Reasonable but heavily biased defences, especially in the case of Zakman. I don't mind at all that someone has a different opinion - it would be very boring if we all thought the same. However, it's the complete lack of objectivity that I find frustrating and childish. I would love to get someone like Zakman in the same room/bar/whatever and debate this subject to him. That way, he couldn't run away or churn out the same tired lines when I presented him with compelling arguments and facts. :yep
If you actually knew how to score a fight, you would know that was a close but CLEAR victory for Lewis. Try again.
If "second raters" means title holders and long-time top-10 fighters, then what does that make Bert Cooper? Rahman and McCall achieved about as much in the sport as Bowe, who Holy made his name from (made his name from by losing 2 out of 3 by the way...)
Nonsense. Prime Tyson was a great HW no question, however I think you're taking things much too far here. No doubt that I regard Tyson's reign as one of the best ever (as quite a few of my past posts state), however despite countless mesmerising performances against game opposition you're forgetting he had a few off nights as well. If a fighters such as Tony Tucker (with an injured hand) and Bonecrusher Smith can live with a prime Tyson over the duration of a title fight, Lewis is far superior to both these guys and would capatilize where the other failed. Even on his grade A peak-period game Tyson would have problems with Lewis.
Its fault of your chin, while when you lose by points to second-raters like Moorer it is fault of your boxing ability and you definetly cant be the best of your era. Joe Louis was outboxed and KOed by second-rater Schmelling Jack Johnson was TKOed by John Klondike Haines And so on ... Such posts could be created through the years. But the truth remains - Lewis avenged all losses in highly competitive era.
Only because he got knocked out or stopped in every fight he was losing If he'd made it to the final bell against Douglas you can bet your bottom dollar he'd have got the decision, despite losing pretty much every round. I think he was either level or ahead on the cards when he was knocked out, unbelievable.
Yeah, and even then the promoter and the WBC (Word's Biggest Crooks) were trying to tell us Tyson won the fight. ........ by KO ! Damn, boxing is corrupt. :-(
Can't wait for the response to that..... He'll bring up the victories over Tysons shell, no doubt :roll:
I remember the Tyson interview after the fight - "I won the fight, I knocked him out before he knocked me out" :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
This is actually very unfair to Holyfield and Bowe. Bolstering Lewis by attacking Holyfield seems an odd move, since decision wins over a Holyfield in decline are probably Lewis's best results. And the undefeated young Bowe was a tough challenger for the title, by any historical standard. You wont find many challengers of that quality on the records of most greats, so Holyfield should not get hammered too hard for losing that one. It's wrong to say Holyfield made his name with Bowe only. Holyfield was UNDISPUTED champion of the world, with a KO over Buster Douglas, and before that he was number 1 contender for Tyson's title and considered the biggest threat out there, before that he was UNDISPUTED Champion at cruiserweight. Fought one of the last classic 15 rounders in his 12th pro fight. RING MAGAZINE had him as "Fighter of the Year" in 1987 and had him marginally edging Tyson for that honour, despite Tyson's peak popularity. This guy Holyfield has paid his dues over and over. Holyfield and Lewis were both GREAT, that's the bottom line.