BoxRec

davie wrote: ↑22 Aug 2023, 04:28

elmersalsa wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 22:30

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 14:27 The beating big names is very deceiving.
You have to look at the stages of a guys career. Beating Holyfield and Tyson when he did is not the same as beating them close to their primes. Plus he had two losses to less than great fighters. To lesser degree, he was also fortunate to get the decision against Mercer.
Obviously, there are other things that are a plus for Lewis, and things that are negatives for other fighters. But the beating big names argument is weak.

This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

davie wrote: ↑22 Aug 2023, 04:28

elmersalsa wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 22:30

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 14:27 The beating big names is very deceiving.
You have to look at the stages of a guys career. Beating Holyfield and Tyson when he did is not the same as beating them close to their primes. Plus he had two losses to less than great fighters. To lesser degree, he was also fortunate to get the decision against Mercer.
Obviously, there are other things that are a plus for Lewis, and things that are negatives for other fighters. But the beating big names argument is weak.

This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

Redback Rasta wrote: ↑22 Aug 2023, 22:13

davie wrote: ↑22 Aug 2023, 04:28

elmersalsa wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 22:30
This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

I doubted that and checked, but sure enough. I guess because Tyson had already had 37 fights, he seemed older.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 21:56

davie wrote: ↑22 Aug 2023, 04:28

elmersalsa wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 22:30
This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

davie wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 07:44

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 21:56

davie wrote: ↑22 Aug 2023, 04:28

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

Have a word with yourself man

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 10:03

davie wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 07:44

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 21:56

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

Have a word with yourself man

You don't think so? Have you seen the fight? Buster Douglas looked at his very, very best. What a talent!

The problem with him was that he was lazy to train. He didn't had that consistency in winning big fights. For example, he was ahead in my view when he fought Tony Tucker for the vacant IBF World Heavyweight Title. What happened? He ran out of gas. He was boxing beautifully. That's because he never had the spirit and dedication to be great, even though he had excellent skills.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 21:56

davie wrote: ↑22 Aug 2023, 04:28

elmersalsa wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 22:30
This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 12:36

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 10:03

davie wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 07:44

Have a word with yourself man

You don't think so? Have you seen the fight? Buster Douglas looked at his very, very best. What a talent!

The problem with him was that he was lazy to train. He didn't had that consistency in winning big fights. For example, he was ahead in my view when he fought Tony Tucker for the vacant IBF World Heavyweight Title. What happened? He ran out of gas. He was boxing beautifully. That's because he never had the spirit and dedication to be great, even though he had excellent skills.

Beating Mike Tyson doesn't mean you were capable of beating anyone ever. The Buster Douglas of Tokyo I can't see beating Muhammad Ali, I can't see him beating George Foreman, I can't see him beating Evander Holyfield, I can't see him beating Riddick Bowe, I can't see him beating Lennox Lewis.

This is not to say he definitely wouldn't, but I'd favor the more well known name in each of those cases.

Redback Rasta wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 16:09

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 21:56

davie wrote: ↑22 Aug 2023, 04:28

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

Douglas was great for one night but that is stretching things. He was not that great.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 00:52

Redback Rasta wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 16:09

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 21:56

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

Douglas was great for one night but that is stretching things. He was not that great.

I have never said that he was great. But, he was good enough and very talented. He had all the tools to be a great heavyweight. He just lacked discipline and dedication.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 00:52

Redback Rasta wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 16:09

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 21:56

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

Douglas was great for one night but that is stretching things. He was not that great.

I have never said that he was great. But, he was good enough and very talented. He had all the tools to be a great heavyweight. He just lacked discipline and dedication.

Ezzard wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 12:00 Lewis and Holyfield were brilliant HWs and I rate them highly but the fact they never fought over the 15 round distance at HW is an issue.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 01:24

elmersalsa wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 00:52

Redback Rasta wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 16:09

Douglas was great for one night but that is stretching things. He was not that great.

I have never said that he was great. But, he was good enough and very talented. He had all the tools to be a great heavyweight. He just lacked discipline and dedication.

If you lack discipline and dedication then you DON'T have all the tools. Because those are 2 of the tools you need.

I feel like Buster and Rahman are on a similar level. Both at their very best I'd favor Buster, but I don't think it's a blowout or anything.

Tyson vs McCall would've been pretty interesting. I can't see Tyson losing to McCall, but I can see McCall frustrating him just at the fact that Tyson wouldn't be able to hurt him.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 01:57

gilgamesh wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 01:24

elmersalsa wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 00:52

I have never said that he was great. But, he was good enough and very talented. He had all the tools to be a great heavyweight. He just lacked discipline and dedication.

If you lack discipline and dedication then you DON'T have all the tools. Because those are 2 of the tools you need.

I feel like Buster and Rahman are on a similar level. Both at their very best I'd favor Buster, but I don't think it's a blowout or anything.

Tyson vs McCall would've been pretty interesting. I can't see Tyson losing to McCall, but I can see McCall frustrating him just at the fact that Tyson wouldn't be able to hurt him.

Buster had the physical tools. He was big, strong, had great reach, and could punch. And that fast jab of his was one of heavyweight history very best. Quick, sharp, long and hard jab. He could double and triple off the jab. He was very good. He just lacked discipline. Discipline nor motivation are physical tools.

Put Buster of Tokyo against McCall or Rahman and he gives them a boxing lesson. By a large margin, too.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 02:04

elmersalsa wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 01:57

gilgamesh wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 01:24

If you lack discipline and dedication then you DON'T have all the tools. Because those are 2 of the tools you need.

I feel like Buster and Rahman are on a similar level. Both at their very best I'd favor Buster, but I don't think it's a blowout or anything.

Tyson vs McCall would've been pretty interesting. I can't see Tyson losing to McCall, but I can see McCall frustrating him just at the fact that Tyson wouldn't be able to hurt him.

Buster had the physical tools. He was big, strong, had great reach, and could punch. And that fast jab of his was one of heavyweight history very best. Quick, sharp, long and hard jab. He could double and triple off the jab. He was very good. He just lacked discipline. Discipline nor motivation are physical tools.

Put Buster of Tokyo against McCall or Rahman and he gives them a boxing lesson. By a large margin, too.

Haven't you ever heard the Great trainers say "Boxing is 10% Physical and 90% Mental" or something along those lines. I may be getting the exact figures wrong, but I know Mental was the heavier thing.

Point is, If you don't have the Mentality to want to train as hard as you can to get the very best out of yourself consistently. There isn't a Universe in which you could be great.

You either have that mentality or you don't. Very, very, very, very, very few people have the kinda drive it takes to even accomplish what Buster achieved in Tokyo. Only absolute Legends among men can achieve the status of true All Time Greats.

By the standard of mere Mortals. Buster Douglas IS great, and achieved more than most men ever will.

Lacking discipline though does indeed mean he could never be an ATG. Maybe in any era he could've mustered up the will to train his ass off, and be as great as he was that night in Tokyo. But once he has the success, and he has the money, can he do it again?

His career says no. In fact, his career basically shows he didn't even really WANT to fight. He worked his ass off, and achieved what he achieved. As soon as he had a large amount of money, he had what he wanted out of this business, and found something else to do with his life. A guy with that mentality isn't ever going to be capable of being an ATG. You have to be cut from a different cloth than that. A different mentality.

Jaywheel wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 10:32 Douglas fought really well that night, but it's not as if it was the best HW performance ever or the best version of Tyson that night either. I'd favor everyguy that gil named over Douglas too and I'm certain that this performance of Douglas doesn't get him a win vs peak Frazier as well.