HomicideHenry wrote:nitro5912 wrote:
so mike Tyson isn't an all time great because he lost to buster douglas in his prime?
wladimir isn't an all time great because he lost to corrie sanders or ross purity?
pacman not an all time great because he has plenty of losses throughout his career, at various times?
a prime lennox would have cut down fury like a tree, just like a prime wladimir would have done in my eyes.
he beat the dominate champion because he was the younger man fighting someone who's best was about 7-8yrs ago.
fair play to fury his achievement is fantastic but he really isn't on the same level as a prime lewis, would a developmental lewis get put down by a blown up cruiserweight like cunningham
I never said Mike Tyson wasn't an all-time great, but to say Lennox Lewis defeated the same Mike Tyson who defeated the likes of Spinks, Holmes and others.... would be a complete and utter lie.... He defeated a man who admitted that he did not train one iota, who was only doing it for the money, etc. a complete and utter shell who was worse off than Joe Louis and Jim Jefferies were in their comebacks. Now, the fact that Tyson LOST to a man like Buster Douglas in his "prime" years, does make one question whether Tyson was a top ten all-time great and to that I will argue that he wasn't. He's somewhere in the top fifteen or twenty. I would argue that Vladimir Klitschko is more suited to the top ten, than Mike Tyson, because his loss to Purrity and Sanders was in his developmental and green years. He did not hit his stride until defeating Chris Byrd by KO and rising off the canvas against Peter and then becoming this dominate champion in the vein of Holmes, Louis, Moore, etc.
You bring up the fact Fury was downed by a cruiserweight (possibly one of the top five in the divisions history), but that's the issue. It was a flash knockdown, and he got back up to win and on a knockout. One can clearly see that Fury from the Cunningham fight, is not the same man that defeated Chisora in the rematch so soundly and defeated Klitschko rather easily. Despite his weaknesses early on, he still won fights. Unlike Lewis, who lost as an established champion to relative nobodies like McCall and Rahman (they were fringe contenders at best at the time he fought them first).
bigjack wrote:Fury did very well to beat Wlad,but anyone who thinks he could beat a prime lewis is dreaming,lennox fought big men like grant and walked right through his big right hand and destroyed him,Galota was another he blew away,he also dominated the 2 men he lost to.
The difference between someone like Fury, and someone like Grant.... is depth, and clear evolution as a fighter as time progressed.... Grant, in essence, was the same fighter he was from the start... the best men that he defeated on the way up were men who were at one time contenders but well passed it at the stage that he fought them (Savarese, Gonzalez, Golota) and the rest were journeymen that did not press the issue, which is why Grant was so easily destroyed by Lewis, because he was never tested and he was one dimensional. Fury is anything but one dimensional.
Golota, you bring up, and he's a very interesting case indeed. He was just coming off back to back DQ losses to Riddick Bowe (who clearly was well passed it and fading fast). Golota from that time onward became one of the most inconsistent fighters in boxing history. And maybe, just maybe, when one looks at the record.... prior to Bowe (who was just stripped of the WBO title) Golota seemed to of been a man who feasted on journeymen. The only man he defeated with a winning record, worth anything, was Danell Nicholson. Outside of that, he was fighting men with 16-9-0, 7-14-3, 4-10-0 records. Maybe, just maybe, the Bowe fights were hyped more than they should. Why? Because the fact of business is.... everytime Golota stepped up.... he lost miserably. Lewis stopped him in one round. Tyson (completely shot and washed up) also stopped him. John Ruiz decisioned him, and Lamon Brewster annihilated him. The best performance of his career, was the disputed draw against Chris Byrd and one can argue it was because Byrd was so incredibly small in comparison.
You bring up how Lewis avenged the losses to McCall and Rahman, and he should get credit for doing so.... however.... that still doesnt take away ONE IOTA from the fact that they were both men that he should have never lost to in the first place. Prime years. And this is also why, like Mike Tyson, I do not believe he fits in the top ten. Just outside of it. Had the losses came when he was green, and learning on the job.... it would have been excusable.
J wrote:
so he didn't adapt to Tua's threat by keeping at the end of his jab all night, didn't adapt in the rahman rematch to spark him early and dominate, didn't take it to Vitali rather than box, just leant on tyson? Sorry but you are talking utter bollox.
Again, Tyson was completely shot. Lewis may as well have been fighting a punching bag. Tyson wasn't even a willing participant in that fight. Rahman was a man he should never have lost to, but he did, and the rematch just showed what we already know: the first loss should never of happened (but it did). Tua.... simply couldn't.... why? He was 5'9" fighting a man taller than his billed height of 6'5" with an 85" reach. How can you possibly hit something like that? You can't. It is more to Tua's credit, that he took that many power shots, than it is Lewis "adapting" when its a simple matter of physics.
As far as Klitschko is concerned.... for the first time in his life (with the exception of Mercer and the Zev) he was forced into fighting toe to toe.... because he was fighting a man of equal height, weight, and capability. The fight, of course, had Klitschko ahead on the cards. Both men were tired and could have went at any time at its conclusion. And it was stopped due to a horrible cut. It was an exciting fight, yes. But it is certainly no fight to point to how well Lewis can adapt, or even his greatness, because it showed his vulnerabilities more than his strengths.
