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????

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

It makes perfect sense to me. I disagree all the time with Windy but we never seem to resort to name calling. The simple reasoning behind that is that we respect the opinions of each other and of others and agree to disagree in a respectful manner. I never say his views are that of a 10 year old etc etc etc. I suggest you man up.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

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?

Saddler knocked him out 3 times. The one win Pep had was disupted. Pep had the breaks, Saddler didn;t. That was the nature of the beast in that era.

JC beat old RJJ and BHop.

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

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?

Saddler knocked him out 3 times. The one win Pep had was disupted. Pep had the breaks, Saddler didn;t. That was the nature of the beast in that era.

JC beat old RJJ and BHop.

But would you rate JC aove RJJ and BHOP?

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

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?

Saddler knocked him out 3 times. The one win Pep had was disupted. Pep had the breaks, Saddler didn;t. That was the nature of the beast in that era.

JC beat old RJJ and BHop.

But would you rate JC aove RJJ and BHOP?

Obviously not given that they didn't fight at their peaks. JC would have given BHOP a good argument and may have beaten him imo. Not RJJ. Speed kills. JC was fast, RJJ faster and both faster than BHOP.

I can't argue with that RJJ just to good for both JC and BHOP. Would be a good fight between the other 2 though but would go for BHOP imo he is one of the tactically and most technically gifted fighters I have ever watched.

prettyboy1304 wrote:I can't argue with that RJJ just to good for both JC and BHOP. Would be a good fight between the other 2 though but would go for BHOP imo he is one of the tactically and most technically gifted fighters I have ever watched.

Hop never got my excitement levels going. Tactically very good or do you mean spoiling until an opening arrives? One of the best I have ever seen at playing mind-games.

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:I can't argue with that RJJ just to good for both JC and BHOP. Would be a good fight between the other 2 though but would go for BHOP imo he is one of the tactically and most technically gifted fighters I have ever watched.

Hop never got my excitement levels going. Tactically very good or do you mean spoiling until an opening arrives? One of the best I have ever seen at playing mind-games.

It's still tactically very astute because it worked for him when he did it.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:I can't argue with that RJJ just to good for both JC and BHOP. Would be a good fight between the other 2 though but would go for BHOP imo he is one of the tactically and most technically gifted fighters I have ever watched.

Hop never got my excitement levels going. Tactically very good or do you mean spoiling until an opening arrives? One of the best I have ever seen at playing mind-games.

It's still tactically very astute because it worked for him when he did it.

Yep. I'd like to see him fight Toney. Actually the pre fight would be worth everything.

The pre fight would be better than the fight

Think you'll find that Saddler got the breaks in that series, rough housed Pep beyond belief causing a closed eye in the third and literally ripped Peps arm from its socket in the third fight, not exactly Pep getting the rub of the green is it. Being a power puncher is all well and good if you can connect but if you have the skills of Pep it doesn't matter. As for winning a round without landing a punch its very much disputed and impossible to prove either way.

imperialghosty wrote:Think you'll find that Saddler got the breaks in that series, rough housed Pep beyond belief causing a closed eye in the third and literally ripped Peps arm from its socket in the third fight, not exactly Pep getting the rub of the green is it. Being a power puncher is all well and good if you can connect but if you have the skills of Pep it doesn't matter. As for winning a round without landing a punch its very much disputed and impossible to prove either way.

It certainly mattered as Pep was KO'd out 3 times. OK Saddler was less than clean, but as Hatton said, its not a tickling contest. He was a master of the dark arts of boxing. But Pep as 5 ATG and higher than saddler? Ridiculous. That ranking is based on nostalgia and little else.

Also its an urban myth that he won a round without throwing a point. No dispute about it. In boxing you cant win a round withoutthrowing a point. If that were the case Johnny Nelson would have been champion earlier and Audley would have been ahead of Haye before R3.

The myth was actually that he won a round without landing a punch

It's hardly nostalgia when they were around at the same time is it and I enjoy the fact you've side stepped the context of their fights as well and the fact he was only in fact KO'd once.

imperialghosty wrote:Think you'll find that Saddler got the breaks in that series, rough housed Pep beyond belief causing a closed eye in the third and literally ripped Peps arm from its socket in the third fight, not exactly Pep getting the rub of the green is it. Being a power puncher is all well and good if you can connect but if you have the skills of Pep it doesn't matter. As for winning a round without landing a punch its very much disputed and impossible to prove either way.

I have always said Pep is 3rd on my personal ATG list. Just think Saddler was a fighter who had a style that Pep never enjoyed fighting and couldn't really excel against.

imperialghosty wrote:The myth was actually that he won a round without landing a punch

It's hardly nostalgia when they were around at the same time is it and I enjoy the fact you've side stepped the context of their fights as well and the fact he was only in fact KO'd once.

In that case Johnny Nelson should be an ATG. It is impossible to win a round without landing a punch if your opponent lands 1 punch.

What context have I side stepped? His biggest rival handed it to him 75% of the time. Those who compiled that list must have come from Alabama as ali once said.

Oh right, handed it to him 75% of the time despite losing a clear decision and being well down on the cards twice, with a dislocated shoulder and swollen eye caused by Saddlers dirty tactics both times saving him, hardly decisive is it?

Robinson, Ali, Louis, Armstrong etc. being rated so highly throws that rather pathetic argument out the water

Turpin was 1-1 with Robinson does that mean he should be joint 1st?

prettyboy1304 wrote:Turpin was 1-1 with Robinson does that mean he should be joint 1st?

Robbo was never the #1 Middleweight ATG. He was at the tail end of his career when Turpin beat him. Tiger Jones (who?) also beat Robbo.

Spinks was 1-1 with Ali. Meaningless. But if Spinks was 3-1 against Ali at his peak years then I would question Ali's claim to be the greatest regardless of how many times Spinks lost to other fighters or what he didn't achieve.

Robinson was 30 and had only previously lost to La Motta so was expected to win pretty handily so think that's a fair analogy

imperialghosty wrote:Oh right, handed it to him 75% of the time despite losing a clear decision and being well down on the cards twice, with a dislocated shoulder and swollen eye caused by Saddlers dirty tactics both times saving him, hardly decisive is it?

Robinson, Ali, Louis, Armstrong etc. being rated so highly throws that rather pathetic argument out the water

More excuses for one of your favourite fighters losing. Sadly you dont grant the same lattitude to fighters you dont like, such as Tyson. The bottom line is that he got it handed to him (Pep).

That Hank could compete at middleweight when he was really a very small lightweight shows the paucity of the boxers of that era. And before you mention competing adequately against Hagler, remember that Hagler was miles ahead regardless of what the judges say (read Holmes/Cooney as another example of silly judging).

Robbo was the greatest mainly for his record at welter, Ali in the 1960s was unbeatable, Louis? well you know my views on him.

YOu have al almost D4esque tendancy when looking at the fighters you like. Making all manner of excuses for them, yet disregarding the very same reasoning for fighters you dislike,

imperialghosty wrote:Robinson was 30 and had only previously lost to La Motta so was expected to win pretty handily so think that's a fair analogy

Yes he lost. He got outhustled by a bigger guy. He wasn't fighting at his best weight either. He took him lightly. Use alll your Lewis excuses for this. They fit.

imperialghosty wrote:Robinson was 30 and had only previously lost to La Motta so was expected to win pretty handily so think that's a fair analogy

Armstrong/Hagler? What are you on about?

These aren't excuses they are the actual facts of the fights, Tyson lost because he was beaten, what happens outside the ring is irrelevant.

The thing is i'm struggling to see how Pep got it handed to him by Saddler when I consider the context of the fights, i'm not a huge fan of Pep but can't agree with rating someone higher based purely on head to heads.

If you could explain that last bit to me it would be very much appreciated as if from memory you've made a whole manner of excuses for Tyson losing amongst many others.

AZ where would you have Pep and Saddler on an ATG list?

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:Robinson was 30 and had only previously lost to La Motta so was expected to win pretty handily so think that's a fair analogy

Yes he lost. He got outhustled by a bigger guy. He wasn't fighting at his best weight either. He took him lightly. Use alll your Lewis excuses for this. They fit.

Robinson getting beaten by Turpin was no fluke as the first 8 rounds of the return proved, Randy had a style that by and large Robinson simply couldn't deal with but did like a true great land a huge shot that signalled the beginning of the end

imperialghosty wrote:Armstrong/Hagler? What are you on about?

These aren't excuses they are the actual facts of the fights, Tyson lost because he was beaten, what happens outside the ring is irrelevant.

The thing is i'm struggling to see how Pep got it handed to him by Saddler when I consider the context of the fights, i'm not a huge fan of Pep but can't agree with rating someone higher based purely on head to heads.

If you could explain that last bit to me it would be very much appreciated as if from memory you've made a whole manner of excuses for Tyson losing amongst many others.

Apologies. I was going to mention Duran/Hagler as an example of a lightweight competing against a middleweight. I'm tired and my daughter is giving me grief.

The context of the Pep/Saddler fight is that Saddler beat him 3 times. Why are you searching for excuses when it was plainly obvious that Saddler was the better boxer.You dont lose 3 out of 4 fights and still be the better boxer.

I have made 1 excuse about Tyson losing to others. He was finished as a top class, premier boxer after 1990 for all manner of reasons which are irrelevant to the fact that he was finished as a premier top class boxer. His movement had gone, his speed was gone, he was predictable against mediocre opposition who were less skilled than those he had beated with ease.

imperialghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:Robinson was 30 and had only previously lost to La Motta so was expected to win pretty handily so think that's a fair analogy

Yes he lost. He got outhustled by a bigger guy. He wasn't fighting at his best weight either. He took him lightly. Use alll your Lewis excuses for this. They fit.

Robinson getting beaten by Turpin was no fluke as the first 8 rounds of the return proved, Randy had a style that by and large Robinson simply couldn't deal with but did like a true great land a huge shot that signalled the beginning of the end

A champion pulls it out of the bag when it matters. He found a way to win and he did.

I still don't see what relevance Duran/Hagler has?

If you wish to ignore the fact that Saddler won twice because of dirty play while behind on the cards then that's your perogative but I like every single boxing analyst or historian am not going to suggest that makes Saddler a better overall fighter, you seem to think your opinions are the be all and end all which they really are not.

Why would a 24 year old who had never had a hard fight in his life suddenly be finished despite previously to losing being seen as an unstoppable force, that is an excuse. Benitez who's ability I coincidentally rate very highly was very much the same if not a far worse case, the simple answer is heart and desire, neither of them had it and that's a huge part of a boxers make up.

imperialghosty wrote:I still don't see what relevance Duran/Hagler has?

If you wish to ignore the fact that Saddler won twice because of dirty play while behind on the cards then that's your perogative but I like every single boxing analyst or historian am not going to suggest that makes Saddler a better overall fighter, you seem to think your opinions are the be all and end all which they really are not.

Why would a 24 year old who had never had a hard fight in his life suddenly be finished despite previously to losing being seen as an unstoppable force, that is an excuse. Benitez who's ability I coincidentally rate very highly was very much the same if not a far worse case, the simple answer is heart and desire, neither of them had it and that's a huge part of a boxers make up.

More excuses. Many Tyson fanboys accuse Holyfield of using his head as an extra weapon as the main reason for Tyson losing the first fight and his head in the second fight. That is BS imo. He lost because on the day Holy was better. Simple as that. Its always the fans who make up excuses and maintain those excuses. Saddler beat Pep. Period. Saddler was better than Pep.

I think its rather disrespectful to Benitez to accuse him of lacking heart and desire. This is a man who was world champ as a boy and took punches in the head for money and entertainment of others and who is now a shell of a man because of his chosen profession. That is a shameful accusation imo.

Not everyone is made of the same stuff. Money does not cure everything. Tyson made a shed load of it but he had leaches for friends and parasites as associates. He was a veritable ferrell kid and was brought up as a ferrell adult with no boundaries set when growing up. In short he imploded. Bring many uneducated kids from the ghetto, set no boundaries and throw a shed load of money their way and watch them implode also. Living in the spotlight does that to some people regardless of their bank account.

Tyson in fact would make a great sociology and psychology case study of ths ills of modern times.

Have you watched the Saddler and Pep fights? Do you not find it strange how Pep is universally recognized as a top ten ATG whereas Saddler isn't or do you know something the rest of us don't.

After Benitez lost to Hearns he effectively stopped training altogether and showed no desire to carry on, hardly showed the heart I would expect from a world class boxer.

What happens outside of the ring isn't of any concern to me, if you step between the ropes and underperform then you're solely accountable, i've never used someone being under prepared as an excuse and i've never used it to defend Lewis' shameful losses to McCall and Rahman.

Saying Saddler used dirty tactics in the 3rd fight is not an excuse it's fact go and watch it. I can see where you are coming from about their h2h record but it's not always as cut and dry as that. Pep had a better career and has a better record than Saddler. Saddler was just a fighter that Pep couldn't deal with the way he could others than can happen a certain fighter can have another fighters number.

imperialghosty wrote:Have you watched the Saddler and Pep fights? Do you not find it strange how Pep is universally recognized as a top ten ATG whereas Saddler isn't or do you know something the rest of us don't.

After Benitez lost to Hearns he effectively stopped training altogether and showed no desire to carry on, hardly showed the heart I would expect from a world class boxer.

What happens outside of the ring isn't of any concern to me, if you step between the ropes and underperform then you're solely accountable, i've never used someone being under prepared as an excuse and i've never used it to defend Lewis' shameful losses to McCall and Rahman.

Yes I have. Saddler fought his usual style which included dirty tactics. Pep was not altogether a clean fighter. Saddler won because he was better. It is that simple. People look at the near on 250 fights Pep had and that Saddler's career was cut short after 100+ fights.

Benitez had enough. Fighting since a boy tends to have that effect on some people. Its not easy making a living from taking punches in the head and then be called heartless afterwards when fed up with the game and a domineering father. But hey, each to their own. Lets bring back Roman gladiators where fighting is done to the death to prove their manhood and desire to bloodthirsty fans.

You are looking at things from a perfect world view regarding Tyson. He went into meltdown and frankly I am amazed he;s still alive. You have just used Lewis being unprepared for his losses.

prettyboy1304 wrote:Saying Saddler used dirty tactics in the 3rd fight is not an excuse it's fact go and watch it. I can see where you are coming from about their h2h record but it's not always as cut and dry as that. Pep had a better career and has a better record than Saddler. Saddler was just a fighter that Pep couldn't deal with the way he could others than can happen a certain fighter can have another fighters number.

Saddler's career was cut short. But he still proved himself the better fighter than Pep. His KO record is awesome. Pep couldn't deal with Saddler because Saddler was better than him.

The fact of the matter is Saddler didn't win because he was better

Is ripping an opponents arm out its socket a dominating win?
Is heading an opponents eye shut a dominating?
Is getting thoroughly outboxed for 15 rounds and losing a sign of a better boxer?

Where have I used Lewis being unprepared for his losses?

imperialghosty wrote:The fact of the matter is Saddler didn't win because he was better

Is ripping an opponents arm out its socket a dominating win?
Is heading an opponents eye shut a dominating?
Is getting thoroughly outboxed for 15 rounds and losing a sign of a better boxer?

Where have I used Lewis being unprepared for his losses?

IG m8 you could go on about this all week if you wanted to it's D4 and Manny all over again but maybe a bit more obsessive and stubborn.

You can't answer can you

Would you also consider it to be Pep at his best?

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Saying Saddler used dirty tactics in the 3rd fight is not an excuse it's fact go and watch it. I can see where you are coming from about their h2h record but it's not always as cut and dry as that. Pep had a better career and has a better record than Saddler. Saddler was just a fighter that Pep couldn't deal with the way he could others than can happen a certain fighter can have another fighters number.

Saddler's career was cut short. But he still proved himself the better fighter than Pep. His KO record is awesome. Pep couldn't deal with Saddler because Saddler was better than him.

Saddler fought dirty because he knew he couldn't beat Pep if he never because Pep is ATG top 5. A superior boxer and better sportsman.

imperialghosty wrote:The fact of the matter is Saddler didn't win because he was better

Is ripping an opponents arm out its socket a dominating win?
Is heading an opponents eye shut a dominating?
Is getting thoroughly outboxed for 15 rounds and losing a sign of a better boxer?

Where have I used Lewis being unprepared for his losses?

Pep dislocated his shoulder. Lets not get carried away eh. Danny Williams had a similar injury and still won.

Interestingly, Holy did just that against Tyson. Will you give Tyson the same latitude? Please answer.

Saddler lost the first fight, learnt from it and came back the better man and won the rest.

Look at 4-5 posts above. "i've never used someone being under prepared as an excuse and i've never used it to defend Lewis' shameful losses to McCall and Rahman" Insinuating that Lewis was under prepared.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Saying Saddler used dirty tactics in the 3rd fight is not an excuse it's fact go and watch it. I can see where you are coming from about their h2h record but it's not always as cut and dry as that. Pep had a better career and has a better record than Saddler. Saddler was just a fighter that Pep couldn't deal with the way he could others than can happen a certain fighter can have another fighters number.

Saddler's career was cut short. But he still proved himself the better fighter than Pep. His KO record is awesome. Pep couldn't deal with Saddler because Saddler was better than him.

Saddler fought dirty because he knew he couldn't beat Pep if he never because Pep is ATG top 5. A superior boxer and better sportsman.

Saddler fought dirty because he was a dirty fighter. So was Rocky, Dempsey and many more. Yet beind dirty was never an issue with them, but its now an issue regarding Saddler. Different strokes for different folks.

OK AZ you aint going to be swung here anyone have a link for the Gamboa vs Solis fight?

prettyboy1304 wrote:OK AZ you aint going to be swung here anyone have a link for the Gamboa vs Solis fight?

You asking me for that? Mate I can hardly find a link for google let alone a live stream. But if you find it, send it over please.

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:The fact of the matter is Saddler didn't win because he was better

Is ripping an opponents arm out its socket a dominating win?
Is heading an opponents eye shut a dominating?
Is getting thoroughly outboxed for 15 rounds and losing a sign of a better boxer?

Where have I used Lewis being unprepared for his losses?

Pep dislocated his shoulder. Lets not get carried away eh. Danny Williams had a similar injury and still won.

Interestingly, Holy did just that against Tyson. Will you give Tyson the same latitude? Please answer.

Saddler lost the first fight, learnt from it and came back the better man and won the rest.

Look at 4-5 posts above. "i've never used someone being under prepared as an excuse and i've never used it to defend Lewis' shameful losses to McCall and Rahman" Insinuating that Lewis was under prepared.

Williams was fighting a nodody which is hardly a comparison to fighting a fellow ATG, having a dislocated shoulder when your a boxer is a fairly big deal especially when its caused by your opponent

Holyfield did use his head against Tyson i'll admit

Saddler won the first fight you'll find actually and got comprehensively outboxed in the second

Don't see how saying they are shameful losses is implying he was under prepared, you're a bit slow aren't you

sosoboxing.com has the non televised undercard on right now don't know how to post a link

Well I see it as an implication.

Holy used his head. Stuff like that happens in boxing. Boxers usually get over it and carry on without complaining. Those who understand boxing know this. Those fanbots will always use the opponents alleged dirty tactics to belittle a victory against their guys.

Saddler won because he rendered Pep incapable of continuing. He did so because he was the better pugilist.

prettyboy1304 wrote:sosoboxing.com has the non televised undercard on right now don't know how to post a link

Brilliant. There's someone who is more useless on a computer than I am.

http://sosoboxing.com/

Highlight it in the toolbar, right click....copy....then paste it

prettyboy1304 wrote:http://sosoboxing.com/

Cheers

Their you go m8 a working link

You really are a fool, he rendered Pep unable to continue through deliberate fouls, that isn't part of boxing, it may happen but winning that way doesn't prove your better.

1948 was effectively the end of Peps top level career but you probably have no idea why