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.

 ATG Heavy? No.

ATG Light Heavy? Most certainly.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Biggs, Spinks and Tucker were all unbeaten...............

Biggs was also a 15 fight novice fighting a unified world champ with double the amount of fights under his belt. He then went on to lose the majority of his fights for the rest of his career, take VK over that chump any day of the week.

I do know of Tyrell Biggs...yes......Know that he beat all the great amateurs including Lewis 5-0...was world champ , Olympic champion and gave a great heavy 7 rounds before fading...

More than enough to relegate the useless Grant..

JabMachineMK2 wrote: ATG Heavy? No.

ATG Light Heavy? Most certainly.

But Tunney is according to you.... That's Tunney..."keeps his hands low..open to the left.." 

Id have Spinks well above Grant although I wouldnt consider him an all time great heavyweight.

Somwhere between 14th and 20th

manos de piedra wrote:Id have Spinks well above Grant although I wouldnt consider him an all time great heavyweight.

Absolutely and Tucker too...Toppy seems to have forgotten about him.......Great amateur and beat a young Douglas...won four rounds against prime steak Tyson...

before he found drugs..

Quite a few people beat a young Douglas.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

What, why you spelt it wrong? It is Lewis not Louis. You actually spelt it right once, wrong five times and it is in the title!!

Tucker - Douglas was for the title...

Douglas was in shape......

bhb001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

What, why you spelt it wrong? It is Lewis not Louis. You actually spelt it right once, wrong five times and it is in the title!!

What are you talking about.

manos de piedra wrote:Id have Spinks well above Grant although I wouldnt consider him an all time great heavyweight.

Spinks is an ATG, but agree he is not an ATG at heavyweight. He suffered through running into a Mack truck that is Tyson, but there was no doubting his ability at light heavy

So is Douglas now going to become one of those "Imagine if he was motivated" myths?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

bhb001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

What, why you spelt it wrong? It is Lewis not Louis. You actually spelt it right once, wrong five times and it is in the title!!

What are you talking about.

I even highlighted the mis-spelling in bold for you. How much easier do I need to make it for you say, oops, spelt his name wrong.

Never said he was an atg heavy....Just said his career as heavy champ mirrors Tunney's..

Douglas was in shape he was a different fighter..thought it was common knowledge......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Biggs, Spinks and Tucker were all unbeaten...............

Biggs was also a 15 fight novice fighting a unified world champ with double the amount of fights under his belt. He then went on to lose the majority of his fights for the rest of his career, take VK over that chump any day of the week.

I do know of Tyrell Biggs...yes......Know that he beat all the great amateurs including Lewis 5-0...was world champ , Olympic champion and gave a great heavy 7 rounds before fading...

More than enough to relegate the useless Grant..

So, great amateur, won the same trinkets as Audley Harrison.

That still says nothing anout Biggs the pro. Who had he beaten after 15 fights to put him ahead of Grant after 30?

Who did he beat in his entire career better than Golota? And where does he rank alongside Gary Mason who beat him (also in 7 rounds)?

bhb001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

bhb001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

What, why you spelt it wrong? It is Lewis not Louis. You actually spelt it right once, wrong five times and it is in the title!!

What are you talking about.

I even highlighted the mis-spelling in bold for you. How much easier do I need to make it for you say, oops, spelt his name wrong.

You're making a fool of yourself.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Biggs, Spinks and Tucker were all unbeaten...............

Biggs was also a 15 fight novice fighting a unified world champ with double the amount of fights under his belt. He then went on to lose the majority of his fights for the rest of his career, take VK over that chump any day of the week.

I do know of Tyrell Biggs...yes......Know that he beat all the great amateurs including Lewis 5-0...was world champ , Olympic champion and gave a great heavy 7 rounds before fading...

More than enough to relegate the useless Grant..

So, great amateur, won the same trinkets as Audley Harrison.

That still says nothing anout Biggs the pro.  Who had he beaten after 15 fights to put him ahead of Grant after 30?

Who did he beat in his entire career better than Golota? And where does he rank alongside Gary Mason who beat him (also in 7 rounds)?

Golota was after he was squashed in one by Lennox Lewis...

kingraf wrote:So is Douglas now going to become one of those "Imagine if he was motivated" myths?

If and when it suits people's pre-formed arguments.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

bhb001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

bhb001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

What, why you spelt it wrong? It is Lewis not Louis. You actually spelt it right once, wrong five times and it is in the title!!

What are you talking about.

I even highlighted the mis-spelling in bold for you. How much easier do I need to make it for you say, oops, spelt his name wrong.

You're making a fool of yourself.

You could just say it was Joe Louis not Lennox and save me having to work it out myself.  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Biggs, Spinks and Tucker were all unbeaten...............

Biggs was also a 15 fight novice fighting a unified world champ with double the amount of fights under his belt. He then went on to lose the majority of his fights for the rest of his career, take VK over that chump any day of the week.

I do know of Tyrell Biggs...yes......Know that he beat all the great amateurs including Lewis 5-0...was world champ , Olympic champion and gave a great heavy 7 rounds before fading...

More than enough to relegate the useless Grant..

So, great amateur, won the same trinkets as Audley Harrison.

That still says nothing anout Biggs the pro.  Who had he beaten after 15 fights to put him ahead of Grant after 30?

Who did he beat in his entire career better than Golota? And where does he rank alongside Gary Mason who beat him (also in 7 rounds)?

Golota was after he was squashed in one by Lennox Lewis...

Doesn't answer the question, or any of the others.

What does it matter how many fights you have ??

You've conceded Tucker and Spinks then...

Harrison beat Lewis ....????....Biggs amateur record more than makes up for Grant and Biggs career in the pros....Now even If I conceded you're right it's still..

2-1......which I don't..

How's this still going on?

Lewis is better than Tyson, there's no convincing evidence to go against that.

You could of course make that argument for any HW who tends to come in podgy. Imagine if Sanders wanted to become a HW champ, and not use his boxing to fund his golfing habit.

bhb001 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Id have Spinks well above Grant although I wouldnt consider him an all time great heavyweight.

Spinks is an ATG, but agree he is not an ATG at heavyweight. He suffered through running into a Mack truck that is Tyson, but there was no doubting his ability at light heavy

I think its efforts against Holmes and Cooney also showed at a minimum that he was a pretty good heavyweight. Holmes was ageing but he was the champion at the time and even 5/6 years later he had enough in the tank to beat the likes of Mercer and peform credibly against Holyfield so he wasnt washed up.

Tucker was a decent fighter, though he was losing to Douglas before buster chucked the towel in... Much to the chagrin of his father.

So we can agree... Tucker was a good win for Tyson... And Lewis of course;) 
So, Biggs beat Lewis as an amateur, if that counts does lewis beating bowe as an amateur count?

kingraf wrote:You could of course make that argument for any HW who tends to come in podgy. Imagine if Sanders wanted to become a HW champ, and not use his boxing to fund his golfing habit.

Douglas didn't lose between Tucker and TYSON..I'll take that evidence instead

milkyboy wrote:Tucker was a decent fighter, though he was losing to Douglas before buster chucked the towel in... Much to the chagrin of his father.

So we can agree... Tucker was a good win for Tyson... And Lewis of course;) 
So, Biggs beat Lewis as an amateur, if that counts does lewis beating bowe as an amateur count?

It counts when you have two giant busts as a pro....

Sanders didnt lose between Rahman and Wladimir...

kingraf wrote:Sanders didnt lose between Rahman and Wladimir...

okay..

manos de piedra wrote:

bhb001 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Id have Spinks well above Grant although I wouldnt consider him an all time great heavyweight.

Spinks is an ATG, but agree he is not an ATG at heavyweight. He suffered through running into a Mack truck that is Tyson, but there was no doubting his ability at light heavy

I think its efforts against Holmes and Cooney also showed at a minimum that he was a pretty good heavyweight. Holmes was ageing but he was the champion at the time and even 5/6 years later he had enough in the tank to beat the likes of Mercer and peform credibly against Holyfield so he wasnt washed up.

I agree Manos that he was a very good heavyweight. It is a real pity that his entire career is over shadowed by that one defeat.

My point, which youre ignoring is that you are making an argument that could be made ad nauseum for a weight division that doesnt have a weight limit

Duty281 wrote:How's this still going on?

Lewis is better than Tyson, there's no convincing evidence to go against that.

I think Tyson during his best years was better than Lewis during his best years. I would cite their respective peak reigns as evidence. Tyson 1986-89 was better than Lewis 1998-2002 for me. I would consider it a pretty open question though.

The way their respective careers panned out means I think Lewis probably deserves to place above Tyson though.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Biggs amateur record more than makes up for Grant and Biggs career in the pros

Utter and unadulterated codswallop. This has ruined your debate Truss.

We're talking about the professional careers of ATG heavyweights, not their amateur careers - christ.

Douglas beat Oliver mccall, Berbick and a heralded Mike williams between Tucker and Tyson...

some record..Good fighter was Buster in shape..

manos de piedra wrote:The way their respective careers panned out means I think Lewis probably deserves to place above Tyson though.

Exactly my point. If we look at their careers, Lewis had a better one. Simple.

If we look at their "peak" Tysons was more devastating and had more "aura" about it, but then he went and ruined it by falling out of love with boxing and we HAVE to hold his losses and subsequent misgivings against him, as we do for Lewis in losing to Rahman and McCall, the difference is of course he went back and beat them, Tyson sort of...wimpered out of the sport and like it or not, we have to look right up to McBride in evaluating his career.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Biggs amateur record more than makes up for Grant and Biggs career in the pros

Utter and unadulterated codswallop. This has ruined your debate Truss.

We're talking about the professional careers of ATG heavyweights, not their amateur careers - christ.

I'm talking about two busted careers and using the amateur stuff to seperate....Now go and spar with Kell Brook or something..

Last person to be accusing anybody of codswallop sunshine..

"I only did it because I respect you all so much" remember that..

Oh dear he'll be running to the mods now..

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:The way their respective careers panned out means I think Lewis probably deserves to place above Tyson though.

Exactly my point. If we look at their careers, Lewis had a better one. Simple.

If we look at their "peak" Tysons was more devastating and had more "aura" about it, but then he went and ruined it by falling out of love with boxing and we HAVE to hold his losses and subsequent misgivings against him, as we do for Lewis in losing to Rahman and McCall, the difference is of course he went back and beat them, Tyson sort of...wimpered out of the sport and like it or not, we have to look right up to McBride in evaluating his career.

If it's that simple why do respected posters like Haz and guys like Bert Sugar amongst others disagree with you..

Me I have him behind tyson also.

No, I don't need the mods to help me with you Truss, thats your favorite line, despite you being the crybaby of the two of us. You throw your toys out of the pram and get all personal. Its unbecoming, and just when I was warming to you. My previous posting history has absolutely no relevance to this, the debate in hand - so stop acting like a woman and dragging up old s*it.

I have never approached the mods about your behaviour and publicly state that any moderator who has received such a complaint from me come forward with evidence. Stop being a moron and get back to the debate.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What does it matter how many fights you have ??

You've conceded Tucker and Spinks then...

Harrison beat Lewis ....????....Biggs amateur record more than makes up for Grant and Biggs career in the pros....Now even If I conceded you're right it's still..

2-1......which I don't..

What an astonishingly ridiculous argument!! So if Tyson or Lewis or whoever, knocked out a debutant it's just as valid as a fully fledged pro??!!

Spinks>Grant. Tucker was a good win - ON BOTH MEN'S LEDGER, both by UD.

Again banging on about Biggs the amateur. It's totally irrelevant - as Harrison showed. Biggs' pro career was cack. Please answer who he beat better than Golota, or even Grant for that matter?!!

Post Tyson, Biggs' career reads 15-9. That's rubbish. Before Tyson he'd only fought one guy with a winning record - the might Jeff Sims . Biggs lost to any remotely half decent HW he ever fought. I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell that can possibly constitute being 'great' or anything even close.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:The way their respective careers panned out means I think Lewis probably deserves to place above Tyson though.

Exactly my point. If we look at their careers, Lewis had a better one. Simple.

If we look at their "peak" Tysons was more devastating and had more "aura" about it, but then he went and ruined it by falling out of love with boxing and we HAVE to hold his losses and subsequent misgivings against him, as we do for Lewis in losing to Rahman and McCall, the difference is of course he went back and beat them, Tyson sort of...wimpered out of the sport and like it or not, we have to look right up to McBride in evaluating his career.

If it's that simple why do respected posters like Haz and guys like Bert Sugar amongst others disagree with you..

Me I have him behind tyson also.

Career-wise, Lewis had a better one.
Style-wise, Lewis had a better one.

No doubt from me whatsoever, that Lewis would absolutely blitz Tyson if the two had met prime v prime. He just would have had Tyson's number; too big, too strong, wouldn't be intimidated. A bit like Buster Douglas I suppose, only Lewis' victory would be a lot more devastating.

Are you conceding Tucker or not.....How many times do I have to ask you!!

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:The way their respective careers panned out means I think Lewis probably deserves to place above Tyson though.

Exactly my point. If we look at their careers, Lewis had a better one. Simple.

If we look at their "peak" Tysons was more devastating and had more "aura" about it, but then he went and ruined it by falling out of love with boxing and we HAVE to hold his losses and subsequent misgivings against him, as we do for Lewis in losing to Rahman and McCall, the difference is of course he went back and beat them, Tyson sort of...wimpered out of the sport and like it or not, we have to look right up to McBride in evaluating his career.

If it's that simple why do respected posters like Haz and guys like Bert Sugar amongst others disagree with you..

Me I have him behind tyson also.

Career-wise, Lewis had a better one.
Style-wise, Lewis had a better one.

No doubt from me whatsoever, that Lewis would absolutely blitz Tyson if the two had met prime v prime. He just would have had Tyson's number; too big, too strong, wouldn't be intimidated. A bit like Buster Douglas I suppose, only Lewis' victory would be a lot more devastating.

I think we know where you stand.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:The way their respective careers panned out means I think Lewis probably deserves to place above Tyson though.

Exactly my point. If we look at their careers, Lewis had a better one. Simple.

If we look at their "peak" Tysons was more devastating and had more "aura" about it, but then he went and ruined it by falling out of love with boxing and we HAVE to hold his losses and subsequent misgivings against him, as we do for Lewis in losing to Rahman and McCall, the difference is of course he went back and beat them, Tyson sort of...wimpered out of the sport and like it or not, we have to look right up to McBride in evaluating his career.

If it's that simple why do respected posters like Haz and guys like Bert Sugar amongst others disagree with you..

Me I have him behind tyson also.

Career-wise, Lewis had a better one.
Style-wise, Lewis had a better one.

No doubt from me whatsoever, that Lewis would absolutely blitz Tyson if the two had met prime v prime. He just would have had Tyson's number; too big, too strong, wouldn't be intimidated. A bit like Buster Douglas I suppose, only Lewis' victory would be a lot more devastating.

I think we know where you stand.

On the correct side of the debate, that's where.  

If I remember correctly I think I said Biggs was a better fighter.....he was classy and polished and had a great left jab..

What about Grant?/

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:The way their respective careers panned out means I think Lewis probably deserves to place above Tyson though.

Exactly my point. If we look at their careers, Lewis had a better one. Simple.

If we look at their "peak" Tysons was more devastating and had more "aura" about it, but then he went and ruined it by falling out of love with boxing and we HAVE to hold his losses and subsequent misgivings against him, as we do for Lewis in losing to Rahman and McCall, the difference is of course he went back and beat them, Tyson sort of...wimpered out of the sport and like it or not, we have to look right up to McBride in evaluating his career.

If it's that simple why do respected posters like Haz and guys like Bert Sugar amongst others disagree with you..

Me I have him behind tyson also.

Career-wise, Lewis had a better one.
Style-wise, Lewis had a better one.

No doubt from me whatsoever, that Lewis would absolutely blitz Tyson if the two had met prime v prime. He just would have had Tyson's number; too big, too strong, wouldn't be intimidated. A bit like Buster Douglas I suppose, only Lewis' victory would be a lot more devastating.

I think we know where you stand.

On the correct side of the debate, that's where.  

Tyson is a member of UKIP..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Are you conceding Tucker or not.....How many times do I have to ask you!!

Who are you talking to?

Because if it is me then:

1) You've got waaaaaaaaaaay more unanswered questions from me so how about you taste a little of your own broth; and
2) I actually already answered that question.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:The way their respective careers panned out means I think Lewis probably deserves to place above Tyson though.

Exactly my point. If we look at their careers, Lewis had a better one. Simple.

If we look at their "peak" Tysons was more devastating and had more "aura" about it, but then he went and ruined it by falling out of love with boxing and we HAVE to hold his losses and subsequent misgivings against him, as we do for Lewis in losing to Rahman and McCall, the difference is of course he went back and beat them, Tyson sort of...wimpered out of the sport and like it or not, we have to look right up to McBride in evaluating his career.

If it's that simple why do respected posters like Haz and guys like Bert Sugar amongst others disagree with you..

Me I have him behind tyson also.

Career-wise, Lewis had a better one.
Style-wise, Lewis had a better one.

No doubt from me whatsoever, that Lewis would absolutely blitz Tyson if the two had met prime v prime. He just would have had Tyson's number; too big, too strong, wouldn't be intimidated. A bit like Buster Douglas I suppose, only Lewis' victory would be a lot more devastating.

I think we know where you stand.

On the correct side of the debate, that's where.  

Tyson is a member of UKIP..

Eh?  

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:The way their respective careers panned out means I think Lewis probably deserves to place above Tyson though.

Exactly my point. If we look at their careers, Lewis had a better one. Simple.

If we look at their "peak" Tysons was more devastating and had more "aura" about it, but then he went and ruined it by falling out of love with boxing and we HAVE to hold his losses and subsequent misgivings against him, as we do for Lewis in losing to Rahman and McCall, the difference is of course he went back and beat them, Tyson sort of...wimpered out of the sport and like it or not, we have to look right up to McBride in evaluating his career.

If it's that simple why do respected posters like Haz and guys like Bert Sugar amongst others disagree with you..

Me I have him behind tyson also.

Career-wise, Lewis had a better one.
Style-wise, Lewis had a better one.

No doubt from me whatsoever, that Lewis would absolutely blitz Tyson if the two had met prime v prime. He just would have had Tyson's number; too big, too strong, wouldn't be intimidated. A bit like Buster Douglas I suppose, only Lewis' victory would be a lot more devastating.

Don't see that at all. Tyson was a better fighter when both were at their best. If Mercer and Holyfield could push Lewis close, Tyson at his best would have beaten him.

Even when he turned up half asleep and clearly untrained against Douglas, Buster had to hit him with everything but the kitchen sink in order to knock him over.

Tyson's career -- up to Spinks -- was a sensation. Lewis plugged away for an entire career before finally attaining greatness a couple of fights before he retired.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Are you conceding Tucker or not.....How many times do I have to ask you!!

Who are you talking to?

Because if it is me then:

1) You've got waaaaaaaaaaay more unanswered questions from me so how about you taste a little of your own broth; and
2) I actually already answered that question.

I don't care...you bore me

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:The way their respective careers panned out means I think Lewis probably deserves to place above Tyson though.

Exactly my point. If we look at their careers, Lewis had a better one. Simple.

If we look at their "peak" Tysons was more devastating and had more "aura" about it, but then he went and ruined it by falling out of love with boxing and we HAVE to hold his losses and subsequent misgivings against him, as we do for Lewis in losing to Rahman and McCall, the difference is of course he went back and beat them, Tyson sort of...wimpered out of the sport and like it or not, we have to look right up to McBride in evaluating his career.

If it's that simple why do respected posters like Haz and guys like Bert Sugar amongst others disagree with you..

Me I have him behind tyson also.

Career-wise, Lewis had a better one.
Style-wise, Lewis had a better one.

No doubt from me whatsoever, that Lewis would absolutely blitz Tyson if the two had met prime v prime. He just would have had Tyson's number; too big, too strong, wouldn't be intimidated. A bit like Buster Douglas I suppose, only Lewis' victory would be a lot more devastating.

Don't see that at all. Tyson was a better fighter when both were at their best. If Mercer and Holyfield could push Lewis close, Tyson at his best would have beaten him.

Even when he turned up half asleep and clearly untrained against Douglas, Buster had to hit him with everything but the kitchen sink in order to knock him over.

Tyson's career -- up to Spinks -- was a sensation. Lewis plugged away for an entire career before finally attaining greatness a couple of fights before he retired.

Good boy Haz..finally a decent poster with sense..