Originally posted by sonnyboyx2
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Better resume: Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson?
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by KnockoutNed View PostTyson's two most notable victories were against a 38 year old Larry Holmes and blown up LHW Michael Spinks. Holmes hadn't fought in 2 years and hadn't won in 3 years. He only had 3 weeks to train for the fight. Spinks hadn't won a fight against a quality opponent in nearly 3 years and he had very bad knees. The knees were heavily bandaged up when he fought Tyson.
Mercer - Debatable decision, Mercer had been schooled by 40yr old Holmes
Bruno - Former World title holder who had suffered KO loss to Tyson
Tucker - Former World Champion, Junkie who looked aged and lost to Tyson
Botha - Former World Champion, had already suffered KO loss to Tyson
Tyson - Addicted to anti-depressants, alcohol, cocaine & cannabis.
Holyfield - Current World title Holder
Morrison - HIV positive on decline
Ruddock - Damaged Goods after 2 brutal beatings from Tyson.
Briggs - Former title holder.
Tua - Fattest man to ever fight for title
Comment
-
Mike Tyson does have the record of youngest man to become undisputed heavyweight champ. But Lennox Lewis has beaten greater competition than Mike. The most prominent overlaps are Frank Bruno and Razor Ruddock.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LacedUp View PostWow this was a rubbish post.
However, it's hard to say which record was better. Both have their flaws.
Comment
-
Originally posted by markusmod View Post
Agreed. Seldon took an obvious dive. Botha was ahead before Tyson caught him. Douglas was the biggest upset in boxing history and did nothing beyond that.
However, it's hard to say which record was better. Both have their flaws.
There may be a couple of ways of figuring it out without being dependent on 'expert' opinion.
We have the classic who fought the most HOFs, raw number of wins by opponents, title fights, ETC.
But what I was thinking, the best may be to apply the recent Ring Magazime standard. In a sense that seems more directed at better resumes than tyring to predict who was better..
Comment
-
Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View Post
OP asks better resume not who is better.
There may be a couple of ways of figuring it out without being dependent on 'expert' opinion.
We have the classic who fought the most HOFs, raw number of wins by opponents, title fights, ETC.
But what I was thinking, the best may be to apply the recent Ring Magazime standard. In a sense that seems more directed at better resumes than tyring to predict who was better..Willow The Wisp likes this.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Lewis came along in a good era of boxing. We had Holyfield, Tyson, Mccall, Mercer, Morrison, and a few other. most of them fought each other. When the smoke cleared only Lewis was still standing as world champion.Anthony342 likes this.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Lewis. Two good wins - Vitali (as lucky as it was) and Evan Fields. Tyson didn't beat anyone, well, maybe his fans class Peter "the Cocoon" Mcneeley as a good win, well, I'm sure they do. Lewis would be 5-10 today, Tyson would be 20-30. Nash out.
Comment
-
Originally posted by beez721 View Postwow,,,so much one sided nuthugging here on both sides. the fact is there resumes are fairly similar. neither guy beat any atg's on top of there game but they have a good list of some good credible opponents. lennox's is a bit larger and I think his resume is a bit better but its close. end of thread
Comment
Comment