Did Tyson really duck Lewis in 96?

You can call Byrd a duck, as he didn't have any reason not to take that fight, and he was the leading contender at the time, but chosing Grant over Ruiz was perfectly understandable and actually encouraged by the boxing public.

 

Then why don't you apply the same logic for Tyson, who wanted to unify the title quickly and defend it against one of the most marketable contender ?

Edit : I appreciate your honesty about the Lewis/Byrd situation.

 

I don't think Tyson ducked Lewis in 1996. I only have a problem with people saying Lewis waited for Tyson to get old to fight him in 2002, so I point out that it was Tyson who dropped the belt instead of fighting Lewis in 1996. We can discuss on the reason and both sides of the argument have brought up some valid points here. I actually learned a lot reading this thread, changing my opinion a bit. But if it wasn't a duck from Tyson it certainly wasn't a duck on Lewis' part either.

 

Ok, that's a very fair assesment.

 

It's not really ducking if you drop one of your four belts to fight a much tougher opponent on very short notice then retire when you realise the desire just isn't there

 

So your definition of ducking is inconsistant and suits whoever you think is more deserving of challenging the champion.

 

So by your logic Usyk ducked Dubois by dropping the belt

 

Did Lewis fought Ruiz/Byrd one year before dropping the belt ?

 

According to you if you refuse to fight someone regardless of the reasoning it's a duck, in this thread alone not sure if it was you someone was saying Lewis ducked Vitali after smashing him up on short notice

 

I want to throw a cake on Lewis face most of the time he opens his mouth but I can't see a glory hungry mf like him aging Tyson tbh

 

No, you are reversing the situation.
It's you who said that Tyson ducked Lewis - even though we explained the context - but you are unwilling to say that Lewis ducked Ruiz and Byrd.
That's why me and others posters called that a double standard.

 

Vitali took advantage of this opportunity and anyone who saw this fight and claims otherwise is lying or biased. Vitali was clearly better, he wanted to continue fighting, he won 4 out of 6 rounds and the fight was stopped by the doctor. He didn't give up like with Byrd, he wanted to fight and deserved a rematch like no one else. Lewis - Klitschko II was the most anticipated fight in 2003. Before her, Lewis talked about at least 3 fights, not about retirement. Klitschko forced him to do it.
The way Tyson and Lewis are treated perfectly shows how biased the opinion of fans is. No reflection.
We have two boxers.
If Tyson gives the belt to Lewis for business/political/marketing reasons, which has been strongly justified, it is ducked. If Lewis gives up the belts for the same reasons, it's ok and you can't criticize him. If Tyson goes out on worse sports terms to a man he was afraid of, it's still a duck because it's all about money. When Lewis does not go to the most anticipated and profitable fight of his career, it is a sudden concern of his worried wife.
If Tyson is a duck, you have proven that Lewis is a duck times three. And this third time is the biggest duck I have ever seen in this sport. Lewis refused the biggest fight of his career, against the best rival of his career, for the biggest payday, because his wife asked him to... smart woman

 

So you think Lewis should have fought Vitali in the rematch even though he knew his career was over just for a payday, risking his long term health for some money something he already had plenty of

 

Lennox dropped the belt in 2002 as he was eyeing the rematch with Tyson, not to fight a tougher opponent than Byrd. Vitali was a great choice for a fight tho, but it came later. Lennox was supposed to fight Kitk Johnson originally, which wasn't tougher than Byrd.

 

So Vitali ducked Hasim Rahman, thanks for confirming