Who is the greatest HW of the last 25 years?

Based on what? His dismantling of Buster Mathis Jr? Or McNeeley?
Or a retina detached terrified Frank Bruno?

Please, I'm wondering how those 8 rounds post prison proved he was a formidable, dangerous opponent?

Or is it the money paid out so that Tyson didn't have to face Lewis? (and face it, Lewis had already been paid squat to be ducked/avoided by Bowe, he might as well get some cash out of someone else doing it, because there was no ****ing way Tysons handlers were putting Tyson in against Lewis)

Or perhaps, it's just a convenient comment with no basis to make Holy look good?

 

lewis. has to be. even george foreman says he is and was the greatest heavyweight of all time.

 

Shannon Briggs was a linear title holder too. Does that make him formidable?

Excellent, because you know who he got demolished by next time out don't you?????

I posted Foremans record. I backed my point up with facts, not a lol!

Prove Foreman was the most dangerous. His record suggests he was brilliantly matched and promoted. There's no way he fought his way into title contention by beating other top contenders.

Bowe was a very good fighter, who could have been great.

Steered clear of big punchers IMO, and was shown up horribly by the Foul Pole.

I don't know how Lewis's conquerers would have gone against Bowe.
I'm pretty sure how Lewis would have gone against Bowe though, as were Rock Newman and Bowe himself.

About as serious a threat as Moorer was considered to Holy, yep.

 

So...... post-jail Tyson was "formidable", "dangerous" and not at all on the downslide,

..... but the Holyfield that Lennox fought WHO WAS RING MAGAZINE #1 AT THE TIME, was washed up?


You're hilarious!

 

I know, I already posted this on the thread:

Tyson was seven years removed from his peak years when Holyfield beat him. His skill were eroded from his long prison stay, drugs, and no longer training, just as Holyfield's reflexes and stamina were in decline when Lewis got him due to him being in too many wars. Both were still good fighters, who held belts and were still well regarded though and weren't shot by any means. If your not going to give Lewis credit for his wins over Evander, than you can't count Evan Fields wins over Tyson.

Lewis wins over Holyfield are perfectly comparable to Holyfield's wins over Tyson. To only count one set of wins shows a pure double standard.

Also if anyone thinks Lewis Holy I was a draw or Lewis Holy II was an Evander please give some round by round scoring.

 

Holyfield was still considered the #1 Heavyweight in the world at the time of the first fight, not just by Ring but by pretty much everyone.

 

Ok, so that was natedog that said that (went back and looked it up) about taking Tyson and Holyfield out of Lewis' resume...for that I apologize...but for the reading comprehension comment...I DEFINATELY DO NOT!!!

I will say this again....I will type it in bold so that you may understand it better....I will even try to use small words....here goes.

I AM A BIGGER TYSON FAN THAN I EVER WAS OR WILL BE A LEWIS FAN!! I HAVE TYSON RANKED AS A TOP TEN HW ALL TIME...THERE IS NOONE NOT GIVING HIM HIS DUE...OR HATING...LEARN TO READ!!!

Understand now?? This isnt dickriding...or true blindness and love for Lewis as you so elequently put it....its me looking at their respective careers, assessing their resumes (as well as the resumes of their opponents), looking at their accomplishments, their skillsets, their H2H ability, their longevity, etc....and coming to a conclusion on who ranks higher in each respective category...not just looking at Mike's domination of the division and ignoring everything else like you are attempting to do. I am using facts and history to come to a conclusion...you should try it.

:good

(So really, do you understand yet??? I know a few of those were big words so it mightve been tough...but if you do, Im proud of you buddy!!! :thumbsup )

 

There is a 17 yr age gap between the fighters so you cant have the same argument as the Hearns/Duran/Hagler/Leonard debate. All were brilliant.

Oh by the way, Holmes laid the blueprint to beat Tyson in the fight he had. Holmes was old and retired, but he did know how to get to Tyson. Im suprised it took so long for anyone to catch on. Holyfield did though.

 

I'll see your Masters ansd raise you 20 years of Engineering experience in the field.

But do you know what relevance that has to boxing?

Precisely .......

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Your lack of boxing insight and poor anaylitical skills have been cruelly exposed in this thread. Even a double masters in Pharmacology and Molecular Biology wouldn't change that.

This content is protected

 

Now you mention it, it is funny how you don't seem to be able to spell or use basic grammar with your ever-so-impressive education.

:yep

I smell bull****.

 

i rate mike tyson because of his sensational consistancy in his prime. There were too many erratic performances from lewis and holyfield

Tyson from 85 to 88 always impressed. Lewis or holyfield never dominated like him in that era. they may have had more title fights but they never had that great dominance of tyson