Tyson vs Lewis Primes

[them_apples]

Monte Cox's analysis of Dempsey:

The highest rated of the swarming heavyweights. The Manassa Mauler was not only one of the most exciting heavyweight champions in history he was also one of the ring's greatest all time pound for pound fighters. Dempsey has one of the best knockout records in history with a winning streak of 32-0 with 28 knockouts. His 25 first round knockouts are a record in the heavyweight division. Dempsey was a bob and weave swarmer who attacked violently from the opening bell. He could box inside, he could punch, and he could take a punch. He had excellent foot speed and could also maneuver around fairly well for his style. At 6’1” 190 pounds he might be considered smallish by today’s standards but he had the power and ability to knock out much larger opponents as his victories over Willard and Firpo aptly demonstrated.

And his analysis of Tyson:

The biggest, fastest, strongest and most powerful of the swarming type heavyweights. His speed and explosive power rate among the best ever. In his prime he also had fine defensive skills. Hank Kaplan wrote, that his “defense is the best seen in the heavyweight division in many years.” In his fights with Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker each man only landed one significant punch in their entire fights. Tyson’s perpetual motion bob and weave was designed to make an opponent miss while always being in position to punch. He was very elusive with his upper body. He was able to anticipate an opponent’s attack, slip their punches and counter perfectly. Tyson was one of those fighters who after winning the title could not stay on the top of his game mentally. While lacking the durability and mental toughness of many of the other great heavyweights his physical talent and punching power is enough to defeat many of them. But because he lost his legacy fights (Douglas, Holyfield 1 and 2, Lewis) he cannot rate higher in a historical sense. One has to wonder if he would freeze up and fold against other all time greats who were not afraid of him.

Anyway, when pretty much every serious boxing analyst in the world who gets paid for his knowledge of boxing rates Dempsey higher, and then someone in a forum who doesn't get paid for his knowledge of boxing says the whole lot of them are just idiots, that sounds pretty ridiculous to me. If you disagree with them, fine, but to call them idiots when they are considered experts and you are not just strikes me as hubris.

look, ignore me and the historians..get an opinion of your own. Look into his career.

[Dave Rado]

look, ignore me and the historians..get an opinion of your own. Look into his career.

My own opinion is that Dempsey was better, but I won't go into detail because this isn't a Dempsey thread. There was a good thread here though, and some good analysis of his career by SOUTHPAW16BF in post #4. In any case, I still think that while you, I or anyone else have every right to disagree with the experts in a field, to call them all deluded, when they all share the same opinion on something, and are paid good money for their expertise, is just hubris.

[Benny Leonard]

I dont neccesarily agree with such romanticism. I know his mother just died and he did fight the fight of his life but his style more than anything exposed fundamental flaws in Tyson. But I dunno if many ATG heavyweights would allow themselves to be exposed in that fashion.

One fighter was trained to his absolute peak, and the other not.
It also brings up the discussion of how important "Motivation" is to a fighter/athlete. Motivation is brought up with both Tyson and Douglas a lot. Tyson's career all the way up to Spinks and Douglas with his victories he put together leading up to Tyson which was when he finally got motivated to put all his effort into becoming the best he could be in boxing. But after Douglas reached his goal with beating Tyson, with becoming HW Champion, he cashed out with Holyfield.

The "Flaw" was with Tyson though:

Tyson couldn't train himself and run his own life for that of a successful fighter. Without someone helping him out and keeping an eye on him, keeping him trained, motivated, and active...he was doomed to failure. He was more Soldier than General. I also bring that up when discussing Ali and Tyson: Ali was a General and Tyson was a Soldier. Let's just say Tyson beats Ali at each other's best...that doesn't mean Tyson is better. Ali, in my opinion, still could have done it without Dundee...more so than Tyson without Rooney.

Remember, Douglas didn't want to fight Tyson again either and many didn't thought Tyson was on the decline after Spinks.

People bring up Rooney not only because Rooney kept him trained and active, but Kevin came up with the game-plan and kept Tyson on that game-plan throughout the fight. You could even hear Rooney shouting out numbers to Tyson while fight and Tyson responds accordingly.


If Tyson showed up like he did against Douglas for Ruddock, Ruddock would have taken him out.




Back to the Thread: I voted option 3. Many reasons why I voted for option 3. Not in the mood to go through all the reasons.

[Dave Rado]

Tyson couldn't train himself and run his own life for that of a successful fighter. Without someone helping him out and keeping an eye on him, keeping him trained, motivated, and active...he was doomed to failure. He was more Soldier than General. I also bring that up when discussing Ali and Tyson: Ali was a General and Tyson was a Soldier. Let's just say Tyson beats Ali at each other's best...that doesn't mean Tyson is better. Ali, in my opinion, still could have done it without Dundee...more so than Tyson without Rooney.

You could say the same about Pac's relationship with Freddie Roach - the only difference I can see being the fact that Tyson's with Rooney went badly wrong near the start of Tyson's career whereas Pac's with Roach is still going strong. I doubt it will be held against Pac that he was "a soldier", though, when his position in the ATG lists is determined. Of course Pacquiao deserves credit for knowing which side his bread is buttered, for keeping on excellent terms with his muse, and for being a superb soldier, but I doubt he'd have been the same fighter without Roach.

[Dave Rado]

I dont neccesarily agree with such romanticism. I know his mother just died and he did fight the fight of his life but his style more than anything exposed fundamental flaws in Tyson. But I dunno if many ATG heavyweights would allow themselves to be exposed in that fashion.

My point was that the version of Douglas who faced Tyson was a much more complete fighter than the version of Rahman who faced Lewis. Douglas wouldn't have beaten any ATGs if they were at their best, but he wouldn't have been a walkover for any of them on that performance - he was not the mediocre fighter in that fight that your previous post had implied.

[them_apples]

My point was that the version of Douglas who faced Tyson was a much more complete fighter than the version of Rahman who faced Lewis. Douglas wouldn't have beaten any ATGs if they were at their best, but he wouldn't have been a walkover for any of them on that performance - he was not the mediocre fighter in that fight that your previous post had implied.

I don't really buy the "Douglas was unbeatable" on the night he fought Tyson. more so it was Tyson on the sharp decline and there was/is evidence to prove it. He didn't take boxing seriously anymore, nor did he care about achieving anything else.

Douglas thought he was getting some success until he got hit by Tyson, he didn't think he'd make it until he realized he could probably get up in time. You saw that "the hell with it" look on his face when he got up.

Lewis would have cracked the Douglas Tyson fought in about 7 rounds. Tyson a year earlier would have stopped him in 4.

Douglas was just an average rate contender and Tyson fans can't seem to understand this. Ruddock would have stopped Tyson that night to, the man didn't train or care.

I take back my "deluded" comment's, i just can't see why Dempsey, a man who lost during the prime of his career as well, to a contender with 30 losses, then got his title from a guy named Jess Willard, is considered greater than Tyson. Dempsey actually lost a few times in his prime and suffered a similar fate as Tyson did by taking a layoff and fading..yet he doesn't get any heat for this?

Tyson went 37-0, he was the youngest heavyweight champion of all time, and was undisputed champion (he had to beat 3? contenders to get the same status and Dempsey).

not only that, but the man he blasted out in 1 round was much better than Jess Willard. Jess Willard's conditioning routine consisted of booze and heavybag.

[Poet682006]

I don't really buy the "Douglas was unbeatable" on the night he fought Tyson. more so it was Tyson on the sharp decline and there was/is evidence to prove it. He didn't take boxing seriously anymore, nor did he care about achieving anything else.

Douglas thought he was getting some success until he got hit by Tyson, he didn't think he'd make it until he realized he could probably get up in time. You saw that "the hell with it" look on his face when he got up.

Lewis would have cracked the Douglas Tyson fought in about 7 rounds. Tyson a year earlier would have stopped him in 4.

Douglas was just an average rate contender and Tyson fans can't seem to understand this. Ruddock would have stopped Tyson that night to, the man didn't train or care.

I take back my "deluded" comment's, i just can't see why Dempsey, a man who lost during the prime of his career as well, to a contender with 30 losses, then got his title from a guy named Jess Willard, is considered greater than Tyson. Dempsey actually lost a few times in his prime and suffered a similar fate as Tyson did by taking a layoff and fading..yet he doesn't get any heat for this?

Tyson went 37-0, he was the youngest heavyweight champion of all time, and was undisputed champion (he had to beat 3? contenders to get the same status and Dempsey).

not only that, but the man he blasted out in 1 round was much better than Jess Willard. Jess Willard's conditioning routine consisted of booze and heavybag.

I think "unbeatable" is somewhat of a misnomer as I think there's no such thing. Now I've watched that fight many times and I think it's fair to say that it WAS a one-off performance by Douglas and he would have given any Heavyweight you care to mention a hard time that night. The same could be said for Frazier in his first fight with Ali: A beast that night? Yes. Unbeatable? No. Again, no such thing.

Poet

[Poet682006]

nothing is more overated then Ali's defense. floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee only worked against Liston, the rest of his career was him getting hit flush and being tough enough to come back.

not a knock, just by heavyweight standards Mike had good defense. p4p, yea it's nothing.

With all due respect, how many of his pre-exhile fights have you actually watched? What Ali did may have been "all wrong" by textbook standards (as is the case with Roy Jones) but I don't think anyone can seriously question it's effectiveness. In fact, I think if you tried to make Ali fight "textbook" I don't think he would have been as effective as he was. The textbook was written for fighters with normal reflexes not for fighters with sick reflexes like Ali and Jones.

Poet

[Poet682006]

look, ignore me and the historians..get an opinion of your own. Look into his career.

I know you have a "thing" about boxing historians
We could have a long discussion over the value of education and knowledge that's been been handed down, but suffice it to say it really isn't necessary for people to constantly "reinvent the wheel" over and over again.

Poet

[Chr0nic]

mike tyson is overrated, he was prime when he got schooled by douglas get over it