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: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

Why the need for insults?

Why the need for twisting my words saying I said something I didn't?

imperialghosty wrote:Why the need for twisting my words saying I said something I didn't?

Because he doesn't have a girlfriend..?

imperialghosty wrote:Why the need for twisting my words saying I said something I didn't?

I gave you my understanding of what you wrote by implication. I have not once insulted you, called you childigh, foolish, ignorant...all adjectives you have used against me. Is that what you call debate when opinions differ? Dont let this thread get highjacked because of your inability to debate in a forceable yet civil manner.

Thanks

BALTIMORA wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:Why the need for twisting my words saying I said something I didn't?

Because he doesn't have a girlfriend..?

Mrs Az will be glad to hear you say that

Bar steward. Good comeback though!! I'll apologise now, 'cause I've had a few.

"Saddler beat Pep. Period. Saddler was better than Pep."

Im sorry but I would strongly have to contest this. The principle doesnt work. Throughout the history of boxing its been shown to be the case that the A beats B, B beats C, therefore A beats C argument is redundant.

Its also far too simplistic an approach to say because one fighter beats another then he is automatically greater. It completely ignores a whole host of concepts most of which are more than valid.

Its also choosing to ignore an overwhelming amount of other evidence that is contained in a fighters career. Your method leaves it open for some ridicuous possibilities. Namely that a fighter can underacheive his whole career but top a clearly superior fighter based on a one off performance or stylistic advantage.

Does this mean Taylor ahead of Hopkins? What about Barkley v Hearns? Mosely v Forrest? Is Prescott better than Khan?

I will assume that you are solely applying this simplistic take to encompass fighters in their prime. And thus you are not suggesting that for instance Willie Meehan is better than Jack Dempsey or Torrecampo is better than Pacquiao and so on. But even if you adopt this maxim its still highly suspect to ignore all other factors and criteria which go into evaluating a fighters standing and greatness.

I dont like to use the approach "evwerybody else says so therefore you must be wrong" as everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would suggest you consider the sheer volume of respected boxing opinions that rate Pep above Sandler, often significantly so, and ask yourself why this may be the case. Thankfully as they were in the same era there can be no dispute over modern methods or discrepincies in eras. They are being judged on a largely level playing field.

BALTIMORA wrote:Bar steward. Good comeback though!! I'll apologise now, 'cause I've had a few.

I need a few myself as well.

Wish I could have a few, i'm done after half a pint nowadays

Colonial Lion wrote:"Saddler beat Pep. Period. Saddler was better than Pep."

Im sorry but I would strongly have to contest this. The principle doesnt work. Throughout the history of boxing its been shown to be the case that the A beats B, B beats C, therefore A beats C argument is redundant.

Its also far too simplistic an approach to say because one fighter beats another then he is automatically greater. It completely ignores a whole host of concepts most of which are more than valid.

Its also choosing to ignore an overwhelming amount of other evidence that is contained in a fighters career. Your method leaves it open for some ridicuous possibilities. Namely that a fighter can underacheive his whole career but top a clearly superior fighter based on a one off performance or stylistic advantage.

Does this mean Taylor ahead of Hopkins? What about Barkley v Hearns? Mosely v Forrest? Is Prescott better than Khan?

I will assume that you are solely applying this simplistic take to encompass fighters in their prime. And thus you are not suggesting that for instance Willie Meehan is better than Jack Dempsey or Torrecampo is better than Pacquiao and so on. But even if you adopt this maxim its still highly suspect to ignore all other factors and criteria which go into evaluating a fighters standing and greatness.

I dont like to use the approach "evwerybody else says so therefore you must be wrong" as everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would suggest you consider the sheer volume of respected boxing opinions that rate Pep above Sandler, often significantly so, and ask yourself why this may be the case. Thankfully as they were in the same era there can be no dispute over modern methods or discrepincies in eras. They are being judged on a largely level playing field.

This isn't about A beating B who beats C who in turn lost to A. This is about A beating B continuously and gets ranked lower than B.

Taylor as a fighter had tremendous potential and talent but by his own admission hated boxing. He could have been the man with a different mindset. It will always be difficult judging post 40 year old Hop due to his age. Get out of his spoiling tactic and imo you will see a good fighter but not a great one.

Hearns was a great fighter, but a chinny one. He will have a bigger legacy than Iran, but Iran had his number and thus was better than him. Now Pep and Saddler are recognised as the two greatest FW in history (Salvador Sanches would have given a strong argument). Of that there is no dispute. Even myself as a thorough sceptic of old timers recognise their brilliance. I just cannot see it that Pep, who is a highly skilled fighter, but with a weak punch could be rated higher than Saddler who had a better KO ratio and beat him 3 out of 4 times. A freak KO can be put down to a lucky punch but to beat him 3 times is not luck.

Saddler achieved a tremendous amount during his career and to be the man you have ot beat the man, That he did cinvincingly.

imperialghosty wrote:Wish I could have a few, i'm done after half a pint nowadays

You as well

Old age unfortunately

imperialghosty wrote:Old age unfortunately

Take some protein shakes and you will see your booze tolerance increase.

Modern techniques.

Nah, half a pint does me too. After that I just can't swallow any more. Ba-dum-tish!

The A beating B who beats C who in turn lost to A is relevant because it highlights the discrepincy in taking such a limited view. Even assuming Hopkins is not as his peak, Taylor beat him. But then Taylor loses to Pavlik. Then Hopkins beat Pavlik. Who is the best? Using your system there doesnt appear to be an answer other than Taylor is better than Hopkins who is better than Pavlik who is better than Taylor.

At this point I would also say that adding in disclaimers such as "Taylor could have been the man with a different mindset" is already departing from the rather simplified outlook you stated previously. I find it not much different for me to say that Saddler just had Peps number i.e its a reason outside the simplistic "he beat him therefore is better" approach.

I have no problem with you stating that Saddler is better than Pep on head to head terms. That much is obvious from history. But this should not be the way its judged in an overall sense which should include a much broader scope rather than a mere head to head. Surely its appropriate to consider the rest of their record, abilities and acheivements and then decide on balance.

Im a firm believer that a boxers mentality and preparation is part of the complete package so citing lack of preparation or focus for a loss or poor performance may be true, but not an acceptable excuse. Therefore Lewis is tied 1-1 with Rahman. But it would be perverse to rank them as equals. I also find it perverse that you could rate Barkley as better than Hearns. Did he get the better of him? - Yes. Is he a better fighter overall by nearly all other standards? - unquestionably No.

Its a much too narrow view of evaluating a fighter that discounts or ignores far too much other valid criteria and evidence.

So Barkley is better than Hearns because he beat him, Barkley loses to Duran who was beaten by Hearns, so who is the better fighter? Nigel Benn beat Barkley so does that make him a better boxer than Hearns? Kirkland Laing beat Duran so where does Laing belong in an atg p4p list. Mosley loses to Forrest, Forrest loses to Mayorga, Mayorga loses to Mosley, who is the better fighter?
Like others have said on h2h's the point stands up but you have to take other aspects into account as you need to judge a fighter over his whole career not just a h2h when taking into account somebodies atg p4p status.