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

I meant Heavyweights, but even if we consider all weight classes that's only 3 others, and even then I would dispute Hamed. He only ever held the WBO for any extended length of time.

 

do you care about titles or championships?

He became titlist in 95, became recognized champion with win over Tom Johnson in Feb 97, held title until loss to Barrera April 01. Four+ years

 

:wall Poor old Lewis.. having his legacy battered by Don King, Bowe, dodgy judges and now Jinx!!

 

In terms of determining an "Undisputed" Champ, yes. If there are other guys with belts then it is disputed. Louisito Espinosa was a long-standing FW champ at the same time as Hamed, for example. Smoke Gainer also had the WBA for 3 years. Hamed didn't fight either of them for one reason or another (not necessarily his fault, just saying it was disputed).

Once you beat the other belt holders, the belts themselves become less important. You are undisputed until somebody beats you in the ring.

 

Belts mean nothing and there will ALWAYS be other people with belts. Was Tszyu not the man when they stripped him of the WBA belt?
Is Hatton not the man at 140 b/c Witter has a belt?
Was Lewis not the champ b/c Ruiz had a belt?

And he won all those other belts, but lost them b/c of dumbass title politics, just like what happened to Tszyu, Dairus M and countless others

 

Exactly - Tszyu won all of the belts to become "Undisputed". What happened after was irrelevant.

Hatton may be "the man" in many people's opinion (including mine) but he is NOT "Undisputed Champ" while others hold belts until he unifies them.

Lewis was Undisputed because he unified the belts and didn't lose them in the ring.

 

Tyson no top100 fighter of all time????:rofl atsch Tell me 100 who are better!!

 

Yeah buts lets compare the divisions. You mean to tell me the competition at the top of Lewis's reign was better than Tysons? Tyson competed successfully in the same divison as a full time pot smoker and strip club regular.

 

It was certainly no worse.

 

Is it really such a bad thing to have relatively the same longevity?

In my eyes, Tyson's 9 defences from '87-89 were a worthy body of work.

Pretty small beer arguement...

 

Tyson's reign is from 1986-1989, then 1995-96. That is only that is only 5 years.

Lewis reigned from 1993-1995, 1997-2001, 2002-2003. That is about 10 years.

Whether Lewis was undisputed or not, it is not Lewis' fault that champs are ducking him. :-(

 

He regained the title in 2001.

 

the bottom line is that the resumes aren't that much different (anyone who thinks alot of the mid late 90's guys are better than the supposed crack heads of the 80's is speaking out of their asses). i'll give lewis the resume nod slightly. prime for prime i'll take tyson 7 out of 10 times.

 

YOu become the man by beating the man. Even despite this he won every belt in the ring. WBA- Vazquez, WBC- Soto, IBF- Johnson, WBO- RObinson