Lennox Lewis KO'd

[CJM]

Originally posted by Jen!!!
Bowe beat Holyfield because he's the better boxer, period. Size sometimes is a hinderance, not an advantage. Bowe even said he has less of an edge with "smaller" guys. Holyfield's ok, but would not have beat Tyson. No way, no how. But I still believe Lewis can come back and beat Tyson. It might be the long-shot bet, but he's got the determination. Unfortunately we didn't see it last Saturday.
Tyson vs. Lewis is a whole new ballgame. It's like the World Series of boxing.

Size has a lot to do with things.If Lennox Lewis wasn't as big as he is,do you think he beats even the old Holyfield that he fought.Hell no.

Riddick Bowe could have been a great fighter,he had the skills,but to say he was a better fighter than Evander Holyfield?No way.There is a big intangible often overlooked in boxing,it's called balls.

[Jen!!!]

Riddick Bowe was a great fighter. He was better than Holyfield in his own right. Lots of people are better than Holyfield. He's a lot of hype. Lewis beat Holyfield on skill, not because he was bigger. Tyson also beats his opponents on skill, and not because he's smaller and moves a bit quicker.

One cannot overlook the amount or size of balls in boxing. They all have them or they wouldn't even cross the ropes. That's a given.

[Mean Linguine]

Alright a39,

No way we're going to agree on this one. But boxing guys smarter than us (an Associated Press panel that included managers, trainers, boxers and writers) picked Larry tied for 5th with Jack Johnson for greatest heavyweight of the 20th century, behind -- and I forget the order -- Ali, Louis, Dempsey and Marciano. Even if you don't agree with that, you have to at least give the guy his due. You can't say all his opponents were bad. He beat Norton, Ali, Cooney, Witherspoon, Shavers twice, Mercer, Leon Spinks, Marvis Frazier, Berbick, Truth Williams. He was screwed on both Michael Spinks fights, lost by a couple of points to Holyfield when he was in his 40s, lost to McCall by one point when he was in his 40s. Tyson is the only guy who beat him up, and Larry was 38 and coming off a three-year layoff against a guy in his prime.
I'm not downgrading your guy. I just said that when Tyson shows he can get off the deck to win, I'll rank him as a great, too.
Regardless, they're both future first-ballot Hall of Famers. It's like arguing who is better between Mike Schmidt and Brooks Robinson. Depends on your taste.

[CJM]

How much balls did Spinx have when he crossed the ropes to fight Tyson?

I respect you opinion but if you ask 100 boxing writers who was better,Holyfield or Bowe,99 of them are gonna say Holyfield.

Evander Holyfield goes down in history.Bowe is a footnote.

[Mean Linguine]

Should be no question about Holyfield. He fought everyone, showed heart, won titles in different weight classes. Very good champion, no matter hwo you look at it.

[Ansky39]

Originally posted by Mean Linguine
Alright a39,

No way we're going to agree on this one. But boxing guys smarter than us (an Associated Press panel that included managers, trainers, boxers and writers) picked Larry tied for 5th with Jack Johnson for greatest heavyweight of the 20th century, behind -- and I forget the order -- Ali, Louis, Dempsey and Marciano. Even if you don't agree with that, you have to at least give the guy his due. You can't say all his opponents were bad. He beat Norton, Ali, Cooney, Witherspoon, Shavers twice, Mercer, Leon Spinks, Marvis Frazier, Berbick, Truth Williams. He was screwed on both Michael Spinks fights, lost by a couple of points to Holyfield when he was in his 40s, lost to McCall by one point when he was in his 40s. Tyson is the only guy who beat him up, and Larry was 38 and coming off a three-year layoff against a guy in his prime.
I'm not downgrading your guy. I just said that when Tyson shows he can get off the deck to win, I'll rank him as a great, too.
Regardless, they're both future first-ballot Hall of Famers. It's like arguing who is better between Mike Schmidt and Brooks Robinson. Depends on your taste.

one thing and no offense here, but i very rarely if ever defer to the media on anything whether it's sports or politics....

but i will say YOU, not ap make a solid case for your guy, and ok, yeah, he's definitely up there, even though yaaawnnn.. he wasn't the most exciting champ... just one lil footnote... norton ali and shavers were waaay past their primes as i recall and i don't know if you wanna compare what tyson did to marvis w/ holmes performance....

but in the end, your right it does just depend on your taste... fyi, schmidt was definitely better than robinson