why i cant make lennox lewis a top 10 all time heavyweight

[Controversial]

Oh dear. So by suggesting Lewis avoided Byrd you must think Byrd would have won, or what point are your trying to make. Because Byrd was avoided by everyone, no one wanted a piece of Byrd (hahahah) What you don't seem to realise is boxing is a lot about marketing and money making. Lewis vs Byrd wouldn't have generated much money as most people outside the boxing world wouldnt know Byrd if they bumped into him. A pointless fight for Lewis and one he would have won anyway. Lewis wanted the big names and the big money. Who can blame him for that?

1/10 for effort. Must try harder.

- The points that I make can be found on the point on the top of your noggin formed from years of wearing the dunce cap.

Your summary of the glass jaw comment is the synopsis of a prodigious school thought regarding Lewis going into the Tyson bout. While Lewis was favored because of the considerable longterm decline of Tyson, huge money was put on the early Tyson KO of Lewis. I included the overranking of Lewis AFTER the bout as a point of extreme references of the ridiculous manner you and your ilk are prone to go in ranking your favorite boys. The idiocy or the disingenuity is yours my little race baiting friend.

Byrd had much more experience with Jameel McCline being his best friend and sparmate against a Vitali type on short notice than Vitali did against the Byrd type which is beyond duplication, but again, yet another example of you not being bright enough to understand basic boxing.

It really don't matter who anyone thinks would win a Byrd/Lewis fight, it's a fact that Byrd got near or at the top of the Ring rankings at one point, became Lewis' mandatory, and Lewis sold his belt to King, taking step aside money rather than fight Byrd. Lewis never fought any of the premiere southpaw challengers of his era, Byrd, Sanders, Moorer, and Oquendo, not even a journeyman southpaw. Looks like he was carefully matched away given the evidence.

Lewis gave up his IBF belt for the disaster that turned out to be the Kirk Johnson bout, a much smaller venue and bout against a lesser ranked contender, so this nonsense about bigger names and bigger money is just you making up your little porkies like some school boy winging his way through his term paper in hopes he can squeeze out a D- to squeeze out a passing grade.

This can be seen in your Rahman/Lewis 1 summary where you blame bad condition for the Lewis loss, when in fact he was easily controlling a slow paced beatdown on Rahman who was looking like the intimidated sack of you against any bully. A near shutout until the single lucky punch, and Rahman did have a great right when he landed it. So you make up lies about stamina and training when those played no factor whatsoever in the fight because some other jughaid made up some nonsense that got spread around.

The comedy part is that you are fully grown and haven't advanced a single step beyond those porkie days of being picked at by teachers and school bullies, a big goof in bigger pants.

You really must learn to speak English. I know you are trying to sound clever but it isn't working.

Did you say Lewis had a glass jaw - Yes
Was you slating Lewis - Yes
Did you name Lewis as a good opponent for VK - Yes
Did Lewis beat VK - Yes
Can you name 10 decent opponents that VK beat - No
Can you name 5 decent opponents that VK beat - No
Are you fighting a losing battle - Yes

[The Great John L]

It really don't matter who anyone thinks would win a Byrd/Lewis fight, it's a fact that Byrd got near or at the top of the Ring rankings at one point, became Lewis' mandatory, and Lewis sold his belt to King, taking step aside money rather than fight Byrd. Lewis never fought any of the premiere southpaw challengers of his era, Byrd, Sanders, Moorer, and Oquendo, not even a journeyman southpaw. Looks like he was carefully matched away given the evidence.

Oquendo wasn't a southpaw my vision challenged friend. And Sanders wasn't a credible opponent, due to his JD Chapman type list of victims, until he stomped Vitali's little brother with about a dozen lucky punches. And as everyone knows Lewis retired, with no credible opposition remaining, a few months later after stomping Vitali with a few dozen lucky punches, thereby completing the dismantling of the Klitschko brothers legend.

Why would Lewis have wanted to waste his time on a Sanders, who's only ring accomplishment was a few lucky punches?

[Ezzard]

Why is Lewis so unpopular with fans and Tyson so popular?

I'm very interested to hear why.

Just popularity. Not who is better etc...

[Controversial]

Why is Lewis so unpopular with fans and Tyson so popular?

I'm very interested to hear why.

Just popularity. Not who is better etc...

Lewis made himself unpopular in Britain because he fought for Canada in the Olympics and then used his London roots to fight under the Union Jack when he turned pro. That alienated him to some boxing fans. Also Lewis wasn't the most interesting character, played chess, was polite and articulate and didn't go out partying unlike Tyson who could flip on a toss of a coin.

Plus Tyson fights were exciting to watch. Lewis could be over cautious and his fights weren't always the most interesting affairs.

Thats what I think anyway.

[Grimm]

Why is Lewis so unpopular with fans and Tyson so popular?

I'm very interested to hear why.

Just popularity. Not who is better etc...

Well, lot's of boxing fans(especially Americans) are mindless "macho" guys and when you look at Lewis' behavior it was nothing of the sort.

Lewis seemed like a guy who could be a librarian.

Tyson seemed like a guy who would rob the library.

[Ezzard]

Fair comments.

Tyson was massively exciting and no doubt brought fans to the sport who previously had not been boxing die-hards.

Yet, his antics including rape and biting turned many off the sport.

There's got to be more to it. A rapist is more popular than a chess player??? Do we really live in a world where this is so?

[Grimm]

Fair comments.

Tyson was massively exciting and no doubt brought fans to the sport who previously had not been boxing die-hards.

Yet, his antics including rape and biting turned many off the sport.

There's got to be more to it. A rapist is more popular than a chess player??? Do we really live in a world where this is so?

Well, more interesting a (alleged) rapist is more interesting than a chess player.

When you look at the news you see outlandish things because it catches people's attention. You never hear about those chess players winning a hard fought battle.

[The Great John L]

Well, more interesting a (alleged) rapist is more interesting than a chess player.

Wasn't Tyson convicted; or did I miss something?

[wouter]

Well, more interesting a (alleged) rapist is more interesting than a chess player.

Wasn't Tyson convicted; or did I miss something?

He was allegedly convicted.

[Grimm]

Well, more interesting a (alleged) rapist is more interesting than a chess player.

Wasn't Tyson convicted; or did I miss something?

Yes he was.

But it hasn't been proved to me beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Ezzard]

See what I mean???

[dempseyfire]

Well, more interesting a (alleged) rapist is more interesting than a chess player.

Wasn't Tyson convicted; or did I miss something?

He was allegedly convicted.

[raylawpc]

Well, more interesting a (alleged) rapist is more interesting than a chess player.

Wasn't Tyson convicted; or did I miss something?

Yes he was.

But it hasn't been proved to me beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

[Collins2000]

Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were also convicted by a jury of their peers.

And their convictions were confirmed on appeal too.

Only problem was they were innocent.

A minor detail I guess, ray.

[The Great John L]

Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were also convicted by a jury of their peers.

And their convictions were confirmed on appeal too.

Only problem was they were innocent.

A minor detail I guess, ray.

What established them as being innocent? Was there new evidence introduced?

[Grimm]

Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

I clearly stated that he was convicted.

It's a matter of whether you believe it or not,which I don't.

I'm sure you have never had to deal with the law and believe that everything they do is right.

[raylawpc]

Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

I clearly stated that he was convicted.

It's a matter of whether you believe it or not,which I don't.

I'm sure you have never had to deal with the law and believe that everything they do is right.

I am a lawyer. I'm 55-years-old and I have had to deal with the courts and the law every day of my life since I started law school in 1978, and before that as a newspaper reporter who covered the courts beginning in 1976. I have been in court for hundreds of cases, and I have tried criminal cases to juries and argued criminal cases before appellate courts.

And as a former newspaper reporter, I know how incomplete those reports can be, regardless of how hard the reporter tries to include all the relevant information.

It has it's flaws and mistakes are sometimes made, but the Anglo-American judicial system is still the best legal system conceived by the mind of man.

That's why it continues to bewilder me that people think they can form accurate "opinions" of what happened from newspaper accounts, and think the 12 people who heard and saw every bit of the admissible evidence somehow got it all wrong.

[The Great John L]

There have been thousands of wrongful convictions though, how did they get that wrong? I have no opinion on tyson's conviction, he was convicted, served his time, end off. But juries are wrong sometimes, maybe not here, but sometimes.

Yes they are, but it would be interesting to hear why anyone wouldn't believe the Tyson conviction.

[Collins2000]

There have been thousands of wrongful convictions though, how did they get that wrong? I have no opinion on tyson's conviction, he was convicted, served his time, end off. But juries are wrong sometimes, maybe not here, but sometimes.

Yes they are, but it would be interesting to hear why anyone wouldn't believe the Tyson conviction.

I thought Tyson's account of what took place seemed more plausible.

That's my opinion.

Your opinion is different, I guess.

Neither of us really know if we are correct.

[raylawpc]

Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were also convicted by a jury of their peers.

And their convictions were confirmed on appeal too.

Only problem was they were innocent.

A minor detail I guess, ray.

I don't know anything about those cases, Collins. But I willing to wager that the convictions weren't overturned because some nitwit believed from newspapers accounts that they were really innocent, and finally got a judge to agree with him. I am willing to bet money that the cases were overturned because somebody found new evidence that exonerated them - probably through a showing that the police either falsified evidence establishing their guilt or withheld evidence that established their innocence. I am willing to bet that they got a new trial and were acquitted on evidence that the original jury never heard.

So far as I know, nobody has ever claimed those grounds for a new trial ever applied in the Tyson case.

[raylawpc]

There have been thousands of wrongful convictions though, how did they get that wrong? I have no opinion on tyson's conviction, he was convicted, served his time, end off. But juries are wrong sometimes, maybe not here, but sometimes.

What part of "It has it's flaws and mistakes are sometimes made," didn't you understand?

If you question the fairness of a conviction in an Anglo-American court, may I suggest that the next time you or a friend or loved one is arrested, that you seek an immediate change of venue to China, Iran or Malaysia?

[Collins2000]

Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were also convicted by a jury of their peers.

And their convictions were confirmed on appeal too.

Only problem was they were innocent.

A minor detail I guess, ray.

I don't know anything about those cases, Collins. But I willing to wager that the convictions weren't overturned because some nitwit believed from newspapers accounts that they were really innocent, and finally got a judge to agree with him. I am willing to bet money that the cases were overturned because somebody found new evidence that exonerated them - probably through a showing that the police either falsified evidence establishing their guilt or withheld evidence that established their innocence. I am willing to bet that they got a new trial and were acquitted on evidence that the original jury never heard.

Of course, ray.

That is how the judicial system works in the UK and the USA. I don't need to be a 55 year old lawyer to know that.

Did I mention anything about "nitwits" convincing judges?

My point is that many innocent people have been found guilty under the system you claim is the best ever conceived by man (and it may well be, I am not arguing against that point, btw). And that guilt has been later confirmed on appeal. Yet they have then been proven to have been totally innocent all along.

This shows, to me anyway, that conviction in a court of law does not always equate to being guilty of a crime.

[raylawpc]

Define "many."

Unless an allegation is made that the evidence was falsified or withheld, I am far more comfortable trusting the verdict of twelve citizens who saw and heard all of the admissible evidence than in an opinion formed by reading the newspapers or sportspages, even if that opinion happens to be my own.

[Collins2000]

Define "many."

Unless an allegation is made that the evidence was falsified or withheld, I am far more comfortable trusting the verdict of twelve citizens who saw and heard all of the admissible evidence than in an opinion formed by reading the newspapers or sportspages, even if that opinion happens to be my own.

Define "sometimes".

If you want me to believe it is rare for innocent people to be convicted in the UK then you are going to have a hard job, ray.

You say you know nothing about the Birminham Six, the Guildford Four, The Maguire Seven. I suggest you read up a bit about those cases. I suspect even you will be hard put to put a positive spin on those convictions.

[Grimm]

Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

I clearly stated that he was convicted.

It's a matter of whether you believe it or not,which I don't.

I'm sure you have never had to deal with the law and believe that everything they do is right.

I am a lawyer. I'm 55-years-old and I have had to deal with the courts and the law every day of my life since I started law school in 1978, and before that as a newspaper reporter who covered the courts beginning in 1976. I have been in court for hundreds of cases, and I have tried criminal cases to juries and argued criminal cases before appellate courts.

And as a former newspaper reporter, I know how incomplete those reports can be, regardless of how hard the reporter tries to include all the relevant information.

It has it's flaws and mistakes are sometimes made, but the Anglo-American judicial system is still the best legal system conceived by the mind of man.

That's why it continues to bewilder me that people think they can form accurate "opinions" of what happened from newspaper accounts, and think the 12 people who heard and saw every bit of the admissible evidence somehow got it all wrong.

And by being a lawyer you would never know what it's like to be fucked by the law because it is usually you that does the fuking.