Prime Tyson vs Prime Lennox ?

[Boogie Nights]

Biggs was a very good fighter and an Olympic gold medalist if i am remembering correctly. He went wrong with trading with Tyson and that gave him his opportunities. When he was actually boxing in the first 2 or 3 rounds, then he would be winning easily. He was just not a big heavyweight and didn't have that experienced to keep to his game and not be taken out of it. Lewis had both experience and was a big heavyweight and he was also mentally tough as you can get.

Tyrell biggs was not a big heavyweight??? He's 6'5, and weighed 230 pounds for tyson's 216, and probably came in much heavier on fight night

[Boogie Nights]

I just don't want to go through the same things again. You will most likely twist what ever i say, call Tyson's opponents better and start putting things in your signatures. Its just best to leave certain things alone.

again im not gonna twist anything, im not gonna drag tyson into discussion, or compare him to anyone of those fighters of their competition.

it's a separate topic, and i wont twist nothing. Like i said, just give a list of great fighters they beat so i can take you seriously when you make a claim like that.

i cant twist anything once you give a solid cold proof. just dont give the list of good contenders they faced and i wont get into anything with you. I promise. Just list names, no contenders please. As simple as it can get. Im actually interested in reading it

[MELLY-MEL...]

Lewis is kryptonite for mike. just the way it is.

[slicksouthpaw16]

Tyrell biggs was not a big heavyweight??? He's 6'5, and weighed 230 pounds for tyson's 216, and probably came in much heavier on fight night

I had his size confused with James Tillis ( who was 6'1 and only weighed in the early 200 when in shape, i always mixed them up for some reason). Biggs was a very good fighter, but he didn't have that experience against top opposition and his only win that stood out was an unmotivated James Tillis, who went back to being a journeyman after his effort against Tyson. He was not on the level of Lewis in no way shape or form.

[Boogie Nights]

I had his size confused with James Tillis ( who was 6'1 and only weighed in the early 200 when in shape, i always mixed them up for some reason). Biggs was a very good fighter, but he didn't have that experience against top opposition and his only win that stood out was an unmotivated James Tillis, who went back to being a journeyman after his effort against Tyson.

he may not have had experience but he had the skills, the motivation, and more importantly the size. not to mention one of the best trainers working his corner

[Boogie Nights]

again i dont understand why you backing down, when i assured you i wouldnt twist anything around.

you starting to sound kind of strange when all im asking you to do is nicely to list the great fighters they beat that were in their prime.

i said i would respect your opinion, this is a website, nto a street fight, why cant you type a few names in the post?

[Dorian]

Lewis' size, reach, excellent jab and power would be too much for Prime Tyson to overcome.

Lewis by UD or late TKO

I agree with you

[MELLY-MEL...]

I agree with you

and i agree with you.

[slicksouthpaw16]

also slicksouthpaw i have another question

you say tyson never beat a great fighter in their prime. But you consider guys like jerseywalcott, max baer, and floyd patterson all time greats, can you please tell what great fighters in their prime they have beaten?

I rank Walcott as an all time great for his lengevity, the guys that he has fought and his wins over Harold Johnson, Ezzard Charles, Joey Maxim( who beat Floyd Patterson) and other top contedners of that time. You could also make a strong case for him beating Louis, but since he didn't its a moot point. In shape, with the proper managment and ready, Walcott could have beaten anyone of that time.

Patterson was actually a light heavyweight that moved up to heavyweight. Was the Olympic gold medalist, fought the best of his era and was the first fighter to ever regain to heavyweight title and at that time, was the youngest champion ever. He won the heavyweight from Archie Moore( which answers your question) and regained it against the guy that beat him, Ingemar Johansson. Thats why he is an all time great.

Baer fought ever single great fighter of his time and beat some very good fighters as well. While his resume doesn't stack up like Patterson's or Walcott's, he has the longevity. I must admit that i maybe went overboard by calling him an all time great, but he is definitely a deserving hall of famer. I'll put it like that.

[Boogie Nights]

I rank Walcott as an all time great for his lengevity, the guys that he has fought and his wins over Harold Johnson, Ezzard Charles, Joey Maxim( who beat Floyd Patterson) and other top contedners of that time. You could also make a strong case for him beating Louis, but since he didn't its a moot point. In shape, with the proper managment and ready, Walcott could have beaten anyone of that time.

Patterson was actually a light heavyweight that moved up to heavyweight. Was the Olympic gold medalist, fought the best of his era and was the first fighter to ever regain to heavyweight title and at that time, was the youngest champion ever. He won the heavyweight from Archie Moore( which answers your question) and regained it against the guy that beat him, Ingemar Johansson. Thats why he is an all time great.

Baer fought ever single great fighter of his time and beat some very good fighters as well. While his resume doesn't stack up like Patterson's or Walcott's, he has the longevity. I must admit that i maybe went overboard by calling him an all time great, but he is definitely a deserving hall of famer. I'll put it like that.

i give you credit that you manned up and admitted that calling max Baer a great was pretty extreme

however i dont agree with the other 2. patterson beat Archie Moore, but Archie was never at his best at heavyweight, in the mid 180 Floyd still qualified for the weight limit of a heavyweight. I could easily say that tyson beat Holmes, but you wont recognize it, and quickly use an excuse that Larry had no tune up fights. frankly, and fairly that's a weak excuse to use, considering that even Larry admitted that he was keeping in good shape during his brief retirement and had been training for tyson's style prior to that.

So Moore and Johanson victories make floyd into an all time great? i dont think so slick, i really dont.

as far as walcott, you still listed me a few contenders, but included ezzard charles. he had split victories with him, and charles is more famous for his light heavyweight accomplishments. What i look at, is officially, Walcott lost twice to each Louis and Marciano. He would win some, and loose some. He won a title and lost it just as fast. He's got no long term defences, no significant victories except for Charles, who as i said before was not a great heavyweight. What a fighter did at another weight does not make him greater at what he did at another weight.