Lewis vs Tyson primes

Prime Tyson who couldnt take out Smith, Ruddock, green, tucker........ oh yeah guys that were so much tougher than Lewis lol you get better all the time JLC, sonnybox, paul whatever you want to call yourself today lol.

 

lets go with the tyson in the berbick fight to settle all the time frames of which tyson we're talking about.this flavor of tyson in my opinion is him at his finest,this was the first fight in which mike was on his his way to unifying all the titles.now which flavor of lewis do we go with?

 

Tyson was at his peak against Spinks.

 

No, you selectively took from my argument and omitted other unspoken premises, things such as "Prime Tyson was faster than both Rahman and Tua." I'd expect any knowledgable fan to understand that implicitly, but I forgot I have to write for both the rubes and the knowledgable fan. Point taken. Tyson hits harder than Rahman, who has proven he has enough power to 1-punch KO Lewis. Tua did not have enough speed (or conditioning) to overcome Prime "

This content is protected

" Lewis. Prime Tyson was both faster and had better conditioning and footwork than either Rahman or Tua. Etc., etc. Continue the reasoning and syllogisms-creation until you come to the conclusion I've arrived at.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about (syllogisms involving Tyson and Lewis):

P1- Rahman 1-punch-KO'd Lewis
P2- Prime Tyson hits harder than Rahman
-------------------------------------------------
C- Prime Tyson could 1-punch-KO Lewis

or:

P1- McCall 1-punch-TKO'd Lewis
P2- Prime Tyson hits at least as hard as McCall
----------------------------------------------------------
C - Prime Tyson could 1-punch-TKO Lewis


Thinking logically isn't difficult. That is, when you're used to doing it, and you don't have your "hugger" glasses on.

What's especially useful with Lewis is that his 1-punch KO/TKO defeats came at different ages (one at the age of 29, one at the age of 35), so the theory of his being 'past his prime' when he was 1-punch KO'd/TKO'd is out the window. You dont get much more prime than 29. His style changed after McCall, but his chin remained as shoddy as it started, as weak as was in his 'prime.'

How much remedial boxing instruction do you need, codeman, just so I know for future posts/articles? Can I assume you know what the different weight divisions are named, or will that, too, need to be explicitly stated?

Here's your first lesson: A "heavyweight," as that term is used in professional boxing involving a man fighting a man, is currently defined as someone who fights at a weight of 200+ lbs. That definition has changed over time. More can be learned here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavyweight

No charge for my first lesson.

 

I have no relation to JLC, Sonnybox, or anyone else. I only post under my own handle. Always have, always will.

And if you think Tyson was "Prime" against Ruddock, you should recuse yourself from this discussion immediately. You do have a car to power with your feet, don't you? Best work on those callouses.

 

I tell you what, I'll save you guys the hassle of getting to know me and my writing. It'll save both of our time. I write, professionally, and I often post on the site sportsjournalists.com under the handle "Rokski," as well as under the handle "rokski2."

Here's the site's main forum link:

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php

(BTW:I am in no way affiliated with sportsjournalists.com, so this isn't a plug for profit)


...and here's a link to my two profiles, which have 'post histories' (the link is 'show the last posts of this person') on each of them:

Rokski:
http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6899

rokski2:
http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=7991


If you doubt my intelligence, ability to write, or how my writing stacks up against professional sports writers,' go to sportsjournalists.com and see for yourself. Don't take my word for it, read what the other posters say about me.

As I said, hopefully this will save all of our time in the future.

Peace. :good

 

Woohoo!

Okay, first of all, just to get this out of the way, let us both concede that nothing that either of us says will change the other's view on this matter. It is clear that we both have our opinions on it, and that since we have arrived at those opinions using different methods, there is little reason to believe that one of us will be able to change the other's mind. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

Your logic is too simplistic, and it doesn't arrive at a definite conclusion anyways. Yes, Rahman KOd Lewis with one punch, but that merely proves that Tyson is CAPABLE of KOing Lewis with one punch. I think most people would concede that MOST very good heavyweights are physically capable of KOing most other HWs with one punch. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone, and of course most fights do NOT end in one punch, but most hard hitting heavyweights always have what we call "A puncher's chance" if only because they are very large powerful professional boxers.

First, Lennox Lewis's chin is not glass. You can look at countless Lewis fights where he is hit clean by very hard punchers and not KOd. It's very easy to remember the times that he was, because those instances stand out far more clearly than the times that he wasn't. Watching him fight Klitschko, or Tua, or Briggs clearly demonstrates that there was PROBABLY some other variable in the mix for his McCall and Rahman KO losses. For Rahman, being on the movie set for as long as he was probably didn't help much, also there was the fact that Lewis was clearly underestimating Rahman, as demonstrated by the fact that he easily handled him in their rematch.

There is about a .1% chance that Lewis underestimates Tyson and comes in unprepared, showing off open for a perfect shot.

I tend to use former fights versus similar fighters as my primary basis for judging hypothetical head to head matchups. In this case, the BEST fight to look at, though it is certainly not definitive, is obviously their actual fight. The way Lewis absolutely dominated Tyson does not prove that it would be the same outcome in a prime for prime fight, but it does lend great evidence for it.

Other than that, the closest fighter to Tyson that Lewis fought was probably Tua. Tua landed clean quite a few times but was unable to hurt Lewis, Lewis beat Tua very convincingly.

With Tyson, and this may be a bit biased but I can't think of a better comparison off the top of my head, I tend to look at the Douglas fight.

Your logic isn't wrong, but I don't think the fact that Tyson COULD KO Lewis with one punch means that he WOULD KO Lewis with one punch more than 1 or 2 out of 10 times.

Tyson never beat, nor did anything that suggests he could beat, a fighter of Lennox Lewis' calibre, whereas Lennox has beaten great fighters before. This is a hugely important fact, one that I think overwhelms pretty much anything else. Couple that with the fact that Tyson lost badly to Lewis when they did fight outside of their primes, and the fact that looking at the stylistic matchup, when they fought similar fighters, Lewis won and Tyson lost, to me leads to only one logical conclusion.

Lennox Lewis KO 8-11.

 

Spoken (actually, "spelled") as a true Brit/member of the UK.

At least you have a mind, and can see the validity and soundness of my conclusions.

We can agree to disagree.

 

Actually, I am 100% American I just tend to spell it both ways.

Seriously.

And yes, on a personal level, we do agree to disagree, but **** YOU for insinuating that I have no idea what I am talking about and need a lesson on boxing history from your stupid ass. As if posting on some OTHER forum or writing for some OTHER site for no profit makes you Bert ****ing Sugar. Go write a ****ing book, *******.

 

Bert sugar doesnt know **** about boxing.:yep

 

Hahaha, yes, I actually agree with you.

He was just the first, like, well known boxing historian I could think of.

 

No, friend, f*ck you. You started the insinuation game, and I concluded it. Another axiom of boxing: "Don't stalk a puncher."

Don't make that mistake again, and you won't be typing-out meaningless "f*ck you's" which only expose your own insinuation-game attempts.

Save us both the hassle, please.

 

He knows some, but not nearly as much as he thinks he does, IMO. But far more than many would-be 'historians' (yes, Max Kellerman, that list includes you).

Bert's a talker, which makes sense since he has a law degree. He's always been a good self-promoter.

Personally, I'm ok with him.

Oh, and I think he posts on the main forum sometimes.

 

Hey, master writer.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insinuate

Read it. I never insinuated anything. I SAID it, you ****ing moron.

 

Also, for the love of God, this is the internet alright. If you are too much of a ***** to type four letters in a row, by all means, say something else. Fitting in a little star in place of one of the letters just makes you look like a jackass.