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

I'll just answer this one and bow out.

The sheer fact that Holyfield went 24 with Lewis proves he was far from past it. He wasn't in there with no mug, he was in there with one of the greatest and most dangerous men in history. One particular uppercut will live long in memory, yet Holyfield took it. Common sense would tell us that what Holyfield did with Ruiz has sweet stuff all to do with how well he fought vs Lewis. Holyfield gave his all in these two and came up short, at this stage of his career he was hardly going to turn around and spark up for a bout vs a Ruiz like he did vs Lewis for the undisputed champion of the world rights not to mention historical standing points. This is pretty easy to fathom, yet some continue to point and yell toward the Ruiz efforts. Great fighters get up for big fights even later in their career but small fights get harder and harder.

 

Just because Holyfield was capable of taking Lewis's shots and going the distance, is not an indication that he still had much fire in the furnace. As I said before, he looked bad against Ruiz a year earlier and would go on to looking like **** against Donald, Toney and Byrd not long after. This is to say nothing about the fact that he sustained an incredible amount of punishment over the previous decade and went through spells of inactivity and health issues. Personally, I also disagree with your claim that Lewis had the style to beat a prime Holyfield. Lewis was unable to dominate a faded Evander, and what's more, had these two men met around 1992, ( which I still don't think was a peak Holyfield ) Lewis would have been too inexperienced and missing Manny Steward. He would not have known how to handle A very aggressive, hungry, tenacious, and almost unstoppable Holyfield. Look at the wars that Evander had against Dwight Qawi, Michael Dokes and Riddick Bowe. Lewis never engaged in battles like these in his life. Next I'm guessing that you'll illude to the fact that he's still around winning today suggesting that he couldn't possibly have been past it against Lewis in 1998. My response to this would be that Holyfield could go on fighting men like Fres Oquendo and Vinny Madelone until he's well into his 50's and it wouldn't prove a thing, nor give us any indication of how good or bad he was in 1998 or 1988. It's totally irrelevant.

 

Lewis aged very well. Tyson didn't. His light shone a lot brighter but faded a lot faster. Lewis shouldn't get any credit for beating a washed up shadow of the man we once knew as Iron Mike Tyson. Essentially Lewis beat the same man as McBride and Williams. '86-'88 Tyson would destroy any version of Lewis anyone who thinks different is ******ed or deluded. Quite possibly both.

 

I think that you're getting a bit carried away by implying that I'm discrediting Lewis, and perhaps missed the point of my post, which was that Lewis never defeated a peak Holyfield and probably couldn't. As a matter of fact, I think that you're grossly trivializing Evander's tendency to get lured into wars as a flaw on his part, when in fact, it was actually to his credit that he was capable of banging with bigger, stronger, younger men and often emerged victorious. His heart and guts exemplifies everything that a true champion should be. Lewis couldn't even handle the likes of McCall and Rahman when they had him in trouble. There is no question in my mind as to who is the better of these two.

.......And that is the Real Deal.......

 

Yes you're right he didn't because by the time he faced Frank Bruno in '89 he had slipped substantially so. After '88 Lewis would have most probably beaten Tyson.

 

Actually, I think he's rather underrated at heavyweight. I grew up watching Evander from the time he was in the 84' Olympics right up to his most recent win over Lou Savarese. In his early years as a heavyweight, the fans and critics were all over him for being a "beefed up cruiserweight" who couldn't punch nor take a heavyweight beating. Needless to say, he proved them all wrong. A lot of people thought that Buster Douglas was going to retain his belt. Not the case. After losing to Riddick Bowe the first time, few thought that he would rebound to beat Bowe. You know what happened. after leaving the ring in 1994 due to health issues, many thought that he would get pulverized by Tyson, upon his return. Wrong again. In 1998, most felt that Lewis would have a field day against Holyfield. That so called field day lasted 24 rounds. To this day, a lot of experts only have Holyfield rated at about #8 or #9 on an all time list, while some don't even have him at top ten, despite his being a 4 time world champion? If anyone is overrating Holyfield then I have yet to see it, however I'll be happy to do the job, although I'm not sure I'd call it overrating.

 

Those opponents were petrified for good reason. People tend to forget how truly great and fearsome Mike was in hey day. They saw his downfall deduce that he never was that great in the first place. At this moment in time prime Mike Tyson is highly underrated.

You're entitled to your own opinion. I just happen to strongly disagree with you that's all.

 

I think he gets too little for Holyfield, he was still the best fighter around and the toughest challenge at that time IMO. As for Tyson, well possibly a little too much credit, Tyson was crap after the first round.

 

Yes that was quite arrogant of me but I was following your "either daft or called Zakman. Quite possible both" quote.

But yes what I said wasn't really fair and isn't really representative of my usual demeanour. I apologise.

 

Depends on who you talk to. Some people here idolize him and say that a peak tyson was the G.O.A.T, while others lean too far in the other direction and say that he wasn't even top ten.

Both views are a bit extreme for my liking, although I will say that the haters usually tend to surpass the nuthuggers in their idiocy.

 

Yes I know what you're saying. I just feel that even the more reasonable people (excluding the nuthuggers and haters) seem to forget just how great a young Tyson was for a short time. I think he deserves a spot in the top half of anyones top 10 head to head HW list. He is often completely omitted which isn't reasonable.

 

I was starting to think you'd come to your senses but the last sentance changed my mind.

 

Both agree and disagree.

I feel that Tyson was definately an all time great for the following reasons:

A. He was the youngest HW champ in history.

B. He was the first to unify the title

C. He ducked no one

D. He had at least 10 successful title defenses

E. Defeated his best opponents in more decisive fashion than most greats did against their best opposition.

F. He managed to regain the title ( or at least a fragment of it ) at a later stage in his career and after an extended layoff.

Here is why I don't think that he's top 5.

A. His prime was too short lived

B. He was dethroned by a fighter who was barely qualified to be a title challenger.

C. He was Knocked out 6 times in his career mainly by fighters who were either past their primes or not very good to begin with.

D. He had way too many problems both in and out of the ring, leading to his demise.

E. He never actually defeated a superbly great fighter in the prime of his career.

That being said, I think Tyson is probably worthy of about a #7 or #8 spot depending on what day of the week it is, and how I'm feeling. Some have him as high as #1, which is inordinately generous, while others don't even have him as an all time great, which is ridiculous. I'm guessing that the reasons for the extreme views on both sides stem from the hater's disdain for Tyson as a human being, while the lovers were mesmerized by the memory of his charisma and temporary ora of invincibilty. Both views are biased and overly saturated with emotion rather than logic in my opinion.

 

Personaly I think he gets too much credit for beating Yyson and not enough for beating Holyfield.

 

H2H Tyson is easily top 10, as is Lewis in my view, perhaps both are top 5. Careerwise though, the edge has to go to Lewis if longivity counts for anything.

Personally I don't recall anyone not having Tyson in their top 10 H2H, but it often gets muddled up with rating him in terms of being an ATG fighter as he is lower in these terms than he is on a H2H basis. I think if you mix in the two factors you'd have him somewhere just inside the top 10. But as mentioned if you only considered a mythical H2H list he'd be in my top 5. That's my take on it anyway.

As far as weighing his wins over Tyson and Holyfield, the Holyfield win means more and the Tyson win only fits in when assessing the three fighters in terms of ranking them against each other. If it's extremely close this could be a factor, but certainly their whole careers have to be put into context as well. Personally I don't think the Tyson win means much, but on the other hand if Lewis lost, it probably would have meant a great deal, which I don't like cause I think it's a double standard. Neither am I a huge fan of someone coming into a fight with build in excusses as to why they didn't win. Seems to me that makes the whole fight pointless.