Originally Posted by sauhund II
Coming from the biggest Lewis apologist .............at least I was ringside for a couple of his fights, it is safe to say I have a little more insight than your armchair history re writing.
How am I a Lewis apologist. I don't even dispute that the McCall stoppage was good, never mind the fiasco in South Africa.
But your analytical skills which is what I was referring to, suck big time, and that's what I do for a living.
You still never answered the question. If every fight can be used to justify the outcome of any other particular fight, than why didn't the rematches of Rahman and McCall unfold the same way in the second fight as they did in the first?
Quite your bullshitting about how many fights you've seen and answer the question, cause you've used that to base your entire argument on why Tyson would win.
Not the second fights mind you cause that would require thought, not their careers cause hell that would really be work, no, just those two fights and those two fights alone in your mind justify a particular outcome. If you've seen so many fights I would think the least you can to is take both fighters on their best night and use that as a basis of your analyse to determine a particular outcome, or is that asking too much.