BoxRec

i dont agree at all lewis done everything i know but tyson is a boxing great if u dont know tyson you dont know boxing!

i think tyson in his prime would have eatan lewis alive no worries!!

?????

This is the kind of debate that splits the memebrs...

It must have been done before but I think Lewis was the better fighter.

Ezzard wrote:This is the kind of debate that splits the memebrs...

It must have been done before but I think Lewis was the better fighter.

lewis a brilliant fighter ,britans best ever. but i still think common sense is tyson was better.

only by silly buggers

Not sure it is lukes...

Tyson scored some dramatic KO's of previously unmoveable contenders like Berbick and Thomas but his quick string of KOs also hid some of his defiencies. In many ways a fast puncher-swarmer (which is how i think of Tyson) is a hard style to beat but the question always comes down to his mental strength. His will and determination always dwindled as a fight wore on. He was prone to lapses in concentration (though so was lewis to be fair).

In the end most people will choose between Tyson's mental fragility and Lewis's chin (not as bad as made out IMO but still not granite). Lewis had a good record against big punchers though and could blow them out early or fight very cautiously until the right moment.

In say a 5 fight series I can give Tyson 1 but I think Lewis is the safer bet.

So Your Tellin me

tyson (in his prime) v.s Lewis (in his prime)

tyson wouldent by far win..???

come on lads...

That's my take on it lukes but I'm sure others will disagree...

What's your take on Tyson and Holyfield?

Lewis accomplished more. He beat better fighters, and he beat everyone he faced.

I think prime for prime it's an even fight. Neither fighter faced a fighter in the class of the other while at their best, and both have stylistic weaknesses which the other could exploit.

When are we going to get the part about "Prime Tyson" who never lost, and about Cus,Kevin,Teddy, and the rest of the gang?

Prime v Prime it's a closer decision. But Lewis had the better longevity and Tyson's legacy is tarnished. It's hard not to use the Lewis result.

Tyson in his prime might not have taken Lewis seriously and gotten knocked out.

That is sort of what I think. It's not hard to imagine a head to head matchup with both close to their best going either way.
I realize that both Tyson and Lewis were pretty old when they fought. Tyson was almost 36 and Lewis was even older. So the result doesn't mean as much as it would have if they would have fought earlier. However, why do most people completely throw out their fight as if it has no meaning at all?
Going into the fight, there was a lot of people that thought Tyson would win. There hasn't been a fight that created this much interest since. Then Lewis wins a one sided fight and almost everyone says it meaningless.
If Tyson would have won, would everyone have said it was meaningless?

Ambling Alp wrote:That is sort of what I think. It's not hard to imagine a head to head matchup with both close to their best going either way.
I realize that both Tyson and Lewis were pretty old when they fought. Tyson was almost 36 and Lewis was even older. So the result doesn't mean as much as it would have if they would have fought earlier. However, why do most people completely throw out their fight as if it has no meaning at all?
Going into the fight, there was a lot of people that thought Tyson would win. There hasn't been a fight that created this much interest since. Then Lewis wins a one sided fight and almost everyone says it meaningless.
If Tyson would have won, would everyone have said it was meaningless?

Both fighters were past their best in 2002, but Tyson much moreso. Even taking out the prison term, drug abuse outside of the ring in the late 90s, lackluster training etc., a short pressure fighter will always have a much shorter prime than a stand-up boxer-puncher. By the Botha fight Tyson was a shell of what he'd been. No-one who knew anything about boxing would have picked Tyson in 2002 . . .only casual/Tyson fans who hinged their bets on a blind nostalgia.

I heard a lot of people who thought Tyson would win. I specifically remember the great Bobby Czyz picking Tyson to knock him out.

If two guys were about even when they were in their primes but one guy had a longer prime, the guy with the longer prime should be rated higher in All-Time Rankings.
It's not Lewis' problem that Tyson didn't train hard, had drug problems or that his style wasn't as ideal for a long career.

I just think it's unfair to Lewis that the fight gets hyped up as this big showdown, he wins and suddenly it means nothing at all. No it doesn't mean as much as if they would have fought sooner (btw Lewis couldn't get a fight with Tyson sooner), but it has to count for something.

Tyson in his prime was a better fighter than Lewis. Lewis got KO'd by Oliver McCall for cripe's sake....In 2 rounds!!!

Is McCall better boxer than Buster Douglas? I don't think so.

lukesfc wrote:i dont agree at all lewis done everything i know but tyson is a boxing great if u dont know tyson you dont know boxing!

i think tyson in his prime would have eatan lewis alive no worries!!
?????

I think he tried at the press conference...Or at least he took a bite...Mike Tyson lost just about every big fight he had...His body of work is less than impressive....Losses to Holy, James Douglas, and Lenox...Just not impressive...His fans excuse the Lenox loss because Tyson was past his prime...Lenox was a year older...

elmersalsa wrote:Tyson in his prime was a better fighter than Lewis. Lewis got KO'd by Oliver McCall for cripe's sake....In 2 rounds!!!

Is McCall better boxer than Buster Douglas? I don't think so.

That was a very quick stoppage, and Lewis won the rematch. Tyson didn't avenge any of his defeats.

Big Bad John wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Tyson in his prime was a better fighter than Lewis. Lewis got KO'd by Oliver McCall for cripe's sake....In 2 rounds!!!

Is McCall better boxer than Buster Douglas? I don't think so.

That was a very quick stoppage, and Lewis won the rematch. Tyson didn't avenge any of his defeats.

Tyson did not go to the boxing commission to sue Douglas for fighting Holyfield. Lewis went to sue Hasim Rahman. Another tomato can that beat Lewis by KO. At least Buster Douglas was better quality.

Douglas could be knocked out and Mcall could not. Thats why Mcall was Tyson's sparring partner so its safe to say we would have not known what would happen if Tyson would have faced Mcall EVEN IN HIS PRIME. Even a prime Tyson could not knock Mcall off his feet.

Big Bad John wrote:Lewis accomplished more. He beat better fighters, and he beat everyone he faced.

I agree. I'll add that I would favor Lewis at his best to beat Mike at his best.

Ambling Alp wrote:I heard a lot of people who thought Tyson would win. I specifically remember the great Bobby Czyz picking Tyson to knock him out.

Bobby Czyz has never picked a fight correctly in his life. When Evander Holyfield was about to defend against Henry Akinwande, who was fresh off a quit job against Lennox Lewis, Czyz picked Akinwande to beat him.

elmersalsa wrote:Tyson did not go to the boxing commission to sue Douglas for fighting Holyfield. Lewis went to sue Hasim Rahman. Another tomato can that beat Lewis by KO. At least Buster Douglas was better quality.

Rahman signed a rematch clause. He was legally obliged to fight Lewis again. Douglas - who was shit, and don't you forget it - fought the man Tyson had been ducking for two years, Evander Holyfield.

I feel there is much mythology in the "prime " issue re. Lewis vs Tyson . They where separated by only months in age , and it could well be argued that Lewis was past his prime as well.

It's pretty much a given that Lewis was past his prime by then. He started training less (the Rahman and Klitschko fights), and his punch output was in deep decline.

What on earth would be the basis for rating Tyson over Lewis?

Not only did Lewis beat Tyson, but he twice outfought a fighter who was clearly better (Holyfield), and he proved his own losses were flukes, which Tyson never did to his. Plus he unified the heavyweight titles just as Tyson did. And Tyson never beat a fighter in his whole career who rated better or comparably to Lewis, or even Holyfield.

Honestly, what more do you need to do to be rated better than another fighter?

People who rate Tyson among the great heavyweights are basically clinging to pre-conceived notions of him. Basically, they can't see the forest for the trees. Tyson got outclassed by an average fighter while right smack dab in his prime, and when only slightly past his prime, he twice failed to beat a guy who was markedly older and much more faded than he was. There's just no excuses for that.

Whether some people will admit it or not, there isn't much to separate Tyson from fighters like Fernando Vargas or Meldrick Taylor, talented fighters who soared to big heights in a short time and then steadily declined after their first defeats. And at least Taylor and Vargas can say they were knocked off the top tier by future Hall of Famers in their primes, and in competitive fights. Tyson was shut down by a career journeyman whose mother had just died, who then went on to be blown out by Holyfield in a way that no other heavyweight I've ever seen was blown out by Holy.