Boxing News 24 Forum - View Single Post - Lennox Lewis' longevity...not that much better than Tyson's!

hobgoblin · 08-14-2007, 04:34 PM

Lennox was fundamentally similar to his best from 1993-2003 - with him needing a few adjustments in between e.g. McCall.

Tyson was fundamentally similar to his best from 1986-1991 and I generously threw in 2 years there. Afterwards, he was crap for all his fights except Holy I+II where he was third only to Holy & Lewis IMO. So I give it an extra year. I'd say Tyson had 6 great years (average) whereas Lennox had 11 great years. Also the 2002 fight shows LONGEVITY in terms of style & life styles. The 2002 fight was a pure show of LONGEVITY.

I like Tyson but Lewis is clearly better in this regard. I don't care for formalities like title etc. It is true that Tyson's reign is often underrated (they say he just fought and beat B level fighters - at least he fought & beat them frequently & greatly - we don't even get that today!).

08-14-2007, 04:34 PM	#41
hobgoblin Gatekeeper ESB Full Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 402 vCash: 1000	Re: Lennox Lewis' longevity...not that much better than Tyson's! Lennox was fundamentally similar to his best from 1993-2003 - with him needing a few adjustments in between e.g. McCall. Tyson was fundamentally similar to his best from 1986-1991 and I generously threw in 2 years there. Afterwards, he was crap for all his fights except Holy I+II where he was third only to Holy & Lewis IMO. So I give it an extra year. I'd say Tyson had 6 great years (average) whereas Lennox had 11 great years. Also the 2002 fight shows LONGEVITY in terms of style & life styles. The 2002 fight was a pure show of LONGEVITY. I like Tyson but Lewis is clearly better in this regard. I don't care for formalities like title etc. It is true that Tyson's reign is often underrated (they say he just fought and beat B level fighters - at least he fought & beat them frequently & greatly - we don't even get that today!).
Top