Why don't Tyson and Holyfield take Lewis Seriously

Oh oh pick me teach.

The answer to that question is so that Lewis could get room and leverage to land those upper cuts. You remember which one's don't you? The one's that rocked Tyson to the core.

That chicken was just getting started in giving Tyson the **** kicking of his life.

 

You do realise you come across as an imbecile when all you to is criticise the manner in which LEWIS WON. don't you?

And we're not just talking about a normal imbecile, no this is first class stuff.

 

Maybe you should go back and watch the commentary between rounds with Steward and Lewis. It was actually quite embarrassing for Lewis telling Steward tell the ref hes holding tell the ref hes head butting. Steward says shut up pu**y your in a fight go fight it out. To Lewis credit he did go in and fight and showed some *****, but this was Ray Mercer not Tyson or Holyfield, and lets take a look at how many Ko's Tyson actually created while fighting on the INSIDE. Maybe 90% of them more more. To say he was a sh it inside fighter is laughable. :deal

 

There's a difference from being a great mid range fighter and an inside fighter but obviously the difference is completely lost on you.

As for the fight itself you really don't appear to have watched it. It was a butt kicking performance from being to end. In fact after the fight Foreman said that Lewis was the best heavyweight period, that included Ali, and that this was worst beating that Tyson ever took, and yet incredibly you find away to discredit Lewis for what? Winning every round? Knocking Tyson down twice? Hitting him at will with upper cuts and the over hand right? I mean when a guy wins every round, knocks his opponent out, manhandles him at will and yet you still find away to criticise his performance it's pretty hard to take you seriously.

 

Because Holyfield had belts which Lewis wanted.

The point still stands in regards to
Your initial comment, Holyfield was shot hence why Lewis OWN trainer told evander to retire in 98

 

He was shot for Lewis but I suppose he was in his prime against Tyson....

 

I'm not reading anything in it, but I also find it hard to find much fault in Lewis' performance and I certainly don't see much in that fight to bolster the suggestion that Tyson would win in their prime. I'm not saying he would or he wouldn't because I just don't know, I certainly wouldn't pick this fight to provide any ammunition to support his case.

 

Vanboxingfan must be a Lemmie stalker or simply is on his payroll constantly waxing him to high heaven......... Pac fans are really bad but this queen takes it to another level about a fighter who retired almost a decade and a half ago...... the moment someone is mentioning Lemmie he is on it like flys on honey, every single time , no misses, guaranteed.

 

Since when does anything Foreman say make sense? Lewis beat a complete shell of Tyson and anyone with any sense knows that. If you can't put a fight in the proper perspective what's the use of discussing it? I suppose you believe Lewis dominated a mentally stable and fit Oliver Mcall in the rematch so that should erase his embarrassing knock out loss in the first fight?

 

No, the point stands that Steward made out he was concerned for Holyfield's health but still allowed his fighter to go in with him " twice ". If he was that bothered he could have waited for Holy to lose to someone else, then get Lewis prepared for a fight with that guy.

 

Possibly because he knows about the fighter he is talking about. Both his faults, and his attributes. Unlike the fuking idiot Tyson fan boys, who live in a fantasy world, of what he coulda, woulda, shoulda, done.

It is them who are the moronic kunts, on this and every other thread, they contaminate with their schoolgirl like crushes on the freak.

They have now over taken Pacturds as the official scum of the internet.

 

No one's arguing that he didn't beat a shell of Tyson, but why criticise his performance? That's what I don't understand?

 

Maybe that's how you see it, I see it as providing balance to a bunch of Neanderthal idiots who have never ****ysed anything in their pathetic lives.

Just balance the ****ing comments with some sort of reality. and if you want balance, check how many times I've referred to Tyson as the ****** etc. (which until this post was none, cause I have no desire to call any fighter names) verses the Lemmie, the glass chin, Lummox and every other bull**** name that comes to mind, and I'm the one who's being criticized?

Check the fuxing mirror buddy.

I mean, he get criticized for the Mercer fight, for the Tyson fight and for the Vitali fight, all fights he WON for fux sakes.

As for who would win in their primes I've always maintained it's a 50/50 pick.

 

More importantly pertaining to the thread title, why would Lewis take Holyfield, or Tyson any more seriously than any of the other fools he beat?

Wins are wins.Just 2 more names on his resume.