Tyson gets off with the Douglas fight way to easily. People forgive Tyson for getting BEAT UP by a guy he was meant to handle with ease, but when it comes to Lewis getting caught with one shot against Rahman people are like "BUM!!!!". Ridiculous double standards. However, he wins this fight, as people have mentioned, speed is the deciding factor here.
not really.. tell me other fighters that came from a background like his that became HW champs as YOUNG as him and were as "JOCKED" as him that early on? not many...
That's a pretty stacked question, there. His up-bringing was nothing especially disturbing in Boxing terms. Nor were his problems out of the ring. Truly, he just doesn't have the excuses many people believe he does. Another fighter of his calibre would be crucified for losing to a Douglas-level rival at or near the peak of their career. He should be no different.
Lol at the idea that beating a "linear" champion is intrinsically more impressive than than beating a non-linear one. Any credibility that title had went South forever when George Foreman Mk2 and the great Shannon Briggs played pass-the-parcel with it.
maybe so.. but i stand by that he was not prepared mentally.. he was not mature enough to become a SUPERSTAR to the level he was, psychologically he couldn't handle it.. not an excuse IMO.. just a fact
Tony Tucker would've handed prime Tyson his ass if he didn't break his hand early. Tyson couldn't budge Tucker with his best shot.
A lot of fighters mentally quit before fighting Tyson. He was good at scaring people. People who weren't scared gave Tyson a lot of trouble. Guys who quit like that joke Bruce Seldon and Alfonso Ratliff and clowns like that come to mind, making tyson look better than he was.
it doesn't but you do have to realize that his losses.. really should give the opponent any credit at all as he was the one makin himself lose.
See, that's an excuse, & I don't buy it. He lost to Douglas, lost to Holyfield, & lost to Lewis. Why? Because all three were better than he was when it counted --- on the night. It's been happening since Boxing began --- why is this guy some bizarre abberation, exempt from taking his lumps?
I think the Holy fights .. always suprised a lot of people and really showed just how good Holy is/was but the Douglas and Lemmon fights? come on man.. admit it.. the Lemmon fight only happened cuz Lemmon's team found out Mike was on drugs and could hardly talk or walk.. he was almost a vegitable.. the Douglas fight Tyson was out drinking all night and had a motivated good fighter in either case.. you really know the opponent is not up to par.. but got lucky fighting a sick or drunk Mike
Lewis caught a shot Tyson, sure. No dramas there. I actually think the best Tyson would've defeated a prime Lewis, for what it's worth. However, that line about being out drinking, partying etc...do you truly realise how common that is to so many fighters through history who lost? It's a dime a dozen story, but I have never seen any fighter excused for such stupidity & recklessness as Tyson. There has never been a Tyson loss which was the result of something truly unique & one-of-a-kind to his situation, yet for so many, his reputation is handled as such. If Muhammad Ali had lost to Jurgen Blin, or Floyd Mayweather had been knocked off by Carlos Baldomir, would they ever live it down? Yet, when Tyson loses to Douglas, there is excuse after justification after forgiveness. The loss to Douglas was irredeemable, given the gulf in ability between them. Like I said, people can run that route if they wish, but I don't buy into it. No tragedy, set-back or mishap ever befell Tyson which hadn't visited plenty of fighters before him, yet only Tyson enjoys the excuses from so many.
Is he? I don't think the main argument on Mike's behalf is that those fights were aberrations - just that post the Spinks fight he went off the rails so much so rapidly that he was a much more beatable fighter by that point than he had been. As I've said before - thats inabsolvable from a greatness perspective, but I think it throws open the question of whether Douglas, Holy or Lewis woulda beat peak Mike. I personally think The Holmes/Tubbs/Spinks Mike beats Douglas 9/10. Holyfield probably 7/10 and probably goes about 5/5 with a prime Lewis.
I actually pick the best Tyson to beat all three at their best --- but I can't help feel that excusing Tyson for losing to Douglas, undefeated, undisputed, aged twenty-four & in his prime (not his best night, but no way, now how was he post-prime) is opening the gates for just about anyone who ever lost a fight to come up with some reason they shouldn't be held accountable. I don't think I under-estimate Tyson --- he was as beautiful a fighting machine as there has been at the weight for the last thirty years. However, that loss to Douglas is absolutely a hammerblow against him.
In what sense though? His greatness, most definitely. His standing in Mythical match ups like this where you take a guy at his best - also yes, because it exposed a bad lack of adaptability/resourcefulness - but much less definitively, since we know very well the circumstances surrounding his decline. Which you clearly agree with since you'd pick him over all 3 guys who beat him. Two separate issues, really.
the Lemmon fight to me is the one that REALLY is sad.. cuz Lemmon refused to fight him until he found out he was on drugs and could not even get licesened in many states..
In fairness, Lewis was a nobody when Mike went to prison and Mike was a basketcase post-Holyfield and in no position to take on anybody credible. I'm not sure there was really any ducking on either side.
Lemmon ducked and ducked until Tyson was denied a licesnes due to the anti depressants.. Lemmon wanted to fight then, and Tyson got licesened and then got jacked up but come on... that was really a bitch move on Lemmons part
Lewis was there to be fought as Tyson's #1 contender during his 90's title reign, but Tyson opted for the (seemingly at the time) very faded Holyfield instead. If I remember correctly, Tyson's managment paid Lewis "step aside" money to wait until after the Holyfield fight rather than risk fighting Lewis first.
Holy was Mike's, what, 4th fight out of prison? I really think at that point Holy was the logical step up/progression, especially considering that fight was unfinished business. Concurrently, Lewis was also still to avenge the McCall loss and had that hanging over his marketability. I mean, you were there I wasn't, and if you tell me it was that way I'll accept it, but it doesn't seem to me looking back over the chronology that 'ducking' is the appropriate description for what was going on there - it was more a timing & risk/benefit thing. Mike was rebuilding progressively and Lewis had the McCall issue to resolve, it didn't really make sense right at that moment.
Yeah, but you are forgetting that Tyson was roundly criticized for taking on Holyfield when it appeared Holy was on the way down. Tyson opened at a 25-1 favorite in that fight, which tells you what the perception of Holyfield was at that time. Tyson was looking for good money in the easiest fashion possible...and fighters like Lewis and Bowe were out of the equation. Props to Holyfield for surprising everyone...but the notion that he fought Holyfield out of some honor based notion of unfinished business is not really the true story...Holyfield was considered an easy win for Tyson at that time.
They were. He was also a pretty decent favourite in the rematch too. LOL @ Lewis ducking Tyson, he'd been calling Mike out for practically a decade.
