How would Tyson and Lewis have done in the 1970's?

holmes also struggled mightily in his prime against witherspoon and carl williams in fights that coulkd have gone either way. I think him and lennox would have been a toss up A toss up? What part of couldn't convincingly bash Michael Spinks don't you get?? What the hell do you think would happen if 205lb bean pole Spinks stepped into the same ring as Lennox Lewis?? Unbelievable!

Lennox Lewis outjabbed by Frank Bruno, Beaten by Mercer, McCall and Rahman. Almost KOd by Shannon Briggs and fare from impressive against a cocaine wreck and comebeck kid Tony Tucker. Beat over the hill Tyson and Holyfield. Larry Holmes would have put a number on him. Smart and good fighter, but in the 70s some of those fighters would have been a package to handle. holmes also struggled mightily in his prime against witherspoon and carl williams in fights that coulkd have gone either way. I think him and lennox would have been a toss up

Lennox Lewis outjabbed by Frank Bruno, Beaten by Mercer, McCall and Rahman. Almost KOd by Shannon Briggs and fare from impressive against a cocaine wreck and comebeck kid Tony Tucker. Beat over the hill Tyson and Holyfield. Larry Holmes would have put a number on him. Smart and good fighter, but in the 70s some of those fighters would have been a package to handle. :lol1: You know the irony here, is that THESE are relevant points when describing Lewis's career vs say, Wladimir or Vitali klitschko's!!! But against Larry Holmes, Geroge Foreman, or any of the obligate 70's boxers, or any previous, there is another way to describe Lewis's career... He defeated every single opponent he ever faced in one of the heftiest and highest quality by record and observation eras, that in itself is unbeatable! The Holyfield he fought was imo the best, and the Tyson he beat, although perhaps not as sharp was also the heftiest and most experienced on record nearly. To say that either of these wins were not extremely formiddable is ****ing ridiculous! AND the superfight of the 90's, Bowe vs Lewis, was DUCKED by Bowe!! Obviouly because he did not fancy his chances!!! Now there is another way to describe what would have happened to Larry Holmes should he have say, "taken on" LEwis... Either a **** house version of Lewis shows up, in which case Larry LOSES a decision. Or the REAL LEnnox Lewis shows up in which case Larry gets wasted! Probably early!! All this considers an OLDER Holmes. Considering YOUR favourite Holmes... That guy gets knocked the **** out real early, maybe KO1 or 2, and that is under ANY circumstances! Take Holmes.. Make him 2ce as good, give him a hard punch, make him taller and heavier. and THERE'S ya Lennox Lewis!

Lennox Lewis outjabbed by Frank Bruno, Beaten by Mercer, McCall and Rahman. Almost KOd by Shannon Briggs and fare from impressive against a cocaine wreck and comebeck kid Tony Tucker. Beat over the hill Tyson and Holyfield. Larry Holmes would have put a number on him. Smart and good fighter, but in the 70s some of those fighters would have been a package to handle.

Elroy, You're right! Warm Regards! ( Thanks for the laugh). Stick with me son, and I'll have you out of this cult in no time. It will be like a Mormon has just come to your door and filled you with enlightenment, like someone lighting a little candle for you the darkness. :rofl:

Very objective. Oh, so don't worry about every single statistic, don't worry about what we can see happening in front of us on video, just consider the "intangible" or more accurately "mythical" qualities LOL. I mean, you ARE seriously saying that when all boxers looked like garbage, they all had "heart" and "toughness". Yet as soon as they started to truly look good, look like what we would TODAY identify as "boxing", SUDDENLY, they no longer had this "heart" and "toughness". Tell Povetkin he has no "heart". Tell Takam he has no "toughness". I would claim that compared to modern boxers, nostalgic boxers NEVER HAD THEIR HEART OR TOUGHNESS TESTED as boxers TODAY must! That is THE fact! Foreman was, by todays standards, slow and rubbish! The REASON he could be a HW champ and Olympic Gold medallist was because it was the 1970's and he had little better competition. During his comeback in the 90's, Foreman certainly employed a MAJOR strength and power training regime and canned a lot of his old school stuff also. Foreman was also THE most experienced boxer of the 90's AND the heftiest quality opponent of all the 90's boxers also. THAT'S why he could compete! I explained the Foreman thing above, as is obvious to anybody with half a brain. As for Moorer, I never claimed he WAS a bum did I? He was a good opponent, but Holyfield struggling with Moorer is a sign of Holyfield's limitations, NOT a sign of Moorers greatness! Again, Evander struggling with Foreman was also a sign of how much Foreman's WEIGHT and EXPERIENCE, as well as reach, makes it very difficult for even a better fighter like Holyfield to fight! And his struggle also reflects, again, Holyfield's limitations as a HW boxer! Sure Michael Moorer built up from LHW to HW with advanced training and looked the part too. Moorer simply was a bit 1-dimensional, didn't have great length or natural size for the div, was featherfisted at HW and unlike Holyfield, which we can attribute his greater success to largely, Moorer did not have a good chin, it was a chandelier! Power punches and Iron chins at lighter weights, sometimes become featherfists and glass jaws at heftier weights! Foreman openly ducked LEnnox Lewis, claiming he would never fight him under any circumstances. You don't even know the history of the sport. That's the same old chestnut that is regurgitated over and over by all the nutbags... That stuff has no place in reality except the History forum! I mean THINK about it!! Either Cus himself was pissing wind because at the time he could have said that, Cus could never have known that Foreman might one day again become a viable opponent for Tyson, OR the whole thing is fabricated! These are the only 2 possibilities and either way they debunk the nutbag alternative. And as to "Tyson being petrified of Foreman" LOL Come on mate, LOOK at Foreman, WATCH him fight, LOOK at his victims. Then LOOK at Tyson, watch him fight and look at HIS victims?? Tyson was a savage animal and Foreman was mentally much weaker! Foreman, as already stated, openly declared he was never going to fight Lennox Lewis. Again, you have just flushed your entire credibility, completely down the ****ing toilet you idiot! LOL Globally Ali is recognised as past time champion of the black and white days, it's only in America that this mythology is kept alive. Truthfully, Ali was great for his day, but he was even then a featherfist overweight cruiser who was a suspect chinned runner in the 60's and a punch bag hugger in the 70's. Today he would be nothing less than a complete bum! Anybody who looks at Tokyo Buster and how he fought that night and then compares them to clips of Ali and Young could not fail to recognise that that Buster would have obliterated, Young, Lyle, Foreman and Ali, just as easily as Tyson would have! Oh LOL so Foreman's invincibility was busted poor Foreman! Let's have a decade off to lick our wounds, whilst Tyson punched on against top opponents almost straight away like Ruddock, who would also have put Ali and Young into a ****in intensive care unit for the next 100 years! LOL I'm seeing just fine! Yes they are. They were born in the 1970's... And they fought against chinny, featherfist, cruiser, punch bag bums. How fortunate for them! Elroy, You're right! Warm Regards! ( Thanks for the laugh).

Elroy, you sir, are an IDIOT... Very objective. Sports science is never going to replace heart, soul, and toughness. Its referred to as the intangible qualities -and that is what separates the immortal fighters from the "champions" that are routinely crowned during each era. Oh, so don't worry about every single statistic, don't worry about what we can see happening in front of us on video, just consider the "intangible" or more accurately "mythical" qualities LOL. I mean, you ARE seriously saying that when all boxers looked like garbage, they all had "heart" and "toughness". Yet as soon as they started to truly look good, look like what we would TODAY identify as "boxing", SUDDENLY, they no longer had this "heart" and "toughness". Tell Povetkin he has no "heart". Tell Takam he has no "toughness". I would claim that compared to modern boxers, nostalgic boxers NEVER HAD THEIR HEART OR TOUGHNESS TESTED as boxers TODAY must! That is THE fact! You call Foreman "slow and rubbish..." Really? An olympic gold medalist and two time heavyweight champion is rubbish??? You boast about the post 1980's athletes implementing ergonomics (look it up) and other technical advances that catapulted them into greater heights, YET, Foreman came out of retirement in the 1990's! As a 40 year old man! And he fought for the heavyweight title at that time and he won. Foreman was, by todays standards, slow and rubbish! The REASON he could be a HW champ and Olympic Gold medallist was because it was the 1970's and he had little better competition. During his comeback in the 90's, Foreman certainly employed a MAJOR strength and power training regime and canned a lot of his old school stuff also. Foreman was also THE most experienced boxer of the 90's AND the heftiest quality opponent of all the 90's boxers also. THAT'S why he could compete! So how to explain that? Before you go on about Michael Moorer was a bum, I would ask if you're sure? He gave Holyfield hell in their first fight. And isn't Evander considered one of the greats of the 1990's? Actually, while we we're at it, Foreman fought Evander in the 1990s. Yep, he was outclassed, but not by much, considering he was a forty year old man fighting a then prime athlete with all the benefits of "modern science". And wasn't Michael Moore also a beneficiary of all of the modern techniques and conditioning that the post 1980's athlete had at this disposal? I guess those old slow, rubbish cavemen still had some skills, huh? I explained the Foreman thing above, as is obvious to anybody with half a brain. As for Moorer, I never claimed he WAS a bum did I? He was a good opponent, but Holyfield struggling with Moorer is a sign of Holyfield's limitations, NOT a sign of Moorers greatness! Again, Evander struggling with Foreman was also a sign of how much Foreman's WEIGHT and EXPERIENCE, as well as reach, makes it very difficult for even a better fighter like Holyfield to fight! And his struggle also reflects, again, Holyfield's limitations as a HW boxer! Sure Michael Moorer built up from LHW to HW with advanced training and looked the part too. Moorer simply was a bit 1-dimensional, didn't have great length or natural size for the div, was featherfisted at HW and unlike Holyfield, which we can attribute his greater success to largely, Moorer did not have a good chin, it was a chandelier! Power punches and Iron chins at lighter weights, sometimes become featherfists and glass jaws at heftier weights! Another question for you: If Foreman was such a slow rubbish fighter, why didn't Lennox Lennox and Mike Tyson step up and add an old shot fighter like Foreman onto their resume? George was around and would've taken the payday. Foreman openly ducked LEnnox Lewis, claiming he would never fight him under any circumstances. You don't even know the history of the sport. You say Mike showed respect, I agree. Gossip was that Mike was petrified of George because Cus D'Amato had told Mike that Foreman would always beat him, that his style and size was all wrong for Mike. That's the same old chestnut that is regurgitated over and over by all the nutbags... That stuff has no place in reality except the History forum! I mean THINK about it!! Either Cus himself was pissing wind because at the time he could have said that, Cus could never have known that Foreman might one day again become a viable opponent for Tyson, OR the whole thing is fabricated! These are the only 2 possibilities and either way they debunk the nutbag alternative. And as to "Tyson being petrified of Foreman" LOL Come on mate, LOOK at Foreman, WATCH him fight, LOOK at his victims. Then LOOK at Tyson, watch him fight and look at HIS victims?? Tyson was a savage animal and Foreman was mentally much weaker! And Lennox, well, we know he wasn't above cherry picking opponents when he could, so what gives? Old Foreman would be easy pickings for an inconsistently conditioned, arrogant, weak chinned "champion" like Lennox, who was used to feasting on top competition like Botha, Briggs, Mavrovic, Grant, McCall, Rahman, etc... I guess that's why Lennox went after him, right? Foreman, as already stated, openly declared he was never going to fight Lennox Lewis. Again, you have just flushed your entire credibility, completely down the ****ing toilet you idiot! LOL So then you say, well, Foreman lost to Ali, Lyle, and Young -Ali was/is universally recognized as one of, if not the top heavyweight of all time -so not a lot of disgrace in that loss. Globally Ali is recognised as past time champion of the black and white days, it's only in America that this mythology is kept alive. Truthfully, Ali was great for his day, but he was even then a featherfist overweight cruiser who was a suspect chinned runner in the 60's and a punch bag hugger in the 70's. Today he would be nothing less than a complete bum! Lyle and Young were fought post-Ali, when the aura of invincibility was taken away from George and he had to mentally readjust to his loss of mystique -much like Tyson lost a step once he'd been trounced in his prime by Buster Douglas in Tokyo -BUSTER F'IN DOUGLAS- and you believe Tyson would destroy Ali and Foreman and he gets KO'D by Buster Douglas??? C'mon man -are you for real? Anybody who looks at Tokyo Buster and how he fought that night and then compares them to clips of Ali and Young could not fail to recognise that that Buster would have obliterated, Young, Lyle, Foreman and Ali, just as easily as Tyson would have! Oh LOL so Foreman's invincibility was busted poor Foreman! Let's have a decade off to lick our wounds, whilst Tyson punched on against top opponents almost straight away like Ruddock, who would also have put Ali and Young into a ****in intensive care unit for the next 100 years! LOL Get your head out of your ass. I'm seeing just fine! Prime Foreman and Prime Ali are legends for a reason. Yes they are. They were born in the 1970's... And they fought against chinny, featherfist, cruiser, punch bag bums. How fortunate for them!

Sit your ASSES down you NUTBAGS!!! :lol1: YEP^^ First, to answer Bobo the clowns post up there, there certainly WAS a fundamental change in boxing around 1980's that rendered it qualitatively different from even the preceding eras. For 100 years, nothing much changed in boxing, progress was still there but slow. But around the 80's, sports science began to be applied to boxing. It was worked out that you could use your mobility to hit your opponent whilst avoiding getting hit yourself. Athleticism accelerated, the athletes suddenly retained and built their muscles instead of burning them all away. The boxers started to LOOK much different, they started to fight much different. The days of the mollusc-bodied punch bag were over. For a good insight into this revolution in boxing, please watch the online Spinks vs Holmes 1 fight on YouTube, complete with the Prologue. It details the changes around this time quite beautifully. And now back to Juggernaut and Foreman. It has been customary for the nostalgist nutbag to pick Foreman to destroy Tyson based on some lip-service Mike paid Foreman once (purely out of respect obviously) and because they compare Tyson to some sort of Frazier. Therefore they will probably baulk at your post but the truth is rather different as you know. Nobody watching the slow lumbering performances of Foreman against opponents like Ali, Young and Lyle, during which he was greatly troubled, or even the bull**** style with which he thrashed other ridiculous opponents like Frazier and Roman, could really believe that this guy could have held his own let alone beaten Mike Tyson!. Truth is, George Foreman could never have beaten Mike Tyson... Not under any circumstances! He was JUST too slow and rubbish! Elroy, you sir, are an IDIOT... Sports science is never going to replace heart, soul, and toughness. Its referred to as the intangible qualities -and that is what separates the immortal fighters from the "champions" that are routinely crowned during each era. You call Foreman "slow and rubbish..." Really? An olympic gold medalist and two time heavyweight champion is rubbish??? You boast about the post 1980's athletes implementing ergonomics (look it up) and other technical advances that catapulted them into greater heights, YET, Foreman came out of retirement in the 1990's! As a 40 year old man! And he fought for the heavyweight title at that time and he won. So how to explain that? Before you go on about Michael Moorer was a bum, I would ask if you're sure? He gave Holyfield hell in their first fight. And isn't Evander considered one of the greats of the 1990's? Actually, while we we're at it, Foreman fought Evander in the 1990s. Yep, he was outclassed, but not by much, considering he was a forty year old man fighting a then prime athlete with all the benefits of "modern science". And wasn't Michael Moore also a beneficiary of all of the modern techniques and conditioning that the post 1980's athlete had at this disposal? I guess those old slow, rubbish cavemen still had some skills, huh? Another question for you: If Foreman was such a slow rubbish fighter, why didn't Lennox Lennox and Mike Tyson step up and add an old shot fighter like Foreman onto their resume? George was around and would've taken the payday. You say Mike showed respect, I agree. Gossip was that Mike was petrified of George because Cus D'Amato had told Mike that Foreman would always beat him, that his style and size was all wrong for Mike. And Lennox, well, we know he wasn't above cherry picking opponents when he could, so what gives? Old Foreman would be easy pickings for an inconsistently conditioned, arrogant, weak chinned "champion" like Lennox, who was used to feasting on top competition like Botha, Briggs, Mavrovic, Grant, McCall, Rahman, etc... I guess that's why Lennox went after him, right? So then you say, well, Foreman lost to Ali, Lyle, and Young -Ali was/is universally recognized as one of, if not the top heavyweight of all time -so not a lot of disgrace in that loss. Lyle and Young were fought post-Ali, when the aura of invincibility was taken away from George and he had to mentally readjust to his loss of mystique -much like Tyson lost a step once he'd been trounced in his prime by Buster Douglas in Tokyo -BUSTER F'IN DOUGLAS- and you believe Tyson would destroy Ali and Foreman and he gets KO'D by Buster Douglas??? C'mon man -are you for real? Get your head out of your ass. Prime Foreman and Prime Ali are legends for a reason.

For a guy that was knocked out cold by two bums (McCall and Rahman), ducked Chris Byrd (ha ha), went life and death against Ray Mercer (and many felt he lost that fight), refused to engage in throw downs with David Tua, barely escaped a greenhorn Vitali Klitschko, couldn't finish an old Holyfield in two fights, and has publicly stated that Zelko Mavrovoc was his toughest challenger, there sure is a lot of revisionist history about Lennox Lewis being some kind of world beater power punching monster. The only guys Lewis feasted on we're bums like Golota, Grant, Botha, Briggs.... And you sure wouldn't compare them to a Prime Foreman or Frazier or Ali.... I was there for all of Lewis' career. Fact is the man was really good but inconsistent. He had a great jab and straight right hand. Uppercuts and long left hook were pretty damn good too. But his conditioning was often inconsistent and he never allowed himself to go into a destroyer mode, always electing to play it safe and if he scored a KO, would often do so cautiously, behind a measured attack. Add to that he could be arrogant and underestimate opponents and lose focus in the ring and you might begin to understand why I respect Lennox but also refuse to automatically grant him top dog status in any era of competition. One big difference between Lennox and the 90s era when he reigned is that the 70s guys had HEART and GUTS. They came to fight and leave it all in the ring. That could spell doom for an arrogant Lewis who oftentimes felt that all he had to do to win was show up. Lewis didn't have the chin or dynamic ability to beat guys who could throw bombs like Frazier and Foreman. He might outpoint second tier guys like Shavers and Lyle though, maybe stop Lyle. Norton would be an awkward match up and it could get really tough and physical for Lewis down the stretch. Let's not even get started on Ali. Tyson, at his absolute physical and mental best could hang with the best. I reckon he'd stop Norton and Lyle, hurt Shavers and batter a few other the 3rd tier guys. Against the very best (Frazier, Ali, Foreman) I don't think he could last the full 15 rounds. They would take him into deep waters in different ways and Tyson would not be able to swim. Sit your ASSES down you NUTBAGS!!! :lol1:

Tyson/Lewis vs Quarry???lmao...yea think about that one! considering foreman admitted to being scared of Frazier and to completely duck quarry based on his TOUGHNESS,imagine the nervous breakdown thwe weak minded foreman would have had in the 70's next to Tyson,anyone that followed foremans career knows he was mentally weak,he himself admitted to it,he NEEDED to be the bigger guy to win....Tyson at 220 and vicious...well its a total mismatch and that's the boogeyman of the 70's. and if anyone thinks otherwise well go watch his fight with the sub par hard hitting Lyle and see what a demolition job Tyson would have done to foreman....im not even going to mention what he would do to Ali..Please! YEP^^ First, to answer Bobo the clowns post up there, there certainly WAS a fundamental change in boxing around 1980's that rendered it qualitatively different from even the preceding eras. For 100 years, nothing much changed in boxing, progress was still there but slow. But around the 80's, sports science began to be applied to boxing. It was worked out that you could use your mobility to hit your opponent whilst avoiding getting hit yourself. Athleticism accelerated, the athletes suddenly retained and built their muscles instead of burning them all away. The boxers started to LOOK much different, they started to fight much different. The days of the mollusc-bodied punch bag were over. For a good insight into this revolution in boxing, please watch the online Spinks vs Holmes 1 fight on YouTube, complete with the Prologue. It details the changes around this time quite beautifully. And now back to Juggernaut and Foreman. It has been customary for the nostalgist nutbag to pick Foreman to destroy Tyson based on some lip-service Mike paid Foreman once (purely out of respect obviously) and because they compare Tyson to some sort of Frazier. Therefore they will probably baulk at your post but the truth is rather different as you know. Nobody watching the slow lumbering performances of Foreman against opponents like Ali, Young and Lyle, during which he was greatly troubled, or even the bull**** style with which he thrashed other ridiculous opponents like Frazier and Roman, could really believe that this guy could have held his own let alone beaten Mike Tyson!. Truth is, George Foreman could never have beaten Mike Tyson... Not under any circumstances! He was JUST too slow and rubbish!

If Tyson and Lewis had been in the 70's they would be undisputed champions with 100% KO records and no losses of any rounds in the entire decade. More the point though, nobody would ever want to become a HW boxer as getting to the top and having to face either of these guys would basically be suicide. The champions of the 70's would have been more or less journeymen KO opponents for Lennox and Tyson. That is a hard fact of life that nostalgists will always find hard to accept but must know in their heart and head is true. I would not be surprised if Norton, Frazier, Ali and Foreman, all 4 of them were KO1 opponents for bith Tyson and LEwis. That's how far the gap is! So it's not just 20-30 years anymore, apparently heavyweights that come along 5-10 years after the previous greats are so good that those former greats would get knocked out in the first. :lol1: I guess Anthony Joshua would have knocked Vitali Klitschko cold in half a round then. Wlad better not fight Deontay Wilder, Wilder turned pro a whole decade or so after Wlad. Poor guy wouldn't stand a chance against such a superior specimen like the Bronze Bomber.

I don't really rate lewis as high as most so no I don't think he would compete with the best of the 70s I think even ron lyle could beat him , hey if Rahman and McCall could do it so could lyle , shavers , Norton , foreman , frazier , quarry , ali , holmes , hell even jimmy ellis right hand could flatten the big lumex lewis , Norton had losses to Jose Luis Garcia, Shavers had losses to Ron Stander, Jerry Quarry, Bob Stallings, Jimmy Ellis had losses to Boone Kirkman and Joe Bugner etc. You can literally use that flawed logic for anyone.

They both would have done very well. Lewis would have been a relevant player division far longer than Tyson.

I was talking to my granddad the other day and he believes Lennox would have done very well in the 70's, but he thinks Tyson would have struggled immensely due to his mental issues of folding up when being hit back. How do you guys see this? Lewis didn't have the chin or dynamic ability to beat guys who could throw bombs like Frazier and Foreman. He might outpoint second tier guys like Shavers and Lyle though, maybe stop Lyle. Norton would be an awkward match up and it could get really tough and physical for Lewis down the stretch. Let's not even get started on Ali. Tyson, at his absolute physical and mental best could hang with the best. I reckon he'd stop Norton and Lyle, hurt Shavers and batter a few other the 3rd tier guys. Against the very best (Frazier, Ali, Foreman) I don't think he could last the full 15 rounds. They would take him into deep waters in different ways and Tyson would not be able to swim.

Foreman wouldn't have much to offer Lewis ,Lewis had an overhand right from hell ,compared to Foremans telegraph punches thrown in slow mo ,its no question who wouldve been the more dangerous puncher ,add in a bigger guy leaning on Foreman who then gassed out and faded quickly he would be doomed .J.Young who was not a hard puncher dropped Foreman for that reason what do you think when Lewis connected would happen?Foreman fought a better fight with Young ,stayed calm ,picked his shots and fought aggressive in spurts and still lost ,those are the facts. For a guy that was knocked out cold by two bums (McCall and Rahman), ducked Chris Byrd (ha ha), went life and death against Ray Mercer (and many felt he lost that fight), refused to engage in throw downs with David Tua, barely escaped a greenhorn Vitali Klitschko, couldn't finish an old Holyfield in two fights, and has publicly stated that Zelko Mavrovoc was his toughest challenger, there sure is a lot of revisionist history about Lennox Lewis being some kind of world beater power punching monster. The only guys Lewis feasted on we're bums like Golota, Grant, Botha, Briggs.... And you sure wouldn't compare them to a Prime Foreman or Frazier or Ali.... I was there for all of Lewis' career. Fact is the man was really good but inconsistent. He had a great jab and straight right hand. Uppercuts and long left hook were pretty damn good too. But his conditioning was often inconsistent and he never allowed himself to go into a destroyer mode, always electing to play it safe and if he scored a KO, would often do so cautiously, behind a measured attack. Add to that he could be arrogant and underestimate opponents and lose focus in the ring and you might begin to understand why I respect Lennox but also refuse to automatically grant him top dog status in any era of competition. One big difference between Lennox and the 90s era when he reigned is that the 70s guys had HEART and GUTS. They came to fight and leave it all in the ring. That could spell doom for an arrogant Lewis who oftentimes felt that all he had to do to win was show up.

If Tyson and Lewis had been in the 70's they would be undisputed champions with 100% KO records and no losses of any rounds in the entire decade. More the point though, nobody would ever want to become a HW boxer as getting to the top and having to face either of these guys would basically be suicide. The champions of the 70's would have been more or less journeymen KO opponents for Lennox and Tyson. That is a hard fact of life that nostalgists will always find hard to accept but must know in their heart and head is true. I would not be surprised if Norton, Frazier, Ali and Foreman, all 4 of them were KO1 opponents for bith Tyson and LEwis. That's how far the gap is!

I don't really rate lewis as high as most so no I don't think he would compete with the best of the 70s I think even ron lyle could beat him , hey if Rahman and McCall could do it so could lyle , shavers , Norton , foreman , frazier , quarry , ali , holmes , hell even jimmy ellis right hand could flatten the big lumex lewis , different league in the 70s boys they were real fighters back then not posers and runners frazier would take your heart out , the fact a lot of todays fans don't rate 70s era heavyweights just shows basic ignorance of boxing history the only true way to rate an atg is the quality of opposition and how they performed against fellow atgs ,lewis didn't have that great resume against great fighters at there best , Tyson at his peak though was a beast although he didn't get the chance as with lewis to fight atgs at there best he would compete in any era and give any heavyweight hell his style was that aggressive his punching power and speed along with a good chin and underrated defence would be a handful , but ive always felt foreman would beat Tyson as would ali .

Some success for Tyson... Lennox could again rule the division.

And Foreman was DROPPED by J.young and saved by the bell vs Lyle who wouldn't even be Rhamans sparring partner,who was Tysons sparring partner. Foreman needed SIZE to win ,he LACKED skills outside of a jab...Lennox wouldn't have joked with him and bullied the bully....Lewis hit harder and outsided him add in the skill ,well its obvious Lewis easily beats Foreman.He would have knocked Foreman out inside 4 rounds b/c that's the fight Foreman would bring to him. Foreman was one of the most murderous punchers in Hwy history. And Lennox is going to bully Foreman? Good luck. I'm a Lewis fan but we're not talking about Lewis Vs Michael Grant or Andrew Golota. We're talking a prime George Foreman who would've caved in Lewis's ribs and skull if Lewis was actually dumb enough to stand and trade and try to take him down. Don't forget the facts. Lennox was smart enough to box safe against David Tua and not get in extended exchanges. He'd be an absolute moron to get in a firefight with Prine Foreman. Even Prime Tyson kisses the dust if he stands toe to toe with Prime Foreman. Ali was intelligent. He knew how to outsmart George cod no one was gonna KO him. And all that talk about Jimmy Young, etc came post-Zaire when Foremans aura of invincibility ala Tyson vs Douglas had been forever cracked.

I think Big George breaks Tyson down late mid-late after over coming the early onslaught, I always liked Tyson to beat Ali. Lewis couldn't deal with Mercers jab what so ever and had a very hard time with Bruno's. I don't see him faring well against either. Ali also struggled with Lyle in their fight. Didn't look great against Jimmy Young and neither did Foreman in a losing effort. Ali also couldn't deal with Norton in any of their fights and was getting countered relatively effectively. I have a hard time seeing Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson not being very very competitive in the 70s. Everyone has some fights where they don't look great for whatever reason incl. Foreman, Frazier, Ali, Norton, Lyle, Shavers etc from the 70s.