Tyson vs Lewis Primes

[NakiFan]

You're saying this, but how do you back it up? There are striking similarities between Hamed and Tyson. As stated previously - both arrived on the scene young, both blew their divisions apart - in spectacular fashion - and unified. Are you claiming that Tyson beat a better standard of opponent than Hamed whilst undefeated? I can't see how anyone could agree with that. The main difference between Hamed & Tyson is that Tyson's first defeat was at the hands of a second-rate fighter and he was left horizontal. Hamed's first defeat was at the hands of a HOF legend - and he stayed on his feet. The argument that Tyson was on some kind of mental downslope at the time therefore you shouldn't hold his performance against him doesn't wash because Hamed's head was in a thousand pieces before the Barrera fight (he didn't train a jot!). Afterward both fighters were shot. Perhaps Tyson gets an extra point for making a comeback, but it was as a mediocre fighter (certainly not worthy of the gushing praise that exists on NSB) who's only weapon was his name. I mean, you can't claim his victory over Bruno was a feat of boxing excellence - Bruno was terrified of him and didn't throw a punch in anger!

I'm sorry, but if Tyson is up there with the boxing greats then Hamed must also be. I can't think of any argument to include the former and exclude the latter that doesn't reek of double-standards.

Yeah but Tyson had one thing Hamed could never have didnt he!

He was American

[them_apples]

Yeah but Tyson had one thing Hamed could never have didnt he!

He was American

yea but Hamed literally beat nobody

[them_apples]

You're saying this, but how do you back it up? There are striking similarities between Hamed and Tyson. As stated previously - both arrived on the scene young, both blew their divisions apart - in spectacular fashion - and unified. Are you claiming that Tyson beat a better standard of opponent than Hamed whilst undefeated? I can't see how anyone could agree with that. The main difference between Hamed & Tyson is that Tyson's first defeat was at the hands of a second-rate fighter and he was left horizontal. Hamed's first defeat was at the hands of a HOF legend - and he stayed on his feet. The argument that Tyson was on some kind of mental downslope at the time therefore you shouldn't hold his performance against him doesn't wash because Hamed's head was in a thousand pieces before the Barrera fight (he didn't train a jot!). Afterward both fighters were shot. Perhaps Tyson gets an extra point for making a comeback, but it was as a mediocre fighter (certainly not worthy of the gushing praise that exists on NSB) who's only weapon was his name. I mean, you can't claim his victory over Bruno was a feat of boxing excellence - Bruno was terrified of him and didn't throw a punch in anger!

I'm sorry, but if Tyson is up there with the boxing greats then Hamed must also be. I can't think of any argument to include the former and exclude the latter that doesn't reek of double-standards.

Tyson did beat better competition then Hamed. Not the best, but he definitely beat better competition then Hamed. For a heavyweight, Tysons competition was not all that terrible when you look at guys like Dempsey, and although great, Louis' set of competition itself wasn't too great if a guy like Galento was in the top 10 for how many years? I'm not hating on these guy's just it's ludacris to constantly put Tyson down and say he fought garbage competition.

The reason UK fighters get heat is because when they have a long lustrous or dominating career, it's because they stayed in Europe their entire career.

see Calzaghe, Otke. I think Lewis was great for a HW though, I just don't see him beating Mike.

[Benny Leonard]

You're saying this, but how do you back it up? There are striking similarities between Hamed and Tyson. As stated previously - both arrived on the scene young, both blew their divisions apart - in spectacular fashion - and unified. Are you claiming that Tyson beat a better standard of opponent than Hamed whilst undefeated? I can't see how anyone could agree with that. The main difference between Hamed & Tyson is that Tyson's first defeat was at the hands of a second-rate fighter and he was left horizontal. Hamed's first defeat was at the hands of a HOF legend - and he stayed on his feet. The argument that Tyson was on some kind of mental downslope at the time therefore you shouldn't hold his performance against him doesn't wash because Hamed's head was in a thousand pieces before the Barrera fight (he didn't train a jot!). Afterward both fighters were shot. Perhaps Tyson gets an extra point for making a comeback, but it was as a mediocre fighter (certainly not worthy of the gushing praise that exists on NSB) who's only weapon was his name. I mean, you can't claim his victory over Bruno was a feat of boxing excellence - Bruno was terrified of him and didn't throw a punch in anger!

I'm sorry, but if Tyson is up there with the boxing greats then Hamed must also be. I can't think of any argument to include the former and exclude the latter that doesn't reek of double-standards.

Tyson at his best was better than Hamed. However, a large part of that may have had to do with who Tyson was able to train under while I'm not so sure that Hamed had that perfect trainer right for him to make him a great fighter and bring out his best. Hamed's natural talents were amazing and don't come around to often. But even with natural talents, they can only take you so far.

And here is a thought: Tyson, 5'11, 215 going up against a 6'3+, 230 pound man is not the same as Hamed fighting someone in his own division.

And it is widely known Tyson wasn't trained for it....which yes, is his fault.
And yes, I heard the same for Hamed's fight with MAB was somewhat the same.

[Dave Rado]

Wow, Lewis had a long prime then in your opinion, thats 7 years! If he had a 7 yr prime he is surely the greatest,

Lewis improved with age into his early and mid 30s, like Hopkins did, although not to the same extent as Hopkins. Ability to age well in and of itself doesn't make you the greatest but it does give you a longer prime than most. Lewis's best performances were mostly in his 30s. Very few heavyweights age that well. Ali and Frazier were shot by their mid 30s, but Ali is still rated by most experts as one of the two greatest heavyweights of all time along with Louis. Ageing well in and of itself isn't enough to make you a greater fighter than someone who aged less well. If that were the only criteria, Archie Moore would be rated the greatest of all time, and he certainly isn't.

i mean people like you also have Tyson at a 1 or 2 year prime

That was due to his psychological flaws and the influence of King and others, it was not physical. He stopped being the same boxer when he split with Rooney, so that was the end of his prime as a boxer, but it was nothing to do with his physical prime.

[them_apples]

Tyson at his best was better than Hamed. However, a large part of that may have had to do with who Tyson was able to train under while I'm not so sure that Hamed had that perfect trainer right for him to make him a great fighter and bring out his best. Hamed's natural talents were amazing and don't come around to often. But even with natural talents, they can only take you so far.

And here is a thought: Tyson, 5'11, 215 going up against a 6'3+, 230 pound man is not the same as Hamed fighting someone in his own division.

And it is widely known Tyson wasn't trained for it....which yes, is his fault.
And yes, I heard the same for Hamed's fight with MAB was somewhat the same.

I really don't think Hamed would have ever beat Barrera. Barrera was in a different class.

[P4P GOAT]

Excuses!!!!!

[Joeyzagz]

My point in mentioning Ottke was that your implication that Lewis would have won simply because he beat every opponent he faced is way too simplistic. You can make a case that Lewis would have won, but the reason you gave isn't valid. And his KO over that version of Tyson, who Danny Williams and Kevin McBride also knocked out, was not one of his best or most meaningful wins.

Danny Williams and Mcbride fought what was left of Tyson AFTER Lewis finished him. Also Lennox was the "older" guy so you cant use age as an excuse.

Lewis wins because he is the only guy in Heavyweight history to have beaten every type of fighter: .Lewis beat younger fighters(Rahman) stronger fighters(Vitali), bigger fighters(Michael Grant) dirty fighters(Holyfield), technical fighters(Tucker), Swarmers(Tua), etc etc Lewis can win against any archetype.

Tyson has yet to prove that he can win against a big guy who's not intimidated by him. (Mcbride, Douglas, Williams, Lewis)

[Benny Leonard]

I really don't think Hamed would have ever beat Barrera. Barrera was in a different class.

MAB was technically sound. Someone like MAB would always trouble Hamed because Hamed wasn't technically sound. But my point was that Tyson had the luxury of having not only a very good trainer, but the perfect trainer for him. I'm not sure Hamed had that. Hamed's natural talent was still top notch. We saw what happened when Tyson went away from what made him good and he had to rely on that natural talent.

But like I said before: Tyson was better at his best. Tyson could actually box very well and was technically sound at his best. Hamed wasn't.

[Dave Rado]

Also Lennox was the "older" guy so you cant use age as an excuse.

I don't understand why people keep confusing prime with age. Age has absolutely nothing to do with it. Hopkins peak age was around 36, Archie Moore's was around 39, Lewis's was around 35, Ali's was around 25, and Tyson's was around 22. Lewis at 22 was not yet anywhere near his prime, and he hadn't even turned professional then. Tyson's prime ended when he was 22.

And we've covered this ground so many times in this thread already, doesn't anyone read the other posts before posting themselves?