How Lewis Broke The Mike Tyson Mystique: Part 1

[MickyHatton]

Lewis broke a 36 year old Tyson and that's it.

Lewis was almost 37 when he did so, he 9 months older than Tyson, whats your point???

[Mike Tyson77]

Lewis was almost 37 when he did so, he 9 months older than Tyson, whats your point???

Tyson was farther past it than Lewis. Tyson no longer had the reflexes and speed needed to beat the much larger Lewis at the time.

[TheGreatA]

I would give more credit for this:


And this:


By the time Lewis got him, Tyson was treated as a tired joke.

[-CANE-]

Lewis was almost 37 when he did so, he 9 months older than Tyson, whats your point???

Well said Mickey, they don't realise that Lewis was past it as well. A lot of people make the mistake of saying Lewis' prime was 1999-2003 because of his victories over Holyfield and Tyson but that's rubbish. He had his prime years between late 1995 and 1998 that was his prime years and he was on the downside of his career thereafter but still managed to fight on for another 4 years and avenging his only defeat in that time as well.

[TheGreatA]

1995-1998 might have been his physical prime but his boxing skills were at their best during 1999-2003.

[THE REED]

so what is considered prime then? when your body is in its prime? or when your boxing skills are? ive always been confused on this... when hopkins faced roy he wasnt considered in his prime but he was 28... maybe its a cross when your boxing skills reach elite status, at your youngest age or somethin?

[Neckodeemus]

Alright guys, thanks for those who took the time to read my article. It is much appreciated.

It is not one of those that is meant to be controversial for the sake of it. In fact I honestly think one of the most controversial claims you could make is that Tyson is a Top Five Heavyweight.

He was intimidated by Holyfield so what would the likes of Frazier (vastly underrated), Liston (vastly underrated, his contention form was brilliant), Foreman (very menacing and underrated in his days), Louis (modern training methods would make him pretty much unbeatable, chin aside) and the rest do to him? Let alone the guys who can jab him, tie him and drop right hands, guys like Holmes, Lewis, Ali, Charles and Walcott.

I actually grew up watching Tyson, I still own all his fights, criticise the piece by all means but I'd dare say that it shows I know my Tyson fights. I simply do not buy him as anything more than an exciting phenomenon who reached a high level early and then fell away even earlier and never regained it. Hardly all time great status, look at Ali, he was rendered inactive, then was defeated, and still came all the way back to his former level of glory.

If you watch his fights there is a clear pattern of Tyson being backed-up, cut, put over and stopped in all his losses. In some of his wins there is evidence of a silent contract in which he is content to hold and maul his way to a points win, that is if the other guy is not petrified.

You could say it is pro-Lewis bias but I just coldly looked at it and came to the conclusion that any version of Tyson is mentally weak for fighting Lewis or, as someone correctly pointed out, Holyfield.

The bias so-called stems from the fact that Tyson is a fighter who is hyped beyond belief but in the cold light of day never turned a big fight, never avenged a loss, was stopped every time he stepped into top class and could not adapt his fighting style, or show ring intelligence beyond his prime. It is less pro-Lewis bias and more a honest appraisal of Mike Tyson. By all means I enjoy his fights. I enjoy the fights of Carl 'The Truth' Williams also but I would not make him out to be more than he is, a problem I feel the Tyson fans have when they talk about their guy.

Thanks for any critical/complementary thoughts, and yes Smoking I've been to school! It was my favourite time of life!

[MickyHatton]

Tyson was farther past it than Lewis. Tyson no longer had the reflexes and speed needed to beat the much larger Lewis at the time.

Why, and where's your proof?

If your proof is that Tyson seemed slower and not as effective I can counter that by saying that after Douglas he was found out, his opponents lost their fear and got their own work off.

I'm not being argumentative as I understand your loyalty to Tyson.

I also as explained earlier was a huge fan of Tyson but your argument has no foundation, Lewis may not have had the wars that Tyson had, why because he was a better fighter, he handled Holyfield much easier than Tyson did on both occasions.

Lewis is older than Tyson, what makes Tyson so different? He had more pro fights, OK, but the majority of Tysons fights ended quickly plus Lewis had a far longer and more prominent amateur career.

Tyson was a shot fighter at 36 but Lewis was still in his prime at 37, doesn't make sense to me?

[TheGreatA]

Tyson was a shot fighter at 36 but Lewis was still in his prime at 37, doesn't make sense to me?

You have got to be kidding me. Lewis was the unified world heavyweight champion who took on all comers and beat all of them and Tyson was the guy who lost to Williams and McBride. Tyson hadn't looked good since the Ruddock fights.

Tyson himself said he was done after 1990.

[kayjay]

Lewis was a late bloomer, Mick. His career is not unequivocally better than Tyson's or Holyfield's. It's very arguable any way around.

If Hopkins or Calzaghe were to beat Roy Jones now, would they surpass him in terms of career greatness? Surely not.