Lennox Lewis' longevity...not that much better than Tyson's!

I think this is my favourite post ever. :happy

Unintentional humour is always the funniest kind.
Hilarious!

 

This content is protected

 

He's been officially schooled. Regarding trolling or a declaration of mental ******ation..I'm voting for the latter. Hey this should be a poll question..:rofl

 

So what we are saying is that wins over any of these fighters are meaningless because they had all lost other fights???atsch Sheesh, do me a favour!!! When contenders meet other contenders, they are bound to win some and lose some. The fact that a fighter may have lost to another fighter or two does not render any victory over him worthless. Looks at the late 90s/early 00s lot. Golota lost to Grant who lost to McCline, who lost to Byrd who lost to W. Klitchko, who lost to Sanders (and Brewster), who lost to V. Klitchko who lost to Byrd. Maskaev lost to Tua, who lost to Byrd and drew with Rahman, who lost to Ruiz, who lost to and beat Holyfield. I guess that means none of them were ever any good, right?

Bottom line, when contenders continually fight other contenders, most of them probably are going to take a loss or two on the way. It's styles, it's boxing. Does not mean that any other fighter's win over them is totally worthless. If a couple of Lewis opponents had also lost to Tyson, that's the nature of the game and shows that Tyson was still good enough to be thought of as a top contender. It's not as though Tyson was in with a prayer when he and Lewis fought now is it?

 

Tyson beat a better overall quality of opponents lol, ha ha yeah right of course he did!

 

Whenever you hear about Tyson the term "prime" always comes up, thats because whenever he lost people had to say "oh well in his prime Tyson would have done........", never mind would have done Lennox did it and apart from a couple of iffy spots during his career he was consistent and reliable. Hence why it is apparent that he had more longevity.

 

He was 215 in the first fight and 218 in the second, it wasn't the physical aspect that hindered Tyson it was his deteriorated timing and co-ordination and a lack of head movement, body work and courage.

 

That settles it then.

You are an A-Grade fool.

Take a look at this picture and tell me who you think wins, Dempsey (187) or Jess Willard (245)...

This content is protected

How about Joe Louis (196) vs Primo (260)?

 

Lennox was fundamentally similar to his best from 1993-2003 - with him needing a few adjustments in between e.g. McCall.

Tyson was fundamentally similar to his best from 1986-1991 and I generously threw in 2 years there. Afterwards, he was crap for all his fights except Holy I+II where he was third only to Holy & Lewis IMO. So I give it an extra year. I'd say Tyson had 6 great years (average) whereas Lennox had 11 great years. Also the 2002 fight shows LONGEVITY in terms of style & life styles. The 2002 fight was a pure show of LONGEVITY.

I like Tyson but Lewis is clearly better in this regard. I don't care for formalities like title etc. It is true that Tyson's reign is often underrated (they say he just fought and beat B level fighters - at least he fought & beat them frequently & greatly - we don't even get that today!).

 

Tszyu, Hamed, Hopkins

 

Spin it anyway you want but Lewis owns Tyson.