Lewis vs Tyson - Pure Boxing Ability... who's better?

First topic message reminder :

Simple question.

When it comes to ATG heavyweight lists we would normally find Lewis in a higher position than Tyson due to his longer title reign combined with a number of very good names on his CV as well as a number of other factors. Tyson on the otherhand had a much shorter prime, which counts greatly against him

But the question for this post is for pure boxing ability at there relative peaks who was the better fighter????

rapidringsroad wrote:After the first knockout by McCall Lewis was trained by Emanuel Steward who was McCall's trainer at the time. From then on Lewis's left jab became one of the best in the business setting up many a finishing right,ask Rahman in their rematch and Tyson despite having the ref in his corner when they fought.

Tyson was never the same when he left Rooney. During the Buster fight, his cornermen didn't even know that he was allergic to vaseline. But hey, more excuses for Lewis and no latitude for Tyson. The Tyson of 1986-89/90 would have destroyed Lewis of any era.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Tyson is like a myth. His "prime" lasted about 4 minutes and in that time he could apparently beat anyone.

All his defeats are put down to the fact he lost focus which is total nonsense. Lewis did not crumble when an opponent was not afraid of him in the way Tyson crumbled to average fighters like Douglas.

Tyson does not get in my list of top 10 heavies, his has neither the records nor brilliant performances to get there.

What were Lewis' defeats put down to?

After Tyson left Rooney, he went downhill. No argument there. He was never the same and never as good. Many boxers could have beaten him then including Lewis. The Rooney trained Tyson would slip Lewis's jab and KO him. Lewis got beaten by single shots. Tyson crumbled by an accumulation of numerous sledgehammer punches.

A good jab would beat Tyson of any era. Lewis possessed a slow and pushed jab with average footwork. In fact he was clumsy.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:This thread is full of so much folly. Anyone that thinks the mythical "prime" Tyson of witherspoon, Spinks and shot holmes fame beats the best version of a 6'5" 240lb jabbing, right crossing, uppercutting, technically superior, mentally and physically stronger, Olympic gold winning ATG Lennox Lewis doesn't understand boxing and is living in a dream world buying into the myth of mike tyson, rather than the less impressive reality.

Lewis had poor footwrok. Clumsy in fact. An average jab which lacked snap and was pushed out. When he got his opponent in a one handed thai clinch, his uppercut was brutal. His main punch was an overhand right. Bruno was outboxing him ffs. Says it all really. Lewis had major problems with a past it Holy in their second fight.

azania wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:This thread is full of so much folly. Anyone that thinks the mythical "prime" Tyson of witherspoon, Spinks and shot holmes fame beats the best version of a 6'5" 240lb jabbing, right crossing, uppercutting, technically superior, mentally and physically stronger, Olympic gold winning ATG Lennox Lewis doesn't understand boxing and is living in a dream world buying into the myth of mike tyson, rather than the less impressive reality.

Lewis had poor footwrok. Clumsy in fact. An average jab which lacked snap and was pushed out. When he got his opponent in a one handed thai clinch, his uppercut was brutal. His main punch was an overhand right. Bruno was outboxing him ffs. Says it all really. Lewis had major problems with a past it Holy in their second fight.

Bruno shook Tyson if that is the case. The fact is Lewis, after being "outboxed" knocked him out. Pretty emphatic.

If you want to think a "prime" Tyson would KO Lewis that is up to you. Tyson has no outstanding wins on his resume, never came back from losing a fight to win one and crumbled to every fighter who came to fight, rather than survive. He probably had the physical attributes to be an ATG, but not the mental side, both are needed.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:I've always had the opinion that you become a great fighter by beating great fighters.

Lennox has beaten better boxers than Tyson.

The question isn't about career achievements though, it's about at their individual bests who do you think would have won? No one can argue that Lewis had a better career than Tyson, but their is a case for saying an at peak Tyson could have beat an at peak Lewis.

Lewis's best win > Tyson's best win.

Am I alone in thinking the original question is a little vague? What exactly constitutes 'pure' boxing ability? Did Roy Jones Jr possess more 'pure' ability than Lewis? He was certainly more naturally gifted, but Lewis displayed the more orthodox fundamentals. How does one define 'pure' boxing ability? Talking about best wins is misleading too. Ricky Hatton had better wins than Paulie Malignaggi, but Malignaggi could be considered to have displayed the better 'pure' boxing skills of the two.

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:I've always had the opinion that you become a great fighter by beating great fighters.

Lennox has beaten better boxers than Tyson.

The question isn't about career achievements though, it's about at their individual bests who do you think would have won? No one can argue that Lewis had a better career than Tyson, but their is a case for saying an at peak Tyson could have beat an at peak Lewis.

Lewis's best win > Tyson's best win.

I think both fighters best wins were over Frank Bruno.

BALTIMORA wrote:Am I alone in thinking the original question is a little vague? What exactly constitutes 'pure' boxing ability? Did Roy Jones Jr possess more 'pure' ability than Lewis? He was certainly more naturally gifted, but Lewis displayed the more orthodox fundamentals. How does one define 'pure' boxing ability? Talking about best wins is misleading too. Ricky Hatton had better wins than Paulie Malignaggi, but Malignaggi could be considered to have displayed the better 'pure' boxing skills of the two.

Pretty sure that kev is simply asking which of the two had the better toolbox, BALTI, but your post raises some interesting points.

If we compare Ali to Joe Louis, for example, I'd say that Joe beats Ali hands down in almost every facet of orthodox boxing technique. However, Ali's incredible natural gifts, together with his box of tricks and his heart, rightly see him up there with Louis as one of the two best heavies of all time in the eyes of most. ( I have him a whisker ahead of Louis, but that's another story. ) Likewise Dempsey. Some reckon Dempsey to have been simply a face first brawler with incredibly heavy hands. I reckon that there was a whole lot more to Dempsey than that, both in terms of his under rated boxing skills and also in the things which can't be measured such as fire in the belly and menace in the eye, but even if he HAD been a mere slugger he would still have possessed a mightily effective toolbox.

These analyses are seldom easy, in my view.

I'll admit Windy that I hadn't read the whole of this thread, because these arguments are often very ambiguous, akin to those '100 greatest...' programmes that are shown far too often. I did find that aspect of the OP interesting though, because 'pure' ability can mean so many things to so many people. If you look at the aim of boxing as being to knock the opponent out, then perhaps Tyson had the more pure aggressive skills. If you consider the aim to be hit-and-don't-be-hit then would Lewis be a clear favourite?

It's one of those things I find peculiar at times-I can appreciate fine technical boxers, but I REALLY like to see a boxer who goes all out and wants to stop his opponent. If you stop your opponent it's pretty final, rather than just out-boxing them for a predetermined number of rounds.

Again, you raise interesting points, BALTI.

The styles thing will often influence us, no matter how objective we might try to be. I could watch Locche or Pep all day, ( though, in my case I'm such a boxing nut that I love to watch the kayo artists just as much, ) but some might find watching them akin to taking a sedative.

I've actually often wondered how we'd view Tyson today if he'd won the title at the same age, defended it against the same opponents, but had put on a display of wonderful technical boxing to romp home on points every time. Hard core fight fans would probably respect him every bit as much, but I suspect that the casual fan wouldn't rate him so highly as he does today.

I think you're right about the points thing. For me, with a points victory there's always that element of 'well, he could have been knocked out in the next round if there'd been one'. I know that's very tenuous, but when guys used to fight for fifty or sixty rounds, seeing a guy declared the winner after twelve because he boxed better is a bit like saying "well, neither guy WON, but you were WINNING". "You won THAT part". It just seems...incomplete, somehow.

I know points can be utterly decisive over 12, but a stoppage-a genuine one-is final. It's saying: "you sir are done and dusted, collect your cheque and go home". It's the difference between seeing an army capitulate and seeing them annihilated. Saying this, we both know how a KO loss can be reversed dramatically in a rematch (Lewis, Marquez-Marquez, etc), but on an individual fight basis a KO just underlines the loss.

SBS makes an excellent point about LL's chin, it IS a complete fallacy that he couldn't take a punch.He in fact had an excellent chin and Ray Mercer's blows were brutal,scary, but he didn't ever look lkke going down.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:This thread is full of so much folly. Anyone that thinks the mythical "prime" Tyson of witherspoon, Spinks and shot holmes fame beats the best version of a 6'5" 240lb jabbing, right crossing, uppercutting, technically superior, mentally and physically stronger, Olympic gold winning ATG Lennox Lewis doesn't understand boxing and is living in a dream world buying into the myth of mike tyson, rather than the less impressive reality.

Lewis had poor footwrok. Clumsy in fact. An average jab which lacked snap and was pushed out. When he got his opponent in a one handed thai clinch, his uppercut was brutal. His main punch was an overhand right. Bruno was outboxing him ffs. Says it all really. Lewis had major problems with a past it Holy in their second fight.

Bruno shook Tyson if that is the case. The fact is Lewis, after being "outboxed" knocked him out. Pretty emphatic.

If you want to think a "prime" Tyson would KO Lewis that is up to you. Tyson has no outstanding wins on his resume, never came back from losing a fight to win one and crumbled to every fighter who came to fight, rather than survive. He probably had the physical attributes to be an ATG, but not the mental side, both are needed.

Of course Bruno shook tyson. But he didn't outbox him for most of their fight as he did against Lewis.

Who were Lewis's outstanding wins? An old Holy and a wrecked Tyson? imo his best win was Tua. Tyson cleaned up the heavyweight division. His best win was against Tubby who had the fastest speed of any heavy I care to recall. Spinks was beaten before he entered the ring and had no right being in there with a genuine heavy in his murderous peak. The Tyson who beat Spinks and Tubbs plus Thomas would have ripped Lewis apart. The Tyson who destroyed and finished Biggs would have had Lewis out of there in no time. Those 4 years where he reigned should never be forgotten. It should not be compared to the post Douglas Tyson who was a lost man. Totally destroyed by out of the ring issues and no proper trainer. Yes it was his fault. But they were two very different animals.

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:I've always had the opinion that you become a great fighter by beating great fighters.

Lennox has beaten better boxers than Tyson.

The question isn't about career achievements though, it's about at their individual bests who do you think would have won? No one can argue that Lewis had a better career than Tyson, but their is a case for saying an at peak Tyson could have beat an at peak Lewis.

Lewis's best win > Tyson's best win.

Disagree. Biggs, Thomas, SPinks, Tubbs are better than anyone else on Lewis's resume. Lewis beat names but not good fighters. Holy and Tyson were names when lewis beat them.

HumanWindmill wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Am I alone in thinking the original question is a little vague? What exactly constitutes 'pure' boxing ability? Did Roy Jones Jr possess more 'pure' ability than Lewis? He was certainly more naturally gifted, but Lewis displayed the more orthodox fundamentals. How does one define 'pure' boxing ability? Talking about best wins is misleading too. Ricky Hatton had better wins than Paulie Malignaggi, but Malignaggi could be considered to have displayed the better 'pure' boxing skills of the two.

Pretty sure that kev is simply asking which of the two had the better toolbox, BALTI, but your post raises some interesting points.

If we compare Ali to Joe Louis, for example, I'd say that Joe beats Ali hands down in almost every facet of orthodox boxing technique. However, Ali's incredible natural gifts, together with his box of tricks and his heart, rightly see him up there with Louis as one of the two best heavies of all time in the eyes of most. ( I have him a whisker ahead of Louis, but that's another story. ) Likewise Dempsey. Some reckon Dempsey to have been simply a face first brawler with incredibly heavy hands. I reckon that there was a whole lot more to Dempsey than that, both in terms of his under rated boxing skills and also in the things which can't be measured such as fire in the belly and menace in the eye, but even if he HAD been a mere slugger he would still have possessed a mightily effective toolbox.

These analyses are seldom easy, in my view.

If only Dempsey had had modern training and nutritional information available to him. And a colour TV set.

BALTIMORA wrote:I'll admit Windy that I hadn't read the whole of this thread, because these arguments are often very ambiguous, akin to those '100 greatest...' programmes that are shown far too often. I did find that aspect of the OP interesting though, because 'pure' ability can mean so many things to so many people. If you look at the aim of boxing as being to knock the opponent out, then perhaps Tyson had the more pure aggressive skills. If you consider the aim to be hit-and-don't-be-hit then would Lewis be a clear favourite?

It's one of those things I find peculiar at times-I can appreciate fine technical boxers, but I REALLY like to see a boxer who goes all out and wants to stop his opponent. If you stop your opponent it's pretty final, rather than just out-boxing them for a predetermined number of rounds.

Two different boxers with very different stykes and skills. Its like comparing chalk and cheese. Tyson had a very good jab but was better at brawling than Lewis. A good boxer will generally beat a good brawler imo but Lewis didn't have the snap and speed in his jab to deter a rampaging Tyson.

BALTIMORA wrote:If only Dempsey had had modern training and nutritional information available to him. And a colour TV set.

Never mind colour tv, did they have tv then? I reckon Windy still calls it a moving box...he is that old!

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Am I alone in thinking the original question is a little vague? What exactly constitutes 'pure' boxing ability? Did Roy Jones Jr possess more 'pure' ability than Lewis? He was certainly more naturally gifted, but Lewis displayed the more orthodox fundamentals. How does one define 'pure' boxing ability? Talking about best wins is misleading too. Ricky Hatton had better wins than Paulie Malignaggi, but Malignaggi could be considered to have displayed the better 'pure' boxing skills of the two.

Pretty sure that kev is simply asking which of the two had the better toolbox, BALTI, but your post raises some interesting points.

If we compare Ali to Joe Louis, for example, I'd say that Joe beats Ali hands down in almost every facet of orthodox boxing technique. However, Ali's incredible natural gifts, together with his box of tricks and his heart, rightly see him up there with Louis as one of the two best heavies of all time in the eyes of most. ( I have him a whisker ahead of Louis, but that's another story. ) Likewise Dempsey. Some reckon Dempsey to have been simply a face first brawler with incredibly heavy hands. I reckon that there was a whole lot more to Dempsey than that, both in terms of his under rated boxing skills and also in the things which can't be measured such as fire in the belly and menace in the eye, but even if he HAD been a mere slugger he would still have possessed a mightily effective toolbox.

These analyses are seldom easy, in my view.

Afternoon, azania.

Hope all's well, mate, and that you are suitably refreshed from your lunch. Let me guess : high fibre wholemeal bread, scrambled egg whites, organic tomatoes, fresh orange juice and a protein shake. Wonderful stuff. Bring on Vitali Klitschko, I say.

Don't forget to watch a few episodes of ' Eastenders, ' just to reaffirm that Life, as we know it, ( as we know it, Jim, ) actually began in 1980. Mustn't run away with the idea that anything significant happened beforehand, must we ?

World Wars one and two were actually fabricated by Tom Clancy, in 1993. True story.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Am I alone in thinking the original question is a little vague? What exactly constitutes 'pure' boxing ability? Did Roy Jones Jr possess more 'pure' ability than Lewis? He was certainly more naturally gifted, but Lewis displayed the more orthodox fundamentals. How does one define 'pure' boxing ability? Talking about best wins is misleading too. Ricky Hatton had better wins than Paulie Malignaggi, but Malignaggi could be considered to have displayed the better 'pure' boxing skills of the two.

Pretty sure that kev is simply asking which of the two had the better toolbox, BALTI, but your post raises some interesting points.

If we compare Ali to Joe Louis, for example, I'd say that Joe beats Ali hands down in almost every facet of orthodox boxing technique. However, Ali's incredible natural gifts, together with his box of tricks and his heart, rightly see him up there with Louis as one of the two best heavies of all time in the eyes of most. ( I have him a whisker ahead of Louis, but that's another story. ) Likewise Dempsey. Some reckon Dempsey to have been simply a face first brawler with incredibly heavy hands. I reckon that there was a whole lot more to Dempsey than that, both in terms of his under rated boxing skills and also in the things which can't be measured such as fire in the belly and menace in the eye, but even if he HAD been a mere slugger he would still have possessed a mightily effective toolbox.

These analyses are seldom easy, in my view.

Afternoon, azania.

Hope all's well, mate, and that you are suitably refreshed from your lunch. Let me guess : high fibre wholemeal bread, scrambled egg whites, organic tomatoes, fresh orange juice and a protein shake. Wonderful stuff. Bring on Vitali Klitschko, I say.

Don't forget to watch a few episodes of ' Eastenders, ' just to reaffirm that Life, as we know it, ( as we know it, Jim, ) actually began in 1980. Mustn't run away with the idea that anything significant happened beforehand, must we ?

Mrs Az is on strike today. I ordered in pizza.

BALTIMORA wrote:World Wars one and two were actually fabricated by Tom Clancy, in 1993. True story.

Did you know that there's more technology in a blackberry (that's a phone windy - mobile version without the cord and the wind up thingy at the side) that there was with Apollo 11. Just a bit of trivia for a saturday. You cant say I dont help our older generation here.

Forgot to mention that I believe that Tyson was definitely better than Lewis because he ate tastier snacks and watched newer and better TV shows.

Tyson was also better because he was born nine months after Lewis and therefore had the benefit of evolution. Had Tyson been born nine months earlier he would have stood 5ft.1in. and weighed 141.5lb., whereas if Lewis had had the benefit of those nine months in evolution he would have stood 7ft.4ins., weighed 323.76778lb., and would not have telegraphed his punches. He would also be faster, have better dress sense, smell better, drive a better car, have a better education and be able to ride a unicycle blindfolded.

He would also be able to sustain his prime at least thirty five minutes longer than he did and would average 1.00314765 punches more per round than he actually managed during his career.

If only, eh ?

azania wrote:Did you know that there's more technology in a blackberry

There's more talent in a blackberry which grows on a bush than there is in today's heavyweight division.

Great topic, because folks wil lalways get their knickers in a twist about Iron Mike, will always belittle Buster Douglas-hugely unfairly, in my view-and Lennox was enigmatic for a large part of his career, yes showing vulnerabilities but slowly worked on them (credit to Steward,which he was man enough to give on a regular basis).
It's a crock to say that he had a weak chin.Name a fighter who didn't get caught.His footwork was dreadful when he started,he sorted it 100%.His jab wasn't much, likewise he found a jab that won him fights for example against Tua. He had a murderous right hand from the start, but unlike Mike didn't just rely on it. Yes, Bruno had him in all kinds of trouble-well here's news, Bruno was a great fighter.Get over it.
However I have to be a fence-sitter when wondering who would be the best if their primes coincided.Lewis was shocked by Rahman's power,and McCall's explosiveness.Neither were rated.He showed arrogance in underestimating both.But can't see him making the same mistake against Tyson. As stated, I can't see a clear winner easily at all, maybe because you have a classic ATG brawler with fair to good boxing skills against a thinking ,chess-playing strategist who fought on the outside but could unleash one of the all-time great overhead's also when he needed to (hello, Vitali!).
For skill-set I think you have to go with Lennox. For being able to adapt, "come from behind to win" as above posters say, you have to go with Lewis ,too. But was Mike that good ,could he really knock out anyone on his day?I'd say "yes"...sorry to be a fence-sitter ,but like Bob Dylan said, the answer's blowin' in the wind!

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Did you know that there's more technology in a blackberry

There's more talent in a blackberry which grows on a bush than there is in today's heavyweight division.

I cant argue with that even though most of todays heavies would beat face first brawlers of whenever your time was.

Too true, Azania. What many connoisseurs of the olde time boxing era forget is that footage from 'them days' is often not shown at the correct speed, due to the guy turning the handle when it was recorded being inconsistent-often due to his 'golden era' poor diet and stamina. Therefore that footage when watched back now makes the old fighters appear significantly faster than in fact they was (sic).

andygf wrote:Great topic, because folks wil lalways get their knickers in a twist about Iron Mike, will always belittle Buster Douglas-hugely unfairly, in my view-and Lennox was enigmatic for a large part of his career, yes showing vulnerabilities but slowly worked on them (credit to Steward,which he was man enough to give on a regular basis).
It's a crock to say that he had a weak chin.Name a fighter who didn't get caught.His footwork was dreadful when he started,he sorted it 100%.His jab wasn't much, likewise he found a jab that won him fights for example against Tua. He had a murderous right hand from the start, but unlike Mike didn't just rely on it. Yes, Bruno had him in all kinds of trouble-well here's news, Bruno was a great fighter.Get over it.
However I have to be a fence-sitter when wondering who would be the best if their primes coincided.Lewis was shocked by Rahman's power,and McCall's explosiveness.Neither were rated.He showed arrogance in underestimating both.But can't see him making the same mistake against Tyson. As stated, I can't see a clear winner easily at all, maybe because you have a classic ATG brawler with fair to good boxing skills against a thinking ,chess-playing strategist who fought on the outside but could unleash one of the all-time great overhead's also when he needed to (hello, Vitali!).
For skill-set I think you have to go with Lennox. For being able to adapt, "come from behind to win" as above posters say, you have to go with Lewis ,too. But was Mike that good ,could he really knock out anyone on his day?I'd say "yes"...sorry to be a fence-sitter ,but like Bob Dylan said, the answer's blowin' in the wind!

They were both very skilled in the way they fought. Tyson was better on the inside than Lewis and Lewis better at range. The key would be who would be more effective against one another. Because Lewis had poor footwork and a weak(ish) jab Tyson would win imo. I would give Bowe a better chance against Tyson that Lewis because Bowe was a better inside fighter than Lewis and had a much better jab. I'd stil pick Tyson to win that fight also.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Did you know that there's more technology in a blackberry

There's more talent in a blackberry which grows on a bush than there is in today's heavyweight division.

I cant argue with that even though most of todays heavies would beat face first brawlers of whenever your time was.

My time, Sir.

Ah, the smell of freshly cut grass on England's finest fields ; the lazy droning of the summer bee ; the gentle thwack of leather on willow ; cucumber sandwiches and the muted trumpet of Miles Davis, all the while contemplating the incomparable Ali, the fearsome Liston, the immortal Jofre.

Heady days, and not a nutritionist or rowing machine to be found. If you have a good web browser, you might be able to enjoy it for yourself. Just Google ' early sixties.' Prepare for a shock, though. You'll see cars and everything. Even telephones, would you believe ?

Its an interesting question. For me, Tyson had the more raw talent but they are two very different fighters in terms of styles and careers. Tyson got rapidly worse after a blistering start, Lewis gradually matured.

Again, a bit like the Bowe hypotheticla fight that was discussed a while ago, I think people are placing far too much emphasis on Lewis' overall career as the basis for why he beats Tyson at his best. Lewis had a better a longer career. Thus he is entitled to rank higher on an overall list.

But how much relevance does this bear on say a fight between Lewis in 1999 vs a Tyson in 1988? Not a great deal for me as Tyson had not yet collapsed spectacularly.

There is seemingly a stubborn element that insists because Lewis deserves to rank higher than Tyson he automatically beats him. This isnt really a valid measuring stick if I am honest. I think Lewis' own career is overrated to begin this and benefits from alot of things that paint him in a better light - but tats a diffrent argument.

I think that if you look at each fighter then the fight would suggest that either Tyson wins by KO within 5 or 6 rounds or else Lewis wins the fight by points or a late stoppage.

Tyson was a very dangerous fighter inside the early rounds. Few got out of the blocks quicker and attacked with such venom then Tyson did in the 80s. Just look at his early KO streaks.

Lewis on the other hand had a tendancy to start slow and needed time to grow into a fight. I would point to fights with Klitschko, Bruno, Mercer, Holyfield and of course his two KO losses - both within 5 rounds.

Its clear to me that this is an advantage to a yound Tyson. If you take a fighter that is lethal early on with speed and power angainst a fighter that can be knocked early and is a slow starter then it looks good for Tyson. Its doing a disservice to Tyson to say that all his opponents simply didnt come to fight. Tyson didnt let them fight. He just overwhelmed them much like Dempsey did before them.

Another point is Lewis' inside fighting. Not one of his strengths. Unless he kept Tyson at distance then hes in very high danger of being knocked out. I believe Lewis was actually more comfortably with the bigger guys who were slower. He also needed to control the tempo. He wasnt a high octane fighter and if fighters forced a high pace aggresive tempo that was in his face he struggled to get a rythym going. Look at the fights with Mercer and Holyfield. Smallish heavies but high tempo guys that attacked from the off up front. Lewis struggled in these. Tyson would be more of the same but carrying a much bigger threat.

However unlike Holyfield and Mercer who came to box for 12 ronds, if Tyson cant score the early KO, or Lewis is able box behind the jab then the from the middle to late rounds the advantage swings in his way. Fighters like Douglas showed that if you could get the jab working early and live with Tyson for the first few round then Tyson became much less effective. Its certainly not unthinkable that Lewis could employ siilar tactics to Douglas and take Tyson into the deep end and late rounds where he is not as dngerous. Tyson was also vunerable to uppercuts which Lewis had in abundance. Mentally, its also qestionable how Tyson would react if the fight wasnt going how he wanted it to. So for thse reasons if Lewis can survive the opening onslaught then I see him being able to take over in the second half of the fight unless Tyson can keep his hectic pace going like Mercer or Holyfield did - which I doubt.

Ive red a few comments on both sides that seem to think this wold be a mismatch in favour of one fighter or the other. I certainly dont think so. I would encourage those who think so to re examine.

If I was forced to make a prediction, I would probably favour Tyson to win this by KO early on as I think the combination of his explosive start, aggressive approch and combination of speed and power has a good chance of overwhelming a Lewis that is generally a slow starter and needs to settle into a rythym to get going. Tyson, like Dempsey, is a nightmare in this regard for Lewis.

I agree with you in general. But the 1988 version of Tyson also fought at a high tempo for 12 rounds. When he fought Bonecrusher he was hugged but still fought for the full 12 without showing too much signs of fatigue. Ditto his fight with the IBF champ whose name escapes me now. That guy took some humdingers and still stood. Tyson beats Lewis every day and twice on sunday.

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:If only Dempsey had had modern training and nutritional information available to him. And a colour TV set.

Never mind colour tv, did they have tv then? I reckon Windy still calls it a moving box...he is that old!

I think you'll find it's 'magic window'...

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:If only Dempsey had had modern training and nutritional information available to him. And a colour TV set.

Never mind colour tv, did they have tv then? I reckon Windy still calls it a moving box...he is that old!

I think you'll find it's 'magic window'...

We all love windy.

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:If only Dempsey had had modern training and nutritional information available to him. And a colour TV set.

Never mind colour tv, did they have tv then? I reckon Windy still calls it a moving box...he is that old!

I think you'll find it's 'magic window'...

We all love windy.

Doesn't bloody sound like it, you cheeky sods.

@Colonial Lion

Good post & I pretty much agree with you. I always went Tyson early ko, Lewis points or late stoppage based on what you wrote. Maybe I should rephrase I totally agree with you!

Back to the OP, wasn't it more about who was the better boxer rather than who would win had they been able to fight each other at their peaks? I know this sounds strange but it wouldn't nesescerily prove who was the better boxer, as to the points Baltimora made, remember Barclay twice beat Hearns but does anybody rate Barclay as the better Boxer? Just means who was the better boxer on the night. Same goes for Mayorga vs Forest.

I think Rooney's Tyson was a much beter skilled fighter....As a guy who stood 5ft 10 and was basically disadvantaged..the head movement, speed and technical ability was very sound...

Lewis was alot bigger guy who had a good sound technical ability especially the jab and power.......

Not sure Lennox without a shot would have been that good......

Mercer/Briggs/Vitali/Mccall /Bruno gave him trouble and they were pretty ordinary guys..

Of course after Rooney...Tyson basically got lazy and his new mates/trainers didn't want to risk their meal ticket by disciplining him...

Funny Lewis got better after a change of trainer..Tyson got worse..

Tyson for me..

No harm meant Windy!

I've also always believed that it's Tyson early or Lewis later, which is why I mentioned earlier that I see it as a pick 'em.

To me, the first one to stamp his authority takes it. Over the first couple of rounds, Tyson is as dangerous as any heavyweight in history and, like it or not, the memory of seeing Lewis stretched twice by single shots makes me believe that if Tyson lands one of his trademark combos before Lewis gets out of the blocks we must, at least, consider the possibility that it could be a short night. On the other hand, if Tyson runs slap bang into a solid one two from Lennox, or one of those ferocious uppercuts, it could knock the fight out of him and drain his confidence, leaving him to ship a prolonged pasting.

I wouldn't bet a cent either way, but if my life depended on it I'd probably hold my breath and pick Tyson.

BALTIMORA wrote:No harm meant Windy!

You think I don't know that, mate ?

Yeah, but you k.ow what the mods are like on here..!

BALTIMORA wrote:Yeah, but you k.ow what the mods are like on here..!

Absolute swines. No time for them at all.

I think a young Tyson might show more angles and be a little too quick Windy...Certainly be harder for a Holy or a Lewis to stand their ground quite like they did with a guy bobbing, weaving and getting underneath.........Basically why I don't give the much smaller Louis a prayer..

See where you're coming from though old boy....Older Lewis presents problems for Tyson and guys like Tucker did create problems.....However they extensively circled the ring and backed off doing it...Holy and Lewis were much more positive creatures and strangely enough that may have been their undoing...

I see Tyson beating Lennox but having problems on the way..

Certainly have more trouble with Lewis than Holy though in his prime...

Speed would be the key..

HumanWindmill wrote:I've also always believed that it's Tyson early or Lewis later, which is why I mentioned earlier that I see it as a pick 'em.

To me, the first one to stamp his authority takes it. Over the first couple of rounds, Tyson is as dangerous as any heavyweight in history and, like it or not, the memory of seeing Lewis stretched twice by single shots makes me believe that if Tyson lands one of his trademark combos before Lewis gets out of the blocks we must, at least, consider the possibility that it could be a short night. On the other hand, if Tyson runs slap bang into a solid one two from Lennox, or one of those ferocious uppercuts, it could knock the fight out of him and drain his confidence, leaving him to ship a prolonged pasting.

I wouldn't bet a cent either way, but if my life depended on it I'd probably hold my breath and pick Tyson.

I dont get this idea that Tyson that a Lewis uppercut would knock the fight out of him. Granted a Lewis punch would fell a horse, unless the uppercut knocks out Tyson, it wouldn't drain his confidence. He took a hell of a shot from Bruno and he continued to dominate the same round....ok this is Bruno. Outside of a punchers chance (a good chance given his skills) I dont see Lewis winning even on points.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:See where you're coming from though old boy..

Likewise with your analysis, Truss. You may well be right, though I'd be happy to plant my backside firmly on the fence.

HumanWindmill wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Yeah, but you k.ow what the mods are like on here..!

Absolute swines. No time for them at all.

[quote="azania"]

HumanWindmill wrote:I dont get this idea that Tyson that a Lewis uppercut would knock the fight out of him. Granted a Lewis punch would fell a horse, unless the uppercut knocks out Tyson, it wouldn't drain his confidence. He took a hell of a shot from Bruno and he continued to dominate the same round....ok this is Bruno. Outside of a punchers chance (a good chance given his skills) I dont see Lewis winning even on points.

Again, azania, you may well be right.

Nothing wrong with Tyson's chin, but my rationale is based on his CONFIDENCE. I'd venture that Bruno could clock Tyson a few times before Mike got the idea that he might actually lose, but against Lewis he'd know from the get go that he's in with an opponent of similar quality to his own, so that a good start from Lewis might awaken Mike's gremlins.

Still wouldn't bet a cent either way, though.

The problem I have with any head to head involving Tyson, we're talking about a time frame so small where he beat decent fighters who weren't anything special. It's hard to suggest that someone who fell from grace so quickly could have mixed it at the top top level.

See the problem is people are probably basing their ideas on the later fight between Lewis and Tyson...

for Lewis to plant his feet he'd have to adjust to Tyson's speed and angles as would Holy....Bruno was a big strong guy who's whole game was coming forward behind a good jab and like Larry, Tucker, Bonecrusher et al he had to back off exclusively and try to box on the retreat.....Lewis wasn't as polished as Buster who fought a poor Tyson anyway..

This whole idea of LOuis, Dempsey and Lewis just planting their feet and banging away against a lightning quick elusive 220 pound hitter in prime Tyson is a bridge too far....

imperialghosty wrote:The problem I have with any head to head involving Tyson, we're talking about a time frame so small where he beat decent fighters who weren't anything special. It's hard to suggest that someone who fell from grace so quickly could have mixed it at the top top level.

I wouldn't call a 4 year time frame a small period. How long did Rock reign for?

Wilfred Benitez was finished at 24. His collapse was equally spectacular if not sadder.

Who did Lewis beat who was halfway decent? He didn't fight Bowe (not his fault). He beat a washed up Holy and Tyson. His best victory was Tua who came in grossly overweight.

[quote="HumanWindmill"]

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I dont get this idea that Tyson that a Lewis uppercut would knock the fight out of him. Granted a Lewis punch would fell a horse, unless the uppercut knocks out Tyson, it wouldn't drain his confidence. He took a hell of a shot from Bruno and he continued to dominate the same round....ok this is Bruno. Outside of a punchers chance (a good chance given his skills) I dont see Lewis winning even on points.

Again, azania, you may well be right.

Nothing wrong with Tyson's chin, but my rationale is based on his CONFIDENCE. I'd venture that Bruno could clock Tyson a few times before Mike got the idea that he might actually lose, but against Lewis he'd know from the get go that he's in with an opponent of similar quality to his own, so that a good start from Lewis might awaken Mike's gremlins.

Still wouldn't bet a cent either way, though.

The only time his confidence was questioned was in the Douglas fight. He didn't have Rooney in his corner. Instead he had yes men as Truss alluded to.