Rated Higher - Foreman Or Lewis?

Over Bruno?

Carnera
Baer
Sharkey
Pastor
Schmeling
Godoy
Conn
Buddy
Walcott
Bivins

and I probably forgot about some. Bruno was nothing special.

 

And Tyson too, don't forget Tyson. Not Holyfield tho, not Vandy

 

Bivins at that point was absolutely not. He's basically shot. So was Louis, obviously, but that doesn't change it IMO.

 

Well, he used shot version of Tyson so why not?

 

Nah, a lot of people here share my views on Tyson.
Tyson's generally rated fairly on this forum.

As I've said before, I don't actually consistently rate Holyfield very highly, just find myself defending him because he's often dismissed as "inconsistent" or his successes are bracketed with "overachiever" or people seem to forget when his prime was.
I'd rate him above Tyson.
I'd rate him above Greg Page.

 

The only shocking blemish on prime Foreman's record is the loss to Young.
We can forgive him the loss to Ali, because that fight is a centrepiece to why we rate Ali so highly.

 

Yes ...

Holyfield > Page

 

No fair minded poster aligns with your Tyson views as they are quite extreme. You make some good points but then go way too far.

Tyson is probably fairly rated. For every nut hugger we have a hater and then there's the in between. He has way more at the extreme ends than is the norm.

Holyfield is a great fighter but in no way, shape or form do you scrutinize him within a stratosphere of how harshly you do Lewis and Tyson. There's definite bias and feeling in there for you among those three. Who isn't biased for or against the odd fighter tho i guess. It's all part of the fun.

Tyson and Holyfield would be close. Holyfield has those great wins over Tyson but other factors come into play. Holyfield was also a drug cheat and some might throw that into the equation.

Holyfield has Page on resume but H2H on the night Greg one punched Tyson to the floor in Tokyo????

 

They are pretty close. The destructive nature of Foreman's wins over Frazier and Norton are so impressive because of how durable and tough those guys are not to mention how well he performed in his 40's.

Lennox was a more methodical fighter who pretty much cleaned out his era although a lot of his wins were against fighters that were not in their prime.

If they ever fought in there primes, I give Foreman the slight edge. Lewis liked to keep guys on the outside with that jab and that is the worst thing you could do against a puncher like Foreman. I also think George is the more durable guy and really his two losses were attributed more to exhaustion than being truly hurt. Both the Ali and Young fights were in very hot weather against fighter's that tired him out. Lewis, who had a decent chin got caught by two big physical heavyweights. If McCall and Rahman can hurt him, George certainly can.

 

You're probably the only one who says that about me who isn't Sangria or one of the other Tyson fanatics. I think I rate Tyson around the same as most people here. Possibly a little higher than someone like Bokaj, certainly higher than The Morlocks.

This is how it works ......
I'd pick Joe Frazier and George Foreman to knock Holyfield out, and I have, and no one comes down on me for that.
If I pick Joe Frazier and George Foreman to knock out Tyson and Lewis, that's when people want to argue. see ?
Or Liston, Holmes, Louis ..... if I pick them all to beat Holyfield, which I normally do, I still can walk away considered as being fair to Holyfield. But if I pick them all to beat Tyson and Lewis, I get called a "hater".
If I say Holyfield losing two to Bowe effects his standing, no one makes a fuss.
If I say Tyson and Lewis losing to Douglas and McCall and Rahman greatly effects their standing, people want to argue and cry foul.

It's not my favouritism to Holyfield. It's that Tyson and Lewis are considered more sacred by so many people on this forum.
Lewis especially now.

If you're honest, you'll recognize those types of debates and the differences in the type of esteem that the 3 are held in here.
Holyfield is beloved by most, respected, considered undeniably great, but it's fair game to pick him to lose against a bunch of other ATGs. And rightly so.
Previously with Tyson, and certainly now with Lewis, that's not the case. Anyone who picks him to lose more than one or two or three "h2h" with other ATGs starts to get viewed with suspicion and labelled a hater.

Of course, on his best night, or when he was achieving greatness against Alfredo Evangelista, Page has Holyfield's number.

 

Bivins, buddy Baer, Billy Conn, Godoy, Pastor, Sharkey and Carnera are all undoubtedly worse, Conn may have been better p4p than Bruno, but not at Heavyweight

 

What did Bruno ever accomplished to call him better? Bruno lost against every single top fighter he faced.

 

Bruno was worse than Carnera.
Better puncher, but that's all.
And Carnera was awful.

 

He became WBC world champion and beat better heavyweights than those which I mentioned