Is Lennox Lewis Overrated?

theres no way of knowing but i seriously doubt it. Tyson in 2002 was an empty shell
he really had nothing much left after the Holyfield fights. he looked even worse than ever when he fought brian nielsen.
he came into the Lewis fight with 6 years seperating him from any proven decent form. they were matching him with tomato cans for a reason. Even Tyson protested that he wasnt ready for Lennox lewis ! in his moments of sanity.

 

Tyson was befuddled for almost five full rounds by Frans Botha. if he hadnt landed that punch in the 5th he would have probably quit soon after. Byrd was better than Botha.
a 2002 tyson isnt better than the Tua who fought Byrd.

they matched tyson with stiff uprights and stationary targets like Savarese and Golota. guys who were likely to quit and fold before he did. or the walking punch bag Nielsen. Julius freakin' Francis.

Tyson's resume between the Holyfield fights and the Lewis fight is pathetic. a 5-year window of crapness.
his beatings of Don King and (allegedly) F.W. are probably his most wins in that period.

 

That 'stiff upright' Golota would draw and arguably beat Byrd years later, yet Tyson can't? Ettiene had dominated Brewster who would beat Golota and Wlad and Krasniqi. Tyson wasn't taking on a murderer's row of opposition but Byrd is hardly that much of a step up

After 2 years out of boxing Botha gave him a few problems granted, a 2002 Tyson is still much more skilled and quicker than the faded Tua who fought Byrd. Byrd hardly looked great against Tua either. Now why don't we compare that to Byrd - dominated by Wlad, knocked out in 5 by Ibeabuchi, gift decision against Oquendo, draw with Golota. Byrd was never that hard to beat and how the hell is he going to even keep Tyson off him? Who's he beaten who's as quick as even this Tyson?

 

i by no means think Byrd was any sort of exceptional fighter. but i believe tyson post-Holyfield was nothing more than a routine fighter either.
i never said Tyson cant beat him but i wouldnt favour him to do so.
Golota v Byrd v Tyson is a matter of styles.
Golota was better against guys who couldnt hurt him. Byrd has the reach and height to box a shot Tyson in a way he wouldnt have against golota.

i dont think Tyson in 2002 was better than Tua

on the wider point, i simply dont agree that Tyson was a step up from an ordinary contender in 2002. he still had the proverbial punchers chance. but he was so far gone, sloppy technically, in bad condition, and lacking any real desire for the sport he really had slipped.

Throw him in with Holyfield, Ruiz, Wlad, Vitali, Byrd, tua, rahman as they were in 2002, and throw him in with Wlad's 5 or 6 best opponents, and i seriously doubt he'd do better than 50%
i would expect him to lose more than he wins

 

If/when Tyson times Byrdy, its lights out.
If ike could do it, so could Tyson.
Byrd would win the rounds, until Tyson finds the answer, he found it againts Botha and Mathis. Byrd was featherfisted so i cant see him holding Tyson off for long.

 

Some were ignorant enough not to recognize SNV/Etienne as a superfight. atsch

 

I think Byrd would have an excellent chance of beating this version of Tyson :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwKgmKa-P84[/ame]


i cant comapre this version of tyson with Ike Ibeaubuchi or even with the david Tua that fought byrd.