BoxRec

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Controversial wrote:Oh dear. So by suggesting Lewis avoided Byrd you must think Byrd would have won, or what point are your trying to make. Because Byrd was avoided by everyone, no one wanted a piece of Byrd (hahahah) What you don't seem to realise is boxing is a lot about marketing and money making. Lewis vs Byrd wouldn't have generated much money as most people outside the boxing world wouldnt know Byrd if they bumped into him. A pointless fight for Lewis and one he would have won anyway. Lewis wanted the big names and the big money. Who can blame him for that?

1/10 for effort. Must try harder.

- The points that I make can be found on the point on the top of your noggin formed from years of wearing the dunce cap.

Your summary of the glass jaw comment is the synopsis of a prodigious school thought regarding Lewis going into the Tyson bout. While Lewis was favored because of the considerable longterm decline of Tyson, huge money was put on the early Tyson KO of Lewis. I included the overranking of Lewis AFTER the bout as a point of extreme references of the ridiculous manner you and your ilk are prone to go in ranking your favorite boys. The idiocy or the disingenuity is yours my little race baiting friend.

Byrd had much more experience with Jameel McCline being his best friend and sparmate against a Vitali type on short notice than Vitali did against the Byrd type which is beyond duplication, but again, yet another example of you not being bright enough to understand basic boxing.

It really don't matter who anyone thinks would win a Byrd/Lewis fight, it's a fact that Byrd got near or at the top of the Ring rankings at one point, became Lewis' mandatory, and Lewis sold his belt to King, taking step aside money rather than fight Byrd. Lewis never fought any of the premiere southpaw challengers of his era, Byrd, Sanders, Moorer, and Oquendo, not even a journeyman southpaw. Looks like he was carefully matched away given the evidence.

Lewis gave up his IBF belt for the disaster that turned out to be the Kirk Johnson bout, a much smaller venue and bout against a lesser ranked contender, so this nonsense about bigger names and bigger money is just you making up your little porkies like some school boy winging his way through his term paper in hopes he can squeeze out a D- to squeeze out a passing grade.

This can be seen in your Rahman/Lewis 1 summary where you blame bad condition for the Lewis loss, when in fact he was easily controlling a slow paced beatdown on Rahman who was looking like the intimidated sack of you against any bully. A near shutout until the single lucky punch, and Rahman did have a great right when he landed it. So you make up lies about stamina and training when those played no factor whatsoever in the fight because some other jughaid made up some nonsense that got spread around.

The comedy part is that you are fully grown and haven't advanced a single step beyond those porkie days of being picked at by teachers and school bullies, a big goof in bigger pants.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:It really don't matter who anyone thinks would win a Byrd/Lewis fight, it's a fact that Byrd got near or at the top of the Ring rankings at one point, became Lewis' mandatory, and Lewis sold his belt to King, taking step aside money rather than fight Byrd. Lewis never fought any of the premiere southpaw challengers of his era, Byrd, Sanders, Moorer, and Oquendo, not even a journeyman southpaw. Looks like he was carefully matched away given the evidence.

Ezzard wrote:Why is Lewis so unpopular with fans and Tyson so popular?

I'm very interested to hear why.

Just popularity. Not who is better etc...

Ezzard wrote:Why is Lewis so unpopular with fans and Tyson so popular?

I'm very interested to hear why.

Just popularity. Not who is better etc...

Ezzard wrote:Fair comments.

Tyson was massively exciting and no doubt brought fans to the sport who previously had not been boxing die-hards.

Yet, his antics including rape and biting turned many off the sport.

There's got to be more to it. A rapist is more popular than a chess player??? Do we really live in a world where this is so?

Grimm wrote:Well, more interesting a (alleged) rapist is more interesting than a chess player.

The Great John L wrote:

Grimm wrote:Well, more interesting a (alleged) rapist is more interesting than a chess player.

Wasn't Tyson convicted; or did I miss something?

The Great John L wrote:

Grimm wrote:Well, more interesting a (alleged) rapist is more interesting than a chess player.

Wasn't Tyson convicted; or did I miss something?

wouter wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Grimm wrote:Well, more interesting a (alleged) rapist is more interesting than a chess player.

Wasn't Tyson convicted; or did I miss something?

He was allegedly convicted.

Grimm wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Grimm wrote:Well, more interesting a (alleged) rapist is more interesting than a chess player.

Wasn't Tyson convicted; or did I miss something?

Yes he was.

But it hasn't been proved to me beyond a reasonable doubt.

raylawpc wrote: Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

Collins2000 wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were also convicted by a jury of their peers.

And their convictions were confirmed on appeal too.

Only problem was they were innocent.

A minor detail I guess, ray.

raylawpc wrote: Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

Grimm wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

I clearly stated that he was convicted.

It's a matter of whether you believe it or not,which I don't.

I'm sure you have never had to deal with the law and believe that everything they do is right.

sg1985 wrote:There have been thousands of wrongful convictions though, how did they get that wrong? I have no opinion on tyson's conviction, he was convicted, served his time, end off. But juries are wrong sometimes, maybe not here, but sometimes.

The Great John L wrote:

sg1985 wrote:There have been thousands of wrongful convictions though, how did they get that wrong? I have no opinion on tyson's conviction, he was convicted, served his time, end off. But juries are wrong sometimes, maybe not here, but sometimes.

Yes they are, but it would be interesting to hear why anyone wouldn't believe the Tyson conviction.

Collins2000 wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were also convicted by a jury of their peers.

And their convictions were confirmed on appeal too.

Only problem was they were innocent.

A minor detail I guess, ray.

sg1985 wrote:There have been thousands of wrongful convictions though, how did they get that wrong? I have no opinion on tyson's conviction, he was convicted, served his time, end off. But juries are wrong sometimes, maybe not here, but sometimes.

raylawpc wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were also convicted by a jury of their peers.

And their convictions were confirmed on appeal too.

Only problem was they were innocent.

A minor detail I guess, ray.

I don't know anything about those cases, Collins. But I willing to wager that the convictions weren't overturned because some nitwit believed from newspapers accounts that they were really innocent, and finally got a judge to agree with him. I am willing to bet money that the cases were overturned because somebody found new evidence that exonerated them - probably through a showing that the police either falsified evidence establishing their guilt or withheld evidence that established their innocence. I am willing to bet that they got a new trial and were acquitted on evidence that the original jury never heard.

raylawpc wrote:Define "many."

Unless an allegation is made that the evidence was falsified or withheld, I am far more comfortable trusting the verdict of twelve citizens who saw and heard all of the admissible evidence than in an opinion formed by reading the newspapers or sportspages, even if that opinion happens to be my own.

raylawpc wrote:

Grimm wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Thankfully, the prosecution did not have to prove its case to nitwits who decide guilt or innocence based on stories in boxing magazines and sports pages. Instead, the prosecution proved its case to a jury of Tyson's peers who, unlike you, heard and saw all the admissible evidence in the case, and convicted Tyson after 10 hours of deliberations.

He was most definitely convicted, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal.

I clearly stated that he was convicted.

It's a matter of whether you believe it or not,which I don't.

I'm sure you have never had to deal with the law and believe that everything they do is right.

I am a lawyer. I'm 55-years-old and I have had to deal with the courts and the law every day of my life since I started law school in 1978, and before that as a newspaper reporter who covered the courts beginning in 1976. I have been in court for hundreds of cases, and I have tried criminal cases to juries and argued criminal cases before appellate courts.

And as a former newspaper reporter, I know how incomplete those reports can be, regardless of how hard the reporter tries to include all the relevant information.

It has it's flaws and mistakes are sometimes made, but the Anglo-American judicial system is still the best legal system conceived by the mind of man.

That's why it continues to bewilder me that people think they can form accurate "opinions" of what happened from newspaper accounts, and think the 12 people who heard and saw every bit of the admissible evidence somehow got it all wrong.