2002 Lennox Lewis vs 1988 Mike Tyson

Experienced, physically gifted, and slightly past his prime Lewis vs Peak, blazing fast, head-moving, Kevin Rooney advising Tyson.

Lewis still wins. The fact that Tyson had some serious struggles against above average taller fighters says a lot. Imagine was Lewis would do, regardless of Mike's speed. Lennox was too big and knew how to take advantage of his physical gifts. It'd be a nightmare for Tyson to close the gap and get near enough to Lennox to land something big. As McCall and Rahman proved, Lennox can be knocked out when he's off balance or caught off guard, but he knew how to protect himself well. There's always a chance that Tyson could slip something past Lennox and hurt him. But when Lennox is focused, he ain't going anywhere. Key word is FOCUSED.

After the 6th or 7th round and once Tyson's head-movement quickly fades, Lewis wins almost all of the remaining rounds to a UD.

Tyson beats Lewis, who fights on his back foot being too cautious for 12 rounds.

That Tyson all day!!!

Is this even a serious question? Tyson every day of the week and twice on Sundays!

Tyson by stoppage or decision. Lewis would either spoil or get stopped.

Fascinating match up, in my opinion. Right off the bat we all have to admit that if Rahman and McCall could stop Zlennox with one shot, Tyson could also. So... Tyson will always have that punchers chance in this match up.

Looking at the fighters and their mentality objectively, however, we all have to admit that Tyson always struggled vs large, physical fighters and those who jabbed well. I also feel that Lennox was vulnerable when he overlooked his opponent as evidenced by his fights vs. McCall, Rahman, Bruno, and Mercer, to name a few. Lennox would not take Tyson lightly, and I feel like Lennox was most dominant in fights vs those he viewed as dangerous, such as Tua, Grant, Ruddock, and Golota.

Lennox's size, boxing ability, jab, and smothering tactics would alwZys trouble Tyson. Mike was extremely fast and aggressive in his prime, so a knockout of Lewis is always a realistic possibility. I think the more likely outcome, however, is that Lennox breaks Mike down with the jab, leaning on Tyson and smothering him inside, before landing the big shots late for the stoppage. Just my take though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Fascinating match up, in my opinion. Right off the bat we all have to admit that if Rahman and McCall could stop Zlennox with one shot, Tyson could also. So... Tyson will always have that punchers chance in this match up.

Looking at the fighters and their mentality objectively, however, we all have to admit that Tyson always struggled vs large, physical fighters and those who jabbed well. I also feel that Lennox was vulnerable when he overlooked his opponent as evidenced by his fights vs. McCall, Rahman, Bruno, and Mercer, to name a few. Lennox would not take Tyson lightly, and I feel like Lennox was most dominant in fights vs those he viewed as dangerous, such as Tua, Grant, Ruddock, and Golota.

Lennox's size, boxing ability, jab, and smothering tactics would alwZys trouble Tyson. Mike was extremely fast and aggressive in his prime, so a knockout of Lewis is always a realistic possibility. I think the more likely outcome, however, is that Lennox breaks Mike down with the jab, leaning on Tyson and smothering him inside, before landing the big shots late for the stoppage. Just my take though...

---

You basing that on the actual fight which sounds ridiculous. Would you say Holmes stops or even beats a young Ali?

Would you say Marciano stops or beats a young Louis?

Fighters need the reflexes and skills that made them succesfull in the first place and Mikes had long gone at the point they fought.

When you say struggled you mean had to go to points because those fights he struggled in he still completely dominated unlike Lewis who should have lost against Mercer. Lews struggled with fighters who put it on him. Mavrovich had Lewis on the ropes in parts of their fight.

Lewis never had a prolonged period of dominance because of thise knockout losses. There was never a point in his career where people thought he was unbeatable unlike Mike Tyson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Fascinating match up, in my opinion. Right off the bat we all have to admit that if Rahman and McCall could stop Zlennox with one shot, Tyson could also. So... Tyson will always have that punchers chance in this match up.

Looking at the fighters and their mentality objectively, however, we all have to admit that Tyson always struggled vs large, physical fighters and those who jabbed well. I also feel that Lennox was vulnerable when he overlooked his opponent as evidenced by his fights vs. McCall, Rahman, Bruno, and Mercer, to name a few. Lennox would not take Tyson lightly, and I feel like Lennox was most dominant in fights vs those he viewed as dangerous, such as Tua, Grant, Ruddock, and Golota.

Lennox's size, boxing ability, jab, and smothering tactics would alwZys trouble Tyson. Mike was extremely fast and aggressive in his prime, so a knockout of Lewis is always a realistic possibility. I think the more likely outcome, however, is that Lennox breaks Mike down with the jab, leaning on Tyson and smothering him inside, before landing the big shots late for the stoppage. Just my take though...

---

You basing that on the actual fight which sounds ridiculous. Would you say Holmes stops or even beats a young Ali?

Would you say Marciano stops or beats a young Louis?

Fighters need the reflexes and skills that made them succesfull in the first place and Mikes had long gone at the point they fought.

When you say struggled you mean had to go to points because those fights he struggled in he still completely dominated unlike Lewis who should have lost against Mercer. Lews struggled with fighters who put it on him. Mavrovich had Lewis on the ropes in parts of their fight.

Lewis never had a prolonged period of dominance because of thise knockout losses. There was never a point in his career where people thought he was unbeatable unlike Mike Tyson.

---

Gotta agree with Ross here. At the times we're talking about , Tyson never really struggled with anyone and let's face it, he was always fighting bigger fighters than himself. Also at that time, he beat Larry Holmes (Albeit an old Larry Holmes) and who Jabs better than him?

I think Tyson might be too intimidated. He always struggled when top class fighters fought him with confidence. He really only beat Ruddock when faced with that type of challenge. I would take Lewis by fairly comfortable decision.

Lewis was a magnificent athlete and by 2002 Manny Stewart had made him into the best possible Lennox. He has a great post career reputation, mainly based on his being the undisputed champ .... And well deserved for that fact alone.

He was a big guy, used his weight well, good psyche, excellent skills and a heavy right hand, though he always needed room to use it. Chin was not excellent, but certainly not made of china.

BUT, the 1988 Tyson was a force of nature, the like of which boxing hasn't really seen before or since. He hadn't yet fallen into his bad habits inside the ring - forgetting his underrated boxing skills, looking for the on big punch, not firing combinations, no head movement. I don't believe he has trouble with big tall guys, he beat Smith, Tucker and Biggs very convincingly and they were as big as Lennox. Tony Tucker was a very very similar type of fighter to Lewis.

I like Lennox, but at the time he was always being criticised for being 'gun shy' and reluctant to engage. People see him through rose tinted glasses now (just like I probably do with him and Iron Mike lol). I always felt Lewis was a supreme athlete who happened to be boxing, whereas Tyson was all fighter right down to his marrow. At the time anyway.

I agree with people who think that if this fight went past 8, Lewis would probably be favoured. That's because of his great boxing skills rather than Tyson fading down the stretch. 1988 Tyson didn't get discouraged or fade down the stretch.

However, on the balance of probabilities, I don't think Lewis could keep 1988 Tyson off him for eight rounds. Lennox could be tentative, and that was one think Iron Mike wasn't. He would catch him solidly at some point early on ..... and that Tyson always finished guys off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

I think Tyson might be too intimidated. He always struggled when top class fighters fought him with confidence. He really only beat Ruddock when faced with that type of challenge. I would take Lewis by fairly comfortable decision.

---

again, the thread clearly says the "1988 Tyson". I really don't recall Tyson being intimidated by anybody at that time, infact Completely the opposite. He intimidated every guy he fought up to then. Top class fighters that fought him with confidence? were there any? Berbick tried to be confident and copied Tyson Black boots, no socks to try to wind him up, and look what happened to him , and he was World Champion!!!!!!!
88 Tyson beats 2002 Lewis and The Best Tyson beats The Best Lewis!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X

BUT, the 1988 Tyson was a force of nature, the like of which boxing hasn't really seen before or since.

---

I would beg to differ. Joe Louis was all this and would, unlike Tyson, be able to be to continue his peak run for a lot longer than Tyson. Also he managed victories in his declining years that sometimes compare to a lot of peak Tyson in name value.

Tyson was very good, but probably falls short of great; Louis is not 'just' great, but in the argument for being one of the ten finest fighters this sport has thus far seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

again, the thread clearly says the "1988 Tyson". I really don't recall Tyson being intimidated by anybody at that time

---

Who had he fought to be intimidated by at that point? An older and out of shape Larry Holmes???Bonecrusher Smith??? Tyrell Biggs? At that time the division was far from flush with intimidating power punchers, it was the holdovers from the Holmes era and a bunch of young fighters who developed a little later than Tyson.


Mike Tyson was a force of nature, but don't forget there have been other boxers that have had that aura about them and vs better competition IMO....George Foreman was far and away more intimidating than Tyson. Sure Tyson beats Michael Spinks who went toe to toe with Holmes quickly...but Foreman just man handled Joe Frazier who beat Ali....Frazier being a TRUE heavyweight as well, one that took everything Ali threw at him and then some. Joe Louis made up for the lack of competition his era had with quantity and had he not given 3 of his prime years to be in the Army he could have had 30 or 40 consecutive successful title defenses!!! Joe Louis would KO you in 1 or he'd KO you in 12 or even later if needed, his power stayed around and his timing, accuracy, and delivery of that power were just things of beauty.

Mike Tyson gets overrated quite a bit, I like him but come on a Prime Lennox Lewis had all the tools to beat a Prime Tyson...height, reach, a good jab, good defense, strength, and power. I'd say Prime v Prime Lennox wins 8 out of 10 times vs Tyson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

again, the thread clearly says the "1988 Tyson". I really don't recall Tyson being intimidated by anybody at that time

---

Who had he fought to be intimidated by at that point? An older and out of shape Larry Holmes???Bonecrusher Smith??? Tyrell Biggs? At that time the division was far from flush with intimidating power punchers, it was the holdovers from the Holmes era and a bunch of young fighters who developed a little later than Tyson.


Mike Tyson was a force of nature, but don't forget there have been other boxers that have had that aura about them and vs better competition IMO....George Foreman was far and away more intimidating than Tyson. Sure Tyson beats Michael Spinks who went toe to toe with Holmes quickly...but Foreman just man handled Joe Frazier who beat Ali....Frazier being a TRUE heavyweight as well, one that took everything Ali threw at him and then some. Joe Louis made up for the lack of competition his era had with quantity and had he not given 3 of his prime years to be in the Army he could have had 30 or 40 consecutive successful title defenses!!! Joe Louis would KO you in 1 or he'd KO you in 12 or even later if needed, his power stayed around and his timing, accuracy, and delivery of that power were just things of beauty.

Mike Tyson gets overrated quite a bit, I like him but come on a Prime Lennox Lewis had all the tools to beat a Prime Tyson...height, reach, a good jab, good defense, strength, and power. I'd say Prime v Prime Lennox wins 8 out of 10 times vs Tyson.

---

I agree, but there's one missing factor...... mentality.

Tyson at his peak was unwavering. He fought some huge punchers (ie: Razor Ruddock), and still found the way and the will to win. With Lennox, you didn't know what you were going to get on fight night. Laser-focused and angry..... or lazy and lackadaisical. If you add the adjectives on 2002 Lewis, namely focused and determined..... THEN I would agree with Lewis winning 7 or 8 times out of 10. Otherwise forget it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

I think Tyson might be too intimidated. He always struggled when top class fighters fought him with confidence. He really only beat Ruddock when faced with that type of challenge. I would take Lewis by fairly comfortable decision.

---

again, the thread clearly says the "1988 Tyson". I really don't recall Tyson being intimidated by anybody at that time, infact Completely the opposite. He intimidated every guy he fought up to then. Top class fighters that fought him with confidence? were there any? Berbick tried to be confident and copied Tyson Black boots, no socks to try to wind him up, and look what happened to him , and he was World Champion!!!!!!!
88 Tyson beats 2002 Lewis and The Best Tyson beats The Best Lewis!!!

---

Watch the old home footage of Tyson then, he was often terrified as he stood there waiting for the bell. D'Amato et al had a hard time just getting him in the ring (El Kabong posted an example of this, in the post below).

Although they did an excellent job boosting his self confidence I cannot believe Tyson was not constantly fighting with self doubt. Look at the way he behaved, you do not need to be a psychologist to see it was a bravado to hide his true feelings.

That said Tyson was indeed a phenomenon; with the fastest hands and feet seen this side of Ali, and them tools did get him out of any of the minor troubles he had in 85 through to 89 in the ring. But from Douglas on he could not control his demons enough not to affect his performances in the ring.

I would say that 'breakdown' would have occurred earlier if it had been mid 90s Holyfield, or a Steward version of Lewis, or indeed a 'Tokyo' Buster Douglas the other side of the ring in 85, 86, 87, 88 or 89.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I agree, but there's one missing factor...... mentality.

Tyson at his peak was unwavering. He fought some huge punchers (ie: Razor Ruddock), and still found the way and the will to win. With Lennox, you didn't know what you were going to get on fight night. Laser-focused and angry..... or lazy and lackadaisical. If you add the adjectives on 2002 Lewis, namely focused and determined..... THEN I would agree with Lewis winning 7 or 8 times out of 10. Otherwise forget it.

---

Alright then, let's account for that then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKjK95aRrhc


All of that was bubbling under the surface, just 1 or 2 good shots away

Yeah, we all know Tyson was a head case.
Still, he never went into the ring unfocused or lackadaisical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepwalker

Experienced, physically gifted, and slightly past his prime Lewis vs Peak, blazing fast, head-moving, Kevin Rooney advising Tyson.

Lewis still wins. The fact that Tyson had some serious struggles against above average taller fighters says a lot. Imagine was Lewis would do, regardless of Mike's speed. Lennox was too big and knew how to take advantage of his physical gifts. It'd be a nightmare for Tyson to close the gap and get near enough to Lennox to land something big. As McCall and Rahman proved, Lennox can be knocked out when he's off balance or caught off guard, but he knew how to protect himself well. There's always a chance that Tyson could slip something past Lennox and hurt him. But when Lennox is focused, he ain't going anywhere. Key word is FOCUSED.

After the 6th or 7th round and once Tyson's head-movement quickly fades, Lewis wins almost all of the remaining rounds to a UD.

---

2002 Lennox ? What you been smoking son ? You're talking like the 2002 Lennox was vintage. Not forgetting a year earlier in 01 he was knocked out Rahman. The 2002 Lennox was 37. I think you should have said the 92 Lennox that beat Ruddock.

Either way. 02 Lennox or 92 Lennox, 88 Tyson beats the both of them........and beats Lennox fairly easily. The 02 Tyson was a wreck hooked on coke, not training and even then, Lewis still took 8 rounds to get him out of there.

However I would say that Holyfield may well have beaten a prime Tyson, due to his style. But not Lewis.

End of the day - Tyson - Lewis was like Jones - Calazghe or Hopkins - Calzaghe or Pac-Man - Mayweather......made ten years too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Fascinating match up, in my opinion. Right off the bat we all have to admit that if Rahman and McCall could stop Zlennox with one shot, Tyson could also. So... Tyson will always have that punchers chance in this match up.

Looking at the fighters and their mentality objectively, however, we all have to admit that Tyson always struggled vs large, physical fighters and those who jabbed well. I also feel that Lennox was vulnerable when he overlooked his opponent as evidenced by his fights vs. McCall, Rahman, Bruno, and Mercer, to name a few. Lennox would not take Tyson lightly, and I feel like Lennox was most dominant in fights vs those he viewed as dangerous, such as Tua, Grant, Ruddock, and Golota.

Lennox's size, boxing ability, jab, and smothering tactics would alwZys trouble Tyson. Mike was extremely fast and aggressive in his prime, so a knockout of Lewis is always a realistic possibility. I think the more likely outcome, however, is that Lennox breaks Mike down with the jab, leaning on Tyson and smothering him inside, before landing the big shots late for the stoppage. Just my take though...

---

You basing that on the actual fight which sounds ridiculous. Would you say Holmes stops or even beats a young Ali?

Would you say Marciano stops or beats a young Louis?

Fighters need the reflexes and skills that made them succesfull in the first place and Mikes had long gone at the point they fought.

When you say struggled you mean had to go to points because those fights he struggled in he still completely dominated unlike Lewis who should have lost against Mercer. Lews struggled with fighters who put it on him. Mavrovich had Lewis on the ropes in parts of their fight.

Lewis never had a prolonged period of dominance because of thise knockout losses. There was never a point in his career where people thought he was unbeatable unlike Mike Tyson.

---

I would argue that Lennox was dominant for a longer time than Tyson. Lewis lost to McCall in the mid-90s and Rahman in 2000/01 time frame, and avenged both losses. The truth is that Tyson never fought a complete, large heavyweight who wasn't terrified of him until Buster Douglas. Douglas, Lennox, and Evander all used the jab to control and punish Tyson. Mike was well past his best vs Lennox, but was considered the baddest man on the planet when he faced the other two. Additionally, while he did win those fights vs Tucker, Ruddock, and Smith, he did struggle with their sheer size, and none were ANYWHERE near the complete/elite fighter that 2002 Lennox was.

For your other questions, I think Holmes gives Ali fits prime vs prime, and Louis beats Marciano, but takes some serious punishment in the process.

Tyson did not struggle with big fighters he beat them relatively easy it is just that you could count on one hand the moments of success they had ie Tucker right uppercut 2nd round, Bonecrusher right hand in 12th round ect

That was how good Tyson was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson did not struggle with big fighters he beat them relatively easy it is just that you could count on one hand the moments of success they had ie Tucker right uppercut 2nd round, Bonecrusher right hand in 12th round ect

That was how good Tyson was.

---

You are right to point out pre 1990 that he did not struggle to beat the bigger physical fighters. But he clearly had periods of frustration against Tillis, Green, Ribalta, Smith and Tucker, as all five used their size to neutralize his awesome offence, but at a cost of very limited offence in return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson did not struggle with big fighters he beat them relatively easy it is just that you could count on one hand the moments of success they had ie Tucker right uppercut 2nd round, Bonecrusher right hand in 12th round ect

That was how good Tyson was.

---

You are right to point out pre 1990 that he did not struggle to beat the bigger physical fighters. But he clearly had periods of frustration against Tillis, Green, Ribalta, Smith and Tucker, as all five used their size to neutralize his awesome offence, but at a cost of very limited offence in return.

---

Which is where I think Lennox would fight too defensively and lose the fight albeit by decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson did not struggle with big fighters he beat them relatively easy it is just that you could count on one hand the moments of success they had ie Tucker right uppercut 2nd round, Bonecrusher right hand in 12th round ect

That was how good Tyson was.

---

You are right to point out pre 1990 that he did not struggle to beat the bigger physical fighters. But he clearly had periods of frustration against Tillis, Green, Ribalta, Smith and Tucker, as all five used their size to neutralize his awesome offence, but at a cost of very limited offence in return.

---

Which is where I think Lennox would fight too defensively and lose the fight albeit by decision.

---

Lewis was as defensively sound as any of them fighters, but his offence blows them all out the water and only Smith can claim parity in the power stakes.

Tyson never won a fight that was in the balance after six rounds, Lewis always ;) found a way to beat his opponent in the end, from that position.

The only hope for Tyson is that Lewis' alter ego Lummox shows up, and then Mike can win a shootout inside four rounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Fascinating match up, in my opinion. Right off the bat we all have to admit that if Rahman and McCall could stop Zlennox with one shot, Tyson could also. So... Tyson will always have that punchers chance in this match up.

Looking at the fighters and their mentality objectively, however, we all have to admit that Tyson always struggled vs large, physical fighters and those who jabbed well. I also feel that Lennox was vulnerable when he overlooked his opponent as evidenced by his fights vs. McCall, Rahman, Bruno, and Mercer, to name a few. Lennox would not take Tyson lightly, and I feel like Lennox was most dominant in fights vs those he viewed as dangerous, such as Tua, Grant, Ruddock, and Golota.

Lennox's size, boxing ability, jab, and smothering tactics would alwZys trouble Tyson. Mike was extremely fast and aggressive in his prime, so a knockout of Lewis is always a realistic possibility. I think the more likely outcome, however, is that Lennox breaks Mike down with the jab, leaning on Tyson and smothering him inside, before landing the big shots late for the stoppage. Just my take though...

---

You basing that on the actual fight which sounds ridiculous. Would you say Holmes stops or even beats a young Ali?

Would you say Marciano stops or beats a young Louis?

Fighters need the reflexes and skills that made them succesfull in the first place and Mikes had long gone at the point they fought.

When you say struggled you mean had to go to points because those fights he struggled in he still completely dominated unlike Lewis who should have lost against Mercer. Lews struggled with fighters who put it on him. Mavrovich had Lewis on the ropes in parts of their fight.

Lewis never had a prolonged period of dominance because of thise knockout losses. There was never a point in his career where people thought he was unbeatable unlike Mike Tyson.

---

I would argue that Lennox was dominant for a longer time than Tyson. Lewis lost to McCall in the mid-90s and Rahman in 2000/01 time frame, and avenged both losses. The truth is that Tyson never fought a complete, large heavyweight who wasn't terrified of him until Buster Douglas. Douglas, Lennox, and Evander all used the jab to control and punish Tyson. Mike was well past his best vs Lennox, but was considered the baddest man on the planet when he faced the other two. Additionally, while he did win those fights vs Tucker, Ruddock, and Smith, he did struggle with their sheer size, and none were ANYWHERE near the complete/elite fighter that 2002 Lennox was.

For your other questions, I think Holmes gives Ali fits prime vs prime, and Louis beats Marciano, but takes some serious punishment in the process.

---

Argue all you like the facts are Tyson wiped out the top ten and left no one with any perceived chance of beating him. He lost to the biggest ever shock in boxing because he just didnt train properly and let himself down.

How long was Lewis the universally recognised best in the world in one period?

Mike made 6 successfull defences of all 3 belts (losing them in the 7th defence, no other fighter in any other division has held all the titles and defended the, as many times) after unifying 3 separate belts by beating 3 defending champions. Lewis won vacated titles and when he did have them all could only manage a couple of defences of them. He rather chose to drop some so he didnt have to face certain fighters, unlike Mike who proved there was no one in his brief era who could touch him until he big time let himself down in boxing historys biggest shock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson did not struggle with big fighters he beat them relatively easy it is just that you could count on one hand the moments of success they had ie Tucker right uppercut 2nd round, Bonecrusher right hand in 12th round ect

That was how good Tyson was.

---

You are right to point out pre 1990 that he did not struggle to beat the bigger physical fighters. But he clearly had periods of frustration against Tillis, Green, Ribalta, Smith and Tucker, as all five used their size to neutralize his awesome offence, but at a cost of very limited offence in return.

---

Which is where I think Lennox would fight too defensively and lose the fight albeit by decision.

---

Lewis was as defensively sound as any of them fighters, but his offence blows them all out the water and only Smith can claim parity in the power stakes.

Tyson never won a fight that was in the balance after six rounds, Lewis always ;) found a way to beat his opponent in the end, from that position.

The only hope for Tyson is that Lewis' alter ego Lummox shows up, and then Mike can win a shootout inside four rounds.

---

No doubt Lewis was better than Tyson's opponents he beat during that period but not good enough to beat Tyson.

Reading through the thread i've decided Lewis would have beat prime Mike. Too strong, too intelligent. However, prime Mike would start favourite over any heavyweight in history.

1988 Tyson is the best HW of all time. Its like men vs machine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Reading through the thread i've decided Lewis would have beat prime Mike. Too strong, too intelligent. However, prime Mike would start favourite over any heavyweight in history.

---

I think you have summed it up.

Tyson brought so many people into the sport, there is an emotional attachment that warps opinion on him. I always say he is the most underrated overrated fighter boxing has seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Reading through the thread i've decided Lewis would have beat prime Mike. Too strong, too intelligent. However, prime Mike would start favourite over any heavyweight in history.

---

I think you have summed it up.

Tyson brought so many people into the sport, there is an emotional attachment that warps opinion on him. I always say he is boxing's most underrated overrated fighter boxing has seen.

---

Ok, so let me get this right? Are you 2 saying Lewis beats every single HW in history?
Or are we just having a play with words here and saying something but not saying anything?:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Reading through the thread i've decided Lewis would have beat prime Mike. Too strong, too intelligent. However, prime Mike would start favourite over any heavyweight in history.

---

I think you have summed it up.

Tyson brought so many people into the sport, there is an emotional attachment that warps opinion on him. I always say he is boxing's most underrated overrated fighter boxing has seen.

---

Name another fighter in any division that has defended the unified WBC, WBA and IBF titles sucessfully 6 times in one run.

That fighter is not an over rated fighter. That fighter has had to fight everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Reading through the thread i've decided Lewis would have beat prime Mike. Too strong, too intelligent. However, prime Mike would start favourite over any heavyweight in history.

---

I think you have summed it up.

Tyson brought so many people into the sport, there is an emotional attachment that warps opinion on him. I always say he is boxing's most underrated overrated fighter boxing has seen.

---

Ok, so let me get this right? Are you 2 saying Lewis beats every single HW in history?
Or are we just having a play with words here and saying something but not saying anything?:rolleyes:

---

I am saying Tyson warps opinion, and is probably somewhere in the middle, which means he is arguably a top ten Heavyweight. Lewis is generally considered a top ten Heavyweight, but personally I would place him in the bottom half of that ten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Reading through the thread i've decided Lewis would have beat prime Mike. Too strong, too intelligent. However, prime Mike would start favourite over any heavyweight in history.

---

I think you have summed it up.

Tyson brought so many people into the sport, there is an emotional attachment that warps opinion on him. I always say he is boxing's most underrated overrated fighter boxing has seen.

---

Name another fighter in any division that has defended the unified WBC, WBA and IBF titles sucessfully 6 times in one run.

That fighter is not an over rated fighter. That fighter has had to fight everyone.

---

James J Jeffries, Tommy Burns, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and Muhammad Ali did not get the chance because only, for some, the NBA (renamed WBA in 1962) existed. So they did not get to fight for the WBA and two of its bastard children. But were all generally considered champions who made six successful defences, unlike Mike, who made two...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Reading through the thread i've decided Lewis would have beat prime Mike. Too strong, too intelligent. However, prime Mike would start favourite over any heavyweight in history.

---

I think you have summed it up.

Tyson brought so many people into the sport, there is an emotional attachment that warps opinion on him. I always say he is boxing's most underrated overrated fighter boxing has seen.

---

Name another fighter in any division that has defended the unified WBC, WBA and IBF titles sucessfully 6 times in one run.

That fighter is not an over rated fighter. That fighter has had to fight everyone.

---

James J Jeffries, Tommy Burns, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and Muhammad Ali did not get the chance because only, for some, the NBA (renamed WBA in 1962) existed. So they did not get to fight for the WBA and two of its bastard children. But were all generally considered champions who made six successful defences, unlike Mike, who made two...

---

Dont give me that shit!

It was easier to avoid certain fighters years ago with one title than it is now!!

You will find alot of those older champs wouldnt have kept 3 belts together because it meant having so many mandatory defences. The belts would be no less fractired than they are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Reading through the thread i've decided Lewis would have beat prime Mike. Too strong, too intelligent. However, prime Mike would start favourite over any heavyweight in history.

---

I think you have summed it up.

Tyson brought so many people into the sport, there is an emotional attachment that warps opinion on him. I always say he is boxing's most underrated overrated fighter boxing has seen.

---

Name another fighter in any division that has defended the unified WBC, WBA and IBF titles sucessfully 6 times in one run.

That fighter is not an over rated fighter. That fighter has had to fight everyone.

---

James J Jeffries, Tommy Burns, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and Muhammad Ali did not get the chance because only, for some, the NBA (renamed WBA in 1962) existed. So they did not get to fight for the WBA and two of its bastard children. But were all generally considered champions who made six successful defences, unlike Mike, who made two...

---

Dont give me that shit!

It was easier to avoid certain fighters years ago with one title than it is now!!

You will find alot of those older champs wouldnt have kept 3 belts together because it meant having so many mandatory defences. The belts would be no less fractired than they are now.

---

I am sorry, I forgot there is only one champ in this era. Unlike in Marciano's era when one of the ten or so organizations that 'created' champions had two title holders...

Boxing has and probably will always be corrupt, but it was no worse then, than it is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Reading through the thread i've decided Lewis would have beat prime Mike. Too strong, too intelligent. However, prime Mike would start favourite over any heavyweight in history.

---

I think you have summed it up.

Tyson brought so many people into the sport, there is an emotional attachment that warps opinion on him. I always say he is boxing's most underrated overrated fighter boxing has seen.

---

Ok, so let me get this right? Are you 2 saying Lewis beats every single HW in history?
Or are we just having a play with words here and saying something but not saying anything?:rolleyes:

---

I am saying Tyson warps opinion, and is probably somewhere in the middle, which means he is arguably a top ten Heavyweight. Lewis is generally considered a top ten Heavyweight, but personally I would place him in the bottom half of that ten.

---

Ok, so you 2 are playing with words. First Fenster says (and you agreed), that "Tyson would start favourite over every HW in history" but Lewis beats him. That implies that Tyson is the best HW in history EXCEPT for Lewis. But then you say Lewis is lower half of top 10 and Tyson below him???
You also constantly used Tyson after 88, before 88, but never the 88 version to make
Your futile point , and also manage to bring Joe Louis into the equation. I still can't fathom out what the fuck Joe Louis has to do with this thread???
Also, you pick out one isolated sentence in a 4 paragraph post to further try to emphasise your point (unsuccessfully) and then try to "prove"that Tyson was intimidated with a you tube video (admittedly you never posted,but nonetheless agreed with) that merely shows a young frustrated guy with emotions! He still went out and KTFO of everyone that came his way. Yes there's fear, every boxer has it, but some harness and utilise it to get the job done.
He was hardly shitting his pants at his opponent was he?
Finally, I've ranted on and on here, but I'm going to sum your argument up in 3 simple words.........CLUTCHING AT STRAWS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I agree, but there's one missing factor...... mentality.

Tyson at his peak was unwavering. He fought some huge punchers (ie: Razor Ruddock), and still found the way and the will to win. With Lennox, you didn't know what you were going to get on fight night. Laser-focused and angry..... or lazy and lackadaisical. If you add the adjectives on 2002 Lewis, namely focused and determined..... THEN I would agree with Lewis winning 7 or 8 times out of 10. Otherwise forget it.

---

Alright then, let's account for that then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKjK95aRrhc


All of that was bubbling under the surface, just 1 or 2 good shots away

---

This is a 15 year old child.....

Back to the main point, Tyson would always have a punchers chance vs Lennox, so a Tyson win isn't out of the question. That being said, Lewis was much larger and would've come in against Tyson with a laser focus due to Mike being so dangerous. With both versions fighting their best fights, Lennox comes out ahead. Too many weapons, too smart, and too big for any version of Mike Tyson.

Tyson.
always :lickish::lickish:

I said prime Tyson would start favourite over any boxer in history because in his pomp I believe he was the most spectacular, intimidating heavyweight ever.

However, that doesn't mean I think he would beat everyone. Not even close.

In 1988 Tyson beat an ancient (for those times) 225lbs Larry Holmes, a 240 fat Tony Tubbs and a 210 Spinks.

2002 Lennox Lewis is a 250lb athlete, unflappable, has superb skills, intelligent, a massive puncher and recognised as the best heavyweight on the planet, due to having beat everyone he'd ever faced.

I think it's fair to say in Tyson's pomp he never faced anyone close to Lewis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

I said prime Tyson would start favourite over any boxer in history because in his pomp I believe he was the most spectacular, intimidating heavyweight ever.

However, that doesn't mean I think he would beat everyone. Not even close.

In 1988 Tyson beat an ancient (for those times) 225lbs Larry Holmes, a 240 fat Tony Tubbs and a 210 Spinks.

2002 Lennox Lewis is a 250lb athlete, unflappable, has superb skills, intelligent, a massive puncher and recognised as the best heavyweight on the planet, due to having beat everyone he'd ever faced.

I think it's fair to say in Tyson's pomp he never faced anyone close to Lewis.

---

yep, my points were.
a. saying he starts favourite and not divulging further implies that "he should beat them" and
b. this isn't aimed at you, but you said yourself that he was the "most intimidating HW ever" , yet Britkid was saying that Tyson was himself intimidated and afraid.
if you think Lewis beats Tyson fine, you've made points to stake your claim . I personally don't agree, but that's what this forum is about.......different opinions.;)