-
-
Resume is subjective. That Tyson doesn't have a great resume is only an opinion. Its the opinions of many, but its still an opinion only.
Yes, maybe ask tucker, Ruddock, biggs, Bruno who was better out of Tyson and lennox.
Tyson has beat common opponents better than lennox and the common opponents might say Tyson was better than Lewis.
If you think Lewis has a better resume that is a good enough reason to think hes greater than Tyson. But thinking Tyson would beat Lewis in prime and that Tyson beat common opponents better can also be an opinion to place Tyson ahead of Lewis. THeres no hard and fast rule.
If you said Tyson is greater than Lewis, you wouldn't be wrong. Most might not agree with you, but you wouldn't be wrong.Comment
-
Tyson was a dynamo at his peak. There was no question about it. Once he left Rooney he became undisciplined. You can't look back and start when he ended his career and if you lived in that era you would know that he was a freak of nature.
Even with all that and going to jail he still came back and one some titles. But at that point because of his fame it was all a money grab.
To say that Holyfield is over rated is ridiculous. You just cannot look at the end of his career.Comment
-
1. You have absolutely no intentions of having an actual debate with anyone.
2. You don't possess any knowledge of the era.
With a different attitude, this could be a decent thread. But all you're going to do is to ignorantly ignore anything you're not aware of.
You're the very definition of a poor poster.Comment
-
a ****** thread by a ****** individualComment
-
I've never seen anybody struggle as much as what you're doing here.
Criticising him for not having beaten those 4 guys, when he didn't even get the opportunity to face 2 of them?
This is where you're lack of knowledge really gets exposed.
Now IF Mike had lost to all 4 of those guys, then we could objectively look at those fights. But he didn't.
First off, l'll start by saying that IMHO, Lennox and Evander COULD have beaten ANY version of Mike. I really believe that. But if you knew anything about Mike's career, you'd know 2 things:
1. He was badly faded by the time he came out of prison to fight Evander.
2. He was completely shot when he fought Lennox, fighting purely for the money in which he badly needed for lawsuits etc.
Yes, Lennox was older. But fighters age differently depending on their circumstances. Age and ring age are 2 completely different things. (see RJJ vs Calzaghe as one of many examples)
Despite his very young age, Mike's absolute best was pretty much over by the first Bruno fight. As other knowledgeable posters have noted, Mike had fallen out of love with the sport at that point, where he never trained and fought to his full capabilities. A guy like Douglas (who underachieved) wasn't a step up in competition, it was Mike who wasn't focused, where he was sleeping with women and not training, which resulted in him getting beaten up by guys like Greg Page in sparring.
Regarding Bowe and Mercer, Mike was in prison when they were on top. But looking specifically at Mercer, is where you really let yourself down.
Many people believe that Mercer beat Lennox Lewis. But Larry Holmes did beat Mercer. He beat Mercer when he was in his 40's, 4 years AFTER Mike had crushed him. Yet you refuse to give Mike any credit for his win over Holmes. Why? Also, Mike was the only guy to ever knock Holmes out over a 75 fight career.Comment
-
Tweet
Comment