A Trio of Great Champions: Who was the Greatest?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 31 May 2006, 14:59

Tyson, Lewis and Holyfield

They have competed with each other and each have a distinct legacy. As you grow older and you tell the story of that past era which do you think will get History's nod as the premier talent of the era? For me at my age it does not seem that long ago, for some of you it may have defined your most impressionable years. Patterson Liston and Ali would have been the equivalent for me I suppose. (Holmes seemed to have a chunk of time all to himself it seems.)

We have talked about this over and over again so I'm not actually asking for a lot of give an take in this thread (although be my guest to add more to the record) just your vote as to who was the greatest of these three combatants after all is said and done. I'm guessing the numbers may supprt Tyson but that is purely a guess.

They are listed in alphabetical order with "other" included just in case you really feel these guys crowded your man out. I thought of Bowe but he just did not have the complete resume to compete with the others in terms of popular historical perceptions. Which is really what I'm talking about here.

The numbers on this poll may prove interesting. This really is meant as more of a 'pop" quiz than a study of style and competency.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 31 May 2006, 15:09

The poll is labeled “who’s legacy will hold up best over time”, but then you say which was the greatest of the three. Not sure I agree that the two are the same thing. Having said that, I think Tyson will hold a more significant spot in boxing history because of his immense popularity. While Holyfield and Lewis were also popular, neither truly transcended the sport the way that Tyson did. As the sport grows less popular, there are fewer real marquee names that non-boxing fans readily recognize, and Tyson is probably the only one in the past 20 years. Not saying he’s the greatest, just that he had the greatest impact on the sport.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 31 May 2006, 15:17

I believe the 1990s will enter heavyweight boxing history as the Tyson-Holyfield-Lewis era, and all three will be indispensably linked to this. Hence their names will most of the time be mentioned in the same breath. I voted for Lewis though, since he defeated and outlived his two rivals.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 31 May 2006, 15:26

Tyson has become a media /pop icon as a result of his spectacular kos and the constant drama surrounding his life outside the ring. Fight fans will be talking about his exploits years from now.Whenever he fought it was an event. Lewis and Holyfeild may have been better overall fighters, but Tyson was the homerun hitter , the Babe Ruth of the era. Like it or not I have a feeling hes the guy we will be hearing about years from now.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 31 May 2006, 15:42

Tyson was already over the hill by 1990, in my opinion - years before Lewis hit his peak and a few before Holyfield. But Tyson peaked at a time when the game needed a live heavy. He also enjoyed a defining fight with Spinks. Holyfield and Lewis were denied their biggest fights ( Lewis with Bowe, and Evander with a 1991 Tyson) through no real fault of their own.
In terms of the bigger picture, however, it goes against them.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 31 May 2006, 15:54

I think Tyson has far greater historical impact than Lewis or Holy.

As for fighting, at his peak, Tyson was far superior to both of them.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 01 Jun 2006, 09:52

I voted for Lewis due to longevity, dominance, and because he beat the other two. I can understand people voting for Tyson due to the excitemenet he generated, even though for a relatively short period.

I cannot understand votes for Holyfield. Holyfield only headed the division when the two other guys were going through rough spells; plus he was 1:2 against Riddick Bowe and 1:1 against Mike Moorer - during his prime period.

Holyfield is perhaps the greatst cruiser that ever lived, but as a heavyweight he was basically a filler.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 01 Jun 2006, 09:58

Holyfield without a doubt for me... more heart and better mentality than Tyson, better all round skills than Lewis.... would have beaten Lewis had they fought in the early to mid 90s... would always have beaten Tyson because he had the bigger heart and the stronger will, plus the better boxing brain....

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 01 Jun 2006, 10:02

pundit wrote:I voted for Lewis due to longevity, dominance, and because he beat the other two. I can understand people voting for Tyson due to the excitemenet he generated, even though for a relatively short period.

For those poor souls who have actually read my posts about Tyson, you know that I am no real Tyson fan. But I think just about everybody recognizes the public’s fascination with him, and I have to disagree pundit. He’s been the most popular boxer now for 20 years, and is still the most popular boxer on the planet… and he’s not even a fighter anymore. Anyone who could get $10M+ and huge PPV numbers to fight guys like Williams, McBride, McNeeley, etc. is more popular than any boxer I’ve seen since Ali. I think the only other HW who can even get close in popularity over the past 25 years is Foreman. He may be a train wreck, but it’s hard to deny his popularity, even today. He could probably get $10M and big PPV numbers if he fought JD Chapman next week…

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Jun 2006, 10:05

Surprisingly Tyson is not even getting credit for that here. I am stunned at the status of our own little poll. But I am in agreement with the current plurality who says that after the years go by it will be Holyfield that gets the historical props.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 01 Jun 2006, 10:12

BoxBuzz wrote:Surprisingly Tyson is not even getting credit for that here. I am stunned at the status of our own little poll. But I am in agreement with the current plurality who says that after the years go by it will be Holyfield that gets the historical props.

I don't think so. There wasn't a period where Holyfield ruled the heavyweight division without question marks, in contrast to Lewis and Tyson.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Jun 2006, 10:15

I like Lewis' long title reign, the fact that after the McCall I fornicate up, he had to wait so damn long & persevered to wipe out all of the late 90s 'young heavyweights' (rahman rematch, tua, grant, golota, briggs), beat a still very good holyfield. certainly the two Ko losses affect his all time standing, but he beat every guy he fought which is very impressive & will be known as much for the fact that a heck of a lot of ppl didn't want to fight him

Holyfield's was the more dramatic, spectacular reign, but to me he was too inconsistent, great performances always followed by flat performances. and he ended up worst off in rivalries with bowe and lewis. but wins over douglas, bowe 2, cooper, moorer, tyson were very impressive. when it comes to ranking holyfield, i hope ppl don't forget his war with Dokes. the greatest hvywt fight of the 80s, even better than Holmes-Spoon, Weaver-Tate and Dokes-Weaver II. Dokes was in excellent shape and had fast smeg hands

Tyson, on the other hand, was the more superficially impressive, with the power and the nastiness and the impressive KOs. should definitely be remembered that his style and personality were never going to allow him to have a long prime. but for a time, he had a brilliant defense and great punch delivery

they were all great in their own ways. but i would rank lewis higher

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Jun 2006, 10:21

pundit wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:Surprisingly Tyson is not even getting credit for that here. I am stunned at the status of our own little poll. But I am in agreement with the current plurality who says that after the years go by it will be Holyfield that gets the historical props.

I don't think so. There wasn't a period where Holyfield ruled the heavyweight division without question marks, in contrast to Lewis and Tyson.

that's true. when Holyfield had the undisputed title in the early 90s, he was really criticised for struggling with old men and not having a really good opponent - and then bowe beat him, allowing ppl to think for years that he was a blown uip cruiser. then when he beats bowe, he loses to moorer

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Jun 2006, 11:03

well...once again I'm not talking anything but perceptions and I think Holyfield's full story is sort of trumping the others overall. At least to this small sample group and maybe to the public in general. The funny thing may be is that the very reason Evander will do so well in perceptions is due to him beating Mike first though not best. (Between Lennox and Evander that is) Funny thing how nobody even remembers Douglas's name. People know him more as "the guy who beat Tyson in Japan".

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 01 Jun 2006, 11:08

BoxBuzz wrote:well...once again I'm not talking anything but perceptions and I think Holyfield's full story is sort of trumping the others overall. At least to this small sample group and maybe to the public in general. The funny thing may be is that the very reason Evander will do so well in perceptions is due to him beating Mike first though not best. (Between Lennox and Evander that is) Funny thing how nobody even remembers Douglas's name. People know him more as "the guy who beat Tyson in Japan".

If you take his entire career, including at crusierweight, you're probably right. Looking at Holyfield's heavyweight career only I'd be inclined to disagree though.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 01 Jun 2006, 12:57

Decagon wrote:
pundit wrote:I voted for Lewis due to longevity, dominance, and because he beat the other two. I can understand people voting for Tyson due to the excitemenet he generated, even though for a relatively short period.

I cannot understand votes for Holyfield. Holyfield only headed the division when the two other guys were going through rough spells; plus he was 1:2 against Riddick Bowe and 1:1 against Mike Moorer - during his prime period.

Holyfield is perhaps the greatst cruiser that ever lived, but as a heavyweight he was basically a filler.
I disagree. His loss to Michael Moorer was very close, and it featured some poor judging (e.g., Jerry Roth scoring the first round 10-10). In the rematch, he destroyed Moorer and sent him into retirement. Sure, he was 1-2 against Bowe and 1-1 against Moorer, but he was 2-0 against Tyson, 1-0 against Foreman, 1-0 against Rahman (well past his prime), 1-0 against Buster Douglas; and he beat a number of good fighters. The only knockdown Ray Mercer suffered before the age of 43 was against Holyfield. It wasn't until Holyfield was a 15-year veteran that he faced a man he couldn't beat - Lennox Lewis.

Sounds like a fair assessment. But why would you rank Holyfield above Lewis then?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 01 Jun 2006, 13:04

Decagon wrote:Lots of reasons. Lewis didn't beat a prime Holyfield, and although Lewis's losses to McCall and Rahman weren't serious enough to do something crazy like ranking him below Tommy Burns, they do put him below Holyfield.

8)

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 01 Jun 2006, 13:16

There is NO DOUBT that Holyfield is the greatest fighter of the 3. Tyson though, was the most FAMOUS and with the greater impact

I put it like this:

1. Best of the 3 pound per pound: Holyfield

2. Most Historical and with greater impact: Tyson

3. Better record of the 3 and probably more dominant: Lewis

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 01 Jun 2006, 13:20

elmersalsa wrote:There is NO DOUBT that Holyfield is the greatest fighter of the 3. Tyson though, was the most FAMOUS and with the greater impact

I put it like this:

1. Best of the 3 pound per pound: Holyfield

2. Most Historical and with greater impact: Tyson

3. Better record of the 3 and probably more dominant: Lewis

Ah, that's how you see it.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Jun 2006, 13:34

and yet to this moment the regulars here see Holyfield with the edge in terms of "greatest legacy" as a fighter. I am mildy surprised but I agree with the current plurality. I think people see Holyfield as more than just a "Tyson Beater" and maybe even the public views him as the "greater fighter" even if Tyson was the greater "headline grabber".

I'm not sure of this but I do suspect it could be true.

I have to wonder if this more of an american viewpoint and the Brits see it just the opposite with Lennox edging Tyson for "legacy" in their back yard.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 01 Jun 2006, 13:40

Just to repeat my main point, I believe anyway the 90s will be called the Tyson-Holyfield-Lewis era, hence all 3 will survive jointly. The legacies of these three guys are too closely intertwined.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Jun 2006, 13:52

pundit wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:There is NO DOUBT that Holyfield is the greatest fighter of the 3. Tyson though, was the most FAMOUS and with the greater impact

I put it like this:

1. Best of the 3 pound per pound: Holyfield

2. Most Historical and with greater impact: Tyson

3. Better record of the 3 and probably more dominant: Lewis
Ah, that's how you see it.

the only way holyfield can be regarded as best is p4p. the fact that he began his career at light heavy, became a great cruiser and kept persevering against the odds at heavyweight.

but as i say, his 1st heavyweight reign was not legitimised by a win over a major opponent - & damagingly, that was his prime. bottom line, evander was supposed to be killed by tyson and he broke tyson's heart. after that he put lewis off for a good couple of years, all that faffing about trying to get a fight with the 6' bloody 7 akinwande and francois botha in SA. that is deferment, at the very moment he was supposed to have achieved greatness.

sure lewis got KO'd by two huge shots (do ppl knock hearns for losing to barkley & failing to win a rematch?), but he chased everyone & beat all the guys who would fight him.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Jun 2006, 14:52

Once again, one of the toughest discussions we can have here, since most of us are "skills analysts" My premise is about "popular perceptions" only.

I brought this up mainly because of the popular sentiment that Mike really is the most famous which I think is true, but in this case I am coming to beleive that his fame may not translate into faith in his actual fighting ability. I'm begining to beleive that the average sports fan, the casual sports fan if you will....has now taken into account Tyson's famous goof ups and have relegated him to second place either to Holyfield or Lewis in their collective minds for that shared "era".

I'm not weighing in on accuracy or fairness of this, but I am saying that he may not enjoy the same "eternal" status of a Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, or Ali....am I stretching it if I add Holmes to this list? Instead this era will be shared by the whole trio.

Yet he was poised to become "owner" of his era, His later works may have robbed him of that place in History. We won't know for sure for another 10 years but I think it's heading that way. 10 years ago I never would have believed it. His future legacy seemed etched in stone.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 06 Jun 2006, 06:30

Holyfield has the best record and the gratest achievements. Tyson transcended the sport. Lewis was a great fighter but some hold his style against him.

Holyfield is clearly the greater fighter IMO. I also think he is probably the greater HW of the 3.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 06 Jun 2006, 06:32

bennie wrote:Tyson was already over the hill by 1990, in my opinion - years before Lewis hit his peak and a few before Holyfield. But Tyson peaked at a time when the game needed a live heavy. He also enjoyed a defining fight with Spinks. Holyfield and Lewis were denied their biggest fights ( Lewis with Bowe, and Evander with a 1991 Tyson) through no real fault of their own.
In terms of the bigger picture, however, it goes against them.

Tyson was not over the hill in 1990, that is just a myth that is put out to explain the fact that he couldn't handle adversity.

Tyson was lazy & ill disciplined, that is why he went downhill quickly.

Tyson could still have been a major force long after 1990, had he trained & dedicated himself properly.

A Trio of Great Champions: Who was the Greatest?

Who's legacy will hold up best over time?

A Trio of Great Champions: Who was the Greatest?