and Lewis both fought really good competition. Holly did lose to a lot of those guys though, to be fair. You guys at your age have seen a lot of good fighters since that golden era of the 70's when the division was more stacked than Dolly parton in a skintight blouse! in my case, at 55 I was also "spoiled" watching fights like ali and FRazier, Foreman, even guys like Jimmy Young and Spinks had talent to spare. There was a rising tide that picked up all boats so to speak.

If I really wanted to argue the point I would say: Tunney and Spinks were two of the best light heavies ever to fight in the heavyweight division, and that Tyson, like Dempsey, beat a great fighter who was better as a light heavy, but was indeed a great fighter. Because if one looks at Dempsey's record he beat a lot of cagey, tested fighters with skills, guys like Gunboat and Fireman Flyn, but hardly ATG fighters. Tyson beat a lot of similar guys who had skills and could have been a lot better, but never arrived.

The grappling is a part of boxing that was neglected. Tyson could perhaps had been better in that department. Thing is nobody was considering the value of the inside game. Its a shame because its a range that can make a fighter great when trained properly. My understanding from what I can make of it? The more you go back the more the fighters were trained as grapplers. Corbett actually is on tape showing Tunney how to tie up a hand and smack the guy around with the other. The movement is very Ju Jutsu like, you trap the arm... gentlyand push towards the guy as you belt away.

Its hard to say if this ability was natural or trained. I do think you are correct that Tyson was not necessarily the most physical heavyweight in tight. As compared to someone like Big George who could really control a man in that range, or Marciano even. Holly did also have some chops inside.

This is the greatest post ever written here at Boxing Scene. They could shut it down tomorrow, and that would be fine. We've reached our zenith.


Pre-Exile Ali fought absolute dog shyte for competition. But people rave about him and attest to his invincibility. When he returned he was better. Unfortunately, his best opponent absolutely battered him.

Conversely, Ingo, in JUST 25 fights, flat-lined Patterson and Machen (in a way which much bigger men couldn't). But he's regarded as one of the worst Heavyweight Champions ever. And he definitely doesn't get the Lovefest guys like Spinks and Jones get.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Of course they won't. You're biased, like all Tyson haters.



I specified that Byrd and Toney beat him when he was older, you just pretend not to read. Losing (and drawing) against Ruiz is a shame at every age, and the same can be said about Tyson losing to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. But hey, Ali lost to Trevor Berbick in his final fight...



In the 86-88 era he was too superior to fighters who were considered valid opponents at that time, it was not his fault if he knocked out people in a few rounds rather than going the full distance, which he did without problems against titleholders. Not anybody's fault if you were not born in 1986; the heavyweights of that time were not ATG (except Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks, the latter of course as a light-heavy), but they were considered good fighters, at least on the same level - if not superior - of many people that gave Holyfield and Lewis problems.



Bias. Holyfield and Lewis "overcame adversity" against fighters who would have not lasted the distance against the younger Tyson. Consider this: a third-rate version of Tyson forced a prime Holyfield to bring out his very best to win. Enough said.



Yes, for some reason in your biased mind the mediocrity through which Holyfield and Lewis built their reigns of terror while "overcoming adversity" (biblical pompousness, again!) is classified as an endless list of "world champions", whereas the ones Tyson beat in a few rounds were all slouches. Just to pick randomly, Oliver McCall, Michael Moorer, Michael Grant and Vaughn Bean are acceptable; Frank Bruno, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs and Pinklon Thomas are not. Just think that Bruno gave a prime Lewis hell, whereas Tyson disintegrated him twice, the second time after three years in jail.

Oh, and I'd be ashamed to quote the Klitschko "win" even if I were a biased Lewis fan.



It's actually "backpedaling", Rev. IQ Balboa.

Nice post.


Do you really believe Holyfield was at his best?

In Tython's defense, Holyfield appeared to be in decline. If it were Holly coming off the victory over Bowe, Tyson might've been better prepared both mentally and physically.

Holyfield, to his credit, was the master of career-resurgence. Robinsonesque.