Rating Mike Tyson

Most casual fans would have you believe that Mike Tyson could defeat every boxer that ever lived in one punch.

In the other hand loads of hardcore fans and historians think that anyone with a decent jab and not afraid of him would beat him.

Honestly both statements are complete rubbish. Tyson wasn't invincible but he was a damn good heavyweight and I would certainly pick him to win more than he would lose against other greats at his best. Lighter slower fighters like Louis, Marciano and Louis would all be knocked out. Ali imo is the greatest heavyweight ever but I believe a prime tyson would give even the younger Ali a tougth fight which he would probably lose in points.

A lot of people who weren't around at the time Adam.......See a bully that lost to the best guys he fought....

However at the time he was the biggest name on the planet probably bigger than Schwarzenegger and was considered unbeatable by many...

Cleaned up the heavyweight division and only lost one fight in his prime.....That was probably due to bad training, awful coaching and complacency...(Though Douglas did perform superbly...

I would have picked Tyson to beat Holy in 91 and clean out George too but alas the prison installment came instead.......

It was an exciting time in Boxing.............He's a great heavy for me and up there with Lewis and Holy in the 10/20 zone........

Holmes win got better over time.........as did the Bruno win........Beat unbeaten men in Tucker and Biggs.......Unified with Spinks who was linear for what it's worth !!

Of course won two titles post-incarceration.....

So a six year stint at the top...

Love him to be around now Mate...Just wish you could have experienced his era and aura..

I remember watching him lose to Douglas, I was 6 at the time. I just remember my dad and older brothers being in complete shock with the outcome.

He's top 10-12 for me, though on purely a head to head basis I have trouble trying to find 5 heavyweights who could possibly take him, just my imo of course. Think he gets it hard from some fans because of his loses after his prison stint. If tiger Woods or Rafa Nada went to prison for a few years, I doubt they would be the same when they got out. Credit to Tyson for still winning belts and being competitve after prison.

He was a good heavyweight coming through a dire 1980's. Caught big pants etc on their way out and when it came to joining the cream of the 90's he fell on his face.

Blames everybody but himself. His fans blame Cus, for dying. Rotton old codger. Who did he think he was just dying like that.

He spent four years out three being in prison......and was 30 when he fought Holy..

He wasn't prime when he came out.........Holy was a great fight.........The second one was looking great till the ears.........and he was shot against Lewis..

Adam T...I wouldn't argue with top 12...

Great heavyweight and great fighter (he was regarded as the best fighter in boxing at one point).

In my opinion, had he emerged in the mid-90s, he'd have walloped them all (Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe etc.).

Tell you what Adam...Guy had great genetics for bodybuilding.....

5'10 and 215 ...........and he hardly used weights..

Natural..

Great fighter who was around at the right time, does not beat Lewis, Bowe or Holyfield at anytime in his career for me though.

was he natural tho truss?

Beats all of them for me Hogey circa 87...

Good question Adam..

I seem to rate Tyson a shade higher than most on here. Definitely inside the top ten Heavyweights for me, hard to give an exact spot but off the top of my head I'd say something like 8th.

His overall career record probably doesn't do his talent justice. On a head to head basis, I think he's a lock for the top five and could maybe even edge inside a top three. Looking back, I can definitely understand why some boxing scribes were wondering if he was on his way to becoming the greatest of them all in the late eighties, but regardless of what excuses you find for the Douglas and Holyfield fights I still think those bouts highlighted flaws in his style and mentality which would have always prevented him from achieving that status no matter what his personal circumstances were.

But an incredible talent for sure.

Might have a point Chris...Dempsey is in most top 10s.........Was his career any better than Mike's ??

Dempsey had greater longevity...Tyson way more title fights..

hogey wrote:Great fighter who was around at the right time, does not beat Lewis, Bowe or Holyfield at anytime in his career for me though.

Tyson would have torn Lewis to shreds in the early to mid-90's. Bowe would have given him more trouble but he could be wobbled and hurt and Tyson was brilliant offensively. Holyfield's the trickiest fight for him but I think he licks him at his best.

Tyson was outstanding, really outstanding for several years but just couldnt hold it together.

88Chris05 wrote:I seem to rate Tyson a shade higher than most on here. Definitely inside the top ten Heavyweights for me, hard to give an exact spot but off the top of my head I'd say something like 8th.

His overall career record probably doesn't do his talent justice. On a head to head basis, I think he's a lock for the top five and could maybe even edge inside a top three. Looking back, I can definitely understand why some boxing scribes were wondering if he was on his way to becoming the greatest of them all in the late eighties, but regardless of what excuses you find for the Douglas and Holyfield fights I still think those bouts highlighted flaws in his style and mentality which would have always prevented him from achieving that status no matter what his personal circumstances were.

But an incredible talent for sure.

100% agree mate. Not the best ever but ONE of the most talented and certainly exciting heavyweights of all time.

Tyson makes a top ten list for me but I'm not sure that he'd be number three on a head to head basis. Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis, Bowe and of course Douglas are all heavies that I wouldn't put money on peak Tyson to beat if he fought them at their peaks.

I hate to be a killjoy for some of you, but I remember Tyson from before he turned pro. KO magazine had a feature on him back in early 1984. I saw a few of his fights before he won the title and all of his title fights. If James Tillis had shown a bit more determination when he fought Tyson he might have gotten a draw. It was 6-4 on two scorecards. Tyson wasn't always this super exciting, unstoppable machine that some people make him out to be.

Ali struggled with Doug Jones........and Louis got smashed out by Schmelling and they are 1 and 2..

So some perspective..Mate.

Appreciate that, Atila. For me, had Tillis got the draw against Tyson I don't think there could have been any real complaints, and on my card he'd definitely have earned it had it not been for the knockdown in a round that he was winning beforehand. But Tyson was only 19 at the time, in fairness to him. No disgrace there.

At the end of the day, hypothetical head to heads are all imagination and opinion so I don't really feel the need to argue too much if someone disagrees with me thinking he's top five in that department. Douglas did a number on him, but every other fight in their respective peaks suggests the opposite happening. I'm not a Tyson apologist, but I don't believe Douglas would always have had the wood on him - but he did that night.

As for the others, well if you want to argue that Tyson beats them it's easy enough to find fights which suggest that. If you want to argue the opposite case, then again you can find fights which go in your favour. I think Tyson at his absolute best beats Holmes, Lewis and Bowe at their absolute best more often than not (I'll stress that bit, as there's no way he'd beat them every single time) but that's just my take on it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Beats all of them for me Hogey circa 87...

Good question Adam..

Not for me Bowe and Lewis both had the skills and jabs to keep him off, plus the power to put him to sleep. Holyfield at his best was just so tough and determined he always breaks Tyson, i dont think any small Heavyweight could beat a prime Holyfield.

Did they have the speed ??...........Holmes couldn't deal with his side to side movement and he had a great jab....Granted he was knocking on..

In 87 Tyson wasn't a stationary fighter.........Mccall found Lewis easy enough and he was slow and straight up..

Tyson's best attribute for me was speed.

Both had fast hands and Lewis footwork was superb, Lewis only have one weakness and that was complacency which is why McCall and Rahman both got lucky, he also completely outclassed both of them in rematches when he knew better the dangers they posed and against a prime Tyson he would have been on top of his game, just like the way Lewis obliterated the hugely dangerous Razor Ruddock. For me Bowe being very skillful, more durable as well as very big would give him the edge in the late stages of the fight.

hogey wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Beats all of them for me Hogey circa 87...

Good question Adam..

Not for me Bowe and Lewis both had the skills and jabs to keep him off, plus the power to put him to sleep. Holyfield at his best was just so tough and determined he always breaks Tyson, i dont think any small Heavyweight could beat a prime Holyfield.

Bert Cooper came within a smidge.

hogey wrote:Both had fast hands and Lewis footwork was superb, Lewis only have one weakness and that was complacency which is why McCall and Rahman both got lucky, he also completely outclassed both of them in rematches when he knew better the dangers they posed and against a prime Tyson he would have been on top of his game, just like the way Lewis obliterated the hugely dangerous Razor Ruddock. For me Bowe being very skillful, more durable as well as very big would give him the edge in the late stages of the fight.

Lewis was a mess until Steward ironed him out. A powerful amateur who regressed from the point he left John Davenport.

Had Lewis ran into Tyson (had Tyson not gone to the big house) he'd have been in big trouble.

Good point, but Bert could give anyone serious trouble on his night and he definitely had Holy in trouble after that big shot, but he came through it and put Cooper away when fighters of less heart might not have.

hogey wrote:Good point, but Bert could give anyone serious trouble on his night and he definitely had Holy in trouble after that big shot, but he came through it and put Cooper away when fighters of less heart might not have.  

The fact that Cooper had only 6 days to prepare probably helped also.

Holyfield also struggled to impress against Bobby Czyz (if that's the correct spelling) and was pushed close by Mercer.

hazharrison wrote:

hogey wrote:Both had fast hands and Lewis footwork was superb, Lewis only have one weakness and that was complacency which is why McCall and Rahman both got lucky, he also completely outclassed both of them in rematches when he knew better the dangers they posed and against a prime Tyson he would have been on top of his game, just like the way Lewis obliterated the hugely dangerous Razor Ruddock. For me Bowe being very skillful, more durable as well as very big would give him the edge in the late stages of the fight.

Lewis was a mess until Steward ironed him out. A powerful amateur who regressed from the point he left John Davenport.

Had Lewis ran into Tyson (had Tyson not gone to the big house) he'd have been in big trouble.

He was a long way from a mess, though Steward refined him for sure he was still a very good fighter. Great jab, huge right hand, great defence (when switched on) fast hands and good feet you could not design a fighter more equipt to dismantle a 5ft 10 heavyweight. I think people forget that Lewis could take you out as cleanly with a big shot as Tyson and it would not be him having to take so many risks to get inside. I think Tyson would be more aggressive if they had fought earlier and it would have got him KOed quicker than when he was more cautious when they did actually fight.

hazharrison wrote:

hogey wrote:Good point, but Bert could give anyone serious trouble on his night and he definitely had Holy in trouble after that big shot, but he came through it and put Cooper away when fighters of less heart might not have.  

The fact that Cooper had only 6 days to prepare probably helped also.

Holyfield also struggled to impress against Bobby Czyz (if that's the correct spelling) and was pushed close by Mercer.

He did struggle with all of them and i suspect his motivation was not what is should have been at against them opponents, but he still had enough to win on bad nights. All fighters have bad nights they only matter if you lose them.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Did they have the speed ??...........Holmes couldn't deal with his side to side movement and he had a great jab....Granted he was knocking on..

In 87 Tyson wasn't a stationary fighter.........Mccall found Lewis easy enough and he was slow and straight up..

Tyson's best attribute for me was speed.

His speed and head movement is why for me, he gives peak Ali a tough fight

Some good debate on an age old topic. I rate Tyson more in retrospect than I did at the time. I can see both sides of the argument and struggle to rate him with any consistency.

On the one hand Atila is right. If Tyson is a freak of nature and a wrecking ball as a teenager with an early prime while he was explosive, then you can't use youth as an excuse for, say, the tillis performance. Which suggested that if you have a chin, some cojones and a game plan, you have a chance.

You can also argue that the swathe of heavies he cut through, though undoubtedly with some talent, were basically a bunch of powder snorting wasters.

On the flipside, if you trust your eyes, you see a speed and ferocity very rarely seen in a boxing ring.

I generally come to the conclusion that he's a real threat to any heavy in history, with no exclusions for 5 rounds. The top guys who are still in the fight at that point, I would expect to outpoint him down the stretch. The very best guys in history probably wouldn't be beaten before they entered the ring either.

I must be one of the few that thought Larry was doing quite well against Tyson and getting into the fight (probably too cocky Infact) when the money shot landed. As for Tokyo, I stand by my assertion that that version of douglas was a handful for anyone in history that night, even if it wasn't the best version of Tyson.

In short Adam, as is often the case, the real truth is somewhere in between the extremes with Tyson. But certainly a fantastic talent.

Good post Milky, agree with most of it. Though still think he beats more heavies than what he loses to

On a head to head I agree Adam. There aren't many I'd back against him... And not with a huge degree of confidence

I think the Ruddock fights are the best measuring sticks of Tyson and Lewis for me, Tyson done very well to beat a big, and very good prime heavyweight, but struggled in both fights once his opponent started fighting back. The fact that Ruddock who went life and death with Tyson then had 2 very good wins after those fights and went into the ring as a big favourite in most eyes against Lewis got swatted away like a fly and destroyed in 2 tells me how good Lewis really was, more so than any of his title defences.

hogey wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

hogey wrote:Both had fast hands and Lewis footwork was superb, Lewis only have one weakness and that was complacency which is why McCall and Rahman both got lucky, he also completely outclassed both of them in rematches when he knew better the dangers they posed and against a prime Tyson he would have been on top of his game, just like the way Lewis obliterated the hugely dangerous Razor Ruddock. For me Bowe being very skillful, more durable as well as very big would give him the edge in the late stages of the fight.

Lewis was a mess until Steward ironed him out. A powerful amateur who regressed from the point he left John Davenport.

Had Lewis ran into Tyson (had Tyson not gone to the big house) he'd have been in big trouble.

He was a long way from a mess, though Steward refined him for sure he was still a very good fighter. Great jab, huge right hand, great defence (when switched on) fast hands and good feet you could not design a fighter more equipt to dismantle a 5ft 10 heavyweight. I think people forget that Lewis could take you out as cleanly with a big shot as Tyson and it would not be him having to take so many risks to get inside. I think Tyson would be more aggressive if they had fought earlier and it would have got him KOed quicker than when he was more cautious when they did actually fight.  

Hi footwork was poor, his balance off and his ego over-inflated. His struggles with Tucker, Bruno and Jackson suggest Tyson (at that point) would have been far too much for him.

hogey wrote:I think the Ruddock fights are the best measuring sticks of Tyson and Lewis for me, Tyson done very well to beat a big, and very good prime heavyweight, but struggled in both fights once his opponent started fighting back. The fact that Ruddock who went life and death with Tyson then had 2 very good wins after those fights and went into the ring as a big favourite in most eyes against Lewis got swatted away like a fly and destroyed in 2 tells me how good Lewis really was, more so than any of his title defences.

That's horribly short-sighted. The Tyson that faced Ruddock had already lost a step. The head movement had gone and the skills honed under D'Amato and Rooney diminished. Ruddock wasn't the same fighter after the Tyson rematch (he took one hell of a beating second time around).

Lewis bombed him out impressively, however, Ruddock's punch resistance looked diminished (as it did in his subsequent up-and-downer with Morrison). Tucker showed Lennox's limitations (at that point) in the bout afterwards.

hazharrison wrote:

hogey wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

hogey wrote:Both had fast hands and Lewis footwork was superb, Lewis only have one weakness and that was complacency which is why McCall and Rahman both got lucky, he also completely outclassed both of them in rematches when he knew better the dangers they posed and against a prime Tyson he would have been on top of his game, just like the way Lewis obliterated the hugely dangerous Razor Ruddock. For me Bowe being very skillful, more durable as well as very big would give him the edge in the late stages of the fight.

Lewis was a mess until Steward ironed him out. A powerful amateur who regressed from the point he left John Davenport.

Had Lewis ran into Tyson (had Tyson not gone to the big house) he'd have been in big trouble.

He was a long way from a mess, though Steward refined him for sure he was still a very good fighter. Great jab, huge right hand, great defence (when switched on) fast hands and good feet you could not design a fighter more equipt to dismantle a 5ft 10 heavyweight. I think people forget that Lewis could take you out as cleanly with a big shot as Tyson and it would not be him having to take so many risks to get inside. I think Tyson would be more aggressive if they had fought earlier and it would have got him KOed quicker than when he was more cautious when they did actually fight.  

Hi footwork was poor, his balance off and his ego over-inflated. His struggles with Tucker, Bruno and Jackson suggest Tyson (at that point) would have been far too much for him.

And yet blew away the man who had given Tyson 2 huge battles and at the time was regarded as the worlds second best heavyweight in 2 rounds, sort of tells you how good he must have been when he was in his prime doesn't it. It suggests to me Lewis was a better fighter already at that stage, Tyson was short and had problems dealing with even the James Tillis jab (who lets not forget was man KOed early by Bruno and Tyson was given a generous decision against) to get past Lewis's massive long powerful jab, backed up by a howitzer of a right hand would have been much much harder and for me ends with Tyson flat on his back.

People like to assume that post steward lewis beats most of the other 'greats' and pre manny lewis doesn't. I don't necessarily agree with that. He was a more rounded fighter after manny had worked on him, but less athletic, as he aged,  and (generally) less aggressive. Partly, manny's technical influence (though he wasn't known for producing defensive fighters) and probably more to do with an element of being gunshy.

I don't doubt the latter version was a better allround fighter,  but the younger lewis brought a different threat depending on the opponent. Tyson might well have sparked the young lewis. He might well have sparked the Lewis he actually fought...had it been a younger version of tyson in the fight. Doesn't mean that the younger lewis wouldn't have had a chance of taking Tyson out early either... had he brought his ruddock performance to the ring.

hazharrison wrote:Tucker showed Lennox's limitations (at that point) in the bout afterwards.

You mean the Tucker that did 12 rounds (10 with a broken hand) and against a peak Tyson and was completely untroubled by Tyson's power. Tucker had one little burst against Lewis which Lewis turned round and showed his heart by fighting out of it and ending the round well on top other than that it was completely one sided with Tucker hitting the deck twice and hurt at various times throughout the fight.
You mentioned the Jackson fight earlier as well Lewis utterly dominated Jackson dropping him a couple of times before winning a completely one sided fight.

The younger Lewis had a lot of flaws like being open when he punched..

Chances are If steward sees how easy it is to exploit..Rooney would too.....

I'd pick Bowe/Holy and maybe Wlad to beat the younger Lewis.......

Pick the older Lewis to beat all three apart from maybe the Bowe in Holy 1....and that would be pickem..

The older Lewis did have some bad nights and I'm not talking about the kayos......Talking more about being mugged off Mercer..

I rate Tyson highly as a heavyweight, probably around the 7 mark all time. Personally think its a bit of a myth that all you needed was a good jab to beat him.

When Tyson was at his best, his speed and more importantly his range of movement was exceptional and to me, enough to get to the bigger heavyweights. Think he beats Lewis if they fought earlier.

hogey wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

hogey wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

hogey wrote:Both had fast hands and Lewis footwork was superb, Lewis only have one weakness and that was complacency which is why McCall and Rahman both got lucky, he also completely outclassed both of them in rematches when he knew better the dangers they posed and against a prime Tyson he would have been on top of his game, just like the way Lewis obliterated the hugely dangerous Razor Ruddock. For me Bowe being very skillful, more durable as well as very big would give him the edge in the late stages of the fight.

Lewis was a mess until Steward ironed him out. A powerful amateur who regressed from the point he left John Davenport.

Had Lewis ran into Tyson (had Tyson not gone to the big house) he'd have been in big trouble.

He was a long way from a mess, though Steward refined him for sure he was still a very good fighter. Great jab, huge right hand, great defence (when switched on) fast hands and good feet you could not design a fighter more equipt to dismantle a 5ft 10 heavyweight. I think people forget that Lewis could take you out as cleanly with a big shot as Tyson and it would not be him having to take so many risks to get inside. I think Tyson would be more aggressive if they had fought earlier and it would have got him KOed quicker than when he was more cautious when they did actually fight.  

Hi footwork was poor, his balance off and his ego over-inflated. His struggles with Tucker, Bruno and Jackson suggest Tyson (at that point) would have been far too much for him.

And yet blew away the man who had given Tyson 2 huge battles and at the time was regarded as the worlds second best heavyweight in 2 rounds, sort of tells you how good he must have been when he was in his prime doesn't it. It suggests to me Lewis was a better fighter already at that stage, Tyson was short and had problems dealing with even the James Tillis jab (who lets not forget was man KOed early by Bruno and Tyson was given a generous decision against) to get past Lewis's massive long powerful jab, backed up by a howitzer of a right hand would have been much much harder and for me ends with Tyson flat on his back.  

Even the husk of Tyson Lewis eventually faced (close to his best) hung around for ages until a punch followed by a lean persuaded him to go down (he was knackered rather than knocked out). Tyson had a great chin.

The ease with which Steward disrobed the young Lewis (with McCall) was embarrasing.

hogey wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Tucker showed Lennox's limitations (at that point) in the bout afterwards.

You mean the Tucker that did 12 rounds (10 with a broken hand) and against a peak Tyson and was completely untroubled by Tyson's power. Tucker had one little burst against Lewis which Lewis turned round and showed his heart by fighting out of it and ending the round well on top other than that it was completely one sided with Tucker hitting the deck twice and hurt at various times throughout the fight.  
You mentioned the Jackson fight earlier as well Lewis utterly dominated Jackson dropping him a couple of times before winning a completely one sided fight.  

 
Lewis was largely panned for both performances -- a champion still wearing "L" plates went the report. That version of Lewis wouldn't have beaten Mike Tyson. Frank Bruno gave him trouble for half-a-dozen rounds for crying out loud.
 
Lewis finally put it all together circa '99 and went on to achieve greatness. Prior to that he was a supremely talented but flawed heavyweight.

People forget too that Douglas probably doesn't beat him at any other time....

Douglas was a quitter by nature...........But in Tokyo he'd just lost his Mother and his wife was ill..He'd also fallen out with his Dad.........I imagine the terror of fighting the invincible Mike was offset by ...

1. A couldn't give a toss what happens to me attitude..

2. The need to release his frustrations..

Truly believe that Douglas went in there not believing he could win but to see how it goes for a couple of rounds and when he surprised himself with his success then he believed...

You don't always have to believe from the outset..............

Shame Tyson didn't rematch him...........Douglas couldn't have done it again..

But still a marvellous performance...........Douglas was an alltime great for one night..

Sad thing is had he trained for Holy he might have beat him too.

Douglas-Holy was a great matchup ruined by a slob.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The younger Lewis had a lot of flaws like being open when he punched..

Chances are If steward sees how easy it is to exploit..Rooney would too.....

I'd pick Bowe/Holy and maybe Wlad to beat the younger Lewis.......

Pick the older Lewis to beat all three apart from maybe the Bowe in Holy 1....and that would be pickem..

The older Lewis did have some bad nights and I'm not talking about the kayos......Talking more about being mugged off Mercer..

You're right: Lewis leaned to his left when throwing his right hand. Steward had McCall time him -- roll with a left hook so that his head would be in the perfect position for a big right hand.

Futch had spotted it, too. I remember an interview where he highlighted how open Lewis was -- said Bowe would take his head off.

Tyson was about as natural as a bag of Skittles.

Just misses my Top 10. He was a throwback to fearless punchers like Dempsey right down to the shorts and boots.

Ferocious, violent, evil, bad minded, ruthless and cruel. Psychologically he was really f'ed up in his prime, a monster had been created. Hasn't been one in boxing since.

If Tyson wasn't natural it must be because Eddie supplied him..

Clear top 10, for me

Agree with Truss and Haz that, peak for peak, he'd handle Holy, Bowe, and Lewis.

Youngest ever HW champion, arguably the most dominant HW champion in history, more consecutive title defences than Marciano, Dempsey, etc.

I think the level of Tyson's opposition during his 80's pomp is often unfairly denigrated. The Spinks and Holmes wins, whilst hardly the greatest in HW history, are certainly not as meaningless as many fans would have you believe. Tubbs, Tucker, Ruddock, Berbick, Thomas, Smith, and Biggs are all decent scalps and would certainly make waves in todays division. Tyson handled all with relative ease.

I agree his legacy is harmed by his post-prison exploits, especially his two losses to Holyfield. However, I am of the opinion that, by that point, Tyson was no longer anywhere near the same fighter who crushed Berbick in '86. His lack of training and extra-curricular activities are now well documented.

It's fine margins ranking the heavy's from 2-12, however, for my money, Tyson is good value for a top 10 berth.

I have him around 8, usually.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The younger Lewis had a lot of flaws like being open when he punched..

Chances are If steward sees how easy it is to exploit..Rooney would too.....

I'd pick Bowe/Holy and maybe Wlad to beat the younger Lewis.......

Pick the older Lewis to beat all three apart from maybe the Bowe in Holy 1....and that would be pickem..

The older Lewis did have some bad nights and I'm not talking about the kayos......Talking more about being mugged off Mercer..

You're right: Lewis leaned to his left when throwing his right hand. Steward had McCall time him -- roll with a left hook so that his head would be in the perfect position for a big right hand.

Futch had spotted it, too. I remember an interview where he highlighted how open Lewis was -- said Bowe would take his head off.

Though he did have his eyes closed. An impressive piece of timing, and highly fortuitous. The warning shots were there though and there was always a chance one of them was going to land on the button. It was a weakness, spotting it and executing it before getting sparked yourself are two different things.

Have made this point before but think in boxing as in life fighters are sometimes assessed against what we think they were capable of achieving rather than what they did. The more I consider Tyson’s standing I think he is a victim of this. Those of us old enough will remember that when Tyson won the titles debates were raging about whether he would go on to be the greatest heavyweight of all time, and not just amongst the tysonking loons, but amongst respected and knowledgeable experts. Now his story is told and the dust has settled most agree his career did not pan out in a manner that warrants him being in that debate or being a serious contender for such billing.

However none of that should really matter when assessing his achievements in the sport and when one looks at things objectively he did not do too poorly, decent number of defences in his first reign, most dealt with in something approaching style and as others have said, whilst his opposition are not right out of the top drawer they are not as shabby as many would have you believe.

In terms of where to rank him, think I have him around 10 or 11 but would not argue too greatly over anyone who had him in the top ten, unless we got carried away and started trying to put him in the top five.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:People forget too that Douglas probably doesn't beat him at any other time....

Douglas was a quitter by nature...........But in Tokyo he'd just lost his Mother and his wife was ill..He'd also fallen out with his Dad.........I imagine the terror of fighting the invincible Mike was offset by ...

1. A couldn't give a toss what happens to me attitude..

2. The need to release his frustrations..

Truly believe that Douglas went in there not believing he could win but to see how it goes for a couple of rounds and when he surprised himself with his success then he believed...

You don't always have to believe from the outset..............

Shame Tyson didn't rematch him...........Douglas couldn't have done it again..

But still a marvellous performance...........Douglas was an alltime great for one night..

Sad thing is had he trained for Holy he might have beat him too.

Douglas-Holy was a great matchup ruined by a slob.

I've read The Last Great Fight, a book dedicated to covering the build-up to, and aftermath of the Tyson-Douglas fight, and the impression I got from it was that Douglas really was in once-in-a-lifetime form where circumstances conspired to drag out of him the resolve, dedication, self-belief, and determination which he had always lacked. I think Douglas genuinely believed he could beat Tyson, and he gave absolutely everything he had in order to achieve it.

Obviously, the moment he won the crown, Douglas reverted to type and surrendered his title to Holyfield in the tamest way imaginable. Certainly, the Douglas who beat Tyson, gives Holy a helluva fight.

hogey wrote:Both had fast hands and Lewis footwork was superb, Lewis only have one weakness and that was complacency which is why McCall and Rahman both got lucky, he also completely outclassed both of them in rematches when he knew better the dangers they posed and against a prime Tyson he would have been on top of his game, just like the way Lewis obliterated the hugely dangerous Razor Ruddock. For me Bowe being very skillful, more durable as well as very big would give him the edge in the late stages of the fight.

Guess you'd have to differentiate between pre-Manny Steward and post Manny.Lewis' footwork at the beginning of his career has been described as bllody awful;he even crossed his legs inadvertently whilst offloading!