Counterpoint. Lewis would have beaten Tyson, and Tyson would have never had his great career. He'd just become post-Douglas Tyson sooner. Second counter point. Lewis had greater mental fortitude. So even if they fought and Lewis lost, Lewis would take that loss and come back stronger. But yeah I think Lewis always had the beating of Tyson in him.
When Tyson was world champion in the 1980s, Lewis was an amateur boxer, losing to Abadzian (heavy KO), Gonzales, and Kaden. He even lost to Miroshnichenko in 1988, who beat Bowe much harder than him in Seoul. How can you even compare? But in 1991, Tyson went to prison and never returned to that form, so I think Lewis would have been the favorite from then on. Even Lewis in the Mercer fight would probably have beaten Tyson from Bruno, and the later, the more. After 2000, Tyson couldn't even beat Danny Williams, so of course Lewis was much, much better. Even Kevin McBride was.
Tyson under Rooney beats any version of Lewis, the lazy undedicated head hunting thug version without Rooney loses to any version of Lewis. Tyson during his career got worse with different Trainers,Lewis on the other hand got better as his career progressed with different Trainers .
Have to disagree with that,Tyson under Rooney was a fully dedicated,devoted consistent fighter that was still showing new stuff and improving every fight,without Rooney he just became a predictable,lazy,undedicated head hunting thug,trying to win fights with the brute force and intimidation approach. Tyson was Undisputed,Lineal and lb for lb number 1 before Lewis had even thrown a punch as a pro !
So he was consistent but only for a short period of his career? That doesn't sound very consistent - you have proved what I said to be correct.
"people"... You mean some fans who said that?? I don't know who you talked to, but you need to stop talking to them about boxing....
From what I understand Mike got the better of their sparring when they were younger before Lewis started to make his presence felt. Perhaps I don’t know the full story but that’s what I gather. I think this is so close to a pick em. Lewis can be one shotted however much his fans like to write those losses off, they exist. Then again Tyson isn’t really that type of puncher. It’s Tyson’s speed and combinations vs Lewis size and strength. Can Mike keep up the pace of the first few rounds and remain disciplined enough to win the decision? I think he’d probably have to if he were to win.
I don't know either way but have a feeling Lewis would have always beaten Mike. That doesn't mean better, but think a combination of size and styles Lewis seemed to always be confident and wanting that fight
Tyson was under Cus and with Rooney (also one of Cus’s protege) from 1982 until he was sacked after the Spinks fight in 1988,so Rooney basically was with Tyson say 6 years,during this time Rooney took Tyson from amateur to turning pro in 1985 and had compiled a pro record of 34 wins undefeated,winning every Belt and every Title that was available to him. So that’s 6 years he was with Rooney and everything they achieved. Yet you say that doesn’t sound very consistent and Tyson was only consistent for a short period of his career ! You then go on to say what I posted proved you to be correct ps As an example Lewis was with Steward 6 years having 19 fights with 1 loss and 1 draw . 6 years is a long time in Boxing .
Lennox's first championship run was okay (Mason, Ruddock, old Tucker, Bruno), but he definitely felt more vulnerable and incomplete compared to Tyson. A tall and long, strategic fighter with a death touch for a punch. Great attributes to absolutely smash through iron chinned, big punch brawly guys like Ruddock (and later the likes of Briggs), but he had red flags that Stewart noticed and later fixed. Tyson definitely felt more unstoppable (despite one-handed Tucker giving him a great fight, laying the blueprint for Douglas with whom he and his father were very close and shared a style) but he had more of a cult-like upbringing whereas Lewis was a boy who picked up boxing and fell in love with it.
If you are real. Lennox Lewis was not that good to begin with. His entire legacy is buitl on an old Tyson, an old Holyfield and beating Vitali on a cut. If we don't give mike credit for beating Holmes, who still was a contender btw, we ave to face facts that Lewis didn't fight them in his prime. Mike Tyson imo was better than lewis. There were too many times in too many fights, even where lewis was winning where he got hit and was surviving. And because the guys he fought wasn't good finishers, he won because they blew their load. Mike was too fast and hit too hard for him imo. The guy Mike never could have beaten was Evander.
Lewis and Tyson matured at different times and reached their prime at different times, that's for sure. But every boxer has his own timeframe for this, Jeff Fenech was a finished fighter at 30, while Hopkins was in his prime at 40. It's obviously a different story if we make a ranking, then we consider the entire careers of the boxers, and it's objective to put Lewis ahead of Tyson.
This thread makes one thing clear: some posters could not be pried from Tyson's balls even with a crowbar and use of explosives.