BoxRec

Often times victories are branded as true legacy building, legendary affairs.... but one has to wonder (in retrospect) where to gauge the worth of some of these victories and wins and where they truly stack in history among the all-time battles.

Take for instance, Mike Tyson blowing away Michael Spinks in 91 seconds, to unify the WBA/WBC/IBF/LINEAL/RING titles. This match truly determined WHO the rightful and true champion of the world was. This match solidified Tyson in the annals of boxing history. At the time, alot of people felt Spinks had a solid chance of upsetting Tyson. After all, he had beaten Holmes and he defeated the giant Gerry Cooney.

But in retrospect... after all these years... after all the information that has come to light... the match doesn't seem as important in Tyson's career than maybe the Berbick fight was. Spinks was scared to death, had bad knees, avoided Tyson for quite a while, and in reality he wasn't a true heavyweight--- the victory over Holmes (both times) were very close and Holmes was on the way out. He ducked Tucker and lost his IBF strap, had to do alot of politics to still be regarded by RING magazine as the "champion" and fought an unknown Swede and coked-out Cooney in "championship" fights.

The fact that Tyson destroyed him so quickly, in retrospect, is of no surprise. So the fight, in reality, has to be among the lower end of Tyson's championship fight resume. Maybe not as low as Williams and Tubbs, but certainly lower than the Tucker and Thomas and Bruno fights. So how do we rate this victory, after all?

Out of five potential stars (in Tyson's collective career)? Two stars.

Out of five potential stars (in the history of boxing)? None.

And what of other matches? That's what I hope to find out and see collectively on this thread from all the posters willing to debate and argue their own points on fights throughout boxing history. Let the next poster, post his own fight that he feels maybe one of the greatest of all time, or one he feels is one of the most over talked and over sold fights of all time, and let him rate it according to the victor's overall career and overall historical standing.

One thing that springs to mind is lewis vs vitali It's probably the win above all others that solidifies lewis' reputation. It was his last fight and he certainly wasn't at his absolute best. When you look at what a fabulous fight that was and how well vitali has done since, it's an amazing win really.

The opposite to that ofc is Lewis's wiin against Tyson. In retrospect I can't beleive anyone was really interested. Looking at their comparative form at the time, Tyson was pretty much cannon fodder for Lewis and yet at the time it made a lot of money - really it was one of Lewis's easiest fights.

Oh and ratings.

Lewis vs klit - at the time 3 stars, historically 5
lewis v Tyson - at the time 5 stars, historically 2

cfang wrote:One thing that springs to mind is lewis vs vitali It's probably the win above all others that solidifies lewis' reputation. It was his last fight and he certainly wasn't at his absolute best. When you look at what a fabulous fight that was and how well vitali has done since, it's an amazing win really.

The opposite to that ofc is Lewis's wiin against Tyson. In retrospect I can't beleive anyone was really interested. Looking at their comparative form at the time, Tyson was pretty much cannon fodder for Lewis and yet at the time it made a lot of money - really it was one of Lewis's easiest fights.

The Lewis/Tyson fight I find comparable to Jeffries/Johnson and Louis/Marciano... every generation seems to have those fights which should never of happened. How anyone on Earth could of really sanctioned that match, in retrospect, is beyond me. The fight before, it took Mike seven rounds to put away BRIAN NIELSEN ffs. Outside of the Golota fight, which was as solid a victory as any (before it got turned to a NC for marijuana use) there was no real indication that Tyson could fight and defeat the best men in the world. The people after Holyfield and before Lewis, were cannon fodder types: Lou Savarese, Orlin Norris, Julius Francis. Had Tyson defeated someone along the lines of Tua, Ruiz, Byrd, etc. then maybe it would of been different. Then maybe, in retrospect we could of said the victory was more meaningful. But it wasn't.

Tyson has said it himself, on many occasions, that by that time it was all about the money and there was no real training camps involved. It was all about the dollar. How he managed to make it into the eighth round is amazing. That is the only thing remarkable in retrospect. Lewis was at his peak, and Tyson was an echo of who he once was. Sure, he still hit hard and sure he still had good hand speed--- but he was only good for one, two, three rounds. And that was evident enough in his next three (and final fights) against Etienne, Williams and McBride. I do remember, though, after Lewis there was much talk of a rematch which made no sense to me then and still doesnt now--- who would of been remotely interested in such an affair after what was painfully obvious the first time?

Still, Mike made alot of people believers when he destroyed Etienne in 49 seconds. And when his knee gave out on him against Williams--- he was forgiven. After all, you cant hold a man accountable for a bum knee. Crap happens. So he was given a pass. The talk of the town at the time was Tyson-Klitschko. Had Mike beat Williams, for some odd reason he would of gotten the shot at Vitali Klitschko. I remember it all well, because when Williams "won" the contest Vitali fought him and punished him for taking his dream (of fighting Mike) away from him. Of course, the talks still remained after the fact. All Tyson had to do was beat McBride and then one or two more tune ups and he'd get Vitali. In retrospect, this was so outrageously ridiculous. Then again, we were in that weak era where NOTHING was going on at all, and even a faded Mike Tyson was still the biggest draw in the sport--- even when fighting complete stiffs.

I was one of the very few who picked McBride to win. Don't ask me how I knew, but I did. It was a few weeks earlier that I seen McBride on FNF's Saint Patrick's Day special and he was fighting some journeyman named Byron Polley. Of course, McBride won after a few rounds of pushing, clinching, leaning and hard body chops. There was something in the 280 pound Irishman I saw that I knew that he wanted to win more than Mike did--- and that he wouldn't be taken seriously at all--- he would be overlooked, and with his size and bulk he had a good solid chance of taking Tyson's best shots for three rounds and then he would start mounting some offense. After all, I recognized that's all Mike was good for any more. And sadly, I was right. Mike's words afterwards said it all: "Man, my career was over when I lost the title to Douglas in 1990."

The sad thing is... after all that time... rumors still will pop up of Tyson entering 40+ tournaments, getting in shape for a comeback, Tyson-Holyfield III, and the like. The pathetic thing is, despite all the reality, people still buy into the hype that a 50-something ex heavyweight champion would shock the world and challenge the title again. Hell, was just a few weeks ago on this very forum a rumor of Tyson-Vladimir was going around. Of course, the rumors were unfounded, no proof. But goes to show the interest--- strange as it all is--- is still there.

For Lewis' legacy its been said to be his career defining fight. I tend to disagree. But then again, Jack Johnson's career defining fight was against an ex champion, six years removed, without tuneups, and having to lose 110 pounds. So maybe it is Lewis's defining fight--- though I will argue that the fights with Holyfield and the victories over Ruddock, Morrison, Briggs, etc. collectively speak to his legacy. Tyson did nothing for him. Just made him rich and have "bragging rights", which in retrospect is nothing to brag about. Where is the honor, the privelage and the all-around greatness in beating a man who had nothing left? Certainly for Larry Holmes, beating Ali didn't define him--- it was what it was. And that is what Lewis-Tyson was, too.

So in my view, overall to Lewis' all-around legacy? 3 out of 5 stars.
All-around importance to boxing history? 1 star out of 5.

I hate to say it really but I've always thought that Lewis is probably the most overrated fighter ever, certainly that I've seen. I don't understand why people take the Tyson fight particularly seriously and he was losing to Klitschko, cuts can happen to anyone. I have tremendous respect for him but his record to me is a little above Ricky Hatton, and little below Joe Calzaghe; a fantastic fighter but not an atg in my humble opinion!

Lewis was better than Calzaghe and light years better than Hatton.
Actually he gets virtually no credit for beating Tyson.
Never understood the cuts excuse. There are reasons why the best fighters seldom get cut and lesser fighters generally get cut more often. If your defense is good enough, you don't get cut. If your offense is good enough, you can stop the other guy before you get stopped by a cut. The bottom line is, that way past his best, Lewis stopped Klitschko in 6 rounds. Speaks volumes about how good each guy was.

Not one of Lewis biggest wins or best performances. However, important fight in providing a baseline for evaluating the two fighters.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Lewis was better than Calzaghe and light years better than Hatton.
Actually he gets virtually no credit for beating Tyson.

Never understood the cuts excuse. There are reasons why the best fighters seldom get cut and lesser fighters generally get cut more often. If your defense is good enough, you don't get cut. If your offense is good enough, you can stop the other guy before you get stopped by a cut. The bottom line is, that way past his best, Lewis stopped Klitschko in 6 rounds. Speaks volumes about how good each guy was.

Not one of Lewis biggest wins or best performances. However, important fight in providing a baseline for evaluating the two fighters.

I actually agree with you on this Alp. I wasnt ever a Lewis fan, but he certainly cleaned up the division--- poor as it was in the late 90's early 2000's--- and he fought more superior opposition in his career collectively than Calzaghe and Hatton did. I mean look at the long line of victims: David Tua, Tommy Morrison, Razor Ruddock, Frank Bruno, Evander Holyfield, Ray Mercer, Hasim Rahman, Oliver McCall, Frans Botha, Shannon Briggs, Tony Tucker, Mike Weaver, and alot of assorted fringe contenders who were damn good like Phil Jackson and Henry Akinwande, etc.

When you defeat ten men who held belts--- that's a ridiculous success rate. So what he missed facing Ruiz, Byrd, and Jones. They wouldnt of meant much to his legacy anyways. So what that he didnt face Bowe either--- that was Riddick's problem, not Lewis's. And Tyson didn't seem interested in facing him either until he was down to peanuts and way passed it. Not Lewis's fault either that he didn't get the matches he needed against prime guys.

Hatton and Calzaghe, more or less, only defeated one-two men of any real consequence in their entire careers. For Hatton it was Tzsyu. For Calzaghe it was Kessler and Hopkins (by a razor thin margin). Outside of those names--- who are we to point out that makes them on the level with Lewis? An older, slower, faded down the stretch Chris Eubanks and Roy Jones? A motely assortment of journeymen and television fighters and old, ex champions like Freddie Pendelton and Peter Manfredo Jr?

I never much liked Lewis, but the older he got the better he seemed to be (like Jersey Joe Walcott). However, I think when he fought Vitali (when he was expecting Kirk Johnson) he showed where his mindset was in the sport. He was very lucky to get the victory on a TKO. Both men seemed gassed, ready to drop at any moment. The fact that Klitschko would bomb out Johnson a few months later inside of two rounds and was shouting to the roof tops "Rematch!" and Lewis turning down $45 million dollars and retiring instead--- wasn't an indication that Lewis was done and washed up, but rather that he didn't have the drive anymore or the passion or the love for boxing anymore. Had the rematch happened, Lewis probably would of lost because Vitali wanted it more.

In retrospect, we still see that it is Lewis who ranks higher than Vitali Klitschko, and whenever Klitschko is mentioned in debates--- it's always going to be the TKO loss to Lewis and the question of "What if?" the fight went one more round--- more so than his abilities, skills, and overall career. Truth is, outside of Lewis, who is there to point out to? Adamek? Briggs? Gomez? Peter? Sanders? Hide? Those are the title holders (he also lost to Byrd). It doesnt compare in the least bit. Not to say Vitali wasn't a great heavyweight, he was, but he wasn't anywhere near as good (especially when it comes to stats) as Lewis.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Lewis was better than Calzaghe and light years better than Hatton.
Actually he gets virtually no credit for beating Tyson.

Never understood the cuts excuse. There are reasons why the best fighters seldom get cut and lesser fighters generally get cut more often. If your defense is good enough, you don't get cut. If your offense is good enough, you can stop the other guy before you get stopped by a cut. The bottom line is, that way past his best, Lewis stopped Klitschko in 6 rounds. Speaks volumes about how good each guy was.

Not one of Lewis biggest wins or best performances. However, important fight in providing a baseline for evaluating the two fighters.

I actually agree with you on this Alp. I wasnt ever a Lewis fan, but he certainly cleaned up the division--- poor as it was in the late 90's early 2000's--- and he fought more superior opposition in his career collectively than Calzaghe and Hatton did. I mean look at the long line of victims: David Tua, Tommy Morrison, Razor Ruddock, Frank Bruno, Evander Holyfield, Ray Mercer, Hasim Rahman, Oliver McCall, Frans Botha, Shannon Briggs, Tony Tucker, Mike Weaver, and alot of assorted fringe contenders who were damn good like Phil Jackson and Henry Akinwande, etc.

When you defeat ten men who held belts--- that's a ridiculous success rate. So what he missed facing Ruiz, Byrd, and Jones. They wouldnt of meant much to his legacy anyways. So what that he didnt face Bowe either--- that was Riddick's problem, not Lewis's. And Tyson didn't seem interested in facing him either until he was down to peanuts and way passed it. Not Lewis's fault either that he didn't get the matches he needed against prime guys.

Hatton and Calzaghe, more or less, only defeated one-two men of any real consequence in their entire careers. For Hatton it was Tzsyu. For Calzaghe it was Kessler and Hopkins (by a razor thin margin). Outside of those names--- who are we to point out that makes them on the level with Lewis? An older, slower, faded down the stretch Chris Eubanks and Roy Jones? A motely assortment of journeymen and television fighters and old, ex champions like Freddie Pendelton and Peter Manfredo Jr?

I never much liked Lewis, but the older he got the better he seemed to be (like Jersey Joe Walcott). However, I think when he fought Vitali (when he was expecting Kirk Johnson) he showed where his mindset was in the sport. He was very lucky to get the victory on a TKO. Both men seemed gassed, ready to drop at any moment. The fact that Klitschko would bomb out Johnson a few months later inside of two rounds and was shouting to the roof tops "Rematch!" and Lewis turning down $45 million dollars and retiring instead--- wasn't an indication that Lewis was done and washed up, but rather that he didn't have the drive anymore or the passion or the love for boxing anymore. Had the rematch happened, Lewis probably would of lost because Vitali wanted it more.

In retrospect, we still see that it is Lewis who ranks higher than Vitali Klitschko, and whenever Klitschko is mentioned in debates--- it's always going to be the TKO loss to Lewis and the question of "What if?" the fight went one more round--- more so than his abilities, skills, and overall career. Truth is, outside of Lewis, who is there to point out to? Adamek? Briggs? Gomez? Peter? Sanders? Hide? Those are the title holders (he also lost to Byrd). It doesnt compare in the least bit. Not to say Vitali wasn't a great heavyweight, he was, but he wasn't anywhere near as good (especially when it comes to stats) as Lewis.

Good post I feel pretty much the same about Lewis

Good topic Henry, I can't say that I remember this being discussed before, really.

HomicideHenry wrote:Take for instance, Mike Tyson blowing away Michael Spinks in 91 seconds, to unify the WBA/WBC/IBF/LINEAL/RING titles. This match truly determined WHO the rightful and true champion of the world was. This match solidified Tyson in the annals of boxing history. At the time, alot of people felt Spinks had a solid chance of upsetting Tyson. After all, he had beaten Holmes and he defeated the giant Gerry Cooney.

But in retrospect... after all these years... after all the information that has come to light... the match doesn't seem as important in Tyson's career than maybe the Berbick fight was. Spinks was scared to death, had bad knees, avoided Tyson for quite a while, and in reality he wasn't a true heavyweight--- the victory over Holmes (both times) were very close and Holmes was on the way out.

I think that you have highlighted a perception problem that we boxing fans have, and it shows us to be both fickle and extremeist.

Let me point out a few more instances in recent boxing history:

Mayweather vs Cotto
Pre-fight - this was seen a very good test for Mayweather - a much more wothy adversary than Victor Ortiz or a way-past-his-prime Shane Mosley. Cotto was coming off a career-best victory when he systematically dismantled Margarito. I actually remember people saying that Mayweather must be rocognised as an all-time great if he beats Cotto.

Post-fight - Mayweather's naysayers said that the fight should have happened in 2008. And that Cotto wasn't at his best on the night that they fought. And Floyd isn't awarded the credit that they said he would deserve.

Frampton vs Cazares
Pre-fight - the perception was that this was a tricky fight for Frampton. Cazares was a former World Champion at two different weight classes. A wily fighter who was a very experienced operator at the elite level (15 World Title fights) and was the current WBC number one contender, having won fives consecutive fights in the weight division. If Frampton could win this fight, it would demonstrate true title ambitions and make a big statement.

Post-fight - Cazares was an old man who was past his best and looking for one more payday. He was a blown up Light Flyweight who was only at Super Bantam because he couldn't get the weight off. He was all washed up, and the result was no big deal.

- I've seen these sot of instances taking place daily with boxing fans and it's one of my most annoying irritants when it comes to sport.