Is Lewis' resume really much better than Mike's?

We mostly agree, except it is impossible to know how much of Tyson's success was owed to Holmes being long inactive & rusty with a short training camp.
As good as Tyson was then, methinks it is not plausible to attribute everything to him & nothing to the Holmes context.

But while I do not know if prime Tyson could handle prime Lewis-& not prime Ali-I do pick him over the best Frazier & Holyfield.

 

I've always thought he beats Lewis, Ali beats him, Holyfield always beats him and I go back and forth with Frazier. Annoyingly that one is a simple debate in my mind. If Frazier gets past 5, he destroys Mike...

 

I’ll say it like this, if Tyson had retired after the Carl Williams fight undefeated he’d probably be seen as having a better resume than Lewis . If he had continued and suffered the Douglas loss and gotten those few extra wins then never came back after prison, it would be close. His second career after prison really tainted the perception of his legacy though .

 

Lewis' resume is not much better than Mike's. Also, Mike's break in his career is a factor. But still: Holyfield, Tyson, and Vitali are enough for Lewis' resume to be better.

 

I agree with a lot of this. Great post.

Regarding Gary Mason, it was a good win for Lewis and I would say it was his coming out party. But I think I'd slightly favor Green and Ribalta over Mason head to head at their best. He was just so slow and plodding but he did have some pop, I'll give him that. And Gary was a genuinely nice fella too. RIP to a good man.

Tillis, Green, Ribalta, Frazier and even former Cruiser king Alfonso Ratliff were solid gatekeepers to get Tyson to the next level. I don't know about "filler" but I see your point. And there's a lot to be discussed about their competition. I see it as fairly even regarding name opposition, how they were beaten, when they were beaten, why, where, which witch is which (making sure you're still here).

Tyson was king of the hill and regarded as not only the top heavyweight but the best fighter in the world for 3 years.

I have a lot more to say so I'll be back. Sit tight brotha.

 

IDK Tyson during his prime his stamina wasn't that bad. I just dont see how Joe gets past those early rounds. Mike had the speed and devastating uppercuts.

 

Whilst his stamina might have been decent I don't think it was top drawer. He could fight all the rounds if he was dominating the pace, if he fought at his pace with all of the 'mutual truces' that interspersed the action. He never fought someone like Joe who, to use Usyk's brilliant phrase, wouldn't leave him alone. Imagine of Joe gets through the early onslaught and Mike is left with FOC ferocity Joe for the remainder of the fight....

 

This is a good post but what I will say is that I also missed out on a few of Lewis's filler wins aswell.

Names like.....

Mike Weaver
Ossie Ocasio
Glen McCrory

All these fighters held world titles at 1 point.

In all honestly the few filler wins for Tyson I missed you could also include the filler wins I missed for Lewis aswell and I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference.

Tyson had a bigger impact on the sport and his reign was more memorable.

But some of Lewis's key wins and his better longevity along with a clear advantage in world title wins gives him the edge.

It's specifically Lewis's last 3 or 4 years of his career where he starts to distance himself from Tyson a bit.

Wins over Holyfield, Tua, Vitali, and Tyson himself even if he was past it. Is enough for me for Lewis to win this argument it's not a huge gap but it's still quite a clear one IMO.

 

Tyson didn't fight the pedigreed up and comers. He made his bones on the old established guys and looked devastating doing so. I guess you can say Ruddock was a pedigreed guy--but I thought he lost the Weaver fight and had a sloppy defense. And hardly a world class workrate.

Lennox fought the youthful up and comers. And got the W.

That is rare. Not as much in the heavyweight division as the lighter weights, but still fighting pedigreed youth--with backing--tends to lead to changing of the guard time.

That and I just never like the ko guys anywhere near as much > they suffer their initial defeat. They seem to be stuck at like 75% and it just gets worse and not better. Actually tough to tread water and they seem to deteriorate with subsequent bouts. As such, I never even liked the Tyson version that beat Razor. I thought mike looked mediocre and would have chewed that guy up early when he was on his run.

If my perception is true, fighting youth is the worst thing for the old guys. Far better to match up with the old names.