Did Tyson really duck Lewis in 96?

He already had this explained to him on this very group: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/why-didnt-lewis-face-ruiz-and-byrd.720429/

 

At this point in Lewis' career he was just about finished and no one can accuse him of being scared of Ruiz or Byrd especially considering he took on a prime Vitali on short notice and won the fight

Him retiring after and staying retired proves that it wasn't just about money or ducking but he genuinely had reached the end of his career, even if he beat Ruiz and Byrd two other challengers would have popped up and you'd be saying the same thing

 

I think I said Wlad above, but yes, he fought a Klitschko.

I’m not aware of other cases where fighters retired and stayed retired where they’re accused of ducking by not prolonging their career (you fight and beat the next guy, there’s going to be another one after him … sooner or later you don’t face the next one to come along) … especially when you just beat the guy by stoppage in your final fight.

 

It's just that since I joined this forum, I've been trying to understand the double standards. The fact is that Tyson avoided Lewis and Lewis avoided Byrd, Ruiz and Vitali Klitschke. However, Tyson fought Lewis on much worse terms in 2002. Simply put, if avoiding Lewis in 1996 was a duck, wouldn't accepting the fight with him on much worse terms in 2002 erase it? and if you avoid Byrd, Ruiz and, above all, escape into retirement before Vitali (everyone was waiting for the Klitschko-Lewis rematch in 2003, but not for the Tyson-Lewis fight in 1996). If Tyson's (King's) business decision is ducked, what should we call Lewis's decision?

 

This is like comparing apples to oranges, Tysons team ducked Lewis as they felt it was a fight Mike would have most probably lost

Do you honestly think even at 38 Lewis would have lost to Chris Byrd or John Ruiz also he faced Vitali on short notice and smashed his face in imagine what a fully prepared Lewis would have done

 

are you reading this? Sainpat explained to me that it is a business decision, why is Tyson's business decision ducked and Lewis' business decision is not ducked? Everyone was waiting for the second fight with Klitschko, who was waiting for Tyson's fight with Lewis in 1996? and since Tyson came out to Lewis at a much worse time for him, doesn't it mean that the ducked is just bull**** repeated by Tyson's haters after Atlas, Sugar, Merchant because they have no opinion of their own? I'm asking simple questions, you idiot, and I don't need a report. Saintpat started well, I'm waiting for the continuation.

 

It's great that there are people here who can answer instead of insult, thank you
so Tyson's team was afraid of Lewis in 1996 after the fights with McCall and Mercer, but they were not afraid in 2002?? Maybe they thought Tyson had a better chance in 2002? I'm still with my friend Sainpat who explained to me that ducked was in fact a purely business decision but try to convince me that he's wrong
As for Lewis, no, I don't know what a fully prepared Lewis would have done with Klitschko because that fight didn't happen. Lewis gave up the belt instead of taking the biggest fight of his career. Was it also a business decision or maybe Lewis did not want to cooperate with Klaus Peter Kohl as he did with King?
Byrd and Ruiz were rather better than the fighters who wiped the ring with Lennox, i.e. Rahman and McCall. In fact, they both had the same success in their biggest fights - they defeated Holyfield just as much as Lennox. They were both very uncomfortable. No, I don't think Lewis will lose. But in 1996, if you asked someone who would win between Lewis and Tyson, do you know what the most common answer would be? kind regards

 

You know in 02 the only big money fight left for both Lewis and Tyson was against each other this wasn’t the case in 96 with neither having fought Holyfield or Bowe who was still around and a big name

It doesn’t matter what people’s predictions were almost everyone predicted Tyson would splatter Holyfield or Foreman would kill Ali and look what happened there

In 96 Lewis was a high risk low reward fight for Tyson surely you can see this

When Lewis became undisputed he had to give up some belts as it is difficult to honour all mandatories, did Usyk duck his obligation against Dubois when he gave up the IBF belt in July no he realised there’s no point in hanging onto all the belts

Don’t forget each organising body takes 3% of the purse if their belt is on the line so when you have 4 belts that’s 12% of your purse - would you hold onto the alphabet belts and takes such financial hits when everyone already recognises you as the number one in the division I don’t think so

 

If you intentionally avoid a fight for financial reasons or because you think you’d lose it’s a duck that’s it plain and simple

Retiring after you have beaten every challenger put in front of you as well as the next generations ATG in Vitali is going out on a high point

Would it have been good to see the rematch between Lewis and Vitali of course but a boxer in his late thirties who decides enough is enough should be applauded for going out like this and not staying on longer than he should losing to journeymen and embarrassing the sport and tarnishing their legacy look how Tyson went out losing to bloody McBride

 

I think you’re hung up on ‘afraid.’ That’s not what this is about. Mike Tyson himself will tell you he felt fear before every fight — it was part of Cus D’Amato’s teachings. So yeah, he was afraid. But a fighter can be afraid of another and still not duck him.

When a fighter decides to retire and stays retired, he’s ended his career. He’s not ducking every possible fight he could have if he had kept fighting.

He beat Vitali at the time. Therefore he did not duck him.

Tyson absolutely 100% gave up a world title rather than fight Lewis. That he fought him like six years later when he desperately needed money and it was the biggest payday he could get doesn’t change the fact that he ducked him when it mattered.

 

Gentlemen...
Tyson avoided Lewis in 1996 and it was a business decision - ok. It has been explained so many times but NO ONE, not once, explained why it was worse than avoiding Byrd, Ruiz, Klitschko. NOT ONCE.
There are the same arguments: TV politics, federation politics, fans' expectations, it all comes down to one thing - money. Yet Tyson's withdrawal is a duck, Lewis's withdrawal is just business.
Usyk gave away the belt to Dubois/Joshua? he fought them and turned out to be better!
You can say what you want, but everyone who lived in those times knows that
1st fight in 1996. Lewis-Tyson was neither the most anticipated by fans nor the most profitable. This fight was Tyson - Bowe, then Tyson - Holy, the fight with Lewis was not even close
2. In 2002, the Lewis-Tyson fight was the most profitable and most anticipated, so it took place.
3. I agree that in 2000-2002 the fights between Lewis and Byrd and Ruiz were not the most expected or easy to organize, exactly like the Tyson-Lewis fight in 1996. I understand the decision to give up the belts, which was explained here many times and I accepted it . Exactly the same as I understand Tyson's decision to give up the WBC belt. I don't understand at all the reasons why Tyson's withdrawal is a duck and Lewis' withdrawal is not. In my opinion, if one is a duck for the same reasons, calling the other a duck is biased, non-objective and illogical because it results from exactly the same reasons.
What works in Tyson's favor is the fact that he approached the man he avoided and in much worse sporting circumstances. And now very important:
If we justify that Tyson went out to Lewis in 2002 because of money, how can we criticize him for not going out to Lewis in 1996 because of money ??
Klitschko - Lewis II in 2003 was the most anticipated fight in boxing, just like the Tyson - Bowe/Holy fight in 1996 and the Tyson - Lewis fight in 2002. Despite this, Lewis retired after the fight, which still arouses discussions, emotions, and sometimes an argument that left a lot of doubts that only Lennox could solve. He had the right to do so, but if it wasn't a duck, what was? business decision??

 

It was a life decision as his wife didn't want him to fight anymore. He already did everything in boxing, defeated every guy he ever faced and ended up on the high note. If it was a duck then Vitali ducked Hasim Rahman.

 

Very good post.
The double standard that you are pointing out is very blatant.
Yet, people will always find justifications for Lewis, while if you try to explain the Lewis/Tyson situation in 1996, it would have been labelled as "excuses" and will be inexorably seen as a "duck".
I think it's partly due to the fact that Lewis is invariably seen as a superior fighter than Ruiz and Byrd, so "the ducking" is not seen as a ducking.

 

Retiring at the end of your career and staying retired doesn't mean you are ducking other fighters

Also Vitali had his chance and couldn't get the job done most times you only have one shot against a boxer so you have to take it

 

I was mostly talking about Byrd and Ruiz.
For Vitali, the world wanted the rematch and Lewis himself stated that "if the money is good" he will do it. We all know what happened after ...