Lennox Lewis: Is He in the Great Larry Holmes' Class?

[MrGuy]

Nobody said Douglas was better than Holyfield. Douglas beat him while he was a viable fighter. Holyfield beat him while he well past it. This comparison is supposed to show Tucker wasn't allegedlly over the hill for the Lewis fight how? Nobody said Tyson didn't fight cans at the beginning or end of his career. Its been pointed out thats all Tucker fought from start to finish. Of course you're the same guy claiming Tucker was in his prime for Lewis.

Yes you did, by implication. You claimed Tyson beating Tucker 6 years previously to Lewis makes him the better fighter. Therefore by your own perverted logic Douglas must be superior to Holyfield for exactly the same reason. Then again your one of those moronic goons who thinks tyson's prime was between the ages of 20 and 23.

In other words until the rapist scum got beat.

Even more hilarious is your fanboy claim Tyson was " past it " when the 34 year old Holy ( who was selected because he was rumoured to have health issues ) beat him, even though I guarantee you were one of the millions of Murican idiots who had paid to watch the beastie batter those worthless tomato cans McNeeley, Mathis, Bruno and Seldon, screaming like a little girl that their little rapist hero Mikey was " BACK "

Hindsight always has 20 / 20 vision.

Tucker was in no worse condition, or any the worse for wear when Lewis became the first man to drop him, than he was when he exposed the sex beasts limitations.

Never said he was the better fighter. Said he beat a far better version of Tucker. Tyson was done by the time he returned. If you think Tucker in his 13th year of the sport was as good as he was mid career, you're completely clueless.

[Ambling Alp II]

Is this a joke? You might want to take a look at those two lists again. Overall, fighters on the list of fighters that Tyson fought was vastly superior to the list of the opponents Tucker fought. Not even remotely close.

[MrGuy]

Yes you did, by implication. You claimed Tyson beating Tucker 6 years previously to Lewis makes him the better fighter. Therefore by your own perverted logic Douglas must be superior to Holyfield for exactly the same reason. Then again your one of those moronic goons who thinks tyson's prime was between the ages of 20 and 23.

In other words until the rapist scum got beat.

Even more hilarious is your fanboy claim Tyson was " past it " when the 34 year old Holy ( who was selected because he was rumoured to have health issues ) beat him, even though I guarantee you were one of the millions of Murican idiots who had paid to watch the beastie batter those worthless tomato cans McNeeley, Mathis, Bruno and Seldon, screaming like a little girl that their little rapist hero Mikey was " BACK "

Hindsight always has 20 / 20 vision.

Tucker was in no worse condition, or any the worse for wear when Lewis became the first man to drop him, than he was when he exposed the sex beasts limitations.

Never said he was the better fighter. Said he beat a far better version of Tucker. Tyson was done by the time he returned. If you think Tucker in his 13th year of the sport was as good as he was mid career, you're completely clueless.

There are too many examples of fighters who have become better fighters as they have aged for your simple little brain to comprehend, therefore it is not worth the effort of giving you their names. Suffice to say all you need to know is Tucker had 14 fights between Tyson and Lewis, winning all of them, 10 by stoppage. Fighting exactly the kind of shite that Tyson fought.

For your information here are their respective 14 fights after they met.

TUCKER.

Homsey
Jones
Evans
Rouse
Washington
Thomas
Norris
Odum
Faulkner
Contreras
McCall
Martin
Poirier
Swindell.

THE RAPIST

Biggs
Holmes
Tubbs
Spinks
Bruno
Williams
Douglas LOST
Tillman
Stewart
Ruddock
Ruddock
McNeeley
Mathis It might as well have been Johnny
Bruno
Seldon.

And you want to sit there mouthing off with your pea sized brain claiming Tucker only fought tomato cans. You must have worked seriously hard to be that thick.

Many fighters get better with age. But that far on? Provide a list of fighters that were better in their 13th year as opposed to 7th.

[Controversial]

I can't see how these compare, Tuckers competition was far worse out of the below. Nine of Tysons fights were title fights* and most of the others against top contenders.

Tuckers best wins out the below were Orlin Norris and Oliver McCall, both which he won by SD, the others were all pretty poor.

TUCKER

Homsey (11-7-1)
Jones (12-3)
Evans (19-3-1)
Rouse (12-4-1)
Washington (11-7)
Thomas (7-5-1)
Norris (29-2)
Odum (12-6)
Faulkner (9-3)
Contreras (9-1-1)
McCall (19-4)
Martin (18-14-1)
Poirier (30-1)
Swindell (26-7-1)
Combined record: 224-77-8


TYSON

Biggs (15-0)*
Holmes (48-2)*
Tubbs (24-1)*
Spinks (31-0)*
Bruno (32-2)*
Williams (22-2)*
Douglas (29-4-1)*
Tillman (20-4)
Stewart (26-1)
Ruddock (25-1-1)
Ruddock (25-2-1)
McNeeley (36-1)
Mathis (20-0)
Bruno (40-4)*
Seldon (33-3)*
Combined record: 426-27-4

[ewenhay]

I think the publishing of the lists has pretty much closed the Tucker Tyson debate if it was ever in doubt in the first place.

[Ambling Alp II]

Come on man. A lot of could not stand Tyson, myself included. Doesn't mean you have to be ridiculous about him and his opponents.

[Controversial]

Tyson’s wins are no worse than a lot of other HWs. Holmes fought a few nobodies and struggled to win In some fights. Holyfield beat an even older Holmes and Foreman and won/lost against Bowe who didn’t beat anyone else of note. If Tyson was that bad why are people saying he was one of Holyfields greatest wins.

[Controversial]

Tyson’s wins are no worse than a lot of other HWs. Holmes fought a few nobodies and struggled to win In some fights. Holyfield beat an even older Holmes and Foreman and won/lost against Bowe who didn’t beat anyone else of note.

If Tyson was that bad why are people saying he was one of Holyfields greatest wins.

That might well be due to the fact that 12 - 1 underdogs don't usually win in a 2 horse race.

What has the odds got to do with it? The argument seems to be that Tyson didn’t beat anyone any good, they were all bums or past it. If that is the case and Tyson is that bad, and he is Holyfields best win, then it doesn’t say much for Holyfield.

[Controversial]

That might well be due to the fact that 12 - 1 underdogs don't usually win in a 2 horse race.

What has the odds got to do with it?

The odds have got " everything " to do with it. The day you ever find out that bookmakers are in fact charities that love giving money away, be sure to let us know.

In other words it is Tysons second worst defeat as much as it is Holys best win. The first being getting beat the fuk up then stopped by a 42 - 1 shot.

That’s because bookies work on things like form and expert opinions, both which are often wrong or misinterpreted. That’s why no one really gave Douglas a chance or Holyfield as he looked like a fighter past it. Underdogs do win in boxing, just as Lennox was knocked out twice by underdogs. Its not surprising when it’s a 50/50 contest. The “hole in one gang” took the bookies to the cleaners so the bookies do make big mistakes too.

It’s one thing to dislike Tyson but to say he was crap and never beat anyone decent is taking the hatred too far. As I said you could go through anyone’s opponents and tear them apart and make arguments for them being overrated.

[ewenhay]

That might well be due to the fact that 12 - 1 underdogs don't usually win in a 2 horse race.

What has the odds got to do with it?

The odds have got " everything " to do with it. The day you ever find out that bookmakers are in fact charities that love giving money away, be sure to let us know.

In other words it is Tysons second worst defeat as much as it is Holys best win. The first being getting beat the fuk up then stopped by a 42 - 1 shot.

That's not how bookies work. If people place a lot of money on Tyson winning then his odds will shorten and Holyfield's will widen. If Holyfield was 42/1 then that primarily means that too many people had put money on Tyson for the bookies' liking.

And vice versa.

[Controversial]

Firstly bookies rarely make mistakes. Lewis was beaten by underdogs, but neither of them were anything like 12 - 1 ( some folks were even getting 20's on Holyfield when the fight was announced. I took 12's about a week before the fight ) underdogs, never mind 42 - 1.

Of course bookies use experts to calculate odds, which is why Douglas having been stopped by both Bey, and White, looked garbage against Ferguson, and quit against Tucker in a fight that was dead even was considered to have less than no chance.

Similarly, Holyfield having been beaten twice by Bowe, plus Michael Moorer, and having looked crap against Czyz, and just to top it off was reported as having an irregular heartbeat was also written off as a serious threat. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the reality is at the time there were serious concerns for Evander's long term health.

We are not talking about someone in their late 30's here, with one eye on retirement. This was a 23 year old, and a hungry 30 year old trying to get as much money as possible, without having to face any real threats, who was slaughtered by massive underdogs.

I woundn't say its rare, lots of underdogs have beaten the favourite, not only in boxing but every sport. Its rare for bookies to be in deficit at the end of the day yes, but not necessarily rare to be in deficit after one sporting upset. They normally cover any losses on other events.

The 42-1 odds were set by only one casino in Vegas, they weren't universal odds, nowhere else would even take that bet as it was seen as a forgone conclusion, they were betting on which round it would end, which of course is far harder to predict than just picking one winner. Its not uncommon for the better fighter to lose to underdogs, it normally happens because fighters underestimate them, don't train too hard and look past them. Louis, Ali and Lewis all lost to lesser foes and later claimed they underestimated them. As has been said before why would Tyson train his arse off and focus on Douglas when no one gave him a chance. He was meant to be a warmup for Holyfield, its well documented Tyson was cutting corners in training and needed to crash diet as he was so overweight. Yes that's Tysons mistake but he wasn't the first and won't be the last to learn the hard way.

Below is an interesting read on the odds that casino set and the reason behind it. Unsurprisingly they still made money despite some people betting on Douglas.

""Just like Don King, Mike Tyson’s inimitable promoter, and Tyson and James “Buster” Douglas themselves, longtime Las Vegas bookmaker Jimmy Vaccaro had a pivotal role in making the Tokyo fight on Feb. 11, 1990, a historic occasion.

How so?

Then working at The Mirage, a Vegas casino, Vaccaro has the distinction of being the one associated with the now-famous 42-to-1 odds placed on Douglas.

“I was the only one who posted odds on that fight,” Vaccaro said in a recent interview with Gambling Online Magazine. “Everybody who booked the Tyson fights at that time would just have a round proposition, over or under a certain amount of rounds. And I thought that was phony, because you can make the odds high enough to get two-way action. That’s what line-making and bookmaking is all about.”

He added: ” I opened the Buster Douglas/Tyson fight at 27-to-1 and people jumped on Tyson. The first bet I took was for $81,000 to win $3,000. I moved it to 32-to-1 and the next guy bet something like $93,000 to win $3,000. And since we were the only place offering odds, everybody had to come to The Mirage if they wanted to bet. … So, eventually it got up to 42-to-1 and by adjusting numbers to get two-way action, we were in a spot where if Tyson lost we could win $104,000 and if Tyson won we would gain $3,000. So we had no risk in the outcome and great publicity with every news outlet in the world coming to the Mirage. And after Tyson lost, we were the only place that could talk about it because we were the only ones who had odds on the fight.

“In the world of Las Vegas sports wagering, there’s no such thing as a ‘sure thing.’ Never was that old adage truer than on that February night when the 42-to-1 long shot shocked the world by knocking out Tyson in the 10th round to become the new heavyweight champion. One bettor had placed $1,500 on Douglas at 38-to-1 for a $57,000 payday.”"

[Controversial]

Yes I’m sure they set odds but I doubt any bookmaker in the U.K. gave odds anywhere near 42-1 purely to predict any Douglas win. I only mentioned the odds as you were the one who bought them up. I was just pointing out there was a story behind the 42-1 headlines. The odds for Rahman to beat Lewis were probably not far off what they set for Douglas.

[ewenhay]

The odds have got " everything " to do with it. The day you ever find out that bookmakers are in fact charities that love giving money away, be sure to let us know.

In other words it is Tysons second worst defeat as much as it is Holys best win. The first being getting beat the fuk up then stopped by a 42 - 1 shot.

That's not how bookies work. If people place a lot of money on Tyson winning then his odds will shorten and Holyfield's will widen. If Holyfield was 42/1 then that primarily means that too many people had put money on Tyson for the bookies' liking.

And vice versa.

Ffs. It is EXACTLY how bookies work. They offer HUGE odds on the underdog to entice people to back him, her, or it. They shorten the odds on what THEY believe to be the favourite, through the EXPERT advice they are given. It has less than fuk all to do with the amount of money the punters put on the race / fight / game / match or whatever. To believe they calculate the chances of someone, or something winning on the basis of how much money is placed on it, is naive at best, and stupid at worst. They study form, and they pay for " expert " advice, THEN they offer odds.

The only time odds alter by either widening, or shortening by the money gambled is AFTER the initial offering. In Tyson's case he was ALWAYS the overwhelming favourite, in both the fights he got battered the fuk out of.

If you can't accept that reality, that is your problem. Don't try to rewrite history.

You don't know how bookies work and no amount of ranting will make it otherwise. you can't tell the difference between the level of Tyson and Ruddock opponents and there are many other things you've proved you don't know.

The only thing you have got correct while you've been single handedly ruining the boxing history forum over the last month is that Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist.

Most of the rest has been pish and hot air.