Lewis is more overrated than Tyson?

First topic message reminder :

I think Lewis is overrated here. There is another thread about Tyson being overrated but hes not overrated compared to Lewis.Tyson was past it when he fought Lewis. People put too much emphasis on that result. Lewis would try and jab away at him but Tyson at his best was fast and destructive. He would attack Lewis out of the blocks and knock him out. I dont know much about boxings early history but I think Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Liston would beat Lewis. I dont think he is up there with the best in history.

Lennox Lewis:

1) Cleaned up the division.
2) Beat everyone he ever faced.
3) Retired on top.
4) Best heavyweight since Ali.

*ducks for cover*

Duty281 wrote:Lennox Lewis:

1) Cleaned up the division.
2) Beat everyone he ever faced.
3) Retired on top.
4) Best heavyweight since Ali.

*ducks for cover*

Could be a list for Tyson too..

What should also not be overlooked in the Spinks Tunney comparison (how did we get there?) is the gap between heavy and light heavy was a lot less in Tunney's day. Far more frequent to see light heavies move up and perform with distinction (Loughran would be another example) than it is in the last 30 years since we have seen the days of the behemoth heavy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Lennox Lewis:

1) Cleaned up the division.
2) Beat everyone he ever faced.
3) Retired on top.
4) Best heavyweight since Ali.

*ducks for cover*

Could be a list for Tyson too..

Not points 2 and 3 though.

very true Rowley...........Duty I don't know what to say to you...Marciano your number 2.

88Chris05 wrote:I think you're underselling Spinks a wee bit, Jabby, particularly by questioning his champion's mentality. I believe a 1988 version of Tyson would likely have rolled through just about any Light-Heavyweight great (Tunney included) in a similar fashion as he did Spinks, and 'Jinx' had done more than enough to cement his place as a genuine all-time great regardless of whether he ever came back from that defeat or not.

Remember, this is the man who, just a few short weeks after the death of his young wife and only half an hour or so after suffering an emotional breakdown of sorts in his locker room, went out there and won a hard-fought unification bout against a fine champion in Qawi, getting up off the deck (albeit it was a dodgy knockdown call) to do it, and producing a storming final third of the fight when it looked as if it might just be starting to slip away from him.

No problem with Spinks' heart, in my eyes.

For me, Tyson stopping Spinks so early is more a indication of what an absolutely outstanding Heavyweight Tyson was at that point, rather than being a fight which somehow exposed Spinks. Probably a win that doesn't get quite as much credit as it should, methinks.

Ah I completely disagree Chris, while Spinks was an extraordinary Light Heavyweight and of course Qawi is an ATG in his own rights at Cruiserwright - I think losing and quitting is quite detrimental to his career standing as a heavyweight. We can't evaluate Spinks heavyweight standing and career on his Light Heavyweight exploits. If I'm asked who the better win is for a heavyweight, a bonafide undefeated heavyweight in Michael Grant, or a light heavyweight stepped up in Spinks, theres only one answer.

You should say whether or not you disagree with my point that Lewis was a far greater boxer than Tyson ever was.

He didn't quit.........Just stop it...

No one is evaluating his career at 175........You brought Greb into it..

Holmes x2 is as good as dempsey.

Rowley wrote:What should also not be overlooked in the Spinks Tunney comparison (how did we get there?) is the gap between heavy and light heavy was a lot less in Tunney's day. Far more frequent to see light heavies move up and perform with distinction (Loughran would be another example) than it is in the last 30 years since we have seen the days of the behemoth heavy.

Tyson wasn't a behemoth in relation to Spinks however. Lets bear in mind they are both the same height and in terms of weight, Tyson wasn't at the top end of 250, so its not like Nathan Cleverly stepping up to face Wladimir Klitschko for instance.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He didn't quit.........Just stop it...

No one is evaluating his career at 175........You brought Greb into it..

Holmes x2 is as good as dempsey.

He didn't fight afterwards. That was his last fight. He lost. That destroys his heavyweight standing in relation to Tunney.

Tyson was 220.and punched like a mule......How much did Dempsey weigh.......

He didn't fight after.......Should have fought Berbick like Ali did.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He didn't quit.........Just stop it...

No one is evaluating his career at 175........You brought Greb into it..

Holmes x2 is as good as dempsey.

He didn't fight afterwards. That was his last fight. He lost. That destroys his heavyweight standing in relation to Tunney.

How stupid does that argument sound??

I feel like I'm getting nowhere. General consensus has been set by the old guard, and because I wasn't around at the time watching these live, I'm not entitled to have a very valid opinion, its just rubbished.

He lost his last fight..........Did Ali, Louis??

88Chris05 wrote:I think you're underselling Spinks a wee bit, Jabby, particularly by questioning his champion's mentality. I believe a 1988 version of Tyson would likely have rolled through just about any Light-Heavyweight great (Tunney included) in a similar fashion as he did Spinks, and 'Jinx' had done more than enough to cement his place as a genuine all-time great regardless of whether he ever came back from that defeat or not.

Remember, this is the man who, just a few short weeks after the death of his young wife and only half an hour or so after suffering an emotional breakdown of sorts in his locker room, went out there and won a hard-fought unification bout against a fine champion in Qawi, getting up off the deck (albeit it was a dodgy knockdown call) to do it, and producing a storming final third of the fight when it looked as if it might just be starting to slip away from him.

No problem with Spinks' heart, in my eyes.

For me, Tyson stopping Spinks so early is more a indication of what an absolutely outstanding Heavyweight Tyson was at that point, rather than being a fight which somehow exposed Spinks. Probably a win that doesn't get quite as much credit as it should, methinks.

Not often I beg to differ chris. Spinks suffered from nerves before all his fights... But he was plain petrified against Tyson. He just froze. I had hoped spinks could make a fight of it, but i called the outcome from looking at him in his corner before the fight started. Very sad to see. Tyson might have steam rollered any light heavy that night, but ditto any heavy would have knocked out spinks (at least if spinks thought they were called Tyson).

Holmes was intimidated..........Biggs was intimidated..........

Spinks wasn't intimidated by Larry ? So it's a funny argument.

Spinks took the 0 from an unbeaten Holmes, who is one of the top heavyweights ever. The fights could have gone either way but its still no small acheivement for a light heavyweight stepping up and is generally overlooked given how Tyson wiped him out. So Spinks had credentials at heavyweight.

manos de piedra wrote:Spinks took the 0 from an unbeaten Holmes, who is one of the top heavyweights ever. The fights could have gone either way but its still no small acheivement for a light heavyweight stepping up and is generally overlooked given how Tyson wiped him out. So Spinks had credentials at heavyweight.

I imagine they watch the Tyson fight and make their mind up on that about jinxy...

Watch Qawi....pops Johnson...Cooney...Holmes and re-evaluate...

manos de piedra wrote:Spinks took the 0 from an unbeaten Holmes, who is one of the top heavyweights ever. The fights could have gone either way but its still no small acheivement for a light heavyweight stepping up and is generally overlooked given how Tyson wiped him out. So Spinks had credentials at heavyweight.

I'm not rubbishing the fact he beat Holmes, a great win - but the point of your post Manos is he HAD credentials, but then didn't build on them after he lost. If he'd have come back after the loss and rematched him after appearing so frightened in the first fight then he'd have a lot more to say in his standing. For me ATG's need that, the champions mentality, to get back on the horse after being knocked off. Most of the ATG's in my list have rather a few losses, Holmes included. But I evaluate the career, rather than just a few wins myself.

What did Tunney do after Dempsey Mate ??

Can I just add that Michael Spinks ATg standing is higher than Gene Tunney's...

I dont really think there was a point to a rematch to be honest. He had no chance. No doubt with me Spinks was an all time great. One of the best light heavies of all time that went up and captured the heavyweight title from an unbeaten great heavyweight. You have to be great to do that I think. The Tyson fight may be a black mark against him but not sufficient to put how good he was in doubt for me.

This is getting ridiculous. I'm not about to dissect every boxers record in history to win an argument. You refused to answer my questions properly and moved the topic elsewhere so I'm about to completely ignore yours.

manos de piedra wrote:I dont really think there was a point to a rematch to be honest. He had no chance. No doubt with me Spinks was an all time great. One of the best light heavies of all time that went up and captured the heavyweight title from an unbeaten great heavyweight. You have to be great to do that I think. The Tyson fight may be a black mark against him but not sufficient to put how good he was in doubt for me.

With no disrespect......Tyson was a Louis...Liston type figure..........Good fighters were intimidated.........Holmes was..

I think maybe you had to be around then to realise what a monster he was..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Rowley wrote:Any chance we can stop before we start with the insults. Out of interest and in the vague hope of getting us back playing nice truss, where would you rank Lewis and Tyson respectively. I personally find the gap between them pretty narrow and struggle to imagine anyone can split them so clearly as to be prepared to argue so vehemently either way but am always willing to be convinced.

Michael Grant...come on Rowley..What do you expect??

I put down Biggs and spinks..........He puts down Michael grant..

Truss. You have an argument, but you're not helping yourself with this over-egging the pudding. If Lewis beats spinks, then uou'd be telling us spinks is a light heavy. Do you think Biggs beats grant? I suspect he gets stopped like he did against any heavy with half a punch.

Tyson gets little credit from me for spinks. Spinks was petrified, it was embarrassing. Al least foster came to fight against Ali and Frazier... And I don't hear him listed as a great win for them.

I give Lewis  little credit for vk either... due to the manner of the win... Though he did tough it out. Don't buy that vk was green though, he had plenty of fights and was probably near his physical peak.

I'm a big Lewis fan............I just have a higher respect for Biggs et al than all the guys who never saw him on here..

I watched him in the Olympics, I watched him lose to Tyson, Lewis, mason, Bowe. Decent boxer, not physically up to it at the top level. Despite Tyson rather uncharitably saying he cried like a girl when he hit him, I'll give Biggs credit that he took his beating like a man.

You've already stated that Tyson intimidated most of his opponents truss... I agree with that. Holmes wasn't an intimidating man, just a very good boxer.. Past his prime when spinks got him.

I have seen a lot if spinks fights, he was a great light heavy, and deserves credit for the Holmes wins... So few have managed that. He was pitiful against Tyson though.

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Rowley wrote:Any chance we can stop before we start with the insults. Out of interest and in the vague hope of getting us back playing nice truss, where would you rank Lewis and Tyson respectively. I personally find the gap between them pretty narrow and struggle to imagine anyone can split them so clearly as to be prepared to argue so vehemently either way but am always willing to be convinced.

Michael Grant...come on Rowley..What do you expect??

I put down Biggs and spinks..........He puts down Michael grant..

Truss. You have an argument, but you're not helping yourself with this over-egging the pudding. If Lewis beats spinks, then uou'd be telling us spinks is a light heavy. Do you think Biggs beats grant? I suspect he gets stopped like he did against any heavy with half a punch.

Tyson gets little credit from me for spinks. Spinks was petrified, it was embarrassing. Al least foster came to fight against Ali and Frazier... And I don't hear him listed as a great win for them.

I give Lewis  little credit for vk either... due to the manner of the win... Though he did tough it out. Don't buy that vk was green though, he had plenty of fights and was probably near his physical peak.

I'm a big Lewis fan............I just have a higher respect for Biggs et al than all the guys who never saw him on here..

I watched him in the Olympics, I watched him lose to Tyson, Lewis, mason, Bowe.  Decent boxer, not physically up to it at the top level. Despite Tyson rather uncharitably saying he cried like a girl when he hit him, I'll give Biggs credit that he took his beating like a man.

You've already stated that Tyson intimidated most of his opponents truss... I agree with that. Holmes wasn't an intimidating man, just a very good boxer.. Past his prime when spinks got him.

I have seen a lot if spinks fights, he was a great light heavy, and deserves credit for the Holmes wins... So few have managed that. He was pitiful against Tyson though.

Biggs was just around at the wrong time..It happens..

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Ah I completely disagree Chris, while Spinks was an extraordinary Light Heavyweight and of course Qawi is an ATG in his own rights at Cruiserwright - I think losing and quitting is quite detrimental to his career standing as a heavyweight. We can't evaluate Spinks heavyweight standing and career on his Light Heavyweight exploits. If I'm asked who the better win is for a heavyweight, a bonafide undefeated heavyweight in Michael Grant, or a light heavyweight stepped up in Spinks, theres only one answer.

Well I agree that Spinks doesn't merit great status purely as a Heavyweight, but that's not what I'm getting at. Going in to the fight against Tyson, there were still a few buffs who regarded Spinks as 'the man' at Heavyweight and who felt that he had the style and skills (which, from the outset, he did) to take the little rays of hope Tillis and Tucker had shown to the world and improve upon them. Tyson was a firm favourite, but not all that many were predicting that he would totally cut Spinks in half in such a devastating / quick manner like he did.

Can't see any reason why Lewis' win over Grant should be considered as impressive as Tyson's over Spinks, personally. All Grant has going for him is that he's a bigger fella than Spinks, nothing else. No wins on his record to match Spinks' over Holmes, even if Larry was a bit long in the tooth, and given that Golota was actually well on top against Grant before basically chucking the towel in once the going got tough, I'm not even so sure that victory is all that far ahead of Spinks' over Cooney!

Sure, Grant didn't retire immediately after Lewis hammered him, fair enough, but he may as well have done, given how miserable his career was after that point. Again, I don't think his post-Lewis career earns him any points over Spinks.

Grant was bring touted as the next big thing by our friends across the pond chris. A large heavy handed unbeaten fighter. With a toney/nunn come from behind win against the dangerous Golota  .

And at least he threw a few punches against Lewis before getting stiffed, which is more than spinks could muster against Tyson.

Very misplaced touting though Milky, I'm sure you'll agree!

Not denying that Spinks froze in the face of Tyson, but it'll take some serious effort to convince me that he was a lesser Heavyweight than Grant, even if he was a much smaller one.

88Chris05 wrote:Very misplaced touting though Milky, I'm sure you'll agree!

Not denying that Spinks froze in the face of Tyson, but it'll take some serious effort to convince me that he was a lesser Heavyweight than Grant, even if he was a much smaller one.

How about Grant and Biggs, Chris? Who was the better HW and more credible win?

88Chris05 wrote:Very misplaced touting though Milky, I'm sure you'll agree!

Not denying that Spinks froze in the face of Tyson, but it'll take some serious effort to convince me that he was a lesser Heavyweight than Grant, even if he was a much smaller one.

how true..

Given that this thread was started by Winchester, and we know who his best mate is, are we certain he isn't refering to Fury here?

milkyboy wrote:Grant was bring touted as the next big thing by our friends across the pond chris. A large heavy handed unbeaten fighter. With a toney/nunn come from behind win against the dangerous Golota  .

And at least he threw a few punches against Lewis before getting stiffed, which is more than spinks could muster against Tyson.

I'm sure Grant beats Holmes twice !!

Lewis is overrated on these boards, and Tyson underrated.

Judging their careers on paper -- there's not a lot between them. Tyson, though, was the better heavyweight at his absolute best than Lewis was at his.

bhb001 wrote:Given that this thread was started by Winchester, and we know who his best mate is, are we certain he isn't refering to Fury here?  

Fury would have beaten spinks. Just being called Tyson, was enough to have him taking the full count at the first jab coming his way

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Grant was bring touted as the next big thing by our friends across the pond chris. A large heavy handed unbeaten fighter. With a toney/nunn come from behind win against the dangerous Golota  .

And at least he threw a few punches against Lewis before getting stiffed, which is more than spinks could muster against Tyson.

I'm sure Grant beats Holmes twice !!

And three times on Sundays truss

Good work on the little Toney-Nunn reference by the way, Milky!  

If you look hard enough you can punch holes in any fighters resume... Pre 1967, I dont think, with the exception of Liston, Ali faced anyone most ATG's would be worried about facing, post 1970 , he lost Frazier and Norton (Twice maybe three times). Couldnt drop Wepner till late. Lost to Spinks (who lost to Coetzee). Then Lost to Holmes. Then Berbick. Of course you can argue he was done by those losses, but thats on him for not retiring post Manilla.

Similarly, Every other Great HW has blots in their careers... Thats why peak for peak discussions are probably better, otherwise Ali's defeats at the end relegate to tale end of top 10, while Evans Fields would continue to slide...

Back to one of perenial groundhog day topics of debate - how many more different ways are there to word these questions that regardless throw up the same arguements? As an answer to the actual question then probably no, Lewis and Tyson are neither over or underated by most fans- we all seem to have them in or around the lower half of the top ten

88Chris05 wrote:Very misplaced touting though Milky, I'm sure you'll agree!

Not denying that Spinks froze in the face of Tyson, but it'll take some serious effort to convince me that he was a lesser Heavyweight than Grant, even if he was a much smaller one.

Those yanks were pretty desperate for someone to beat lewis!

I wouldn't suggest grant was a better heavy than spinks or a better win on paper. Just that spinks was so embarrassingly abject against tyson, that Tyson doesn't deserve much credit for it.. Which is where we differ fella.

Toney nunn...one mans lucky stoppage is another's come from behind masterclass:D 

Very true after dominating the sport for 115 years out of 120.........we felt lost.

kingraf wrote:If you look hard enough you can punch holes in any fighters resume... Pre 1967, I dont think, with the exception of Liston, Ali faced anyone most ATG's would be worried about facing,

I understand what you are doing here, but who with the exception of Liston could he have been expected to face? He did fight an over the hill Archie Moore, but there wasn't a whole lot of depth in the division at that time was there? Floyd Paterson perhaps, but Ali fought him. Ingemar Johansson? Finished in 1963.

bhb001 wrote:

kingraf wrote:If you look hard enough you can punch holes in any fighters resume... Pre 1967, I dont think, with the exception of Liston, Ali faced anyone most ATG's would be worried about facing,

I understand what you are doing here, but who with the exception of Liston could he have been expected to face? He did fight an over the hill Archie Moore, but there wasn't a whole lot of depth in the division at that time was there? Floyd Paterson perhaps, but Ali fought him. Ingemar Johansson? Finished in 1963.

Fact is pre 1967 Ali wasn't the greatest of alltime..

Anyway in conclusion lets look at some of the ways people use to put Tyson down......

1. He lost to the best fighters he fought........So did Holmes and Louis but that's ok!!

2. Olympic champ Biggs, Tucker and Spinks were no better than Michael grant...right..

3. Holmes was past it when he lost to Tyson.....But Tyson wasn't when Lewis beat him...ok

4. Louis was past it when he lost to the best fighters he fought.....Louis lost ten and twelve years after he won the title.....Tyson ten and sixteen years...

5. Louis cv was better than Tyson......How many atg's did Louis beat! We know Tyson beat Holmes and spinks...

Guess that's rebuttal at its American finest..

Have you presented an argument to justify why you consider Biggs better than Grant yet, Truss?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Anyway in conclusion lets look at some of the ways people use to put Tyson down......

1. He lost to the best fighters he fought........So did Holmes and Louis but that's ok!!

2. Olympic champ Biggs, Tucker and Spinks were no better than Michael grant...right..

3. Holmes was past it when he lost to Tyson.....But Tyson wasn't when Lewis beat him...ok

4. Louis was past it when he lost to the best fighters he fought.....Louis lost ten and twelve years after he won the title.....Tyson ten and sixteen years...

5. Louis cv was better than Tyson......How many atg's did Louis beat! We know Tyson beat Holmes and spinks...

Guess that's rebuttal at its American finest..

Just to check as we are separated by a common language. You are talking about Lennox Lewis here, aren't you? Are is this another of you Wlad vs Vlad arguments?

No, he deflected it into trying to make me say why Grant is better than Spinks, which to be honest - I still think, although Chris gave me food for thought, but I have to say that Grant was just...well an undefeated heavyweight, Spinks although for his merits beat an undefeated ATG in Holmes, just never really built on that platform and quit after he got his first hurdle to overcome in his loss. Not an ATG heavyweight in my eyes.

But if Truss can now answer Toppys original question, I'll come back.

Does this mean you are conceding the other two ??

Jabby thinks Spinks is not an alltime great so he's not necessarily the best guy to have agreeing with you..

Never sparred with him apparently.

bhb001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Anyway in conclusion lets look at some of the ways people use to put Tyson down......

1. He lost to the best fighters he fought........So did Holmes and Louis but that's ok!!

2. Olympic champ Biggs, Tucker and Spinks were no better than Michael grant...right..

3. Holmes was past it when he lost to Tyson.....But Tyson wasn't when Lewis beat him...ok

4. Louis was past it when he lost to the best fighters he fought.....Louis lost ten and twelve years after he won the title.....Tyson ten and sixteen years...

5. Louis cv was better than Tyson......How many atg's did Louis beat! We know Tyson beat Holmes and spinks...

Guess that's rebuttal at its American finest..

Just to check as we are separated by a common language. You are talking about Lennox Lewis here, aren't you? Are is this another of you Wlad vs Vlad arguments?

That's why it is spelt like it is..