Comparing Tyson and Lewis' competition

But LL didn't fight the best of the 90's (Moorer and Bowe) While tyson fought just about every one in the 80's, i have seen credible arguments made for Tyson beating better comp, to be honest both men fall short of Holy who had the best comp but to say LL's comp is not only better but far better is to much IMO. Anyway what exactly makes LL's comp far better?

 

Best of the 90s?

Back in 92, the #1 HW was Razor Ruddock. Lewis obliterated him.

Bowe beat Holyfield, but he ducked Lewis.

Moorer's stint at the top was very brief. He narrowly beat an ill Holyfield, then lost to Foreman in the very next fight. Then he fought a bunch of journeyman for a belt, and got koed by Holyfield in a rematch.

The best HW around 96 was thought to be Golota after his performance against Bowe. Lewis obliterated Golota in 1 round.

Then in there is the comebacking Tyson who ducked Lewis and was beaten by Holyfield. Lewis decisively beat Holyfield.

I am not gonna waste my time listing all the top guys Lewis fought in the 90s. The only guys he didn't fight are Tyson (who ducked him), Bowe (who ducked him), Moorer (who was on top only very briefly), Foreman and Holmes (pensioners). Lewis pretty much cleaned out the division.

Tyson didn't fight Witherspoon back in the 80s. Also Holyfield, who was in the top contention already by 1989. At any rate even if Tyson didn fight everybody else in the 80s there was just not enough good opponents back then. Holmes, Spinks, Tucker, Bruno...nobody, save for Tyson huggers, could ever think Tyson had better resume than Lewis.

 

I stand corrected:good

 

This content is protected

 

Lewis never held the WBO bauble, he had the IBO.

 

You mean the many here that even as late as pre McBride, said that if Mike got serious he could clean out the division If anything Tyson has been mythologized as even better than pre prison Mike.

You provide a good historical review and make some fair points in the middle. Then...

Maybe because he rather easily beat MT? No doubt the best chance for Mike vs LL would be the early Tyson. And even then LL could have won. Tyson did not blow out everybody even in the 80s. And it's not like Mike's typical opponent was a LL. But you're just picking the best possible Tyson vs LL. Compare them throughout their careers. No contest - LL the better fighter. If Douglas could stop an early Tyson, LL couldn't at least UD him?

Yes, LL reign was longer. C'mon the comp is comparable... Mike lost to Holy, LL beat him :yep

With exceptions and throw outs, anybody can make a great fighter merely good or average, and a good fighter great or the "best".

Far inferior? Bull. The fighters in the 2000s (I include the latter LL) are at least equal, maybe better than the 80s. And the early Tyson is on the cusp, his prime in the late 80s/early 90s. There's just something about the 80s HWs that you like better than the current/recent guys.

 

atsch

Everybody knows the 80s was a shallow division.


Try to put up a poll as to which HW division was deeper 80s or 90s and result will hopefully get you some senses.

 

Fine lefthook31, that's your analysis. I didn't call you a LL hater either. I think H2H, early, middle, late career, LL is a better fighter than MT. Some agree with me, others don't. Even going by their respective comp, LL compares very well to Tyson. Re Tyson smoking pot or going to strip clubs - so what? That's who he is, that's part of his make up. No reason that should add to (or subtract from) his accomplishments.

 

:-( Witherspoon lost to Bonecrusher which is why they didn't fight and Holy at the time only had 2 or 3 fights. You are a Tyson hater they fought many of the same fighters like Bruno, Holy, Tucker, Golota, Botha, and Biggs but Tyson faced most of them when they were younger and in thier prime, guys like Ruddock, Bruno, Holy, and biggs and Tucker fought Tyson when they were at thier best.