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.

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..

What's the point of arguing with someone like that??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

bhb001 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:
I think it was the captain who summed up Lewis' win over Vitali nicely when he said that it is, on paper, maybe Lewis' best 'result', but due to the unconvincing nature of it and the fact that, at the time, Vitali was wet behind the ears at the highest level it can't really be classed as his finest victory or career moment.

I like that. It definitely has a ring of truth about it for me. You can't base the greatness of the victory on what a boxer he beat became. It has to be on what he was at the time and wet behind the ears sums it up for me.

Think the fact Lennox quit asap.........Tends to say it all bhb..

Exactly, clearly ducking Wladimir / Ross Purity etc.....

seanmichaels wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

bhb001 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:
I think it was the captain who summed up Lewis' win over Vitali nicely when he said that it is, on paper, maybe Lewis' best 'result', but due to the unconvincing nature of it and the fact that, at the time, Vitali was wet behind the ears at the highest level it can't really be classed as his finest victory or career moment.

I like that. It definitely has a ring of truth about it for me. You can't base the greatness of the victory on what a boxer he beat became. It has to be on what he was at the time and wet behind the ears sums it up for me.

Think the fact Lennox quit asap.........Tends to say it all bhb..

Exactly, clearly ducking Wladimir / Ross Purity etc.....

He smelt the coffee sean..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

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

So was Michael Grant.

Though I'm sure you can find a way to rubbish that win also.

Go away...Michael grant WTF

Predictable.

Not interested..you know sack all..

And yet am still almost able to keep up with you your arguments are so full of holes. If you actually used your brain and boxing knowledge to construct a proper argument this wouldn't be so easy but instead you go for the bullying SHOUT LOUDEST approach and throw your toys out the pram when everyone doesn't immediately back down and agree with you.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

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

So was Michael Grant.

Though I'm sure you can find a way to rubbish that win also.

Go away...Michael grant WTF

Predictable.

Not interested..you know sack all..

And yet am still almost able to keep up with you your arguments are so full of holes.  If you actually used your brain and boxing knowledge to construct a proper argument this wouldn't be so easy but instead you go for the bullying SHOUT LOUDEST approach and throw your toys out the pram when everyone doesn't immediately back down and agree with you.

Stick to insulting Az............go away..

Grant is as good as Biggs and Spinks by the way guys........... 

I've seen Bruno fight, Truss. There is a huge library of fights, you may have heard of it, its called UTube... Enables me to watch fights pretty regularly... Ive seen enough of Bruno to know he would only beat Vitali in a bodybuilding contest.

Every single one of his defeats came via KO. Klitschko has the second highest KO% in boxing, this is only going one way. Klitschko via Hospitalization...

Truss, you can't tell Toppy to go away when he presents a valid argument. Michael Grant was undefeated in 31 fights when he got to Lewis, and he had just beaten Golota who many view as a very good Heavyweight at the time. Tubbs was in exactly the same league as Golota, in that he lost every time he stepped up to the highest level. If we look at Bonecrusher Smith, again every time he stood up to the highest level, he got beaten. So if the same is true of Golota, Grant and Tua then why is it not applied to Tysons opponents?

At least you bring something to the debate kingy..sick of one line abusing wums...

Bruno's jab owned Lewis who was a better boxer than the Klits...I see Bruno busting Wlad and Vitali up as he did Anders Eklund..

Fairplay If you disagree..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Rowley wrote:Fair point Milky, although Tyson did get there first. To be fair I should have added Ruddock to Lewis' better wins ledger as Ruddock was still very much seen as a live opponent and most had it pegged as a 50-50 going in if memory served so very good win and performance for Lewis.

If you add to Lewis ledger........Then what do two wins previously for Tyson over him mean..........

He was on the Tyson ledger truss, that was the point. Ruddock gave Tyson 2 competitive fights, Lewis flattened him.

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..

I'll quote someone with a lot better knowledge than me than Truss:

milkyboy wrote:I've defended tyson's record on the other thread truss, but you're pushing it to big up the likes of Biggs and Williams. They weren't dross but Biggs lost every time he stepped up in class and Williams pretty much did. They're a footnote on his ledger not a highlight. And yes I have seen a fair bit of them both.

This is just another case of typical Truss myopia. Grant had a 31-0 record when he fought Lewis and had just beaten the guy that schooled Riddick Bowe. Tyrell Biggs was a 15 fight novice who'd fought nobody of note but OHHHHHH NOOOOOO Truss says he was a great fighter so he MUST have been the best thing since sliced bread at the time.

Gary Mason was 35-0 when Lewis fought him and had beaten both Tillis and your beloved Biggs - so where do you rank that win for Lewis, Trussy?

Fact is, we don't talk about Spinks as an ATG - because his best wins were against an aging Larry Holmes. We can't make out Spinks was some sort of god, because he stepped up to the Mike Tyson level and got battered, never fought after that. he'd had a good run with a semi padded record and was undeniably a good boxer, but not quite the very elite.

Its getting tiresome that you're ignoring a lot of facts and records here in favour of your own argument.

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Rowley wrote:Fair point Milky, although Tyson did get there first. To be fair I should have added Ruddock to Lewis' better wins ledger as Ruddock was still very much seen as a live opponent and most had it pegged as a 50-50 going in if memory served so very good win and performance for Lewis.

If you add to Lewis ledger........Then what do two wins previously for Tyson over him mean..........

He was on the Tyson ledger truss, that was the point. Ruddock gave Tyson 2 competitive fights, Lewis flattened him.

But that's no argument milky!!........Holy went the distance with Holmes........and Tyson flattened him..

What is the difference between Spinks and Tunney ??????

As an aside it seems the closing of the News section has closed off the avenue with which the boxing thread members can insult each other... Think emotions are a little blocked up

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Grant is as good as Biggs and Spinks by the way guys........... 

Someone give the special kid in class a clap, still think Biggs was actually any good

#tooeasy #blindfavouritism

kingraf wrote:As an aside it seems the closing of the News section has closed off the avenue with which the boxing thread members can insult each other... Think emotions are a little blocked up

It's all some posters seem to want to do unfortunately..

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Grant is as good as Biggs and Spinks by the way guys........... 

Someone give the special kid in class a clap, still think Biggs was actually any good

#tooeasy #blindfavouritism

I'd start a foe list with you on it..If you were relevant.

Can anyone tell me the difference between Spinks and Tunney ??

You're still ignoring me Truss - please can you state the difference between using Spinks, Smith, Biggs and Tubbs as reasons why Tyson should rank highly over Lewis who has more of the same level of boxers in Golota, Ruddock, Grant, Tua etc

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

kingraf wrote:As an aside it seems the closing of the News section has closed off the avenue with which the boxing thread members can insult each other... Think emotions are a little blocked up

It's all some posters seem to want to do unfortunately..

Possibly the most pot/kettle/black statement I've ever read on 606/v2. Coming from the guy that's been banned for going round slagging people off and just telling people to f*** off when they disagree with him

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Can anyone tell me the difference between Spinks and Tunney ??

Spinks is black? To be honest if that is the answer the last thing this thread needs is race bringing into it.

Because they are not the same level..

Why is Tunney a haeavy great and Spinks isn't..

JabMachineMK2 wrote:You're still ignoring me Truss - please can you state the difference between using Spinks, Smith, Biggs and Tubbs as reasons why Tyson should rank highly over Lewis who has more of the same level of boxers in Golota, Ruddock, Grant, Tua etc

I'll answer for him:

Spinks/Smith/Biggs/Tubbs are better than Golota/Ruddock/Grant/Tua because Tyson (an American) beat the former whereas only a lowely Brit/Canadian beat the latter.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:You're still ignoring me Truss - please can you state the difference between using Spinks, Smith, Biggs and Tubbs as reasons why Tyson should rank highly over Lewis who has more of the same level of boxers in Golota, Ruddock, Grant, Tua etc

I'll answer for him:

Spinks/Smith/Biggs/Tubbs are better than Golota/Ruddock/Grant/Tua because Tyson (an American) beat the former whereas only a lowely Brit/Canadian beat the latter.

Nationality and then it will be race with this guy...Can you inform him I'm not interested..

Come on the Trussy, how about you present your case as to WHY you think Biggs was actually anything special, rather than just saying he was and demanding everyone agree with you?

>
>
>
>
>
>

Though I think we all know it'll go something like this:

Biggs was an Olympic champ (well done, you've proved he's at least as good as Audley Harrison) and............well you've just got to believe me he was great because I saw him and I know everything and you know nothing and my word is law.

You know there's nothing else you can present as his pro record was crap.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Come on the Trussy, how about you present your case as to WHY you think Biggs was actually anything special, rather than just saying he was and demanding everyone agree with you?

>
>
>
>
>
>

Though I think we all know it'll go something like this:

Biggs was an Olympic champ (well done, you've proved he's at least as good as Audley Harrison) and............well you've just got to believe me he was great because I saw him and I know everything and you know nothing and my word is law.

You know there's nothing else you can present as his pro record was crap.

  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:You're still ignoring me Truss - please can you state the difference between using Spinks, Smith, Biggs and Tubbs as reasons why Tyson should rank highly over Lewis who has more of the same level of boxers in Golota, Ruddock, Grant, Tua etc

I'll answer for him:

Spinks/Smith/Biggs/Tubbs are better than Golota/Ruddock/Grant/Tua because Tyson (an American) beat the former whereas only a lowely Brit/Canadian beat the latter.

Nationality and then it will be race with this guy...Can you inform him I'm not interested..

You're the one that's making this about nationality as your persistently failing, or refusing, to present a coherent backed-up argument. The only differential is American vs Brit/Canadian; as you've given us nothing to support otherwise.

Because Tunney fought 30 odd more fights, had some absolute barnstormers with Greb, beat Dempsey etc. I think I could pull out 5/6 great boxers from Tunneys record, and probably 2 from Spinks. He just finished early. Tyson ruined his love for the sport. If he'd have carried on and done well we'd be talking about him as an ATG, around the same levels we do Tunney, but the fact is, he lost and quit. Didn't really show a champions mentality in my eyes. Tunney lost, got back on the horse and rematched the guy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Come on the Trussy, how about you present your case as to WHY you think Biggs was actually anything special, rather than just saying he was and demanding everyone agree with you?

>
>
>
>
>
>

Though I think we all know it'll go something like this:

Biggs was an Olympic champ (well done, you've proved he's at least as good as Audley Harrison) and............well you've just got to believe me he was great because I saw him and I know everything and you know nothing and my word is law.

You know there's nothing else you can present as his pro record was crap.

  

Thank-you for proving my point so conclusively.

Must say, debating is much easier when the other guy does all the work for you......

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:You're still ignoring me Truss - please can you state the difference between using Spinks, Smith, Biggs and Tubbs as reasons why Tyson should rank highly over Lewis who has more of the same level of boxers in Golota, Ruddock, Grant, Tua etc

I'll answer for him:

Spinks/Smith/Biggs/Tubbs are better than Golota/Ruddock/Grant/Tua because Tyson (an American) beat the former whereas only a lowely Brit/Canadian beat the latter.

Nationality and then it will be race with this guy...Can you inform him I'm not interested..

You're the one that's making this about nationality as your persistently failing, or refusing, to present a coherent backed-up argument.  The only differential is American vs Brit/Canadian; as you've given us nothing to support otherwise.

Can you get this guy out of my face!!

I think there's no doubt truss's 80's heavies were easier on the eye than the current / recent crop.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Because Tunney fought 30 odd more fights, had some absolute barnstormers with Greb, beat Dempsey etc. I think I could pull out 5/6 great boxers from Tunneys record, and probably 2 from Spinks. He just finished early. Tyson ruined his love for the sport. If he'd have carried on and done well we'd be talking about him as an ATG, around the same levels we do Tunney, but the fact is, he lost and quit. Didn't really show a champions mentality in my eyes. Tunney lost, got back on the horse and rematched the guy.

Sorry kid you said Spinks wasn't a great heavy yet Tunney is.......

Holmes x2 and Cooney matches tunney's reign..

This looks like a fun little debate.

*pulls up a chair*

Truss, just present your argument and it'll be easier. The fact you're refusing to give him answers to questions you raised and he countered just makes you look like you have nothing else to say.

seanmichaels wrote:I think there's no doubt truss's 80's heavies were easier on the eye than the current / recent crop.

More skilled and professional ........I think Foreman changed everything..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:You're still ignoring me Truss - please can you state the difference between using Spinks, Smith, Biggs and Tubbs as reasons why Tyson should rank highly over Lewis who has more of the same level of boxers in Golota, Ruddock, Grant, Tua etc

I'll answer for him:

Spinks/Smith/Biggs/Tubbs are better than Golota/Ruddock/Grant/Tua because Tyson (an American) beat the former whereas only a lowely Brit/Canadian beat the latter.

Nationality and then it will be race with this guy...Can you inform him I'm not interested..

You're the one that's making this about nationality as your persistently failing, or refusing, to present a coherent backed-up argument.  The only differential is American vs Brit/Canadian; as you've given us nothing to support otherwise.

Can you get this guy out of my face!!

If you counter me rather than just shout and insult me then I will happily 'get out of your face'. But this is a forum, a place for debate, if you don't want to and just want to shout and have people agree with you then go elsewhere.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Truss, just present your argument and it'll be easier. The fact you're refusing to give him answers to questions you raised and he countered just makes you look like you have nothing else to say.

He insults me ad nauseum...I'm not interested in debating wums..You my friend are a different matter!!

now give us a kiss.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Truss, just present your argument and it'll be easier. The fact you're refusing to give him answers to questions you raised and he countered just makes you look like you have nothing else to say.

He insults me ad nauseum...I'm not interested in debating wums..You my friend are a different matter!!

now give us a kiss.

In other words, you can't.

Still, accusing others of insulting you remains hilariously ironic so keep up the solid work there kiddo.

Somewhere in a Bond-villain-esque umderwater lair, you just know Winchester is stroking his cat chuffed at the result of his handiwork

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sorry kid you said Spinks wasn't a great heavy yet Tunney is.......

Holmes x2 and Cooney matches tunney's reign..

Calling someone "kid" doesn't really add weight to your argument Truss.

Spinks isn't an ATG heavy, beating an aging Holmes doesn't equal a guy who fought 30 more times and fought 2 ATG's in Greb and Dempsey. Yes, Dempsey was perhaps past his best, but he lost to Greb as Spinks lost to Tyson - but he went back and beat Greb. Did Spinks do that? After Spinks lost, did he throw his toys out of the pram or did he continue, right the wrong and still enjoy a heavyweight title reign?

Thats the difference Truss.

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.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sorry kid you said Spinks wasn't a great heavy yet Tunney is.......

Holmes x2 and Cooney matches tunney's reign..

Calling someone "kid" doesn't really add weight to your argument Truss.

Spinks isn't an ATG heavy, beating an aging Holmes doesn't equal a guy who fought 30 more times and fought 2 ATG's in Greb and Dempsey. Yes, Dempsey was perhaps past his best, but he lost to Greb as Spinks lost to Tyson - but he went back and beat Greb. Did Spinks do that? After Spinks lost, did he throw his toys out of the pram or did he continue, right the wrong and still enjoy a heavyweight title reign?

Thats the difference Truss.

Tell that to Kid chocolate next time you spar with him!!

Spinks was a great light heavy......and Greb wasn't at heavy and Dempsey was past it too......

Argument doesn't wash..

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..

All in all, my point remains, that we need to look at the entire career of a boxer when evaluating his standing, Spinks will forever be marred by the fact he quit when he lost. That to me doesn't show me an ATG. Tyson didn't quit when he lost, but he came back and although a shadow of his former self - did enjoy some relative success but carried on too long, he dulled peoples opinion of him by the manner of which he bowed out. On the other hand, when Lewis lost he righted the wrong, came back, beat them and quit while on top. Again, we have to look at the entire career and not just a few wins in their "prime"

Spinks got knocked out..rewriting history my friend..

Dempsey was no better than Holmes.........

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.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:I think there's no doubt truss's 80's heavies were easier on the eye than the current / recent crop.

More skilled and professional ........I think Foreman changed everything..

The grill?

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.

Agreed..........

Spinks > jim Bradshaw?

kingraf wrote:Somewhere in a Bond-villain-esque umderwater lair, you just know Winchester is stroking his cat chuffed at the result of his handiwork

Somewhere in a scene from blackadder, baldrickchester sits back, stroking his turnip, and admires the fruits of his cunning plan.