Heavyweights: Mike Tyson vs Lennox Lewis

[Ambling Alp II]

I didn't know anyone who actually thought Ali would win. He was clearly well past his best the last time he had fought, which was more than two years previously. I remember a lot of fight fans (not just the general public) that were confident that Tyson would or at least could win.

Tyson clearly had more left than Ali had.
Holmes was in his prime, Lewis was not.

Even those that thought Lewis would win, thought Tyson had a least a puncher's chance.

Well, if odds went to 9-5 it's obvious that many people bet on Ali. Casuals are what they are. The want to believe in unbeliveable. And, by the way, Lewis himself said many times he was at his absolute best in Rahman-2 fight. In my opinion, his first fight against Holyfield and second fight against Rahman were by far his best, his peak performances. And Tyson fight was just 7 months after Lewis demolished Rahman in epic performance. But I agree that Lennox looked slightly slower against Tyson than before. But he was only slightly worse than his peak version, while Tyson was beyond shot. Even Ali, who who also beyond shot and had Parkinson desease, looked much better against Berbick than Tyson looked against Danny Williams. And Berbick is MUCH better than Danny Williams.

I guess I have two points for why so many more serious boxing fans/experts thought Tyson had a chance and Ali didn't.
1. Ali had clearly shown he was past in his last few fights and had not fought in two years. Tyson had looked better in his recent fights and had fought more recently.
2. Holmes was still in his prime. Lewis was getting old and had been knocked out recently, though he did avenge it. A lot of people thought along the lines of "well if Rahman can do it, Tyson can.

Think of it another way:
Rank the four fighters at the time of these fights.
Any knowledgable fan would rank them as:
1. 1980 Holmes
2. 2002 Lewis
3. 2002 Tyson
4. 1980 Ali

Better chance that the #3 guy beats the #2 guy than #4 beats #1.

I agree after the Lewis fight, Tyson looked terrible against Williams and McBride for that matter. However, he was also older than pre-Lewis, and didn't seem to be trying too hard against Williams and McBride either.

Going into Lewis-Tyson, I thought Lewis would win. However, by no means did I think that this was a done deal. I think a lot of people thought this way.

[Kalan]

For me it was a done deal... I didn't see any possible way Tyson could win -- because Lewis wasn't going to pull another Rahman and close his eyes.

I would change your ranking... 1. Lewis... 2. Holmes... 3. Tyson... 4. Ali... Tyson was very strong and fast. He had a chance to beat prime Holmes---who wasn't real big and strong. Larry could be run over by a fighter with Tyson's style.. Lewis was too big, tall, and strong for MIke -- and could box well obviously.

[elmersalsa]

For me it was a done deal... I didn't see any possible way Tyson could win -- because Lewis wasn't going to pull another Rahman and close his eyes.

I would change your ranking... 1. Lewis... 2. Holmes... 3. Tyson... 4. Ali... Tyson was very strong and fast. He had a chance to beat prime Holmes---who wasn't real big and strong. Larry could be run over by a fighter with Tyson's style.. Lewis was too big, tall, and strong for MIke -- and could box well obviously.

And Iron Mike was also TOO WASHED UP. Lewis caught Tyson at the right time. It wasn't 1986. It was 2002. Sixteen years later.

[Covfefe]

For me it was a done deal... I didn't see any possible way Tyson could win -- because Lewis wasn't going to pull another Rahman and close his eyes.

I would change your ranking... 1. Lewis... 2. Holmes... 3. Tyson... 4. Ali... Tyson was very strong and fast. He had a chance to beat prime Holmes---who wasn't real big and strong. Larry could be run over by a fighter with Tyson's style.. Lewis was too big, tall, and strong for MIke -- and could box well obviously.

And Iron Mike was also TOO WASHED UP. Lewis caught Tyson at the right time. It wasn't 1986. It was 2002. Sixteen years later.

Didn't Tyson pay Lewis money to not fight him in the mid-90s?

He was certainly washed up in 2002, though a fight in 86 would have been no better as Lewis was still an amateur while Tyson was hitting his prime. Even if it happened after Tyson came out of prison he was years removed from his prime as Lewis was just entering his. Just one of those things.

[Boxing Writer]

I didn't know anyone who actually thought Ali would win. He was clearly well past his best the last time he had fought, which was more than two years previously. I remember a lot of fight fans (not just the general public) that were confident that Tyson would or at least could win.

Tyson clearly had more left than Ali had.
Holmes was in his prime, Lewis was not.

Even those that thought Lewis would win, thought Tyson had a least a puncher's chance.

Well, if odds went to 9-5 it's obvious that many people bet on Ali. Casuals are what they are. The want to believe in unbeliveable. And, by the way, Lewis himself said many times he was at his absolute best in Rahman-2 fight. In my opinion, his first fight against Holyfield and second fight against Rahman were by far his best, his peak performances. And Tyson fight was just 7 months after Lewis demolished Rahman in epic performance. But I agree that Lennox looked slightly slower against Tyson than before. But he was only slightly worse than his peak version, while Tyson was beyond shot. Even Ali, who who also beyond shot and had Parkinson desease, looked much better against Berbick than Tyson looked against Danny Williams. And Berbick is MUCH better than Danny Williams.

I guess I have two points for why so many more serious boxing fans/experts thought Tyson had a chance and Ali didn't.
1. Ali had clearly shown he was past in his last few fights and had not fought in two years. Tyson had looked better in his recent fights and had fought more recently.
2. Holmes was still in his prime. Lewis was getting old and had been knocked out recently, though he did avenge it. A lot of people thought along the lines of "well if Rahman can do it, Tyson can.

Think of it another way:
Rank the four fighters at the time of these fights.
Any knowledgable fan would rank them as:
1. 1980 Holmes
2. 2002 Lewis
3. 2002 Tyson
4. 1980 Ali

I would change this rating this way:

1. 1980 Holmes
2. 2002 Lewis
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3. 2002 Tyson
4. 1980 Ali

Gap between 2 and 3 was huge. But, of course, Tyson had more chances against Lewis than Ali had vs Holmes because of 2 reasons: 1) Tyson's power; 2) Lewis' chin. But Lennox, if he was fully focused, was very hard to hit cleanly with a power punch, so Tyson's chances were extremely small. Add here Tyson's awful stamina, and his only chance was to catch Lewis cold in the first round, which wasn't going to happen since Lewis prepared very seriously and was 100% focused in the ring.

[Boxing Writer]

And Iron Mike was also TOO WASHED UP. Lewis caught Tyson at the right time. It wasn't 1986. It was 2002. Sixteen years later.

Yes, Tyson was awfully washed up, but that wasn't Lewis' fault that their fight didn't happen earlier. 1996 was a good time for their fight. Tyson was past his prime (mostly technically) but still very good while Lewis was already in his physical prime and was entering his technical/skills prime. Too bad it didn't happen then, but Lewis isn't the one to blame here.

[Kalan]

For me it was a done deal... I didn't see any possible way Tyson could win -- because Lewis wasn't going to pull another Rahman and close his eyes.

I would change your ranking... 1. Lewis... 2. Holmes... 3. Tyson... 4. Ali... Tyson was very strong and fast. He had a chance to beat prime Holmes---who wasn't real big and strong. Larry could be run over by a fighter with Tyson's style.. Lewis was too big, tall, and strong for MIke -- and could box well obviously.

And Iron Mike was also TOO WASHED UP. Lewis caught Tyson at the right time. It wasn't 1986. It was 2002. Sixteen years later.

That's okay... Tyson couldn't do anything to James Smith or Tony Tucker in 1987... They were big, tall, strong guys, but not good... Mike was a stubby little character and easy to hit... If they could box and punch as well as Lewis they would have punched Mike straight into the canvas -- like Douglas did when Mike was only 23.. You can't say Tyson was past his prime -- and Douglas found him an easy guy to box, punch, bully around, and beat the Hell out of.

[elmersalsa]

For me it was a done deal... I didn't see any possible way Tyson could win -- because Lewis wasn't going to pull another Rahman and close his eyes.

I would change your ranking... 1. Lewis... 2. Holmes... 3. Tyson... 4. Ali... Tyson was very strong and fast. He had a chance to beat prime Holmes---who wasn't real big and strong. Larry could be run over by a fighter with Tyson's style.. Lewis was too big, tall, and strong for MIke -- and could box well obviously.

And Iron Mike was also TOO WASHED UP. Lewis caught Tyson at the right time. It wasn't 1986. It was 2002. Sixteen years later.

That's okay... Tyson couldn't do anything to James Smith or Tony Tucker in 1987... They were big, tall, strong guys, but not good... Mike was a stubby little character and easy to hit... If they could box and punch as well as Lewis they would have punched Mike straight into the canvas -- like Douglas did when Mike was only 23.. You can't say Tyson was past his prime -- and Douglas found him an easy guy to box, punch, bully around, and beat the Hell out of.

Tony Tucker and James "Bonecrusher" Smith didn't do nothing on Iron Mike even though they were big heavyweights. They CLUTCHED AND GRABBED THE WHOLE NIGHT FOR SURVIVAL, Kalan! Survival!

No version of Lennox Lewis beats the Buster Douglas that beat the great Mike Tyson in Tokyo. No version of Lewis beats that destructible force of the late 80s and early 90s. Why? He is TOO SLOW FOR TYSON. TOO SLOW! To beat Tyson, you gotta be fast. You gotta have SPEED. Lewis never gave us that indication that he had that speed. And with that chin, he ain't gonna go far against Iron Mike. He could grab and hold like Smith and Tucker did for survival. He was big. He wouldn't be scared. But he couldn't outbox Tyson because he was slow of hands and feet. That's not enough.

[Syntax Error]

He could have finished Tyson inside of 3 rounds if he really wanted, but he was over cautious.

I could understand him being wary in the first round when Tyson was fresh, but Tyson had no stamina by 2002 & was just about done after a couple of rounds.

I'm not so sure he was over cautious. I seem to remember him saying he was going to " punish " Tyson after the debacle at the press conference with Tyson biting his leg and all that crap. Maybe he just prolonged the beating because he wanted to.

That would make sense, because even I, from the comfort of my sofa watching on TV could see Tyson was ready to be taken from early on, but Lewis just wouldn't jump on him.

It got so bad that Tyson himself virtually begged his cornermen to pull him out after round 7, when he said to them, "I'm gone" (or something similar), & they still sent him out for round 8.

I'm no apologist for Tyson, namely stemming from some of the terrible things he did in the ring, but I did feel sorry for him that night.

He often seem to be lumbered with terrible cornermen in his big fights post Rooney leaving.

[Crease]

A few different questions here:

What if this fight happened in the 80s or early 90s? Would have been the same outcome as in 2002 when Lennox Lewis caught Iron Mike at the tailing end of his career?

In the late 80s, it would have been a much different fight because it would be two different version of the fighters.
A better Tyson. Fast, ruthless, hungry - just a wrecking ball going through the division... Eating up the Heavyweights with great gusto.
A worse Lewis. Nowhere near as experienced at churning out points victories... Not as tactically astute as he would become later in his career.
And so bearing all that in mind, I don't see anything other than a Tyson win by KO in the mid-to-late rounds.

Who got the better career?

It's tough to say. Lewis definitely ended his career better, still at the top of the game and beating top contenders (Vitali Klitchsko) and he has got that historic victory over Holyfield in his legacy - and thus bringing together 3 of the 4 Championships.
However he did lose badly to Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman - which to his credit he both avenged.

That being said, Tyson had 3 of the Championships - unified them all by himself (unlike Lewis) and went on to successfully defend them all 6 times over the course of 30 months... And none of his opponents made it past the 7th round after he claimed the IBF title.
There's no doubt that Tyson was more impressive in his victories that what Lennox was.
But, he crashed against Douglas - had the fortitude to get 2 titles back until Holyfield stopped him in his track twice (though there's no shame losing to Evander).

It's a tough call. I guess it boils down which losses were the worst? Personally I'd probably give it to Tyson - what he did in the 80s has still left a big impression on me in a way that Lewis never has.

Who beat the better opponents?

There's a few shared opponents - Tony Tucker, Frank Bruno and Evander Holyfield of course.

Tyson never did beat Holyfield, yet Lewis did. However, Tyson defeated Tucker and Bruno more convincingly.
Looking at Lewis' career - I'd say he beat 4 very good Heavyweights - Holyfield, McCall, Tua & Vitali Klitchsko.
Examining Tysons's career - I'd say he beat 5 pretty good Heavyweights - Holmes, Michael Spinks, "The Truth Williams, Berbick, Thomas. All these guys were big fighters in the 80s (alongside Tucker & Tubbs) - I'd edge it again ever so slightly to Tyson.

Who had the better skills in their primes?

Both very different styles. But I always thought that Lewis was rigid and methodical compared to the unleashed fury and wildness of a Tyson. Yet Tyson could attack you from any angle, uppercuts, hooks, getting under your guard and pounding your body - you name it.
Again, I'd give it to Tyson.

[Boxing Writer]

.


There's a few shared opponents - Tony Tucker, Frank Bruno and Evander Holyfield of course.

Tyson never did beat Holyfield, yet Lewis did. However, Tyson defeated Tucker and Bruno more convincingly.
Looking at Lewis' career - I'd say he beat 4 very good Heavyweights - Holyfield, McCall, Tua & Vitali Klitchsko.
Examining Tysons's career - I'd say he beat 5 pretty good Heavyweights - Holmes, Michael Spinks, "The Truth Williams, Berbick, Thomas. All these guys were big fighters in the 80s (alongside Tucker & Tubbs) - I'd edge it again ever so slightly to Tyson.

The first part of that is just plain wrong. Tyson couldn't knock Tucker off his feet, Lewis was the first man ever to do so, and he did it twice. The Tyson that fought Bruno was having his 36th fight, Bruno was Lewis's 24th opponent.

That's wrong to estimate that way. Amount of fights has nothing to do with it. Tyson was a professional fighter for 2 years and 11 month when he fought Bruno, Lewis was a pro for 4 years and 4 months. Lewis simply didn't reach his prime yet when he fought Bruno. Pre-Steward Lewis was nowhere near as good as he has became later. He improved his defensive and offencive skills, his balance and his jab tremendously, he started to use his size much better, and he could clinch as good as Wladimir Klitschko when he needed to. 99-01 version of Lewis would completely murder 92-94 version in two rounds.

[elmersalsa]

No version of Lennox Lewis beats the Buster Douglas that beat the great Mike Tyson in Tokyo. No version of Lewis beats that destructible force of the late 80s and early 90s. Why? He is TOO SLOW FOR TYSON. TOO SLOW! To beat Tyson, you gotta be fast. You gotta have SPEED. Lewis never gave us that indication that he had that speed. And with that chin, he ain't gonna go far against Iron Mike. He could grab and hold like Smith and Tucker did for survival. He was big. He wouldn't be scared. But he couldn't outbox Tyson because he was slow of hands and feet. That's not enough.

That was EXACTLY the same version of Douglas that quit in a fight he was dead level in against Tucker 2 and a half years earlier, causing his own father to label him a dog. He just found the stumpy little Tyson a lot easier to hit cleanly, than he did Tucker. In fact he found him as easy to hit as Long, Halstead, Mike Williams and the iron chinned Oliver McCall.

Put Tony Tucker in the rematch in Tokyo and it's a different story. Buster was winning the first fight. Somehow, got tired. Buster was an OFFF AND ON BOXER. He had great skills, but, he was LAZY AS HELL.

Lennox Lewis doesn't beat that Tokyo version of Buster Douglas. Plain and simple

Lewis has never had a great performance of that magnitude against a hell of an opponent.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well, if odds went to 9-5 it's obvious that many people bet on Ali. Casuals are what they are. The want to believe in unbeliveable. And, by the way, Lewis himself said many times he was at his absolute best in Rahman-2 fight. In my opinion, his first fight against Holyfield and second fight against Rahman were by far his best, his peak performances. And Tyson fight was just 7 months after Lewis demolished Rahman in epic performance. But I agree that Lennox looked slightly slower against Tyson than before. But he was only slightly worse than his peak version, while Tyson was beyond shot. Even Ali, who who also beyond shot and had Parkinson desease, looked much better against Berbick than Tyson looked against Danny Williams. And Berbick is MUCH better than Danny Williams.

I guess I have two points for why so many more serious boxing fans/experts thought Tyson had a chance and Ali didn't.
1. Ali had clearly shown he was past in his last few fights and had not fought in two years. Tyson had looked better in his recent fights and had fought more recently.
2. Holmes was still in his prime. Lewis was getting old and had been knocked out recently, though he did avenge it. A lot of people thought along the lines of "well if Rahman can do it, Tyson can.

Think of it another way:
Rank the four fighters at the time of these fights.
Any knowledgable fan would rank them as:
1. 1980 Holmes
2. 2002 Lewis
3. 2002 Tyson
4. 1980 Ali

I would change this rating this way:

1. 1980 Holmes
2. 2002 Lewis
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3. 2002 Tyson
4. 1980 Ali

Gap between 2 and 3 was huge. But, of course, Tyson had more chances against Lewis than Ali had vs Holmes because of 2 reasons: 1) Tyson's power; 2) Lewis' chin. But Lennox, if he was fully focused, was very hard to hit cleanly with a power punch, so Tyson's chances were extremely small. Add here Tyson's awful stamina, and his only chance was to catch Lewis cold in the first round, which wasn't going to happen since Lewis prepared very seriously and was 100% focused in the ring.

Going into the fight it wasn't like that. Ali had not fought in over two years. Compare his last last few fights going into the Holmes fight with tyson's before the Lewis fight. Tyson had much more left and was not coming off a long layoff.

At the time of the fight, Ring Magazine had Lewis as the champion. They had Tyson as the #2 challenger. He was not considered "shot " before the fight.

[Boxing Writer]

Going into the fight it wasn't like that. Ali had not fought in over two years. Compare his last last few fights going into the Holmes fight with tyson's before the Lewis fight. Tyson had much more left and was not coming off a long layoff.

At the time of the fight, Ring Magazine had Lewis as the champion. They had Tyson as the #2 challenger. He was not considered "shot " before the fight.

Prime Spinks was much better than past prime, grossly overweight Europen-level fighter Brian Nielsen, who in his prime got a gift decision against almost 50-years-old Larry Holmes. And it was the only Tyson's win (and fight) in the last 20 months before Lewis fight.

As for the The Ring ratings, they ranked Michael Grant as their #3 heavyweight, right after Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield, before Lennox sparked him out in two rounds. It's beyond ridiculous.

[Boxing Writer]

The first part of that is just plain wrong. Tyson couldn't knock Tucker off his feet, Lewis was the first man ever to do so, and he did it twice. The Tyson that fought Bruno was having his 36th fight, Bruno was Lewis's 24th opponent.

That's wrong to estimate that way. Amount of fights has nothing to do with it. Tyson was a professional fighter for 2 years and 11 month when he fought Bruno, Lewis was a pro for 4 years and 4 months. Lewis simply didn't reach his prime yet when he fought Bruno. Pre-Steward Lewis was nowhere near as good as he has became later. He improved his defensive and offencive skills, his balance and his jab tremendously, he started to use his size much better, and he could clinch as good as Wladimir Klitschko when he needed to. 99-01 version of Lewis would completely murder 92-94 version in two rounds.

Partly true. Lewis didn't suddenly become better overnight after the McCall defeat and changing to Steward. Beating up Lionel Butler ,and Justine Fortune proved next to nothing. I would venture he didn't show great improvement until his 35th fight against the guy NO ONE could knock off his feet in Mavrovic. I think he would have stopped Morrison, Golota and Akinwande anyway. We all know McCall cracked up in the ring, and I believe Briggs was just a body builder who was hyped up because he beat a 49 year old Foreman.

Yeah, and even 49 y.o. Foreman arguably beat Briggs and I agree McCall rematch doesn't prove much. But I believe that Lennox we saw against Morrison and Mercer wouldn't need 8 rounds to stop glass-jawed Phil Jackson and that version of Lewis wouldn't go life and death in the first 6 rounds against Frank Bruno. But, of course, Lennox continued to improve and reached his peak in 1998-1999 (the first Holyfield fight). I think his 3 best performances were Holyfield-I, Rahman-II and Tua fights. Rahman-II also was his last peak performance in my opinion.

[Syntax Error]

That was EXACTLY the same version of Douglas that quit in a fight he was dead level in against Tucker 2 and a half years earlier, causing his own father to label him a dog. He just found the stumpy little Tyson a lot easier to hit cleanly, than he did Tucker. In fact he found him as easy to hit as Long, Halstead, Mike Williams and the iron chinned Oliver McCall.

Put Tony Tucker in the rematch in Tokyo and it's a different story. Buster was winning the first fight. Somehow, got tired. Buster was an OFFF AND ON BOXER. He had great skills, but, he was LAZY AS HELL.

Lennox Lewis doesn't beat that Tokyo version of Buster Douglas. Plain and simple

Lewis has never had a great performance of that magnitude against a hell of an opponent.

I'm sorry but you are wrong elmer. Douglas wasn't winning the fight at all. It was dead even and he just quit, fighting back in the 10th after taking some punishment. You can clearly hear the commentator saying at the start of the 10th " these guys ( not just Douglas ) have not got much energy, Mike Tyson said the same thing a few minutes ago" Apparently it was still 90 degrees in the ring even though the sun had gone down

This wasn't some fat bloated Buster that showed up against Holyfield. It was the same Douglas that won in Tokyo, whether Tyson fans can accept it or not. Tyson was just easy meat for Douglas, and always would have been unless it was the fat 240 lb plus version that turned up. And yes prime Lewis beats Tokyo Douglas, just like he beat Tucker, who when he opened up on Buster made him quit. Jeez he even thought about quitting when Tyson did manage to land the one decent shot in the 8th.

I just can't get this " Douglas was unbeatable that night in Tokyo " from Tyson fans. He wasn't, he just exploded a myth. No more, no less.

Amen to this.

A lot of people have said that Douglas was unbeatable that night & I can't fathom why they say that.

He dominated Tyson, yes, but he was heavily floored by one punch but brilliantly got up & boxed on as we all know.

He wasn't even the best HW of 1990, let alone unbeatable on that night.

[elmersalsa]

Put Tony Tucker in the rematch in Tokyo and it's a different story. Buster was winning the first fight. Somehow, got tired. Buster was an OFFF AND ON BOXER. He had great skills, but, he was LAZY AS HELL.

Lennox Lewis doesn't beat that Tokyo version of Buster Douglas. Plain and simple

Lewis has never had a great performance of that magnitude against a hell of an opponent.

I'm sorry but you are wrong elmer. Douglas wasn't winning the fight at all. It was dead even and he just quit, fighting back in the 10th after taking some punishment. You can clearly hear the commentator saying at the start of the 10th " these guys ( not just Douglas ) have not got much energy, Mike Tyson said the same thing a few minutes ago" Apparently it was still 90 degrees in the ring even though the sun had gone down

This wasn't some fat bloated Buster that showed up against Holyfield. It was the same Douglas that won in Tokyo, whether Tyson fans can accept it or not. Tyson was just easy meat for Douglas, and always would have been unless it was the fat 240 lb plus version that turned up. And yes prime Lewis beats Tokyo Douglas, just like he beat Tucker, who when he opened up on Buster made him quit. Jeez he even thought about quitting when Tyson did manage to land the one decent shot in the 8th.

I just can't get this " Douglas was unbeatable that night in Tokyo " from Tyson fans. He wasn't, he just exploded a myth. No more, no less.

Amen to this.

A lot of people have said that Douglas was unbeatable that night & I can't fathom why they say that.

He dominated Tyson, yes, but he was heavily floored by one punch but brilliantly got up & boxed on as we all know.

He wasn't even the best HW of 1990, let alone unbeatable on that night.

We cannot dismiss Buster Douglas performance. It was a performance of the ages. Not too many heavyweight boxers would have beaten him that night. He was at the very best shape of his life. He won fair and square. He outgutted the monster, and was faster with the jab and movement. He fought also an intelligent and smart fight. He got decked on the canvas in round 8 because he got careless. It was a great shot. Let's give Iron Mike credit for that. But the better man won.

To beat Buster that night in Tokyo, you better be at your very best. Like I have said. His performance rates against any performance ever at heavyweight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Douglas fought a great fight. It would have taken a great fighter to have beaten him that particular night. For once he got the most of his talent. Tyson seemed to be sleepwalking through much of the fight. Douglas deserves a lot of credit for this fight. Tyson (except for a few flashes) didn't fight well and deserves to be ripped for that performance.

[Crease]

The first part of that is just plain wrong. Tyson couldn't knock Tucker off his feet, Lewis was the first man ever to do so, and he did it twice.

Why don't you count up the official scorecards? Tyson won by a better margin.

[Crease]

I could care less about official scorecards. Whoopee do Tyson won by a combined 18 points to Lewis's 17.

You be honest I thought that it was a.bigger gap than that of a single point.

[elmersalsa]

The first part of that is just plain wrong. Tyson couldn't knock Tucker off his feet, Lewis was the first man ever to do so, and he did it twice.

Why don't you count up the official scorecards? Tyson won by a better margin.

I could care less about official scorecards. Whoopee do Tyson won by a combined 18 points to Lewis's 17. Like I said, stumpy couldn't knock Tucker over, Lewis did, twice. Tyson could NEVER avenge a defeat, Lewis DID.

Superior fighter, superior man? Lennox.

Yeah, Lewis lost to two bums that Tyson would have never lost to.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Such a tough call. Lewis has the skill and style advantage, but he was intimidated by old Tyson early. Very apprehensive in the ring walk and constantly holding until the ref warned him in round two and woke him up. Prime Tyson may have had a doctor waking him up.

[elmersalsa]

I could care less about official scorecards. Whoopee do Tyson won by a combined 18 points to Lewis's 17. Like I said, stumpy couldn't knock Tucker over, Lewis did, twice. Tyson could NEVER avenge a defeat, Lewis DID.

Superior fighter, superior man? Lennox.

Yeah, Lewis lost to two bums that Tyson would have never lost to.

Tyson lost to Kevin McBride. Enough said.

Please spare me the excuses as to why, because the ones you make for the Douglas defeat are pathetic enough. Fact remains Tyson couldn't even avenge THAT defeat, never mind the more important ones. On top fighter, gets beat, wants nothing more to do with it, unless you really want to count the deliberately fouling his way out of another beating by Holyfield.

Kevin McBride? Really? Like if Iron Mike was in his prime. LOL! Tyson would have never lost to bums like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman. That would have been EMBARRASSING.

Tyson before losing to the great Evander Holyfield the second time around only had 2 defeats against boxers that knew how to fight. McCall nor Rahman can't teach a dam thing about boxing.

I don't make excuses about Tyson losing to Buster Douglas. I was ecstatic when Douglas won. He fought a great fight. It was an ill-prepared Tyson, but the better man won. I would not rule the possibility if Tyson was in shape, it would have been the same outcome. Yes, it would have been. Would Tyson win if prepared? Why not? Why not give the benefit of a doubt to one of the all time greatest heavyweights? I consider Tyson a legend and also a top 100 pound per pound all time great. That is something that I will never see in Lennox Lewis. He came at the right time. That's all. Tyson of the 80s never lose to no version of Lewis. I just can't picture it. You know why? Because Lewis WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH NOR FAST ENOUGH TO BEAT HIM.

[Boxing Writer]

Yeah, Lewis lost to two bums that Tyson would have never lost to.

Tyson lost to Kevin McBride. Enough said.

Please spare me the excuses as to why, because the ones you make for the Douglas defeat are pathetic enough. Fact remains Tyson couldn't even avenge THAT defeat, never mind the more important ones. On top fighter, gets beat, wants nothing more to do with it, unless you really want to count the deliberately fouling his way out of another beating by Holyfield.

Kevin McBride? Really? Like if Iron Mike was in his prime. LOL! Tyson would have never lost to bums like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman. That would have been EMBARRASSING.

Tyson before losing to the great Evander Holyfield the second time around only had 2 defeats against boxers that knew how to fight. McCall nor Rahman can't teach a dam thing about boxing.

I don't make excuses about Tyson losing to Buster Douglas. I was ecstatic when Douglas won. He fought a great fight. It was an ill-prepared Tyson, but the better man won. I would not rule the possibility if Tyson was in shape, it would have been the same outcome. Yes, it would have been. Would Tyson win if prepared? Why not? Why not give the benefit of a doubt to one of the all time greatest heavyweights? I consider Tyson a legend and also a top 100 pound per pound all time great. That is something that I will never see in Lennox Lewis. He came at the right time. That's all. Tyson of the 80s never lose to no version of Lewis. I just can't picture it. You know why? Because Lewis WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH NOR FAST ENOUGH TO BEAT HIM.

Of course, Douglas was better than McCall and Rahman, and I agree prime Lewis didn't have prime Douglas' handspeed. By to say Tyson would beat Lennox prime for prime based on those things would be wrong because in such a case we look at this mithycal match up from the Tyson's side only. Let's take a look from a different perspective: how prime Tyson fought big guys? Two best big opponents in Tyson's prime period were Tony Tucker and James Smith. Lewis was much better boxer than Smith and much bigger puncher than Tucker. He also was a better boxer than Tucker too. Both Tucker and Smith went the distance against not just prime but peak version of Tyson. Both were holding Mike in clinches hell a lot of times, but Lewis could actually not only box but also hold better than them. Lennox was very effective clincher. Plus prime Lewis was 10-15 lbs heavier than Smith that fought Tyson, and 20-25 lbs heavier than Tucker that fought Tyson. That would be an additinal weight in EVERY clinch. One of the Tyson's biggest flaws was awful ineffectiveness in the clinches and his inability to stop his opponent from holding him. I think Lewis would hold him as much as Tucker and Smith did but would also do more at the offensive end. And, once again, Lewis was definitely harder puncher than Tucker and way more skilled boxer than Smith. Of course, Tucker and Smith possesed much better chins than Lennox did, so I definitely can't exclude scenario in which Tyson lands left hook or a big right hand and finishes Lewis early. But I also can see the scenario in which Lewis would hold Tyson a lot, frustrate and tire him in clinches while also working with a jab and occasional right hands.

[man]

competitive fight. could go either way.
prime mike was so fast and aggressive,
he gives everyone in history a tough
start into a bout.

i still would lean towards late stoppage
for lewis, because he had the technical
tools to keep tyson away long enough
until the storm has settled. and once
tyson was in regular mode he was way
less dangerous.

in the end lennox, but not easily.