Rank these 3 Heavyweights

[sonnyboyx2]

Too many people didn't read OP's question. This is on accomplishments only, therefore:

1. Holyfield
2. Lewis
3. Tyson

I could entertain an argument for Lewis being first as well.

How do you see Lewis being first?

Tyson was the youngest fighter to ever be heavyweight champion, he was the undisputed champion as was Holyfield with Holyfield also being undisputed cruiserweight champion and 4 times heavyweight champion.. Tyson also won the WBC & WBA titles a second time and both Holyfield & Tyson defended those titles against the No1 contenders... Whereas Lennox Lewis took a title belt out of the garbage can, Lewis also won the undisputed title by a very disputed points verdict which most ringside reporters thought him fortunate to get the decision, Lewis was then "STRIPPED" of every version of the title for refusing to fight the No1 contenders... like it or not but that is how their careers panned-out`... are you claiming that Lewis accomplishments are greater than the accomplishments of both Tyson & Holyfield?

[Miburo]

How do you see Lewis being first?

Tyson was the youngest fighter to ever be heavyweight champion, he was the undisputed champion as was Holyfield with Holyfield also being undisputed cruiserweight champion and 4 times heavyweight champion.. Tyson also won the WBC & WBA titles a second time and both Holyfield & Tyson defended those titles against the No1 contenders... Whereas Lennox Lewis took a title belt out of the garbage can, Lewis also won the undisputed title by a very disputed points verdict which most ringside reporters thought him fortunate to get the decision, Lewis was then "STRIPPED" of every version of the title for refusing to fight the No1 contenders... like it or not but that is how their careers panned-out`... are you claiming that Lewis accomplishments are greater than the accomplishments of both Tyson & Holyfield?

Firstly, I like how you blatantly ignored the fact that I ranked Holyfield first. Nice one there. As for Tyson: undisputed in a weak period. Won the titles again only because they'd been stripped or released by the legitimate champions (notice the irony here, as you make a point out of Lewis winning a stripped title). What disputed decision, against Holyfield? You're kidding, right? Lewis can't help that Bowe wouldn't fight him, and beat everyone he ever faced. Yes, they some of them were past their prime, but he thrashed a Holyfield who only shortly earlier had thrashed Tyson. In terms of accomplishments I have no idea how anyone can be incredulous that someone would rank Lewis above Tyson.

[Check_hooks]

Overall careers, I have it Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson

In their primes, I have it Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson

Lewis beat both Holyfield and Tyson when they were late in their careers and I see no reason why he wouldnt of beat them in their prime years

[irishdude]

Tyson
Holyfield
Lewis

Tyson cos he is unstoppable in his prime, then Holyfield cos he was both undisputed Cruiserweight champ as well as heavyweight champ, that is why I choose him ahead of Lewis.

1985-1988, a ferocious Tyson knocks them out.

[sonnyboyx2]

Firstly, I like how you blatantly ignored the fact that I ranked Holyfield first. Nice one there. As for Tyson: undisputed in a weak period. Won the titles again only because they'd been stripped or released by the legitimate champions (notice the irony here, as you make a point out of Lewis winning a stripped title). What disputed decision, against Holyfield? You're kidding, right? Lewis can't help that Bowe wouldn't fight him, and beat everyone he ever faced. Yes, they some of them were past their prime, but he thrashed a Holyfield who only shortly earlier had thrashed Tyson. In terms of accomplishments I have no idea how anyone can be incredulous that someone would rank Lewis above Tyson.

i ignored nothing, i asked "How do you see Lewis being first on accomplishments"?

you say, "Tyson undisputed in a weak era?
are you claiming that Lewis era was stronger than the late 80s?
you say,"Won the titles again only because they'd been stripped or released by the legitimate champions" - please explain what your talking about.
yes the decision against Holyfield.. here is a link:


you claim, Lewis cant help it if Bowe wont fight him.. again here is a link:


you claim, "Lewis beat a version of Holyfield who had recently beaten Tyson".. Yet Tyson was beaten 6yrs previously and it was clear to all that he was finished back in 1990 before he served a long prison sentence so him losing to an old Holyfield does in your eyes glorify the accomplishments of Lennox Lewis?

your claim that Rid**** Bowe would not fight Lewis yet you question it when it is written that Lewis would not face any No1 contender?

explain your comments

[Joeyzagz]

In terms of accomplishments I have no idea how anyone can be incredulous that someone would rank Lewis above Tyson.

I agree.

My main gripe with Tyson is that he had absolutely no desire to avenge his loss to Buster Douglas.

If it was a fluke loss, PROVE it like Lennox did rematching Mccall and rahman. Tyson did absolutely nothing to remove those doubts in our minds so we are only left to assume that Buster was his better.

Tyson had 3 opportunities:

1990-Immediately after the loss

1996-After he regained the title

1999-During his 2nd comeback

Tyson has a what if career, Lennox actually delivered.

[sonnyboyx2]

I agree.

My main gripe with Tyson is that he had absolutely no desire to avenge his loss to Buster Douglas.

If it was a fluke loss, PROVE it like Lennox did rematching Mccall and rahman. Tyson did absolutely nothing to remove those doubts in our minds so we are only left to assume that Buster was his better.

Tyson had 3 opportunities:

1990-Immediately after the loss

1996-After he regained the title

1999-During his 2nd comeback

Tyson has a what if career, Lennox actually delivered.

WRONG... Tyson was never in a position to avenge his defeat to Buster Douglas.. Buster lost his title to Holyfield in his first defense and Tyson was due to fight Holyfield but got imprisoned.. Douglas immediately retired from the sport and suffered health problems over the next few years, he made a brief comeback in 1996 against journeymen opponents but was nothing like the fighter he had been a decade earlier, in 1996 Tyson was Heavyweight Champion with Douglas not ranked in the Top 100 so a fight was never possible.

Buster Douglas hammered Oliver McCall in 1989 with McCall being in great physical condition unlike the version which came out of a Drug-Rehab to get disqualified against a tentative Lennox Lewis in 97.

Your claim that Tysons loss to Douglas may have been a "FLUKE" again is `wrong`.... why would it be a fluke loss when Tyson was beaten from pillar-to-post by Douglas? Tyson himself said," Douglas fought a great fight" he never ever claimed it was a FLUKE .... which is unlike Lennox Lewis who came out with some of the most laughable excuses of all time when he twice got poleaxed by mediocre journeymen in McCall & Rahman.. the Lewis howlers.

`it was a lucky punch`
`i was not focused on the fight`
`my mind was on hollywood acting`
`he threw the punch with his eyes closed`
`i never trained right`
`the referee counted too quickly`
`i wuda knocked him out in the next round`

[Toney616]

I agree.

My main gripe with Tyson is that he had absolutely no desire to avenge his loss to Buster Douglas.

He did try to avenge that loss, but Douglas chose to fight Holyfield instead

If it was a fluke loss, PROVE it like Lennox did rematching Mccall and rahman. Tyson did absolutely nothing to remove those doubts in our minds so we are only left to assume that Buster was his better.

You dont know what you are talking about

Tyson had 3 opportunities:

1990-Immediately after the loss

There was no rematch clause in the original contract and Buster chose to fight his no 1 contender which was Holyfield. There was a interview on youtube with tyson asking for another shot, but Douglas said it was up to his people to decide whose next

1996-After he regained the title

Buster Douglas was basically a contender at that point after coming back from a 6 year retirement

1999-During his 2nd comeback[/B]

He was a shot fighter by then, also he would of fought him if Douglas had gotten past Savarese

Tyson has a what if career, Lennox actually delivered.

Tyson had a successful career, but he never lived up to his full potential
Lennox really delivered on his Vitali rematch, right?

[Toney616]

the Lewis howlers.
`it was a lucky punch`
`i was not focused on the fight`
`my mind was on hollywood acting`
`he threw the punch with his eyes closed`
`i never trained right`
`the referee counted too quickly`
`i wuda knocked him out in the next round`

Manny had trained McCall to be on the lookout for Lewis's lazy jab, which was then followed up by a telegraphed straight right.

[Toney616]

1. Lennox Lewis-The last man to be undisputed Heavyweight champion; 10 years and counting. Defeated everyone on Resume'.

Holyfield beat Tyson to pick up the WBA belt, he then unified with Moorer to pick up the IBF belt. Lewis had picked up the WBC belt by beating McCall for the vacant belt
So he unified with two fights a solid achievement, but he would taint it by vacating belts to avoid fighting Byrd and Vitali. He basically had no choice but to retire, when he refused to fight Vitali

2. Mike Tyson-Unstoppable for 3 years, shouldve avenged Douglas loss.

Was never given the opportunity to avenge it, no less embarrasing than retiring to avoid facing Vitali

3. Evander Holyfield- Holyfield is an ATG. There are no bad fighters on this list.

Agree