BoxRec

dempseyfire wrote:Holmes's style is awful for Lennox . . wins clear UD. Holmes never faced anyone as good as Lewis? Who the hell did Lewis beat as good as Holmes? And I'd rate the Norton Larry beat as clearly better than the 1999 Holyfield, who was 37 years old and clearly past his peak.

How the hell does Bowe beat Holmes? Bowe beat Holyfield in 92 b/c Evander fought an awful fight and tried to match Bowe punch for punch on the inside. Vs guys with good jabs and the ability to fight from a distance (Tubbs, Golota) Riddick looked awful. Holmes circa 92 would've even given Bowe a very tough fight and I wouldn't have counted Larry out in that one. I rewatched a few Bowe fights over the weekend and Riddick Bowe has to be one of the most OVER-RATED fighters ever. He deserved to lose vs Tubbs, looked like a rank amateur vs Hide, in the EVander rubber match if Holyfield hadn't been infected with whatever hepatitis he got from one of his many baby mamas, Bowe was going to be KTFO.

Very good post!
And also Holmes beat A PRIME Cooney who was NEVER the same afterwards due to getting 5 mil +. And Larry made him look bad. Cooney was killing every1 b4 that fight in 1982. It's true that Holmes hasn't beaten the same opo that Ali beat. But he =s anything Lewis has done. As Dempsey sed Bowe is way overrated and IMO so is Holyfield. And as 4 Vitaly that is something for debate. The true boxing fan can apreciate the skills of a Larry Holmes.

Klee Gluckman wrote:
Frazier never lost to a b grade fighter, beat Ali, never relied SD of gifts lost only to Ali and Foreman, honestly think both Foreman and Ali would have beaten Holmes.

Hmm.... Really?

Grimm wrote:[quote="Klee Gluckman"

Frazier never lost to a b grade fighter, beat Ali, never relied SD of gifts lost only to Ali and Foreman, honestly think both Foreman and Ali would have beaten Holmes.

Hmm.... Really?

When did Frazier rely on gifts, Grimm? Did you misread the post?

dempseyfire wrote:Holmes's style is awful for Lennox . . wins clear UD. Holmes never faced anyone as good as Lewis? Who the hell did Lewis beat as good as Holmes? And I'd rate the Norton Larry beat as clearly better than the 1999 Holyfield, who was 37 years old and clearly past his peak.

- Sorta like your style is awful for anything but the dumpster.

You rate Norton only because deep inside you know he beat your boy Mr. Larry. Norton goes 1-2-1 to finish his career, being knocked down twice and barely securing a draw against Scottie Ledoux for Leaping Lizard's sake.

Holmes never beat a prime great, a prime champ and never actually "beat" a legit prime contender that the public would recognize. He specialized in "baby" contenders, "fringe" contenders, and "past it" contenders and picking up "political" decisions against Spoon and Williams.

Lewis had people ducking him from the early 90s on, whereas Larry did the ducking when he was fighting. Mr. Field goes on to fight Ruiz in a title series, going 1-1-1 against Ruiz and then butting his way to a technical decision over Rahman, a damn sight better than Kenny was able to accomplish near the same age.

Give it up, Larry turned out to be unable to carry the jock of Rocky, Ali, Mike Spinks, or Tyson and even got tripped up by Butterbean's jock. Not the mark of any top 10 heavy rankings by anyone knowing anything about boxing.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Grimm wrote:[quote="Klee Gluckman"

Frazier never lost to a b grade fighter, beat Ali, never relied SD of gifts lost only to Ali and Foreman, honestly think both Foreman and Ali would have beaten Holmes.

Hmm.... Really?

When did Frazier rely on gifts, Grimm? Did you misread the post?

guilty :(

chiricahua wrote:

He was convinced Mike Tyson was going to destroy Lewis in 2002

Seriously,then he was the only one.
Do you have any proof that he made such statement?

Classic revisionism.

Lewis-Tyson was seen as a 50-50 fight AT THE TIME. Yes, people understood Tyson was past his best, but the logic was that if Rahman could KO Lewis, then so could even a fading Tyson.

Lewis dominated him and all of a sudden it was always a formality and everyone always knew Tyson had no chance.

Rubbish. There was a very significant body of opinion backing a Tyson win.

oliverfennell wrote:

chiricahua wrote:

He was convinced Mike Tyson was going to destroy Lewis in 2002

Seriously,then he was the only one.
Do you have any proof that he made such statement?

Classic revisionism.

Lewis-Tyson was seen as a 50-50 fight AT THE TIME. Yes, people understood Tyson was past his best, but the logic was that if Rahman could KO Lewis, then so could even a fading Tyson.

Lewis dominated him and all of a sudden it was always a formality and everyone always knew Tyson had no chance.

Rubbish. There was a very significant body of opinion backing a Tyson win.

there was indeed but there has been a habit of this lately
Haye was supposed ot KO maccarinelli - if i remeber rightly enzo was the fave going in

Haye vs barrett - barrett was a gate keeper to the division up till that fight

Barrett vs fields- barrett was brought in to give fields a ranking. not being a formality

them 3 are just examples

oliverfennell wrote:

chiricahua wrote:

He was convinced Mike Tyson was going to destroy Lewis in 2002

Seriously,then he was the only one.
Do you have any proof that he made such statement?

Classic revisionism.

Lewis-Tyson was seen as a 50-50 fight AT THE TIME. Yes, people understood Tyson was past his best, but the logic was that if Rahman could KO Lewis, then so could even a fading Tyson.

Lewis dominated him and all of a sudden it was always a formality and everyone always knew Tyson had no chance.

Rubbish. There was a very significant body of opinion backing a Tyson win.

Dunno about where you were, but over here, only casuals who knew sweet jack-sh!t were backing Tyson.

I was 18 at the time of this fight, & I considered it a near-lock...the only question being whether a completely washed-up Tyson could land an unlikely haymaker. I didn't think so, & if he couldn't, he would be pulverised.

I think any decent analyst would've called that fight somewhere on the order of 80-20 Lewis. 50-50 would be absurdist.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I think any decent analyst would've called that fight somewhere on the order of 80-20 Lewis. 50-50 would be absurdist.

I didn't it was a 50-50 fight in itself, I meant the predictions were pretty much split down the middle. In fact I ran a website at the time and did a poll and it ended a dead-lock.

Although the reasons for the predictions were pretty much as you said - Tyson early, or not at all. Just that a LOT of people had confidence Tyson could do it early!

I backed Tyson over Lewis - I am a Tyson fan and heavily biased but I wasn't alone.

When Tyson entered the ring all zombied up I was 'oh my God'

They were idiots. All of them

Really, it was a long-shot, at best.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:They were idiots. All of them

Really, it was a long-shot, at best.

Noooooo - hindsight makes us all look like geniuses.

I've been watching this sport when you were a greasy stain on the milkmans
underpants - I was one of the few pundits in print to predict a Hasim Rahman KO of
Lennox Lewis in South Africa. I usually get it right but sometimes I do get it wrong
as we all do.

So...

Did you put every penny you had on Lewis to beat Tyson?

No?

Didn't think so!

I had Tyson over Lewis. BUt more for a want to see the Kid Dynamite
return. I was never confident when I made the bet, however.

Carlos-Wigan wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:They were idiots. All of them

Really, it was a long-shot, at best.

Noooooo - hindsight makes us all look like geniuses.

I've been watching this sport when you were a greasy stain on the milkmans
underpants - I was one of the few pundits in print to predict a Hasim Rahman KO of
Lennox Lewis in South Africa. I usually get it right but sometimes I do get it wrong
as we all do.

So...

Did you put every penny you had on Lewis to beat Tyson?

No?

Didn't think so!

No, like I said. Hindsight has nothing to do with it. I picked Lewis, & felt him an overwhelming favourite. I didn't see how anyone could seriously think Tyson had a strong chance, much less be 50-50. I thought it was a fundamental thing to pick Lewis as a very big favourite. If you didn't, what can I say? Perhaps you shouldn't advertise the fact you've been watching, "so much longer" than I

It's up to you if you believe me or not.

Goodnight, Irene wrote: I picked Lewis, & felt him an overwhelming favourite. I didn't see how anyone could seriously think Tyson had a strong chance, much less be 50-50. I thought it was a fundamental thing to pick Lewis as a very big favourite.

- Dude, a chimp could pick names out of a hat and go 50/50 in a boxing predictor league as far as picking results and beating half the participants.

Lewis was only one fight removed from his latest one punch KO loss, and Tyson was still considered a deadly puncher early in a fight, more deadly than Rahman. ALL the Tyson money went on the early knockout, leaving Lewis fans 4-12 rds to pick their results. Both were reasonable bets and reasonable expectations.

Had Lewis not sued Tyson to prevent his tuneup bout with Mercer, Tyson might've been much sharper, enough to flatten Lewis as he came close to doing in the first round.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: I picked Lewis, & felt him an overwhelming favourite. I didn't see how anyone could seriously think Tyson had a strong chance, much less be 50-50. I thought it was a fundamental thing to pick Lewis as a very big favourite.

- Dude, a chimp could pick names out of a hat and go 50/50 in a boxing predictor league as far as picking results and beating half the participants.

Lewis was only one fight removed from his latest one punch KO loss, and Tyson was still considered a deadly puncher early in a fight, more deadly than Rahman. ALL the Tyson money went on the early knockout, leaving Lewis fans 4-12 rds to pick their results. Both were reasonable bets and reasonable expectations.

Had Lewis not sued Tyson to prevent his tuneup bout with Mercer, Tyson might've been much sharper, enough to flatten Lewis as he came close to doing in the first round.

Yes, that's exactly it. It's easy now for people to say "EVERYBODY ALWAYS knew Lewis would win easily", but in 2002 Tyson was still legitimately a top 2-5 contender and the sight of Lewis getting stretched by a single Rahman right hand was still fresh in the memory.

oliverfennell wrote:

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: I picked Lewis, & felt him an overwhelming favourite. I didn't see how anyone could seriously think Tyson had a strong chance, much less be 50-50. I thought it was a fundamental thing to pick Lewis as a very big favourite.

- Dude, a chimp could pick names out of a hat and go 50/50 in a boxing predictor league as far as picking results and beating half the participants.

Lewis was only one fight removed from his latest one punch KO loss, and Tyson was still considered a deadly puncher early in a fight, more deadly than Rahman. ALL the Tyson money went on the early knockout, leaving Lewis fans 4-12 rds to pick their results. Both were reasonable bets and reasonable expectations.

Had Lewis not sued Tyson to prevent his tuneup bout with Mercer, Tyson might've been much sharper, enough to flatten Lewis as he came close to doing in the first round.

Yes, that's exactly it. It's easy now for people to say "EVERYBODY ALWAYS knew Lewis would win easily", but in 2002 Tyson was still legitimately a top 2-5 contender and the sight of Lewis getting stretched by a single Rahman right hand was still fresh in the memory.

Plenty of people still believed Tyson could win. I remember it quite clearly, people telling me I was crazy for thinking Lewis would be able to last the distance with Tyson when Rahman took him out.

"Yes, that's exactly it. It's easy now for people to say "EVERYBODY ALWAYS knew Lewis would win easily", but in 2002 Tyson was still legitimately a top 2-5 contender and the sight of Lewis getting stretched by a single Rahman right hand was still fresh in the memory." - Oliver

I can only tell you how it was on the home-front. Casuals & people who were suddenly instant Boxing fans were shouting, "Tyson!" Anyone with a clue over here knew the score. Forget what had happened in Lewis' world. Tyson had beaten no one...for years & years! That was the basis of my pick, Lewis being a near-certainty. I knew after losing to Rahman, he was in a foul mood, & if he ever dropped his guard again, it would be a long time coming (just as the gap between McCall & Rahman was so long), & that it would never happen, at any time, in a fight which meant so much to him as the one with Tyson. I couldn't discount Tyson completely, because of Lewis' suspect chin & recuperative powers, & Tyson's still-formidable (though fading) hitting power. Frankly, I'm rather surprised to hear people gave Tyson such a serious chance...really!? What were some of you basing that on, in regards to what Tyson had actually done in, literally, the last ten years preceding the fight? He hadn't done sh!t.

The consensus amongst those who followed Boxing more closely here was that Lewis was an overwhelming favourite --- as well I felt he should have been.

Classic revisionism.

Lewis-Tyson was seen as a 50-50 fight AT THE TIME. Yes, people understood Tyson was past his best, but the logic was that if Rahman could KO Lewis, then so could even a fading Tyson.

Lewis dominated him and all of a sudden it was always a formality and everyone always knew Tyson had no chance.

Rubbish. There was a very significant body of opinion backing a Tyson win.

Another ridiculous post by oliver.If people are going to give 50% chance to every puncher Lennox faced that makes Lennox an underdog all the time.
The logic of these guys is great.
I guess the odds with Tua were the same.
You confuse your country with the rest of the world.

Dunno about where you were, but over here, only casuals who knew sweet jack-sh!t were backing Tyson.

I was 18 at the time of this fight, & I considered it a near-lock...the only question being whether a completely washed-up Tyson could land an unlikely haymaker. I didn't think so, & if he couldn't, he would be pulverised.

I think any decent analyst would've called that fight somewhere on the order of 80-20 Lewis. 50-50 would be absurdist.

Great post.
These Lennox fans are absolute jokes.
Manny Steward said that he wouldn't accept Tyson as a sparring partner in that kind of shape,he also said that the Tyson from the 90's was gone,everyone inside boxing knew it.
Instead biased dumb british press and dumb fanboys decided to hype Tyson at that point .
Bitish press was the most excited,cos they knew the outcome.
They even had George Foreman ranting like a fool after the fight.Lennox is the fusion between himself and Ali,after his incredible victory over prime Tyson.
Danny Williams did it earlier than Lennox,let's put Danny boy in the mix for the greatest too.
Thomas Hauser made an excellent article about this fraudulent circus.

Pretty sure Williams got to Tyson after Lewis, though, not before.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Pretty sure Williams got to Tyson after Lewis, though, not before.

I meant Williams defeated Tyson in 4 rounds.

Tyson was never going to best Lewis, save a lucky punch. How anyone could equate that with a 50-50 chance of victory, meh. Lewis was almost certainly going to pulverise that version of Tyson.

chiricahua wrote:
. . .
Thomas Hauser made an excellent article about this fraudulent circus.

Human parasite Thomas Hauser has made an entire 'career' out of being a fraud.

granberry wrote:

chiricahua wrote:
. . .
Thomas Hauser made an excellent article about this fraudulent circus.

Human parasite Thomas Hauser has made an entire 'career' out of being a fraud.

Yet you worship at the shrine of drunken Bert Sugar, gran.

chiricahua wrote:

Classic revisionism.

Lewis-Tyson was seen as a 50-50 fight AT THE TIME. Yes, people understood Tyson was past his best, but the logic was that if Rahman could KO Lewis, then so could even a fading Tyson.

Lewis dominated him and all of a sudden it was always a formality and everyone always knew Tyson had no chance.

Rubbish. There was a very significant body of opinion backing a Tyson win.

Another ridiculous post by oliver.If people are going to give 50% chance to every puncher Lennox faced that makes Lennox an underdog all the time.
The logic of these guys is great.
I guess the odds with Tua were the same.
You confuse your country with the rest of the world.

I guess I'll have to keep repeating myself as long as people keep mis-reading.

My "50-50" line did not mean certain people were looking at the fight and giving Tyson a 50% chance of winning.

Again, once again, it meant that 50% of the people predicting the fight were going for a Tyson win.