Lewis vs Tyson - Pure Boxing Ability... who's better?

First topic message reminder :

Simple question.

When it comes to ATG heavyweight lists we would normally find Lewis in a higher position than Tyson due to his longer title reign combined with a number of very good names on his CV as well as a number of other factors. Tyson on the otherhand had a much shorter prime, which counts greatly against him

But the question for this post is for pure boxing ability at there relative peaks who was the better fighter????

Four years is a small timeframe considering the weak era he was competing in, Marciano unlike Tyson didn't show the vulnerabilities that would curtail his career.

Tua was far from Lewis' best win- Holyfield, Briggs, Grant, Klitschko, Golota, Akinwande, Mercer, Morrison, Bruno, Tucker and Ruddock were all more than decent. Or are we to assume that the likes of Smith, Tubbs, Biggs, an old Holmes were better?

azania wrote:The only time his confidence was questioned was in the Douglas fight. He didn't have Rooney in his corner. Instead he had yes men as Truss alluded to.

See, that's where I DO disagree.

Way back during his amateur days, Tyson was very fragile, mentally, and had a front runner's mentality. The famous " Nobody will like me if I lose " quotation comes from that period, and as a pro he would famously say " I have the biggest ego in the world, but no self esteem. "

As I say, I'm on the fence, and if my life depended on it I'd jump off to Tyson's side of the fence, but despite yours and Truss' excellent analysis I COULD see a scenario by which Tyson could unravel and lose.

Thing is as Tyson was so quick for Lewis/Holy even Buster to win in Tyson's prime the above fighters woukld have had to have smothered and spoilt till the speed and the fire of the early assault had calmed down...

For me Holy/Lewis as accomplished as they were..they weren't great at spoiling and that is in it's way a compliment......

As for Buster he could do it but for me would have been disillusioned unlike the other too and probably have quit...

imperialghosty wrote:Four years is a small timeframe considering the weak era he was competing in, Marciano unlike Tyson didn't show the vulnerabilities that would curtail his career.

Tua was far from Lewis' best win- Holyfield, Briggs, Grant, Klitschko, Golota, Akinwande, Mercer, Morrison, Bruno, Tucker and Ruddock were all more than decent. Or are we to assume that the likes of Smith, Tubbs, Biggs, an old Holmes were better?

Actually I do think Tyson's reign had better fighters. Its just that he made them all look average.

Mercer had lost to Holmes before he lost a disputed decision to Lewis. Morrison was KO in 1 round by Bentt, Grant was shown up and did nothing after Lewis beat him. Akinwande was never any good and better suited to Strickly come dancing, Holy was finished yet still gave Lewis a hard fight, Golota had just come away from 2 massive fights with Bowe, Bruno (are you serious). Tucker was beaten up by Tyson. Ruddock was a great win but already had been beaten up by Tyson.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:The only time his confidence was questioned was in the Douglas fight. He didn't have Rooney in his corner. Instead he had yes men as Truss alluded to.

See, that's where I DO disagree.

Way back during his amateur days, Tyson was very fragile, mentally, and had a front runner's mentality. The famous " Nobody will like me if I lose " quotation comes from that period, and as a pro he would famously say " I have the biggest ego in the world, but no self esteem. "

As I say, I'm on the fence, and if my life depended on it I'd jump off to Tyson's side of the fence, but despite yours and Truss' excellent analysis I COULD see a scenario by which Tyson could unravel and lose.

I dont know of any boxer who isn't scared or nervous prior to any fight. Its the nature of the game. But he channeled that fear to his advantage. Scared of losing also often drives boxers on. I look at that as a positivity.

So i've shown you up and you've decided to use quite frankly pathetic excuses for dismissing all his victories

imperialghosty wrote:So i've shown you up and you've decided to use quite frankly pathetic excuses for dismissing all his victories

Err how have you shown me up? The guys Lewis beat were either past it as they were coming off huge life and death fights, old, not very good and downright useless (Akinwande who managed to floor lewis). I maintain that the fighters Tyson beat were better than those lewis beat.

Windy is right that you can disillusion Tyson.....However he was too fast in his day for someone to jump on him like Buster did and when he moaned in the Pinky fight about being tired or got down Rooney was very good at talking him round...

Think Rooney's regime was massive for Tyson and the effect when he went was catastrophic...

As I say not sure Lewis/Holy were great at circling and boxing on the retreat like Douglas was......

They were better fighters but perhaps not as made for Tyson as Buster was..

Lewis and Holy needed to plant their feet more..Everything came off Buster's jab and he was as happy off the front or back foot

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:So i've shown you up and you've decided to use quite frankly pathetic excuses for dismissing all his victories

Err how have you shown me up? The guys Lewis beat were either past it as they were coming off huge life and death fights, old, not very good and downright useless (Akinwande who managed to floor lewis). I maintain that the fighters Tyson beat were better than those lewis beat.

Doesn't change the fact they were good fighters does it

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Windy is right that you can disillusion Tyson.....However he was too fast in his day for someone to jump on him like Buster did and when he moaned in the Pinky fight about being tired or got down Rooney was very good at talking him round...

Think Rooney's regime was massive for Tyson and the effect when he went was catastrophic...

As I say not sure Lewis/Holy were great at circling and boxing on the retreat like Douglas was......

They were better fighters but perhaps not as made for Tyson as Buster was..

Lewis and Holy needed to plant their feet more..Everything came off Buster's jab and he was as happy off the front or back foot

My point exactly regarding Lewis's lack of footwork. He couldn't box on the retreat as Douglas did. He was made for Tyson. Lewis didn't have the snap in his jab that Holmes had and Douglas possessed.

imperialghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:So i've shown you up and you've decided to use quite frankly pathetic excuses for dismissing all his victories

Err how have you shown me up? The guys Lewis beat were either past it as they were coming off huge life and death fights, old, not very good and downright useless (Akinwande who managed to floor lewis). I maintain that the fighters Tyson beat were better than those lewis beat.

Doesn't change the fact they were good fighters does it

Those Tyson beat were better.

Who did Tyson beat that was better than an albeit 38 year old Holyfield?

imperialghosty wrote:Who did Tyson beat that was better than an albeit 38 year old Holyfield?

A 38 year old HOly wouldn't have beaten Tucker (who was undefeated when Tyson fought him). Pinklon Tomas, Tubbs and others. He was past it then. A 30 year old Holy would have beaten them all.

Right of course they would have beaten that version of Holyfield, considering between them they had never beaten anyone

Apart from Ali we can play the who did he beat game with anybody...

imperialghosty wrote:Right of course they would have beaten that version of Holyfield, considering between them they had never beaten anyone

I dont think you become heavyweight champ by not beating anyone. Tucker stopped douglas in 10 rounds and was 35-0 when Tyson beat him.

True Truss but to dismiss every win someone had is a bit silly

imperialghosty wrote:True Truss but to dismiss every win someone had is a bit silly

Well you seem to be dismissing tyson's wins.

He wasn't Heavyweight champ, he was a belt holder in a very fragmented period of the divisions history.

Akinwande was 32-0-1
Mavrovic was 27-0
Briggs was 31-1

Numbers don't mean anything if your fighting nobodies, beating Douglas who we should remember was very average for a title strap doesn't make you anything special

I haven't actually dismissed Tysons wins at all, if you read back you'll find I called them good without being special.

imperialghosty wrote:I haven't actually dismissed Tysons wins at all, if you read back you'll find I called them good without being special.

Granted. But the level of opposition during his reign was better than that of Lewis's reign. Burt SUgar said that Lewis was caught by circumstances in that his best wins were either against old men past their peak or those who were never that good in the first place.

Strange how you were so quick to dismiss the opinion of Sugar the other day but more than happy to highlight one of his now

imperialghosty wrote:Strange how you were so quick to dismiss the opinion of Sugar the other day but more than happy to highlight one of his now

I said that I dont always agree with him. He has a certain nostalgia for old timers. For instance he puts Tyson at 12 on his all time list and Lewis at 20. For crissakes, Lewis would slaughter rocky, Charles, Louis, Liston and probably beat Foreman and Frazier who he rates higher.

I dont think you become heavyweight champ by not beating anyone. Tucker stopped douglas in 10 rounds and was 35-0 when Tyson beat him.
............................................................................................................................

That was an odd fight, Douglas I think was favorite & was doing well but then seemed to lose all heart & motivation & quit whilst ahead on points for no apparent reason. I take nothing from Tucker for the victory but he'll best be remembered for going the distance with Tyson & landing one good punch. I think Tyson had said the 2 hardest punches he'd taken were from Tucker & bonecrusher smith, 1st & last round respectively. This was until douglas beat him.

Whether Lewis or Tyson would beat those names doesn't mean they rate higher at all.

Not that either would have much chance with Louis, Liston or Foreman

imperialghosty wrote:Whether Lewis or Tyson would beat those names doesn't mean they rate higher at all.

Not that either would have much chance with Louis, Liston or Foreman

I dont get your first point.

You don't base all time rankings on potential head to head match ups, for instance I have Holmes beating Louis but Louis and Ali are clearly the divisions number 1.

imperialghosty wrote:You don't base all time rankings on potential head to head match ups, for instance I have Holmes beating Louis but Louis and Ali are clearly the divisions number 1.

Its like I wrote earlier with regards to Hearns & Barclay, who do you rate higher in the atg p4p list? I rate Hearns like most people would but if you judged these two on their head to heads it would have to be Barclay.

imperialghosty wrote:You don't base all time rankings on potential head to head match ups, for instance I have Holmes beating Louis but Louis and Ali are clearly the divisions number 1.

Interesting point. No wonder Pep is ranked higher than Sadler who was far the better boxer. On a hypothetical H2H, I wouldn't put Louis in the top 10.

We realise that by now, no need to tell us at every given opportunity how rubbish Louis, Marciano and all their contemporaries were

Saddler better than Pep?

imperialghosty wrote:We realise that by now, no need to tell us at every given opportunity how rubbish Louis, Marciano and all their contemporaries were

Saddler better than Pep?

Yep. Their H2H says it all.

Your honestly can't look at things that simplistically surely?

imperialghosty wrote:Your honestly can't look at things that simplistically surely?

Well he was a better fighter than Pep. How can you argue against that? Frazier did more when he was champ that foreman but foreman is ranked higher mianly because of the way he beat frazier.

I can argue against that for the simple reason that styles makes fights, you'll be very hard pushed to find many who consider Saddler a better fighter than Pep.

Mosley, Cotto and Margarito is a simple way of explaining it or Hopkins, Pavlik and Taylor

Foreman is ranked higher because he was such a devastating puncher who came back to win the title at 46

There's an old adage in boxing which says that swarmers do well against boxers, boxers do well against sluggers and sluggers do well against swarmers.

In other words, A beats B beats C beats A.

Granted, Ali avenged his loss to Frazier but if we think :

Frazier beats Ali beats Foreman beats Frazier, then we're not too wide of the mark, and that's why head to head analysis doesn't cut it on its own.

HumanWindmill wrote:There's an old adage in boxing which says that swarmers do well against boxers, boxers do well against sluggers and sluggers do well against swarmers.

In other words, A beats B beats C beats A.

Granted, Ali avenged his loss to Frazier but if we think :

Frazier beats Ali beats Foreman beats Frazier, then we're not too wide of the mark, and that's why head to head analysis doesn't cut it on its own.

So, so many examples of it. Paper, scissors, stone.

imperialghosty wrote:I can argue against that for the simple reason that styles makes fights, you'll be very hard pushed to find many who consider Saddler a better fighter than Pep.

Mosley, Cotto and Margarito is a simple way of explaining it or Hopkins, Pavlik and Taylor

Foreman is ranked higher because he was such a devastating puncher who came back to win the title at 46

Even before Foreman came back, he was ranked higher.

Sorry but I dont getthe cotto.....Hopkins thing.

HumanWindmill wrote:There's an old adage in boxing which says that swarmers do well against boxers, boxers do well against sluggers and sluggers do well against swarmers.

In other words, A beats B beats C beats A.

Granted, Ali avenged his loss to Frazier but if we think :

Frazier beats Ali beats Foreman beats Frazier, then we're not too wide of the mark, and that's why head to head analysis doesn't cut it on its own.

We may as well rank Calzaghe as the 2nd best of all time after Rocky.

BALTIMORA wrote:So, so many examples of it. Paper, scissors, stone.

Bang on, BALTI.

As you say, so many examples, but this was the first high profile one that sprang to mind.

Cotto beat Mosley
Margarito beat Cotto
But Mosley beat Margarito

Doesn't fit into your assumption that A beating B makes him better

imperialghosty wrote:Cotto beat Mosley
Margarito beat Cotto
But Mosley beat Margarito

Doesn't fit into your assumption that A beating B makes him better

How many times did Sandler and Pep fight?

Same basis though

Think i'm actually debating with a ten year old child here

imperialghosty wrote:Same basis though

Think i'm actually debating with a ten year old child here

Cant you answer the question?

4 times but if anything it disproves your theory to a degree, seeing as Saddler didn't win each time

imperialghosty wrote:4 times but if anything it disproves your theory to a degree, seeing as Saddler didn't win each time

3-1 to sadler. It proves Sandler was better than Pep.

Your must have a very simple mind if you base things on purely head to head

Head to head- Cotto, Mosley and Margarito doesn't make sense
Pavlik, Taylor and Hopkins makes even less sense

imperialghosty wrote:Your must have a very simple mind if you base things on purely head to head

Head to head- Cotto, Mosley and Margarito doesn't make sense
Pavlik, Taylor and Hopkins makes even less sense

Why do you get miffed and uppity when anyone disagrees with you?

I cant see for the life of me how a powder punching man, blown away by Sadler can be ranked higher than saddler. Winning a round without throwing a punch is a lie also. That defies logic and the rules of boxing.

When you base an opinion on something that clearly doesn't make sense, it's a bit confusing

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:4 times but if anything it disproves your theory to a degree, seeing as Saddler didn't win each time

3-1 to sadler. It proves Sandler was better than Pep.

Don't really agree Pep I have Pep in my top 3 ATGs but not Sandler. H2H doesn't work as much in these fighters times as they fought so regularly I do agree that it is more relevant in a more modern era of boxing. But you can always bring up situations like IG has where it is not entirely full proof. Styles make fights some fighters can cope better with some styles more than others. Calzaghe beat BHOP and RJJ but would you put him above them in an ATG list?