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: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?/

Right, so still can't back your argument up with anything and resorting, as always, to "my opinion is the only one that counts".

I'd agree that the version of Biggs who faced Tyson would have beaten any version of Grant.

Dominic Guinn almost beheaded him.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

Tyson was as animal for sure..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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

If you don't care then don't ask questions numbnuts.

hazharrison wrote:I'd agree that the version of Biggs who faced Tyson would have beaten any version of Grant.

Dominic Guinn almost beheaded him.

Connoisseurs know all about Biggs...I'll ignore the wum

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

Funny that, given that he agrees with you

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.

1) Tyson lost to Douglas and Holyfield = point nulified
2) What a short career.

Haz knows his stuff..He's in Zoomy's bracket..

Truss is ignoring the fact he's essentially called me out for "crying to the moderators" despite nothing of the sort ever happening.

Basically, Top Hat has got you stumped and you refuse to answer. I disagree and suddenly you decide insults are the way to go?

You're lovely.

hazharrison wrote:I'd agree that the version of Biggs who faced Tyson would have beaten any version of Grant.

Dominic Guinn almost beheaded him.

Based on what? Just his loss to Tyson?

Or his loss to Larry Donald?
Or his loss to Buster Mathis Jr?
Or his loss to Tony Tubbs?
Or his loss to Riddick Bowe?
Or his loss to Lennox Lewis?
Or his loss to Gary Mason?

Biggs never beat anyone as good as Grant, that's just a plain simple fact.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Haz knows his stuff..He's in Zoomy's bracket..

Funny that, given that he agrees with you..........

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Truss is ignoring the fact he's essentially called me out for "crying to the moderators" despite nothing of the sort ever happening.

Basically, Top Hat has got you stumped and you refuse to answer. I disagree and suddenly you decide insults are the way to go?

You're lovely.

I've got about ten pms from windy begging me to stop winding you up amongst other mods....

You want to read Haz stuff JM you might learn something..

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Haz knows his stuff..He's in Zoomy's bracket..

Funny that, given that he agrees with you..........

There is no one more respected than Haz...  

Windy asking you to stop "winding me up" is nothing to do with me, its because he thought you were obviously overstepping the mark. Not even once have I had contact with Windy about you and I find it distasteful you'd reference him as he's the only moderator unable to come forward with evidence for obvious reasons, so nobody can prove you wrong in that respect.

I read Haz's stuff, yet because a lot of whats said is subjective I don't have to agree do I? So if its said by someone who knows more, I have to agree? This stinks of arrogance. My grandad knows more than me, but if he told me the sky was pink and yellow I'd have to agree? Pull the other one.

Funnily enough he also mentioned you kept hitting him with pms....only distasteful If it wasn't true...Others can verify.

But hey you've improved since then and I forgive you...

Now give us a kiss and let's be friends..

Duty281 wrote:

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.

1) Tyson lost to Douglas and Holyfield = point nulified
2) What a short career.

1) Neither times at his best.
2) He packed more into it than most as short as it was. He was imperious up to the Spinks fight.

This thread has been completely destroyed by the same internet trolls that go around every thread looking for an argument.

Lewis wouldnt Tyson at his best in a million years. They were two different class of fighters. Lewis gets rated much higher than he should because he beat Tyson and Holyfield when they were past it. Tyson at his best would have been too quick and aggressive for Lewis. Lewis would be wary of Tysons power and try to box him using his jab but Tyson would attack him aggresively and once he got on the inside he would steamroll him. When you watch Tyson at his best compared to Lewis at his best I think its obvious which one is better. And Tyson was doing all of this at the age of nineteen, twenty and twenty one.

Come on now, Duty. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Lewis 'blitzes' Tyson. Nothing at all.

First off, I think you need to ponder the idea that, peak for peak, Lewis might have to go the long way around to beat Tyson, if indeed he can beat him at all. The likes of Holyfield, Mavrovic, McCall (it'll go down as a TKO, but hardly a conventional or impressive one), Mercer, Tucker etc showed that, quite often, Lewis had to settle for points verdicts against the best chins he came across, and Tyson's whiskers were excellent.

As I (and others) have said before, yes, Tyson could be vulnerable to a great jab, movement and a tough mental attitude, but he also showed that he could still win when faced with these problems. But as vulnerable as Tyson could be against that style, which resembled Lewis', we saw time and time again that Lewis could be vulnerable against styles with had quite a bit in common to Tyson's; Mercer was arguably unlucky not to earn at least a draw against Lennox by pressuring him, getting on his inside and working the body and backing him up. Rahman got in close enough, after forcing Lewis to temporarily back pedal, to land the killer blow, a slightly shopworn (but not shot) Holyfield gave him plenty to think about by fighting that way in their rematch etc.

If you want to point out that Lewis had the attributes to trouble Tyson, then fine. I'd agree. But let's not pretend that Tyson didn't have just as many attributes to trouble Lewis.

It's not as if Tyson is guaranteed to lose if he can't completely cut loose to Lennox in close, anyway. Tyson-Tucker is proof enough of this. In terms of devastation and carnage, the kind of stuff you'd normally associate with Tyson, it wasn't one of his great nights, but he did show that he could adapt and outbox / outjab a tall, rangy fighter who was a good mover, too. For attitude, concentration and application, Tyson scores full marks for that showing. He struggled early on, taking a few shots, lunging in with big, single shots and being countered, but by the mid rounds he'd settled down to his boxing and it was him who was outjabbing, outspeeding and countering Tucker.

Both at their bests, they're both good enough to beat the other, but if I had to edge towards one (which would be no more than a 60:40 kind of thing, admittedly) then I might just be inclined to favour Tyson.

I think you grossly overestimate Lewis' abilities and so-called dominance of his era.

winchester wrote:This thread has been completely destroyed by the same internet trolls that go around every thread looking for an argument.

Lewis wouldnt Tyson at his best in a million years. They were two different class of fighters. Lewis gets rated much higher than he should because he beat Tyson and Holyfield when they were past it. Tyson at his best would have been too quick and aggressive for Lewis. Lewis would be wary of Tysons power and try to box him using his jab but Tyson would attack him aggresively and once he got on the inside he would steamroll him. When you watch Tyson at his best compared to Lewis at his best I think its obvious which one is better. And Tyson was doing all of this at the age of nineteen, twenty and twenty one.

You're an alias..Haven't figured out who's yet..But no one is as dumb as you on purpose.

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

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.

1) Tyson lost to Douglas and Holyfield = point nulified
2) What a short career.

1) Neither times at his best.
2) He packed more into it than most as short as it was. He was imperious up to the Spinks fight.  

Oh so a free pass because he wasn't at his best? You can excuse Lewis for the Mercer, McCall and Rahman fights then.

Lewis beat everyone he ever faced. Fact. Something Tyson never did.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I'd agree that the version of Biggs who faced Tyson would have beaten any version of Grant.

Dominic Guinn almost beheaded him.

Based on what? Just his loss to Tyson?

Or his loss to Larry Donald?
Or his loss to Buster Mathis Jr?
Or his loss to Tony Tubbs?
Or his loss to Riddick Bowe?
Or his loss to Lennox Lewis?
Or his loss to Gary Mason?

Biggs never beat anyone as good as Grant, that's just a plain simple fact.

Tillis was better -- and Biggs beat him one fight before he extended Tyson.

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Duty. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Lewis 'blitzes' Tyson. Nothing at all.

First off, I think you need to ponder the idea that, peak for peak, Lewis might have to go the long way around to beat Tyson, if indeed he can beat him at all. The likes of Holyfield, Mavrovic, McCall (it'll go down as a TKO, but hardly a conventional or impressive one), Mercer, Tucker etc showed that, quite often, Lewis had to settle for points verdicts against the best chins he came across, and Tyson's whiskers were excellent.

As I (and others) have said before, yes, Tyson could be vulnerable to a great jab, movement and a tough mental attitude, but he also showed that he could still win when faced with these problems. But as vulnerable as Tyson could be against that style, which resembled Lewis', we saw time and time again that Lewis could be vulnerable against styles with had quite a bit in common to Tyson's; Mercer was arguably unlucky not to earn at least a draw against Lennox by pressuring him, getting on his inside and working the body and backing him up. Rahman got in close enough, after forcing Lewis to temporarily back pedal, to land the killer blow, a   slightly shopworn (but not shot) Holyfield gave him plenty to think about by fighting that way in their rematch etc.

If you want to point out that Lewis had the attributes to trouble Tyson, then fine. I'd agree. But let's not pretend that Tyson didn't have just as many attributes to trouble Lewis.

It's not as if Tyson is guaranteed to lose if he can't completely cut loose to Lennox in close, anyway. Tyson-Tucker is proof enough of this. In terms of devastation and carnage, the kind of stuff you'd normally associate with Tyson, it wasn't one of his great nights, but he did show that he could adapt and outbox / outjab a tall, rangy fighter who was a good mover, too. For attitude, concentration and application, Tyson scores full marks for that showing. He struggled early on, taking a few shots, lunging in with big, single shots and being countered, but by the mid rounds he'd settled down to his boxing and it was him who was outjabbing, outspeeding and countering Tucker.

Both at their bests, they're both good enough to beat the other, but if I had to edge towards one (which would be no more than a 60:40 kind of thing, admittedly) then I might just be inclined to favour Tyson.

I think you grossly overestimate Lewis' abilities and so-called dominance of his era.

Good summary...............Has to be remembered Mccall and Rahman got to Lewis and none punched harder than Tyson

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I'd agree that the version of Biggs who faced Tyson would have beaten any version of Grant.

Dominic Guinn almost beheaded him.

Based on what? Just his loss to Tyson?

Or his loss to Larry Donald?
Or his loss to Buster Mathis Jr?
Or his loss to Tony Tubbs?
Or his loss to Riddick Bowe?
Or his loss to Lennox Lewis?
Or his loss to Gary Mason?

Biggs never beat anyone as good as Grant, that's just a plain simple fact.

Tillis was better -- and Biggs beat him one fight before he extended Tyson.

Forgot that one..Duva made big play he did it better than Tyson..

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Duty. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Lewis 'blitzes' Tyson. Nothing at all.

First off, I think you need to ponder the idea that, peak for peak, Lewis might have to go the long way around to beat Tyson, if indeed he can beat him at all. The likes of Holyfield, Mavrovic, McCall (it'll go down as a TKO, but hardly a conventional or impressive one), Mercer, Tucker etc showed that, quite often, Lewis had to settle for points verdicts against the best chins he came across, and Tyson's whiskers were excellent.

As I (and others) have said before, yes, Tyson could be vulnerable to a great jab, movement and a tough mental attitude, but he also showed that he could still win when faced with these problems. But as vulnerable as Tyson could be against that style, which resembled Lewis', we saw time and time again that Lewis could be vulnerable against styles with had quite a bit in common to Tyson's; Mercer was arguably unlucky not to earn at least a draw against Lennox by pressuring him, getting on his inside and working the body and backing him up. Rahman got in close enough, after forcing Lewis to temporarily back pedal, to land the killer blow, a   slightly shopworn (but not shot) Holyfield gave him plenty to think about by fighting that way in their rematch etc.

If you want to point out that Lewis had the attributes to trouble Tyson, then fine. I'd agree. But let's not pretend that Tyson didn't have just as many attributes to trouble Lewis.

It's not as if Tyson is guaranteed to lose if he can't completely cut loose to Lennox in close, anyway. Tyson-Tucker is proof enough of this. In terms of devastation and carnage, the kind of stuff you'd normally associate with Tyson, it wasn't one of his great nights, but he did show that he could adapt and outbox / outjab a tall, rangy fighter who was a good mover, too. For attitude, concentration and application, Tyson scores full marks for that showing. He struggled early on, taking a few shots, lunging in with big, single shots and being countered, but by the mid rounds he'd settled down to his boxing and it was him who was outjabbing, outspeeding and countering Tucker.

Both at their bests, they're both good enough to beat the other, but if I had to edge towards one (which would be no more than a 60:40 kind of thing, admittedly) then I might just be inclined to favour Tyson.

I think you grossly overestimate Lewis' abilities and so-called dominance of his era.

Maybe blitzes is a bit too much. I do think though that Lewis would be able to weather the early onslaught; he had an iron chin and a brilliant defence after all. From about round 4, Lewis would dominate with his jab before closing it out with a late TKO victory in a largely one-sided fight. The speed and the right hand would be too much for Tyson.

It really is that simple. Lewis' sheer size alone would prove a mammoth task for Tyson. Styles make fights, and this fight would have been made for Lewis.

Duty281 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Duty. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Lewis 'blitzes' Tyson. Nothing at all.

First off, I think you need to ponder the idea that, peak for peak, Lewis might have to go the long way around to beat Tyson, if indeed he can beat him at all. The likes of Holyfield, Mavrovic, McCall (it'll go down as a TKO, but hardly a conventional or impressive one), Mercer, Tucker etc showed that, quite often, Lewis had to settle for points verdicts against the best chins he came across, and Tyson's whiskers were excellent.

As I (and others) have said before, yes, Tyson could be vulnerable to a great jab, movement and a tough mental attitude, but he also showed that he could still win when faced with these problems. But as vulnerable as Tyson could be against that style, which resembled Lewis', we saw time and time again that Lewis could be vulnerable against styles with had quite a bit in common to Tyson's; Mercer was arguably unlucky not to earn at least a draw against Lennox by pressuring him, getting on his inside and working the body and backing him up. Rahman got in close enough, after forcing Lewis to temporarily back pedal, to land the killer blow, a   slightly shopworn (but not shot) Holyfield gave him plenty to think about by fighting that way in their rematch etc.

If you want to point out that Lewis had the attributes to trouble Tyson, then fine. I'd agree. But let's not pretend that Tyson didn't have just as many attributes to trouble Lewis.

It's not as if Tyson is guaranteed to lose if he can't completely cut loose to Lennox in close, anyway. Tyson-Tucker is proof enough of this. In terms of devastation and carnage, the kind of stuff you'd normally associate with Tyson, it wasn't one of his great nights, but he did show that he could adapt and outbox / outjab a tall, rangy fighter who was a good mover, too. For attitude, concentration and application, Tyson scores full marks for that showing. He struggled early on, taking a few shots, lunging in with big, single shots and being countered, but by the mid rounds he'd settled down to his boxing and it was him who was outjabbing, outspeeding and countering Tucker.

Both at their bests, they're both good enough to beat the other, but if I had to edge towards one (which would be no more than a 60:40 kind of thing, admittedly) then I might just be inclined to favour Tyson.

I think you grossly overestimate Lewis' abilities and so-called dominance of his era.

Maybe blitzes is a bit too much. I do think though that Lewis would be able to weather the early onslaught; he had an iron chin and a brilliant defence after all. From about round 4, Lewis would dominate with his jab before closing it out with a late TKO victory in a largely one-sided fight. The speed and the right hand would be too much for Tyson.

It really is that simple. Lewis' sheer size alone would prove a mammoth task for Tyson. Styles make fights, and this fight would have been made for Lewis.

Tyson was quicker than Lewis in his prime..watch the tapes..

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

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.

1) Tyson lost to Douglas and Holyfield = point nulified
2) What a short career.

1) Neither times at his best.
2) He packed more into it than most as short as it was. He was imperious up to the Spinks fight.  

Oh so a free pass because he wasn't at his best? You can excuse Lewis for the Mercer, McCall and Rahman fights then.

Lewis beat everyone he ever faced. Fact. Something Tyson never did.

I argued Tyson was the better fighter when both were at their best. When was Lewis at his best for you? Whenever you feel it was is bound to coincide with one of the performances mentioned (he was at his best from the second Holyfield fight to Tyson for my money).

Lewis should be commended for avenging his defeats. I'm pretty certain, however, that Tyson would have done the same against Douglas if rematched with him quickly (before Holyfield got him).

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:This thread has been completely destroyed by the same internet trolls that go around every thread looking for an argument.

Lewis wouldnt Tyson at his best in a million years. They were two different class of fighters. Lewis gets rated much higher than he should because he beat Tyson and Holyfield when they were past it. Tyson at his best would have been too quick and aggressive for Lewis. Lewis would be wary of Tysons power and try to box him using his jab but Tyson would attack him aggresively and once he got on the inside he would steamroll him. When you watch Tyson at his best compared to Lewis at his best I think its obvious which one is better. And Tyson was doing all of this at the age of nineteen, twenty and twenty one.

You're an alias..Haven't figured out who's yet..But no one is as dumb as you on purpose.

You are blatantly an internet troll and keyboard warrior.

Don't think so Duty, Lewis' chin was suspect. Think if tyson cracked him he'd go down. wouldn't make him favorite against Tyson, I'd have prime for prime maybe 50/50 if that....I'd maybe lean towards Tyson if we're talking about the 1987 Tyson.

Thing is, even though I am being objective people are ignoring the fact i'm evaluating career and not just prime. Lewis finished beating Vitali, Tyson finished losing against McBride, that HAS to affect his standing in comparisons between the two.

Being called a troll by winchester..... 

And you big arrogant sod, I'll meet you round the back of the oyster in 10. 

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:This thread has been completely destroyed by the same internet trolls that go around every thread looking for an argument.

Lewis wouldnt Tyson at his best in a million years. They were two different class of fighters. Lewis gets rated much higher than he should because he beat Tyson and Holyfield when they were past it. Tyson at his best would have been too quick and aggressive for Lewis. Lewis would be wary of Tysons power and try to box him using his jab but Tyson would attack him aggresively and once he got on the inside he would steamroll him. When you watch Tyson at his best compared to Lewis at his best I think its obvious which one is better. And Tyson was doing all of this at the age of nineteen, twenty and twenty one.

You're an alias..Haven't figured out who's yet..But no one is as dumb as you on purpose.

You are blatantly an internet troll and keyboard warrior.

Some good posters on here....Run along kid..

Duty281 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Duty. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Lewis 'blitzes' Tyson. Nothing at all.

First off, I think you need to ponder the idea that, peak for peak, Lewis might have to go the long way around to beat Tyson, if indeed he can beat him at all. The likes of Holyfield, Mavrovic, McCall (it'll go down as a TKO, but hardly a conventional or impressive one), Mercer, Tucker etc showed that, quite often, Lewis had to settle for points verdicts against the best chins he came across, and Tyson's whiskers were excellent.

As I (and others) have said before, yes, Tyson could be vulnerable to a great jab, movement and a tough mental attitude, but he also showed that he could still win when faced with these problems. But as vulnerable as Tyson could be against that style, which resembled Lewis', we saw time and time again that Lewis could be vulnerable against styles with had quite a bit in common to Tyson's; Mercer was arguably unlucky not to earn at least a draw against Lennox by pressuring him, getting on his inside and working the body and backing him up. Rahman got in close enough, after forcing Lewis to temporarily back pedal, to land the killer blow, a   slightly shopworn (but not shot) Holyfield gave him plenty to think about by fighting that way in their rematch etc.

If you want to point out that Lewis had the attributes to trouble Tyson, then fine. I'd agree. But let's not pretend that Tyson didn't have just as many attributes to trouble Lewis.

It's not as if Tyson is guaranteed to lose if he can't completely cut loose to Lennox in close, anyway. Tyson-Tucker is proof enough of this. In terms of devastation and carnage, the kind of stuff you'd normally associate with Tyson, it wasn't one of his great nights, but he did show that he could adapt and outbox / outjab a tall, rangy fighter who was a good mover, too. For attitude, concentration and application, Tyson scores full marks for that showing. He struggled early on, taking a few shots, lunging in with big, single shots and being countered, but by the mid rounds he'd settled down to his boxing and it was him who was outjabbing, outspeeding and countering Tucker.

Both at their bests, they're both good enough to beat the other, but if I had to edge towards one (which would be no more than a 60:40 kind of thing, admittedly) then I might just be inclined to favour Tyson.

I think you grossly overestimate Lewis' abilities and so-called dominance of his era.

Maybe blitzes is a bit too much. I do think though that Lewis would be able to weather the early onslaught; he had an iron chin and a brilliant defence after all. From about round 4, Lewis would dominate with his jab before closing it out with a late TKO victory in a largely one-sided fight. The speed and the right hand would be too much for Tyson.

It really is that simple. Lewis' sheer size alone would prove a mammoth task for Tyson. Styles make fights, and this fight would have been made for Lewis.

Lewis had an iron chin?

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Duty. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Lewis 'blitzes' Tyson. Nothing at all.

First off, I think you need to ponder the idea that, peak for peak, Lewis might have to go the long way around to beat Tyson, if indeed he can beat him at all. The likes of Holyfield, Mavrovic, McCall (it'll go down as a TKO, but hardly a conventional or impressive one), Mercer, Tucker etc showed that, quite often, Lewis had to settle for points verdicts against the best chins he came across, and Tyson's whiskers were excellent.

As I (and others) have said before, yes, Tyson could be vulnerable to a great jab, movement and a tough mental attitude, but he also showed that he could still win when faced with these problems. But as vulnerable as Tyson could be against that style, which resembled Lewis', we saw time and time again that Lewis could be vulnerable against styles with had quite a bit in common to Tyson's; Mercer was arguably unlucky not to earn at least a draw against Lennox by pressuring him, getting on his inside and working the body and backing him up. Rahman got in close enough, after forcing Lewis to temporarily back pedal, to land the killer blow, a   slightly shopworn (but not shot) Holyfield gave him plenty to think about by fighting that way in their rematch etc.

If you want to point out that Lewis had the attributes to trouble Tyson, then fine. I'd agree. But let's not pretend that Tyson didn't have just as many attributes to trouble Lewis.

It's not as if Tyson is guaranteed to lose if he can't completely cut loose to Lennox in close, anyway. Tyson-Tucker is proof enough of this. In terms of devastation and carnage, the kind of stuff you'd normally associate with Tyson, it wasn't one of his great nights, but he did show that he could adapt and outbox / outjab a tall, rangy fighter who was a good mover, too. For attitude, concentration and application, Tyson scores full marks for that showing. He struggled early on, taking a few shots, lunging in with big, single shots and being countered, but by the mid rounds he'd settled down to his boxing and it was him who was outjabbing, outspeeding and countering Tucker.

Both at their bests, they're both good enough to beat the other, but if I had to edge towards one (which would be no more than a 60:40 kind of thing, admittedly) then I might just be inclined to favour Tyson.

I think you grossly overestimate Lewis' abilities and so-called dominance of his era.

Maybe blitzes is a bit too much. I do think though that Lewis would be able to weather the early onslaught; he had an iron chin and a brilliant defence after all. From about round 4, Lewis would dominate with his jab before closing it out with a late TKO victory in a largely one-sided fight. The speed and the right hand would be too much for Tyson.

It really is that simple. Lewis' sheer size alone would prove a mammoth task for Tyson. Styles make fights, and this fight would have been made for Lewis.

Lewis had an iron chin?

I know...that's a new one..

Bless Duty, never misses the chance to fly the St George's flag high.
Lewis trumping Tyson in speed is hilarious... But Lewis having an iron chin...

Left me convulsing like an infantile in laughter

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I'd agree that the version of Biggs who faced Tyson would have beaten any version of Grant.

Dominic Guinn almost beheaded him.

Based on what? Just his loss to Tyson?

Or his loss to Larry Donald?
Or his loss to Buster Mathis Jr?
Or his loss to Tony Tubbs?
Or his loss to Riddick Bowe?
Or his loss to Lennox Lewis?
Or his loss to Gary Mason?

Biggs never beat anyone as good as Grant, that's just a plain simple fact.

Tillis was better -- and Biggs beat him one fight before he extended Tyson.

Tillis, wow, talk about scraping the barrel to make a tenuous argument stick!! Tillis was another Biggs, someone who failed at every opportunity.

Tillis beat some good fighters.You don't know much about him....

Shavers certainly does though..Certainly didn't wet his pants against Tyson like golota did.

Prime TYSON..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:This thread has been completely destroyed by the same internet trolls that go around every thread looking for an argument.

Lewis wouldnt Tyson at his best in a million years. They were two different class of fighters. Lewis gets rated much higher than he should because he beat Tyson and Holyfield when they were past it. Tyson at his best would have been too quick and aggressive for Lewis. Lewis would be wary of Tysons power and try to box him using his jab but Tyson would attack him aggresively and once he got on the inside he would steamroll him. When you watch Tyson at his best compared to Lewis at his best I think its obvious which one is better. And Tyson was doing all of this at the age of nineteen, twenty and twenty one.

You're an alias..Haven't figured out who's yet..But no one is as dumb as you on purpose.

You are blatantly an internet troll and keyboard warrior.

Some good posters on here....Run along kid..

The only value a good poster has for you is the opportunity to troll. You come on here trolling threads looking to for arguments. Its obvious.

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:This thread has been completely destroyed by the same internet trolls that go around every thread looking for an argument.

Lewis wouldnt Tyson at his best in a million years. They were two different class of fighters. Lewis gets rated much higher than he should because he beat Tyson and Holyfield when they were past it. Tyson at his best would have been too quick and aggressive for Lewis. Lewis would be wary of Tysons power and try to box him using his jab but Tyson would attack him aggresively and once he got on the inside he would steamroll him. When you watch Tyson at his best compared to Lewis at his best I think its obvious which one is better. And Tyson was doing all of this at the age of nineteen, twenty and twenty one.

You're an alias..Haven't figured out who's yet..But no one is as dumb as you on purpose.

You are blatantly an internet troll and keyboard warrior.

Some good posters on here....Run along kid..

The only value a good poster has for you is the opportunity to troll. You come on here trolling threads looking to for arguments. Its obvious.

You're desperately trying to get into the debate aren't you!! 

Somebody talk to winchester..

Winchester - pop over to the Groves vs Froch thread and explain how and why Ward hasn't become divisional number 1 please. Thanks.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tillis beat some good fighters.You don't know much about him....

Shavers certainly does though..Certainly didn't wet his pants against Tyson like golota did.

Prime TYSON..

I know everything I need to know. Tbh, that Shavers win probably puts him ahead of Biggs record wise!!

Gary Mason really is starting to look rather good this rate......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:This thread has been completely destroyed by the same internet trolls that go around every thread looking for an argument.

Lewis wouldnt Tyson at his best in a million years. They were two different class of fighters. Lewis gets rated much higher than he should because he beat Tyson and Holyfield when they were past it. Tyson at his best would have been too quick and aggressive for Lewis. Lewis would be wary of Tysons power and try to box him using his jab but Tyson would attack him aggresively and once he got on the inside he would steamroll him. When you watch Tyson at his best compared to Lewis at his best I think its obvious which one is better. And Tyson was doing all of this at the age of nineteen, twenty and twenty one.

You're an alias..Haven't figured out who's yet..But no one is as dumb as you on purpose.

You are blatantly an internet troll and keyboard warrior.

Some good posters on here....Run along kid..

The only value a good poster has for you is the opportunity to troll. You come on here trolling threads looking to for arguments. Its obvious.

You're desperately trying to get into the debate aren't you!! 

Somebody talk to winchester..

Im just highlighting you are troll and a keyboard warrior.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tillis beat some good fighters.You don't know much about him....

Shavers certainly does though..Certainly didn't wet his pants against Tyson like golota did.

Prime TYSON..

I know everything I need to know. Tbh, that Shavers win probably puts him ahead of Biggs record wise!!

Gary Mason really is starting to look rather good this rate......

Tillis lost 6-4 to Tyson.How did Golota do ??

Winny I've given you two posts and that's more than you're worth..

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:This thread has been completely destroyed by the same internet trolls that go around every thread looking for an argument.

Lewis wouldnt Tyson at his best in a million years. They were two different class of fighters. Lewis gets rated much higher than he should because he beat Tyson and Holyfield when they were past it. Tyson at his best would have been too quick and aggressive for Lewis. Lewis would be wary of Tysons power and try to box him using his jab but Tyson would attack him aggresively and once he got on the inside he would steamroll him. When you watch Tyson at his best compared to Lewis at his best I think its obvious which one is better. And Tyson was doing all of this at the age of nineteen, twenty and twenty one.

You're an alias..Haven't figured out who's yet..But no one is as dumb as you on purpose.

You are blatantly an internet troll and keyboard warrior.

Some good posters on here....Run along kid..

The only value a good poster has for you is the opportunity to troll. You come on here trolling threads looking to for arguments. Its obvious.

I also think Winchester is an alias. There is no way someone can have some of the views he has unless they are doing it on purpose just to have a bit of fun trying to wind people up.

kingraf wrote:Bless Duty, never misses the chance to fly the St George's flag high.
Lewis trumping Tyson in speed is hilarious... But Lewis having an iron chin...

Left me convulsing like an infantile in laughter

I had a double take on this as well

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:This thread has been completely destroyed by the same internet trolls that go around every thread looking for an argument.

Lewis wouldnt Tyson at his best in a million years. They were two different class of fighters. Lewis gets rated much higher than he should because he beat Tyson and Holyfield when they were past it. Tyson at his best would have been too quick and aggressive for Lewis. Lewis would be wary of Tysons power and try to box him using his jab but Tyson would attack him aggresively and once he got on the inside he would steamroll him. When you watch Tyson at his best compared to Lewis at his best I think its obvious which one is better. And Tyson was doing all of this at the age of nineteen, twenty and twenty one.

You're an alias..Haven't figured out who's yet..But no one is as dumb as you on purpose.

You are blatantly an internet troll and keyboard warrior.

Some good posters on here....Run along kid..

The only value a good poster has for you is the opportunity to troll. You come on here trolling threads looking to for arguments. Its obvious.

You're desperately trying to get into the debate aren't you!! 

Somebody talk to winchester..

Im just highlighting you are troll and a keyboard warrior.

You must be an alias. You knew about a poster on here pretending to be a sparring partner for a boxer and i am sure that happened last year. so you are not a new poster who haas just turned up in the last month, you are an old poster who has a new alias and just wants to wind people up.

 Winchester has learnt a new word .. Troll.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

winchester wrote:This thread has been completely destroyed by the same internet trolls that go around every thread looking for an argument.

Lewis wouldnt Tyson at his best in a million years. They were two different class of fighters. Lewis gets rated much higher than he should because he beat Tyson and Holyfield when they were past it. Tyson at his best would have been too quick and aggressive for Lewis. Lewis would be wary of Tysons power and try to box him using his jab but Tyson would attack him aggresively and once he got on the inside he would steamroll him. When you watch Tyson at his best compared to Lewis at his best I think its obvious which one is better. And Tyson was doing all of this at the age of nineteen, twenty and twenty one.

You're an alias..Haven't figured out who's yet..But no one is as dumb as you on purpose.

You are blatantly an internet troll and keyboard warrior.

Some good posters on here....Run along kid..

The only value a good poster has for you is the opportunity to troll. You come on here trolling threads looking to for arguments. Its obvious.

You're desperately trying to get into the debate aren't you!! 

Somebody talk to winchester..

Im just highlighting you are troll and a keyboard warrior.

You must be an alias. You knew about a poster on here pretending to be a sparring partner for a boxer and i am sure that happened last year. so you are not a new poster who haas just turned up in the last month, you are an old poster who has a new alias and just wants to wind people up.

Don't bite...

Winchester joined / created an alias in March this year

bhb001 wrote:Winchester joined / created an alias in March this year

Im thinking maybe he is...Coxy??

bhb001 wrote:Winchester joined / created an alias in March this year

When did the user make up the story he was a sparring partner for a boxer? Cos winchester knew about that and brought it up.

When he gets challenged he seems to know a lot about the members on here..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tillis beat some good fighters.You don't know much about him....

Shavers certainly does though..Certainly didn't wet his pants against Tyson like golota did.

Prime TYSON..

I know everything I need to know. Tbh, that Shavers win probably puts him ahead of Biggs record wise!!

Gary Mason really is starting to look rather good this rate......

Tillis lost 6-4 to Tyson.How did Golota do ??

Winny  I've given you two posts and that's more than you're worth..

Golota did better against Bowe than Tillis did against Tyson.  Tillis was a loser, as was Biggs. He even managed to lose to Marvin bloody Frasier!!