Tyson vs Lewis Primes

[Leakbeak]

Tricky one. I think lewis can beat him as he even struggled V old Larry Holmes jab until his power took over and bailed him out. Both of them had their off dasy though, and Tyson in his prime was more than capable of getting inside. I would go for a decision going Lewis' way but if Tyson got inside he could have knocked him out

[StarshipTrooper]

that's a joke, if you want to argue who you think cuold beat him, fine. Tyson never had problems with a good jab. "Holmes was past his best" yea well not past it enough to go the distance with Holyfield and beat Ray Mercer. most acknowledge he wasn't at his best, but he wasn't "shot" or "past it" like you claim.

Holmes still got knocked out in 4 rounds. That's rediculous, Even Ali managed to quell his last beatings into a stoppage.

I think a prime Holmes would have been a bit more of a handful, but the jab is one thing that Tyson was taught his entire career to avoid, it was of no use against a prime mike. Strength and power was what you needed to beat him. Lewis had it, but the fact that he's not very "tough" makes the fight hard to score.

I'm not so sure you can make that case. The mid-80s were where Heavyweight jabs went to die: I honestly can't think of a single Heavyweight in prime during that period that had anything better than an average jab. Fighters you just kind of paw with it or use it as a range finder like those guys did, well someone who fights in Tyson's style is just going to walk right through those.

Poet

[Dave Rado]

What ever you were trying to use it as a mark of how Lewis struggled with him, that says it all about what kind of fighter you view him as.

You're still ignoring the context, which was someone claiming that Lewis on a bad night would have knocked all of Tyson's opponents into the next century. And it wasn't just that he just struggled, he put on one of his better performances and yet some boxing experts thought Mercer deserved the nod. I was simply making the point that Lewis wasn't the unbeatable god that the poster I was replying to was implying, and that he sometimes struggled with opposition that was not better that the competition Tyson faced in his prime.

Why does it make me look silly. I have already said in this thread Tyson is a GREAT fighter.

You veer from rational posts like that one to saying completely idiotic and contradictory things, which completely misrepresent other people's posts, like the one I was replying to when I said that. What made you look silly in that instance was that you said "The Tyson you talk about beats godzilla, but having said that, that Tyson does not exist because no fighters is as good as you are making a prime Mike out to be." That's the Tyson who I said is rightly rated around #10 in the ATG lists, and who I said would give Lewis a very tough fight but wouldn't necessarily beat him. If you can't see why that statement of yours was silly, and why it contradicts your claim that you think he's a great fighter, then I give up. You seem to have quite good boxing knowledge (unlike inferno), but it's almost impossible to have a sensible discussion with you because you don't seem to be able to remain rational for long.

[StarshipTrooper]

I actually lean towards the opposite. There are many things Tyson could have done to Holyfield that he didn't do...one being Body Shots and continue use of the jab. I was never sold on Holyfield being able to take the punishment from Tyson's body-shots because of Evander's small waist. Holy was past his prime when he met Tyson but Tyson hurt him bad with a body shot but didn't know how to follow up properly at that point. Early Tyson breaks down the body first and can fight behind the jab. Plus, besides being well trained, Rooney came up with the game-plans for Tyson and guided him through each fight. They were both not that good when they met each other, but Holyfield had two things going for him that Tyson didn't have: Being an active fighter and being motivated to win.

Prime vs. Prime...I still lean towards Tyson beating Holyfield.

Lewis: I think Lewis gives him a tough test but again...I'm lazy at the moment to break it down.

The only problem with that is Tyson was never a consistant body puncher even when he was with Rooney. He certainly had the potential to be a superior one but potential has to be turned to the actual for it to matter. Tyson's instinct was always to go for the head: He would frequently start with some good body punches but never kept it up. He couldn't resist the urge to headhunt and this is true of Tyson throughout his Rooney prime.

Poet

[NakiFan]

You're still ignoring the context, which was someone claiming that Lewis on a bad night would have knocked all of Tyson's opponents into the next century. And it wasn't just that he just struggled, he put on one of his better performances and yet some boxing experts thought Mercer deserved the nod. I was simply making the point that Lewis wasn't the unbeatable god that the poster I was replying to was implying.



You veer from rational posts like that one to saying completely idiotic and contradictory things, which completely misrepresent other people's posts, like the one I was replying to when I said that. What made you look silly in that instance was that you said "The Tyson you talk about beats godzilla, but having said that, that Tyson does not exist because no fighters is as good as you are making a prime Mike out to be." That's the Tyson who I said is rightly rated around #10 in the ATG lists, and who I said would give Lewis a very tough fight but wouldn't necessarily beat him. If you can't see why that statement of yours was silly, and why it contradicts your claim that you think he's a great fighter, then I give up. You seem to have quitew good boxing knowledge (unlike inferno), but it's almost impossible to have a sensible discussion with you because you don't seem to be able to remain rational for long.

Dave Rado, you are an **** head mate. I'm sick of people on this board ripping down the best British Fighters, Lewis, Calzaghe, Hamed etc and claiming the reasons that they are not "A" level fighters like the best americans is because they don't have prime atg opposition on thier records, yet Tyson gets a pass and what ATG's has he beat? You are one of those **** heads that lure people into a slagging match, then preceed to post long winded arguments and act all superior, your a joke mate!

[Dave Rado]

I'm sick of people on this board ripping down the best British Fighters

You think that because I think Tyson would give him a tough fight, that means I'm ripping him down?

And you've just given away in your post the fact that for you it's not about boxing at all, it's just about cheering for your country. No wonder your boxing knowledge is so lacking.

Lewis is an ATG fighter, but not because he happens to be British, and where he was born has absolutely nothing to do with whether he could beat a given fighter or not. You're just a xenophobe, not a boxing fan.

[Joeyzagz]

Lewis beat every opponent he ever faced professionally.

So did Ottke.

Ottke did not KO Mike Tyson, and Ottke was never undisputed.

[Mugwump]

Again - I can't abide the double-standards. If Mike Tyson is right up there in the pantheon of greatest fighters then you must also include someone like Naseem Hamed.

The criticism of Hamed (and I'm not saying whether I agree with it) has always been that - yes, he blew away the division in spectacular style and became undisputed, but the first "decent" fighter he fought he lost to and was finished thereafter.

Familiar story? Well, yes. Tyson blew away the division in spectacular style and became undisputed, but the first "decent" fighter he fought he lost to and was finished thereafter.

Only I'd argue that Hamed destroyed a better class of opponent (I'm sorry, but I will never rate Berbick, Spinks and the like) and was beaten by a far better fighter. And he wasn't left horizontal.

[them_apples]

I'm not so sure you can make that case. The mid-80s were where Heavyweight jabs went to die: I honestly can't think of a single Heavyweight in prime during that period that had anything better than an average jab. Fighters you just kind of paw with it or use it as a range finder like those guys did, well someone who fights in Tyson's style is just going to walk right through those.

Poet

Good jabs at heavyweight are hard to come by in general. not just the 80's.

We have Holmes, Liston, Ali, Lewis, thats about all I can think of when it comes to really good jabs. Most heavyweights only had average jabs. (you can argue guys like, Tunney, Louis having good jabs as well).

good head movement on a fighter makes the jab very hard to land. I have a feeling this is how Norton gave Ali and Holmes so much trouble as well. Also Frazier vs Ali.

[them_apples]

Again - I can't abide the double-standards. If Mike Tyson is right up there in the pantheon of greatest fighters then you must also include someone like Naseem Hamed.

The criticism of Hamed (and I'm not saying whether I agree with it) has always been that - yes, he blew away the division in spectacular style and became undisputed, but the first "decent" fighter he fought he lost to and was finished thereafter.

Familiar story? Well, yes. Tyson blew away the division in spectacular style and became undisputed, but the first "decent" fighter he fought he lost to and was finished thereafter.

Only I'd argue that Hamed destroyed a better class of opponent (I'm sorry, but I will never rate Berbick, Spinks and the like) and was beaten by a far better fighter. And he wasn't left horizontal.

lol who did Hamed beat? Kevin Kelly?