Quote Originally Posted by ono View Post
It's a question that can't really be answered in fairness. There is cases for Tyson ko'ing him and there is a case for Lewis frustrating the life out of him....I will say tho...

There isn't anybody on Tyson's 'prime' resume that is majorly impressive. The manor in which he won the fights might have been but i think a lot of people glorify his 'prime' because the reality may be that when he stepped up, he lost. Therefore it's easier to say 'he's past his prime'. Sometimes the fact that you are facing far better fighters (than you are used to facing) who also happen to be in their prime can sometimes give the illusion that you're not quite in your prime anymore - given that you haven't performed so well against them.

I just feel that it's too difficult to fully justify his prime being around the time he first became champion because he was beating name fighters who were past their best or solid-looking fighters with padded records or at least resumes that appear better until you actually look at how their resume is compiled.

He was a beast and of course there is the option of saying 'Tyson by KO' no matter who his prime vs prime opponent is, because he had the power and the speed to land.....but at the same time you have to remember that the chances of landing those sort of punches severly diminish when you actually fight an elite fighter.....like Holyfield or Lewis.
I've not replied to any message before although I have looked at this forum for a long while but I couldn't walk past this post as I think it's spot on. The prime vs. prime stuff is bunk. Tyson lost because he was never ever top rank - he looked amazing but he looked amazing against a poor set of opposition and he lost when he ran into someone more determined. He never triumphed in aversity or overcame a great opponent. He didn't pass the test when it came, and despite his highlight reel career is not a great heavyweight.