Lennox Lewis vs Mike Tyson, prime for prime, who wins?

Hello mr magoo, hope you're doing well buddy.

Anyway, I have to disagree with a few of your points.

I never got the impression that Tyson nearly knocked down Lewis in round 1. In fact, it was my impression that Tyson's punches made little impression on Lewis. Moreover, Lewis legitimately floored Tyson with a right hand in round 4 but the ref (who had a bad day at the office) ruled it as a push. After round 4 Tyson was ready to go and Lewis was overly cautious in getting rid of him.

Lewis was never known to have a suspect chin before the McCall fight. In fact, by taking the bombs of Bruno most observers thought his chin was pretty good. I believe Lewis himself had stated that he had never been seriously hurt by a punch up to that point.

Agreed. Tyson had a very good chin.

Well, the KO loss against Rahman was the accumulation of several right hands to the head. He was already hurt by the time the last right hand landed. And at the peak of his game in what sense? Physically? IMO he was neither at his peak physically nor stylistically vs McCall. Against Rahman he was past his peak physically though on/near his peak stylistically.

Fair enough mate. It's a reasonable enough conclusion even though I disagree.

 

Likewise my good friend.

Just rewatched the first round of that match, and you're right. He was not nearly knocked down, but Tyson did land a good punch that sent him reeling back several steps. He was also using good upperbody lateral movement to duck many of Lewis's early jabs.

Here is the clip if you're interested, though the picture quality sucks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqndtOYMz_k

Agreed, but McCall who wasn't a particularly devastating puncher, cought him flush, and though Lewis rose, he looked pretty well out of it. I'm not saying that he had no chin, but he was susceptible to one punch KO's.

Fair enough, but I wasn't claiming that he was in his prime against Rahman. In fact, at the begining of this thread, I clearly stated that he was roughly 3-5 years past his best against Tyson, which was only 1-2 years after the Rahman fights.

The terms that I used were " at or near ". And yes I do think he was reaching his best, even though he would benefit later under the tutelage of Steward. Think about this, when he fought McCall for the first time, he was a two time olympic medalist. He was 29 years of age. He was unbeaten in 25 pro fights with wins over Ruddock, Mason, Tucker, Bruno, Jackson, Biggs and Weaver. Most of those men, he uderly destroyed, and certainly beat all of them in more than decisive fashion. So I don't know how green the man was supposed to be at that point. In fact, he was already favored by most as being better than Holyfield and Bowe. He loses badly to a fringe contender, and all of a sudden the sentiments are " he needs more schooling." Can't have it both ways.

Duely noted and duely acknowledged.

It's perfectly acceptable to disagree my friend. In the states we believe in this:

This content is protected

 

in during lewis circle jerk.


Fact: Tyson is probably the greatest finisher in heavyweight history ( possible exception Joe Louis)
Fact: Lewis has a shaky jaw
Fact: Tyson will hurt lewis during this fight.
Fact: Lewis does not have the defense nor the recovery ability to escape.

The only ending to this fight is tyson by knockout. It is as inevitable as the tides.

 

While I favor Tyson, I don't think we can just write it off as the forgone conclusion that it may appear to be mate.

 

If one can take off the rose colored glasses and be honest with oneself, they see that it would unfold like i said.

Nobody wants it to be like that because they love Lewis and hate Tyson, however.

 

No rose coloured glases here buddy. I like both fighters, both are amongst my favorite fighters. Your analysis, if it can be called that, is biased and one-sided.

 

You can't just merely oversimplify the situation by saying that Lewis lost to McCall and Tyson was way out of McCall's league, therebye creating the formula:

Lewis + loss to McCall = Tyson kills Lewis..

Boxing doesn't work that way.

 

How is that a fact? How can you have a shaky jaw yet take punches from huge hitters like Tua, Klitschko, Briggs, Bruno, Ruddock, Mason, Tyson (for a few rounds), Morrison, Tucker and others with no effect?

You don't compile a 20-2 record against ranked contenders, some of which the biggest hitters in history, while having a shaky chin. I'd like to see Moorer, Hide or Patterson repeat that feat.

 

Just sent this to Lewis on Myspace.

Lennox. I know your busy and get many messages. However, please reply to this if you can. It would be much appreciated as I'm on a boxing forum discussing your career with others.

When would you say you were at your absolute best as fighter aka your prime years. What time span would you say it was between?

Examples.

Around the time when you fought Mercer, the rematch with McCall, up until the Briggs fight. Between 1996 and 1998.

Or was it around the time of the Holyfield fights, then onto Grant, Botha, Tua, up until you lost to Rahman. Between 1999 and 2001

Those are just examples. The question is between which years do you feel you were at your best?

Regards

 

Hmm, somehow I can't help but think you lost a lot of $$$ when they actually fought, cause you were likely saying the same thing prior to the fight!

 

I wasn't stupid enough to take a man 1.5 decades past his best with a style based entirely on relfexes and speed versus a man 2-3 years past his best with a style built for longevity.

You don't get ICED twice by mediocre contenders with mediocre power by single punches with an iron jaw now do you? he faced people with decent power, but dismal delivery systems. Tua hit hard, but only with the left hook and only when leaping in with it from a mile away. He was also VERY slow. Klitschko was no one shot bomber and was on his waying to kicking lewis' ass before a bull**** stoppage. Briggs has overrated power and 1 round stamina. Mason is a nobody. Bruno had the best combination of power and delivery on the list, but he also had a bad jaw and tended to freeze up. Ruddock was ruined by tyson. Old and shot tyson? **** that noise. Morrison was a glass jawed, one trick pony. Tucker won more rounds against lewis while further past his prime than he won against Tyson.

 

So, a chin either has to be 'shaky' or 'iron'. Can't there be anything in between? Furthermore I would hardly class Messrs McCall and Rahman as having 'mediocre' power.

As for the rest of your post it's so full of bias and ridiculous conclusions that I haven't got the patience to deal with it. Perhaps Chris can pull apart and dissect your 'analysis'. To me it just seems like hate-spewed nonsense.

 

Who did McCall and Rahman stop who were of any note besides lewis?

 

Lewis' chin, outwith the two knock defeats, was rather solid. Anyone who happens to see things otherwise, I'd call them biased towards him on a negative note. His chin happened to be inconsistent, thats it. How could he be taking Mercer's blows over 10 rounds, then years later get knocked out by Rahman? Possibly because Mercer never hit him as flush as Rahman did. I couldn't care if Rahman and McCall weren't great heavyweights. They just happened to be successful for a split second and launched punches that would have seriously scattered the senses of 90% of heavyweights.

Lewis was on his feet and ready to continue against McCall. Hurt? Yes, he was rather wobbly. It's a big IF what would have happened had Lewis been allowed to continue. Perhaps he would have clung for dear life and survived, then went onto win a decision. Nobody can say for certain. Golota was allowed to continue against Lewis when he was staggering all over the ring like a 'drunk', although he never went onto win. Many referees would have let Lewis off the leash against McCall after that knockdown. If I was a betting man I'd bet on McCall finishing him off, but it's not written in stone.