No. Tyson came off a dominant KO of a contender. Name me one Holmes's victim who came off an performance like that. Edit: That would be Shavers, rematch, but I think old Tyson was better than that Shavers.
Are you Serious ? George Foreman beat a better and longer list of opponents than either Lewis or Holmes ? Wow..this is the list I've been waiting for , for years, well come on..name them !
Rubbishing Lennoxs' resume like that is crazy. True , many of his opponents weren't prime , but still live and dangerous guys. You haven't even mentioned Bruno/ Unbeaten Mason/ Tucker who'd only ever lost to Tyson. Lewis' resume is as deep as it gets.
Yes, Norton was closer to his prime time wise, but he also had a quicker decline. He said himself that he lost a lot of motivation and desire for the sport after losing the decision to Ali. But, yes, it is quite possible that Holy had lost more.
I think 99 Holyfield was easily much better than 2002 Tyson and would've KO'd him anyway. After all, two fights later Tyson was destroyed by Danny Williams in 4. Tyson looked pretty bad against shot Brian Nielsen in previous fight, and Golota fight happened year before Nielsen fight.
Wow that's been one of my most controversial opinions to date. Too many people too reply to, so I'll just say this, yes Charles and Walcott were at their absolute best
Norton is a typcial example of somebody who put it all together one last that night against Holmes. He was very close to his absolute best. Holyfield was further away from his prime version when he fought Lewis but still very good.
Remembered wrong. Thought Golota was the fight prior. That was a very good performance, but he could of course have lost quite a bit during 20 months at that age.
I think Norton still looked good but noticeably slowed down. Holy, if anyone, gav one final really good performance in his rematch with Lewis imo.
Several of the guys Mike made his name on in his prime also had bad performances. Tyson and Lewis were the only ones to blow out Golota when he was close to his prime, so I'd consider that a good result even from a prime Tyson.
If the question was who "fought" better competition, the answer would be Holmes. Since it's who "beat" better competition, the answer is Lewis. Holmes certainly fought better versions of Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield and Oliver McCall, but he didn't beat them.
I'm a Holmes fan, but I think Lewis beat better competition. I wonder what HE Grant thinks as he spent a lot of time researching Holmes, and meet with him and his trainer. The funny thing for me is for years Holmes competition was picked apart, many years later now people view it as solid. Perhaps the current level of heavyweight competition has something to do with that?