How Lewis Broke The Mike Tyson Mystique: Part 1

[Neckodeemus]

Yes, I am aware of the scrapped 96 fight. But that was Don King's doing, all because he wanted rights to Lewis in case he should win. That is just one of many things that hurt Tyson's career in the long run.

I agree that King wanted Lewis, he was said to have once sent him a car as a gift but it speaks volumes about the fact that King did not rate Tyson as able to beat Lewis. King hurt Tyson's career but no one made Tyson leave capable management to sign with King al those years ago. Tyson paid his price and took his chances.

[Moon]

Mike's mystique dissolved with the Douglas loss. He lost his mental edge and knew that guys were actually gonna' fight him, not simply look to survive. Douglas chose to fight and Mike preferred to have opponents fear him and respect him and essentially let Mike bully his way thru them.

Sure, after Douglas he beat Tillman, Bruno and Razor, but he had lost the mystique and didn't look like Mike of Old, although the first round destruction of Tillman might have seemed otherwise.

[Allucard]

when mike tyson era was over, so is the excitement in the heavyweight division. when can we see another mike tyson again?

you wont. ever. unless they create the superheavyweight division. reference: K1, semmy schilt.

[Random1]

To us the mystique is shattered, but I think the general public doesn't understand that it is. If he really did come back to fight Holyfield they would probably buy it in droves.

I too agree with many of the factual parts of your writing, but it was really painful for me to read - I almost didn't finish it because it felt like you were just hating on Tyson even though I now know you weren't really. I think you could have put it in a better way and still gotten your point across.

[On The Humble]

I think you're opinion is valid... as an opinion. How invalid could one be? We all have our *******s. The point is that "bias" is what fuels our opinions about fighters, especially the ones who capture our imagination and dismay like Mike Tyson. How we grow up, our values and ethos, may be to blame. Whatever my reasons, I continue to be thrilled by Mike's electric style of fighting when I watch old fights. We either love him or piss on his grave.

We can slander Mike for thuggery, not coming back in a fight, losing to the better fighters on his resume, etc. We can even compare his performances against Lennox Lewis's foes and think we have proof of the obvious. But Mike simply lost skill at the exact time Kevin Rooney left him. I'm a boxer/trainer and I've analyzed it... from Bruno I and on, Mike was beatable and he was beaten.

You fail to recognize that Rooney was the only person alive who could help focus Mike. So, yes, Mike had a profound weakness in his core, but it was not lack of heart, fighting spirit, or skill. He was just unfocused. A stable of great fighters is not the mark of a trainer who is suited best for any fighter. Rather, it is chemistry, trust, and a trainer's adaptability of knowledge. Treat Mike like a lunatic, but Rooney, too, believes that he was the only one who could get through to Mike.

One can make an educated analysis of a fighter's prime, and anyone who knows boxing can see that Mike was only in his prime at about 36 fights. Prime is irrelevant to age, but it only means a fighter's peak! Lewis would have been closer to his peak, even at 42, than Mike at 34. Mike's post-prime/prison impressiveness was that he won fights without any real strategy and planning. Mentally, he wasn’t ready. When he was young, however, he changed strategy, had fortitude, had the mind to go 12, and he listened to instructions. He fought off pure talent.

If I must consider Mike post-prime, I agree that he lacked in so much. That’s not the Mike I even consider – from McNeeley to McBride. I, like the Tyson fans you note, enjoyed seeing Mike show some luster in biting Holyfield. I know it’s taboo, but before that sequence, Mike was not throwing combinations and he wasn’t moving his head the right way. He was a shell of his former self. Even Kevin Rooney thinks Mike should have been able to “knock him out in one round.” He had no preparation. Mike ******.

But prime Mike’s opponents are some of the most underrated/underachieving group of any time. I have a lot to say about all fighters’ resumes, including the heralded 70s fighters, but we’ll discuss that another time. The point is that Mike beat everyone he had to beat in his prime, and he did it with unmatched impressiveness. Just like Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano. My problem with boxing history is how it rewrites itself after with every slanted retrospective.

As for talent, I'd say Mike had a ton more than Lewis. There are multiples of professionals to back that up. Mike is often sited as a fighter who could have been the greatest of all time, judging by his early brilliance. How that does not qualify him as a great in some way is beyond syllogism. Do you really think that Lewis could have done anything but lean on a “young” Mike coming at him for 12 rounds the way “old” Mike did for one round?

We disagree and I don’t know about anyone else, but I can argue this forever. I think Mike is the greatest fighter of all time. I think there is no fighter who has ever lived who could have beaten Mike at his best. I’m a student of boxing, but it’s an opinion just like any other.

www.ShootaFairOne.com coming soon!

[Moon]

As for talent, I'd say Mike had a ton more than Lewis. There are multiples of professionals to back that up. Mike is often sited as a fighter who could have been the greatest of all time, judging by his early brilliance. How that does not qualify him as a great in some way is beyond syllogism. Do you really think that Lewis could have done anything but lean on a “young” Mike coming at him for 12 rounds the way “old” Mike did for one round?
www.ShootaFairOne.com coming soon!

As a self-professed student of the fight game, you'll understand that fighters are better judged by their accomplishement, not by their potential. Sure Mike had all the physical attributes to be Champ, but lacked the mental prowess that sets truly great fighters from "the rest". His instincts in the ring were unmatched in his prime years, but he was mentally unprepared for both the successes and for the challenges of Champ, which require you to apply both your physical and mental strengths, for which he lacked the latter.

Sure, he was great for a time, but he fell from greatness and did not return. If he had made a successful comeback, by any standard, the debate might be more in his favour. But, for now, Mike is probably best recognized as the greatest lost talent in boxing history, which is not exactly the stuff of greatness.

People will rightfully continue to compare Mike and Lennox, based on individual skills and such, but unfortunately not based on a real fight when both were young and most game. Instead, we're left comparing the two fighter's accomplishments, which we should stress did not occur entirely in two separate eras. So, the argument in favour of Mike being the better fighter than Lennox is completely unfounded, except as a matter of opinion, while the records will show that Lennox won both the physical matchup against all ooposition AND when facing adversity in the form of two devestating KO's, also showed the mental strength of a True Great by avenging those losses. Mike's record, on the other hand, will show the 6 losses (5 KOs) including the Holyfield rematch that brought him shame, when he had a chance to avenge and be rewarded with glory.

[Neckodeemus]

I think you're opinion is valid... as an opinion. How invalid could one be? We all have our *******s. The point is that "bias" is what fuels our opinions about fighters, especially the ones who capture our imagination and dismay like Mike Tyson. How we grow up, our values and ethos, may be to blame. Whatever my reasons, I continue to be thrilled by Mike's electric style of fighting when I watch old fights. We either love him or piss on his grave.

We can slander Mike for thuggery, not coming back in a fight, losing to the better fighters on his resume, etc. We can even compare his performances against Lennox Lewis's foes and think we have proof of the obvious. But Mike simply lost skill at the exact time Kevin Rooney left him. I'm a boxer/trainer and I've analyzed it... from Bruno I and on, Mike was beatable and he was beaten.

You fail to recognize that Rooney was the only person alive who could help focus Mike. So, yes, Mike had a profound weakness in his core, but it was not lack of heart, fighting spirit, or skill. He was just unfocused. A stable of great fighters is not the mark of a trainer who is suited best for any fighter. Rather, it is chemistry, trust, and a trainer's adaptability of knowledge. Treat Mike like a lunatic, but Rooney, too, believes that he was the only one who could get through to Mike.

One can make an educated analysis of a fighter's prime, and anyone who knows boxing can see that Mike was only in his prime at about 36 fights. Prime is irrelevant to age, but it only means a fighter's peak! Lewis would have been closer to his peak, even at 42, than Mike at 34. Mike's post-prime/prison impressiveness was that he won fights without any real strategy and planning. Mentally, he wasn’t ready. When he was young, however, he changed strategy, had fortitude, had the mind to go 12, and he listened to instructions. He fought off pure talent.

If I must consider Mike post-prime, I agree that he lacked in so much. That’s not the Mike I even consider – from McNeeley to McBride. I, like the Tyson fans you note, enjoyed seeing Mike show some luster in biting Holyfield. I know it’s taboo, but before that sequence, Mike was not throwing combinations and he wasn’t moving his head the right way. He was a shell of his former self. Even Kevin Rooney thinks Mike should have been able to “knock him out in one round.” He had no preparation. Mike ******.

But prime Mike’s opponents are some of the most underrated/underachieving group of any time. I have a lot to say about all fighters’ resumes, including the heralded 70s fighters, but we’ll discuss that another time. The point is that Mike beat everyone he had to beat in his prime, and he did it with unmatched impressiveness. Just like Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano. My problem with boxing history is how it rewrites itself after with every slanted retrospective.

As for talent, I'd say Mike had a ton more than Lewis. There are multiples of professionals to back that up. Mike is often sited as a fighter who could have been the greatest of all time, judging by his early brilliance. How that does not qualify him as a great in some way is beyond syllogism. Do you really think that Lewis could have done anything but lean on a “young” Mike coming at him for 12 rounds the way “old” Mike did for one round?

We disagree and I don’t know about anyone else, but I can argue this forever. I think Mike is the greatest fighter of all time. I think there is no fighter who has ever lived who could have beaten Mike at his best. I’m a student of boxing, but it’s an opinion just like any other.

www.ShootaFairOne.com coming soon!

It may have seemed harsh on Mike but I try to be dispassionate so the matter-of-fact air may have been seen as not rating Mike for fan issues. Ironic given that I’m from a Tyson loving family and grew-up watching the guy.

I think the Rooney point is one that comes up often but a fighter who has learned under astute people has some sense of the astute himself. Tyson boxed very well against Carl Williams. Sure Williams was damaged goods but Mike leapt on the fact Williams lowers his right after putting out the jab and picked Mike then picked his shots well. That Mike said “how dare they challenge me with their primative skills” suggests to me that he was less student of the game, Williams had great skills, and more a guy who was ring-savvy enough to see mistakes and exploit them. Especially when fighters fought with fear.

Mike once had a guy in Atlas who helped focus him, memorably as an amateur youth, but he was let go because he would not toe the Tyson line then being lead. Again a character flaw was behind Tyson, ultimately, no matter how guided, pulling the plug on Rooney shows that it is the same flaw that is behind a lot of his in-ring style.

Peak is relative to a fighter’s career but you have to also judge a fighter who goes beyond his physical peak as a special breed, one that excludes Mike Tyson. Barrera is a recent example of this. Say Naseem fought Morales instead, and beat him, then we packaged that off as Hamed’s peak come what may, we would now be talking Hamed as better than Barrera when Barrera is the better fighter overall.

A lot of people also said Tyson was reborn in Bruno II. Like you say a lot of people also think he did right in the second Holyfield bout. I chose Lewis and not Evander as ending the myth because some saw Tyson bite Holyfield, plus thought he was having moderate success, and gave Mike a pass on the fact Holyfield was well on his way to another win.

Mike beat a lot of good guys, but flawed guys, like he was. Pinklon Thomas never quite looked as good as he did against Mike Weaver; Weaver also unveiled a quality jab in this fight at times. Weaver looked good taking out Williams by drawing his sting. Williams looked good out-jabbing Holmes, although Holmes timed the right over the jab as the fight wore-on. Saying that these guys were there to be beaten and Tyson was always going to be judged on fights with more competitive guys, guys with the ability to push for great things. He got them in the end and showed nothing, he could not even defeat Douglas and this was during a time when Tyson was physically good and should have been able to, if he was as good, smart, a fighter as you say.

I like talent, I love flawed talent also. I think you could bracket Mark Breland in spurts and see the greatest fighter of all time, however his legs went and he could not adapt. Despite this in the second fight with Starling he briefly jabbed to the body, gave himself space but then paused on the right hand. Great talent, unfulfilled move. Bracket Mark, say, against Honeyghan and you have great talent. You need something more though. Lewis made the most of absolutely everything he had, even his weaknesses, that makes him better than Tyson in my book.

Although I accept that many differ, that is the great thing about boxing.

[Neckodeemus]

To us the mystique is shattered, but I think the general public doesn't understand that it is. If he really did come back to fight Holyfield they would probably buy it in droves.

I too agree with many of the factual parts of your writing, but it was really painful for me to read - I almost didn't finish it because it felt like you were just hating on Tyson even though I now know you weren't really. I think you could have put it in a better way and still gotten your point across.

Fair enough, it may have been a bit dry. I just find that you really have to try and hammer the points home with Mike, like his fighting style let him off for a moment and you could find yourself losing your grip and falling into the Tyson myth.

[The Iron Man]

I gave Tyson his due with Botha but it did make him look bad that it took him so long to get-off in that fight. Plus Botha was only outboxing him, when a guy really went to town on him Tyson would go into a shell.

He did well after taking a decent right uppercut from Tucker but was again seen to go into a shell.

McCall and Rahman were not great, although McCall is underrated, but when Lewis fought a great fighter in Holyfield he won overall. Instead of saying he lost to fighters who are not great how about beating a great fighter? Plus avenging his losses.

As for the sparring. I think I bring that up in the second part. I hear Tyson ripped into Lewis, Lewis took a battering then tried to get back into it and that made an impression on Mike. Holyfield also was said to have taken a pool cue from Tyson's hands as a youngster and that said a lot to Tyson about Holyfield and his mentality.

Tyson didnt always go into a shell when under pressure, it was a difficult fight for him against Tucker he was tied up alot and it was made very difficult for him. Fighters have bad days as Lewis had a few in his career. McCall may be underated but i still think that the McCall that Beat lewis would lose to the Douglas that beat tyson. OK back to tyson not shelling up all the time, against Bruno he got caught with a big shot in the first round and fought back, i remember watching an interview or in Brunos biography it went something along the lines of this " I hit tyson with a good shot, but like any great champion when he got hurt he fought back". Against Ruddock Tyson got hit with big shots and took them and won, after the first fight he said Ruddock punched like a Mule, yet still went for a re-match to prove he beat him.
As for avenging the losses, Tyson lost to Douglas in 1990 and in the same year fought tillman and stewart then the next year Ruddock. 3 fights in a short amount of time, which shows how he wanted to regain the titles as quickly as possible, but before he had the chance to give Buster a re-match he had lost to evander, and then tyson went to prison. By the time buster came back to boxing Tyson had beaten Bruno for the WBC title and then went for seldon. So a re-match was not really possible for tyson, he had a bigger goal of becomming the undisputed champion of the world. As for holyfield he tried but failed, however by this time and probably before it his skills had faded.
As for the sparring in the lewis tyson documentary lewis says that he spared with tyson and was told by Cus one day they would met.. and he thought "God i hope i never met this guy his an animal". Also after the fight when ask if he regreted this fight didnt happen earlier he replied " 10 years ago that was tysons time he was king and no1 was going to stop him, but im like fine wine and i matured as i aged and now its my time".
Just a side note : Lewis' re-matchs with McCall and Rahman were straight after he lost the title and he fought them to regain the titles, if they would have lost the titles would he have gone after them? or for the championship?. Im not trying to take anything away from lewis, but it worked out better in that sence for him than it did for Tyson. As for tysons later losses they were nothing more than money fights.

[On The Humble]

Tyson didnt always go into a shell when under pressure, it was a difficult fight for him against Tucker he was tied up alot and it was made very difficult for him. Fighters have bad days as Lewis had a few in his career. McCall may be underated but i still think that the McCall that Beat lewis would lose to the Douglas that beat tyson. OK back to tyson not shelling up all the time, against Bruno he got caught with a big shot in the first round and fought back, i remember watching an interview or in Brunos biography it went something along the lines of this " I hit tyson with a good shot, but like any great champion when he got hurt he fought back". Against Ruddock Tyson got hit with big shots and took them and won, after the first fight he said Ruddock punched like a Mule, yet still went for a re-match to prove he beat him.
As for avenging the losses, Tyson lost to Douglas in 1990 and in the same year fought tillman and stewart then the next year Ruddock. 3 fights in a short amount of time, which shows how he wanted to regain the titles as quickly as possible, but before he had the chance to give Buster a re-match he had lost to evander, and then tyson went to prison. By the time buster came back to boxing Tyson had beaten Bruno for the WBC title and then went for seldon. So a re-match was not really possible for tyson, he had a bigger goal of becomming the undisputed champion of the world. As for holyfield he tried but failed, however by this time and probably before it his skills had faded.
As for the sparring in the lewis tyson documentary lewis says that he spared with tyson and was told by Cus one day they would met.. and he thought "God i hope i never met this guy his an animal". Also after the fight when ask if he regreted this fight didnt happen earlier he replied " 10 years ago that was tysons time he was king and no1 was going to stop him, but im like fine wine and i matured as i aged and now its my time".
Just a side note : Lewis' re-matchs with McCall and Rahman were straight after he lost the title and he fought them to regain the titles, if they would have lost the titles would he have gone after them? or for the championship?. Im not trying to take anything away from lewis, but it worked out better in that sence for him than it did for Tyson. As for tysons later losses they were nothing more than money fights.

I was going to get into some of that stuff you mentioned, Iron Man... but you said enough. Well said. Oh, Tucker also caught Mike with a big uppercut.


Below I'm responding to Neckodemus:
I don't even count the slip and left hook to Carl Williams as Mike at his best... he was already showing a lack of desire and training. Mike said, "How dare they challenge me with their primitive skills" after the Bruno fight, not Williams. That right hand could be seen a mile away, but you're right--even without Rooney, he got to him. And Holmes showed a little flare in the 4th round, but was old and easily taken apart. I don't recall a right over Mike's jab at all.... hmmm.

And I think we'll see some Lewises but we'll never see another Mike Tyson.
Good reading. Thanks for the words.