Does Lennox Lewis Get Unfair Criticism For KOing Tyson?

Mike was finished both mentally and physically at that point.

He badly wanted to the Lewis fight for the cheque.

I don’t agree that he could have beaten anyone if he’d have had more desire.

He’d have had more stamina and would have been lighter, but his great skills had long since eroded.

 

I respect your opinion, but I think that saying Mike would only have had a 1 out of 10 chance in winning is a gross exaggeration.

 

Even though Mike Tyson had a deranged obsession into consuming Lennox Lewis unborn children, many criticized Lennox of abusing an opponent that was considered by many past his fighting prime at the age of 35.

 

Mike was shot.

That wasn’t Lewis’ fault.

They had different trajectories.

A lot of ‘ifs’ involved.

If Mike hadn’t have gone to prison for 3 years, my guess is that they’d have fought during that period.

If Mike hadn’t have lost twice/got DQ’d against Evander, they’d definitely have fought afterwards, in the late 90’s.

It’s unfair to criticise Lewis for beating Tyson in 2002.

However, IMHO, he deserves zero credit for it.

So I think that not giving him credit and not criticising him are 2 very different things.

One’s fair, one isn’t.

He does deserve criticism for trying to fight Mike again though, especially as he wouldn’t rematch Vitali.

 

I can’t recall.

It wouldn’t surprise me though. He was embroiled in different lawsuits and he desperately needed the money.

He didn’t want to fight Williams and McBride.

He had zero motivation and just needed the cheques.

 

Lewis could only beat what was in front of him . But let's not pretend beating Tyson in 2002 equates to him beating him at any point of there careers like a couple of posters are claiming . Lennox was fortunate to get the decision against mercer . Yet I don't remember a 42 year old Holmes having that problem against a younger ray mercer . Yet he beats 86_88 Tyson . That Tyson beats any version of Lennox Lewis every time ask Larry Holmes .

 

I don’t know if he gets criticism for it why should he?
Obviously people know it was a shot Tyson.

 

It was pretty shameless to be honest especially since Lewis sued him for not honoring the rematch clause. In fact, prior to their actual match Tyson had claimed he needed a tune up (due to his obvious lack of activity) and he was set to face Ray Mercer. Lewis sued him and the Mercer fight was called off.

All in all Tyson was still, at the time, considered dangerous because of his power and because many felt Lewis has a subpar chin. I remember how this forum was prior to the Tyson fight and the many of us felt that if Hasim Rahman could pull it off, surely Mike Tyson could.

 

Both guys made a boatload of money for the fight. Foolish not to fight him. But Tyson was so done it does nothing absolutely nothing for Lewis’s career Resume.

 

So because Holmes beat Mercer much more convincingly than Lewis yet lost to prime Tyson, this means Lewis would have lost to prime Tyson? That's not how it works. If that is how it works, consider this -- Frazier beat Ali, and Foreman wrecked Frazier easily, so shouldn't Foreman have beat Ali?