Does Lewis get to little or to much credit for beating Holyfield and Tyson

I agree. he beat men called tyson and holyfield. he never beat the legendary boxers that were surnamed Holyfield and Tyson

 

Exactly. Holyfield is extremely underrated at HW - it is Lewis who is grossly overrated, usually by the same people who underrate Holyfield. Holyfield fought the best fighters of his era when it mattered, and he was never taken out early by second raters once, let alone twice.

 

Gotta rush and will take on more later, but aren't you the one telling us how competitive he was and saying you thought Holyfield made it a close effort? Obviously this is a little more than taking Lewis' shots and going the distance no? And even more obviously Holyfield therefore had quite a bit of sting left.

 

Of course he did. And I hold firm to my beliefs regarding his efforts against the Lion. This does not mean he was anywhere near his best however. Holmes defeated Mercer and went the distance with Evander. Is this an indication that he was at his best? Jim Jeffries went 15 rounds with Jack Johnson, despite a 6 year layoff. Wad Jeffries 100% ? John Ruiz took Valuev the distance and came very close to winning. Was Ruiz in his prime? George Foreman was phenomenal in his forties. Was Geroge at his peak? The list goes on and on my fellow ass loving friend.

 

Tyson didnt beat Patterson's yongest champ record. Tyson needed Spinks for the title.

 

I assume you have Berbick ranked ahead of Ali, and McBride ahead of Tyson?

 

I sort of know where you are coming from JT, but really this post has a smell of circular logic to it.

"Holyfield must be good because he went 24 with Lewis" cannot be used as an argument because, whether or not Lewis's performance is of high qualityis one of the points we are trying to establish.

We need independent verification of Holyfields performances, and as several other posters have pointed out, the independent verification (i.e other fights near the time) suggests he was close to shot.

Therefore the more reasonable analysis is that a close-to-shot Holyfield went 24 with Lewis because Lewis was not good enough to clean up a guy ready for the taking.

IMO Tyson was utterly shot the time he fought Lewis. This fight should count for nothing in terms of resume.

 

If you're going to use this argument than don't fights leading up to his fight with Lewis count is does "close" only go in one direction? So I think an even more reasonable analysis looks at fights before and after he fought Lewis, if you're looking for some kind of pattern.

 

It's not clear to me why Lewis even fought Tyson. There were other heavyweights around that were more deserving of a title shot than Tyson.

 

I'm surprised JohnThomas would consider the Tyson-Lewis fight relevant. Tyson was very past it when he faced Lewis. I don't see how you can possibly make any arguement for that fight meaning anything.

 

You're not making much sense here JT....
.....you're giving the impression that because Holyfield went 24 rounds with Lewis, and gave a close effort in the rematch....that somehow raises Lewis' stock as opposed to if Lewis had pulverized Holyfield and taken him out of there.

Because Holyfield was able to be competitive that somehow raises Lewis stock?
I'd think in most reasonable peoples minds that would lower it.
The Holyfield that beat even Mike Tyson had become a spurt fighter, and it got alot worse by the time he got to Lewis over two years later.

Its alot easier finding ways to stall a fight with a fighter thats smaller in stature as Tyson was.
.....but for a smaller fighter in stature to stall a fight and buy time against a much bigger fighter like Lewis, that becomes much more difficult.

Lewis was having difficullties against Holyfield who was only able to fight in spurts, how would he do against the Holyfield pre-Bowe fights who was fully capable of fighting the full 3 minutes of every round, and do so with more speed, quickness, and agility?

Again JT, your assumption seems here that you would have given Lewis less credit had he clearly made mincemeat of Evander which does'nt make any sense what so ever!

If prime Lennox Lewis could'nt clearly seperate himself from a 37 year old Holyfleld who could only fight in spurts, that does'nt bold well for him had that been even the Evander Holyfield of a few years earlier.

.....and btw, I agree....Lewis did beat still a formidable Heavyweight in Holyfield.
Its a good win for Lewis, but it is'nt a career type of defining victory because that Holyfield most likely loses to most of the greats in their primes the division has ever seen.

 

Unfortunately for the Lewis backers, they somehow have to make sense out of both the Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson fights holding more than just little significance......otherwise there is no way for them to make an argument that Lennox Lewis was the Heavyweight of his generation.
Thats just the way it has to be for someone like JT, he has to suck it up and hope to make sense on the matter of Lewis not having faced a great Heavyweight at near the top of his game during his career.

 

Great stuff, Divac, I agree that Holyfield was clearly a spurt fighter in the 2nd half of the 90s, really from Moorer I in 94 on I'd say.

To me the key is show someone the Dokes fight from 89, the Foreman fight from 91, or the first Bowe fight in 92........................

Then watch Evander in either fight vs Lewis, the V. Bean fight, or even back to the Ray Mercer fight in 95 and the workrate is dramatically less.

I think too many people get lulled into thinking that the Holyfield of 96/97 was somehow the better heavyweight Holy.

I can't think of anything the 96/97 Holy did better than the 89-93 Holy.

He punched significantly less, his stamina started to be a concern in some instances, and he was a heavier fighter.

I have always preferred Holyfield at 205-208 lbs, I think it is his perfect weight. Remember he was a Cruiser fighting at 190 so fighting 15 pounds higher was probably not that big of a deal for Evander and in fact that may have been his ideal weight.

But the 215-218 lb Holyfield always looked just a bit more sluggish to me. Perhaps he was a little bit more powerful punch wise, but I will take the speed and volume punching of 205-208 lb Holyfield anyday.

Some would say the 96 Holyfield was wiser and boxed more. Perhaps he was a bit wiser but it is rubbish to suggest the Holyfield of 89-93 didn't box and only tried to war. Watch him dismantle Douglas, Foreman, and Bowe II with his superior boxing skills.

Some criticize Holyfield by asking when his prime was. To me it was clearly from 1989-1993. Age wise it was perfect as well - 27 in 89 and 31 in 93. You could even throw 88 in there perhaps when he fought Tillis and Dokes - he looked pretty great there. Although I suppose I like starting his prime with the Dokes fight in March of 89 because at that point he had had a couple of HW wins in him already.

 

I'd agree with just about everything you covered!

........and I ask myself, how would the 37 year old Evander Holyfield who faced Lennox Lewis have dealt with the George Foreman he defeated when he was 29 years of age???

Holyfield is as tough as they come, but I'm not sure that the 37 year old Holyfield could have fended off George Foreman by fighting in spurts.
The Holyfield that beat Foreman used alot of lateral movement and quick fast combinations to beat him.
The Holyfield that fought Lewis was'nt capable of throwing those types of combinations, and I'm not sure that he'd be able to use his legs for the whole 12 rounds to get out of Foreman's distance.

As Gil Clancy once said right after his fighter Gerry Cooney had just benn knocked out by Foreman, he said....."Foreman is like a big wave, he just keeps coming and coming until he eventually catches up with you"

Not to say that a 37 year old Holyfield cant or could'nt beat that version of Foreman, but clearly at the very least it would have been a much closer fight.
Certainly Foreman would have had a better shot at catching up and stopping that version of Holyfield who was much slower and less active.

It does'nt make Holyfield not a good Heavyweight, but clearly, the higher in his 30's Holyfield becomes, the more beatable he gets!

 

All very good points and I mostly agree, but I think you may have misunderstood what I said (I could be wrong). I don't think Tyson is top 5 either. I said I thought he deserved to be in the top 5 of anyones Head2Head HW list.