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

Fair call, Holyfield often had to go toe to toe and take plenty of punishment to get his wins, Lewis by contrast had both the power to make an easy night of many challengers as well as the size and boxing ability to fend off an array of fine fighters.

I'd hardly say his opponent level was anything awesome between 88 and 91. Thomas was coming off a devastating stoppage loss to Tyson and hadn't fought in over a year and a half!!! He was **** by then. Tillis need not be taken seriously, and Dokes tho putting up a great fight looked like old man river from the waist down. A Lewis, Bowe or Tyson would have put him away with far less drama. Holyfield didn't destroy Dokes at all, it was very competitive in there. Stewart was a decent win, Douglas was uber fat and already career satisfied after beating Tyson, Foreman was 100 years old and Bert Cooper (24-7) had him reeling.

I think there's more than a little sensationalism going on in that post.

For whatever reason Bowe was a nightmare for Holyfield. This was proven over the long haul. Nobody even bother telling me Holyfield was declined vs Bowe given his sensational efforts a full 3 and 4 years later. I'll grant you Moorer but disagree with Lewis.

It's very simple, he was fighting much easier opposition and when the class went up things got harder, like it did for thousands of others. The likes of Dokes and co aren't in the same league as Tyson, Lewis and Bowe.

When he faced class Evander lacked the one punch power of the other two and had to really put a lot out. This was just the way he rolled. It makes him no less great, just different.

 

This is the thing, Evander often had to war, Lewis in turn could knock decent fighter TFO as well as outbox them without having to war.

 

Erm Holyfield held two world title belts while Holmes hadn't fought in two years and was coming off two losses. Holyfield had beaten Tyson and Moorer just two years earlier.

 

You need to read my posts a lot better.

 

Well Magoo told us he rates Lewis most highly and also stated Holyfield went real well vs Lewis and he thought it close. He also says Holyfield was **** at that time. Something doesn't fit.

I'm here to tell you guys that if Holyfield was as **** as you like to believe then he would have been staring up at the lights at some time. Holyfield still had plenty os smarts and guts as well as a handy dose of skill.

 

Is it clear to you that Lewis was a mere 7-5 favourite? Do you also know how many experts where picking Tyson? Can you name some other fighters that would have been 7-5 underdog or better?

 

Hindsight is everything isn't it just.

 

Nobody pulverizes Holyfield.

What it does is give good base to the arguement Holyfield wasn't as shot as some try to have us believe.

No, no, no, no, no! This misconception is actually brought forth by a brilliant tactical masterpiece by Holyfield. The fighting in spurts is simply Holyfield denying Tyson his feared midrange and allowing himself to tee off then tie up with little return fire taken. It also frustrated Tyson right out of his comfort zone. I didn't see it as a neccessary wind saver at all. Tyson is easily tied up and this is far far better than letting him tee off and knock you into oblivion. Lewis used similar.

Lewis always has that power, and rest assured Holyfield is always going to respect it. Unless memory serves me wrongly i remember stamina questions for Holyfield before Bowe. At any rate it's amusing to find all the pro Holyfield supporters just happening to make the cutoff for "top" Evander just before Bowe touched him up. Very convenient. Never mind his blinders vs Tyson years later. Bottom line, Bowe was big trouble for any Holyfield, for whatever reason. Personally i think his ability to infight for a man of his size had quite a bit to do with it.

If he made mincemeat of Holyfield you guys would be going ballistic, using it as absolute proof Evander was past it.

Lewis did seperate himself tho, any unbiased observer can see that. He won both bouts!

Yesm glad to see you agree he beat a still formidable heavy. I thought you might rate Holyfield higher tho.

 

Lewis fought plenty of fine fighters and wins over a still dangerous Holyfield on top gives him a #3 rank for me. I rate his wins well above Holmes (who never beat a great at all excepting a sick Ali) yet still rate Larry #4.

 

I really do wonder if Lewis' biggest weakness as a fighter is his heritage.

 

Not necessarily have to war JT, Holyfield did'nt war with Big George Foreman, but it was still a taxing fight because Foreman being huge, with a crossed arm defense, and jack hammer jab, would make it difficult for anyone, especially a fighter with the weight disadvantage of Evander Holyfield.

Common sense would tell us that a big skilled Heavyweights like Lewis, Bowe or Foreman, would have to work less to beat a heavyweight who's in the second tier.......but it does'nt make them better than a fighter like Holyfield who does'nt have the height and reach advantage and does'nt have the same power.

Certainly the shelf life of a bigger Heavyweight is bigger on the average, because they dont have to go through the same work and burden to bring down the second tier.

A fighter like Holyfield for example would have had to work to beat even the mental midget that became of Andrew Golata.
Golata after Bowe, would cave in at the first sign of power.
Holyfield did'nt have that bonecrunching type of power that would diffuse Golata's mentality.
Even if Holyfield were to dominate Golata, he'd still have to go rounds and take some punishment in the process.......

Its the perks of being a big punching heavyweight, but it does'nt make them any the better over one that has to work and systematically go through a process to reach victory!

As we can see, Mike Tyson mowed down and stopped many fighters that Holyfield went rounds with, but it did'nt equate to Tyson being able to beat Holyfield!

 

Only in America!

 

I'd love to hear why you would rate Lennox Lewis #3 and Holmes #4.....
......particularly on the reasoning on why you have Lewis over Holmes???????

 

John, what chance did you give Tyson against Lewis in 2002? Did you think it would be a close competitive fight, or that Tyson had basically a puncher's chance?

 

No one thought Tyson would outpoint Lewis.

But you seem to forget that Tyson still looked spectacular in blowing out Golota and a few other fighters. Hadn't been beaten for five years and still had great power. Lewis was 36 himself, an age when 90% of the greats are a shell of theirselfes or retired. He had just been knocked out by a mediocre fighter a year before. He was still seen to have a questionable chin and Tyson had great power to take advantage of that, even if it was only for 4 rounds.

Or Lewis could've aged over night, given his age. A lot of "if's" that made Tyson only a slight underdog. In hindsight we saw that Lewis didn't age overnight, put on a great performance and did not have a glass chin as he took Tyson's best shot without being stunned or staggered or whatever.