Which win was better Tyson ko4 Holmes or Lewis ko4 Rahman

Lewis-Rahman

 

the Rahman win, Tyson's win was over an old Larry Holmes

 

Lewis-Rahman rematch because he avenged his loss and people weren't sure if the first was a fluke or not. Everyone knew Tyson would beat Holmes but that's still a great win because he beat a HOF prime or not.

 

Tyson KO over Holmes was great.

 

a "prime" rahman is about as equal to a 38 year old holmes who went on to put on some nice performaces even into his early 40's and was 18 months off of controversially losing to spinks.

 

tyson will never get the credit he deserves for doing that to holmes .. it still till this day shocks the hell out of people

 

Holmes has more skill in his little finger than Rahman had in his entire body

 

I've gone for Lewis vs Rahman because that 1-2 finish that KO'd Rahman is probably my favourite KO of all time, the noise if the impact is sickening.

 

Rahman has no skills. The only reason he is even a name now is because Lewis didn't train hard for their first fight.

Tyson-Holmes hands down

 

Tough to answer. Obviously Holmes had a lot more pedigree than Rahman, although he was past his best, on the other hand Holmes was able to frustrate Tyson a little bit until the final round whereas Lewis just dominated Rahman from start to finish.
At the end of the day Lewis should never have lost to Rahman in the first place, we all know the circumstances of Lewis losing the first fight so with that in mind both Tyson and Lewis should have been overwhelming favourites to win these respective fights.

I'll say Tyson. Holmes came back and beat Mercer, which I don't think Rahman could have done and he also made a fight of it with a younger Holyfield than the one Rahman fought (IMO Rahman was doing ok with Holyfield too until he turned into nurse Gomez from southpark).

 

What he said :good

 

Clearly Tyson-Holmes.


Rahman was a journeyman fighter, and Lewis never should have lost that first bout. To this day I have no earthly idea why he receives so much credit for beating a guy he never should have lost to in the first place. The rest of Rahman's career is proof of this, as he was consistently beated by middling fighters like Oleg.

Holmes, on the other hand, was an all time great who was a few years out of his primes.

The conclusion is simple. Beating an all time great, especially if he is not in his 40's, is always preferable to beating a glorifed journeyman. atsch

 

Right. Holmes was not that old when Tyson beat him. I believe he was 35. And Holmes was still beating sometimes contender like Mercer a decade later. So, he was still pretty good. Rahman, on the other hand, is, was, and always will be a journeyman fighter. Lewis never should have lost that fight and he deserves little credit for beating Rahman in the rematch. Not even a top ten win for Lewis.

 

The Rahman lost was the worst of Lewis' career and it is why I always hesistate when considering him as a top ten heavyweight. I simply cannot conceive of other, more dedicated fighters like Evander Holyfield losing to middling talent, like Rahman, in their primes.

 

Win over a has been is better than win over a never been. Tyson KO4 Holmes.

Ps. Tyson or Holmes in their prime would have raped Lennox.