Does Lewis get to little or to much credit for beating Holyfield and Tyson

Correct he couldnt.
Mike lost his unbeaten status before Lewis was established.
This is an old thread that has been dug back up and ive been reading back through it with incredulity. Once again its another thread that largely picks holes in Lennox ( not by everyone of course).
Its simply not his fault that he got these guys past their sell by date, but what more could he do than beat them ? Pre fight v Tyson he was only a marginal betting favourite, the fact that Mike was washed up wasn't being mentioned pre fight.
Short of altering time i dont see what Lennox could do more.
As he was peaking Tyson was in jail.
When Tyson came out, Don King kept him away from Lewis.
As Lennox was peaking Holyfield began his trilogy with Bowe.When that finished , Holyfield and Tyson prefered to fight one another rather than Lewis.
When they'd run out of options they had to fight Lennox and he beat them.
What more could Lennox do ?
As a fan of his, i dont think they were any better than many of his other wins.
Lennox's legacy is damaged in my view by a lack of a career defining win/ or rivalry, such as Ali/Frazier, Bowe/Holyfield, but again that isn't his fault.
Being ducked by Bowe was the biggest disapointment in Lennox's legacy.
I think he gets just the right ammount of praise for his wins v Tyson and Holyfield.
They were fights he still had to win,in fact imagine the criticism if he'd lost !

 

Great post.

 

I have probably posted in this old thread, but yeah, I think he does. He was closer to prime than Holyfield and way more closer to prime than Tyson when he fought them.

True, it's not his fault that he fought them when he did. But, I think most of us who are fairly objective believe a prime for prime matchup against each would not be an automatic slam dunk win for Lewis.

 

A liitle too much.

The Holyfield version was still very good though.Tyson was more shot.

 

whether its Lewis's fault or not, that fact is still he beat Tyson in a pointless fight. That fight was such a waste of time it hurt. Tyson had nothing to offer but himself as a punch bag, he couldn't move like he used to so was a sitting duck. One of the things I don't like about Lennox is when he tries to make out that fight meant something, I find it very cynical. I rate his wins against Holyfield but feel like he did himself a disservice by not destroying him in that first fight, an emphatic win would have bolstered his legacy but he was too tentative, in my opinion anyway, I know people disagree. I think if Holyfield was a few years younger he might have had more success, he had Lennox wobbled a few times.

 

There's an interview with Kevin Rooney where he suggest Mike to fight Butterbeans every months because he's only training for a 4 round boxing Lol. Tyson asking for rematch despite putting a very bad performance proof how he needed a money, he delcared bankruptcy 3 years later in fact. He even said in front of Lewis that the payway was wonderfull and hope they could do it again. He said the same thing in locker room interview.

There's interview with Emmanuel Stewart (I can find the link if you want) and he basically said Tyson never duck anyone, most of the time its down to the promotor not the boxer. Why do you think Lewis vacated his title? he once refused to fight Ruiz and Byrd. I wouldnt say he's afraid of those two, that's a nonsense, but he did refuse to fight them, that's a fact.

 

I agree with you about Tyson. He just needed the $ and Lewis needed the name on his record to get some closure to his career. On the other hand I think Holyfield was the one that was gunshy in the first fight especially. He was more economical with his punch output and didn't really want to open up like were used to seeing. Lewis`s power did that to a lot of fighters.

 

Lewis at his best is so hard to fight. He outpoints you from the outside and you have to take risks if you want to get into the fight. Those risks open you up for his immense power, and it really is immense.

 

2 points here.
1 ''He should have destroyed Holyfield''?
NOBODY destroyed Holyfield,including a peak Bowe, also Tyson and the master blaster himself Mr Foreman. At least Lennox won.
2 " The Tyson fight was a waste of time" ?
Before it took place ,Lewis was the narrowest of betting favourites, indicating that BEFORE the fight, nobody thought it was a waste of time and half the world thought Mike would win. So many people proclaimed that 'Chinny' Lennox would fall to Mike's first big punch.
Lennox put on a masterclass, only THEN did people say Tyson was washed up.
Lewis fought with care for those early rounds, then he steped it up. Imagine if Tyson had caught him early and ko'd him ? Tyson would be hailed the greatest and Lewis the chinny bum that many claim.
Lewis had a job to do and did it well.
Your point is like saying Ali v Liston was pointless because Liston was washed up.
Lennox did what he had too, he couldnt alter when he met these guys , as has been discussed over and over.

 

I have to disagree on that part. The second fight proof if Holyfield was in the same physical condition and determination like he showed against Bowe (the first fight especially), he could have beat Lewis at least on points. He was never dropped in both fight and Mercer shrugged off Lewis best punches and keep coming forward . Mccall is another fighter that never seems to bother by Lennox punches. Bruno, Vitali, Briggs and even Mavrovic all traded punches with Lennox .

The only fighter that chicken out is Tua, he didnt fight the way he should have been because he just want to avoid punishment. He wont last 12 rounds if he tries a litte more than just staying on the outside all day (except for a very very few occasions).

 

With Holyfield it's a personal feeling, I know people say Lennox couldn't finish him so played it safe. I felt he did have the ability to wipe holy out, he only appeared to train for 3 rounds. He was just being carried after that, if Lennox was more aggressive there no way holy would have made it through 12 rounds. I think Lewis showed too much respect to a beaten man.

Yeah half the uninformed world thought Tyson would beat Lennox, so what? It don't change that Mike was in no form to be any challenge. That's like saying many people thought Ali had a chance against Holmes, the fight tells the tale regardless of what people thought. You could see Tyson had nothing, it's there plain and simple. the evidence is on film that his movement, legs and technique was gone. Replay that fight then watch Tyson v Holmes, tell me it's the same fighter? Nearly fifteen years later. It's just fact, but I still don't take away from Lewis, he was great and could well have beaten prime Tyson but one thing for sure is that it would have been better than the pointless fight it was.

 

I think Holyfield was strange in that fight, the whole 3 round thing was weird, he gave up after that point and Lennox had a chance to put him away. When do you ever see a deflated mentally beaten Holyfield? I think Lennox spooked him, not scared but he realised Lewis was a big challenge and he tried to diminish him with the whole "this guy ain't nothing, God says I beat him in 3". Maybe he even believed his own rubbish who knows. But the reality was he looked beaten, and like you say, those Lewis punches probably didn't help. I personally think Lennox had he chance to wipe holy out but let him off the hook. Then holy came back better in the second fight, Lewis failed to dominate him there that's for sure. He did his usual arrogant act but holy dam near won.

 

One of the most hilarious things is that Tyson fanboys/Lewis haters always harp on that "Lewis only beat Tyson because Tyson was old", yet they conveniently forget that Lewis was OLDER lol.

 

You cant ignore the fact their peaks were at different times in thier lives though. A swarmer like tyson will not be as effective at 32 as he was at 22. Lewis hit his peak later. They met out of their respective eras. Lewis may beat prime mike, but their actual fight was no proof.

 

This is one of the most illogical statements I've seen in awhile.

I would be surprised if you are a longtime boxing fan. A casual fan makes this kind of elementary mistake.

In boxing, variables between fighters such as mileage (amount of punishment taken over time), differing styles, age of turning pro and other factors can combine to produce an effect where the chronologically younger fighter is much "older" than the older (in calendar years) guy.

For example, Matthew Saad Muhammad was 27 yrs old when he lost his title to 28 yr old Dwight Braxton. Saad turned pro in 1974 and absorbed hugh punishment even in winning fights. Braxton turned pro in 1977 and had a good defense. Thus, when they met, Saad was, in actuality, the much "older" fighter.

In the case of Tyson and Lewis, Tyson turned pro in 1985 and had won and defended his title many times by the time Lennox Lewis turned pro in early 1989. He had reached, or was close to reaching his peak.

Tyson subsequently absorbed a bad beating in losing his title to Buster Douglas in 1990.

He took quite a bit of punishment against Razor Ruddock in two tough fights in 1991.

True, he had a prison stint with left him free from punishment for some time, but he was already past his peak by then.

Tyson then absorbed much punishment in being stopped by Evander Holyfield twice - especially in the first fight.

By '02, he was a shell of his former self.

Lewis, on the other hand, did get KTFO twice with one shot (the McCall loss being technically a TKO, but for all intents and purposes a one punch ko loss as the ref. stopped it before the action was resumed.) But he didn't take a beating in either fight.

He did absorb quite a bit of punishment against Ray Mercer in a good, competitive fight.

But, by in large, he did not take a lot of punishment and certainly not nearly the punishment Tyson had by the time they met in 02.

True, he was past in his prime by the time he beat Tyson in '02, and was chronologically older than Tyson - But in "Boxing years", Mike Tyson was by far the "older" fighter when they met.