Is Mike Tyson greater than Lennox Lewis on the all time greatest heavyweight ranking?

African....mmmm no, European!

 

Hold on Tyson was knocked out by Buster Douglas and never attempted to avenge it. A 42-1 underdog and Tyson was totally dominated.

 

Tyson deserves respect for unifying the title but also electrifying the sports world. You had to see him fight at that time. It was must see tv. He brought interest back to the heavyweights.

Who was better Jimmy Conners or Ivan Lendl? Conners was Tyson. A spectacular performer who brought you along for the ride.
Lennox Lewis was Ivan Lendl. Just a machine that was better than anyone else. At times dull.

When they faced each other none of that stopped Lendl from spanking Conners like an unruly child.

Lewis had the better career.

 

Tyson never attempted to avenge his defeat to Douglas? Don King sued Douglas to get in the ring with Mike! Douglas took the money and ran to fight Holyfield, knowing damn well his victory in Tokyo was a fluke.

Even in the year 2000, Tyson was to fight the winner of Douglas-Savarese.

 

But all of this must be predicated on the fact that Lewis peaked late & Tyson, like most all smaller swarmer types-certainly his style depended on the assets of youth, speed & reflexes-early.
There is no reason to think that Lewis could have beaten peak Tyson if he turned pro early, & it is in question if he could have done so in the early 90's. When Stewart got to him in the mid-late 90's, then he would be favored.
He had also bulked up & Tyson had declined. Due to his own problems & the demands of his style.

Likewise Lendl beating Connors says nothing about who was how good.
In a sport that especially before this century/training advanced depended upon youth, Connors is 8 years older & was at his peak the decade before he met Lendl.
If Lendl was 8 years older who knows who would have won.

 

Tyson may have beaten Lewis in his absolute prime. It's a tough call. Can't give Tyson credit for something he never did. It could have been a series of fights. I am just pointing out the obvious, Lewis had a better career. He beat better fighters and had more longevity. In addition he was able to avenge defeat both times he needed to. Those factors are tough to ignore when raking all time heavyweights. Don't even really need to bring up the fight that they had. Tyson was a shell of what he once was but again Lewis wasn't a spring chicken himself. He was also past his prime.

The Tennis analogy was in terms of the perceptions that we have of both of them. Tyson was spectacular in his wins. Something you talked about at work the next day. Lewis can't touch that emotional comparison.

 

Yeah, Connors was older than Jesus when Lendl came to his peak and Tyson was so far over the hill when Lewis finally found the courage to fight him that Tyson had dropped down to the bottom of that hill on the other side of it.

 

Holyfield was a couple years older. Ask Razor Ruddock who was better. Tyson's prime was pretty short to try to put him up in rare air. Lewis is a top 5 alltime heavyweight maybe top 3.

 

Lewis would of had to break into an Indiana prison to fight Tyson. That's where Tyson was at when Lewis came onto the scene. Then when he got out he Team Tyson paid Lewis step aside $ so he could feast on the faded Holyfield.
Tyson didnt have the confidence postprison to fight the best around. So Tyson gave up his lunch $ to that British Bully.
Damn Lennox Lewis I hate him

 

Lewis was in awe of Tyson when he turned pro in the late 80s and even the post Douglas Tyson scared the hell out of Lewis and you could hear the fear and awe in his voice when he guest commentated on Tyson first fight with Ruddock in 1991. He wanted no part of Tyson in any upcoming near future fight. Even Post Prison Tyson was deemed too big a risk by Lewis which was why he happy to take the step aside money. After Tyson losted twice to Holyfield and was clearly a spent force towards the end of the 1990s it was only then that Lewis found the courage to call out Tyson.

 

A great argument can be made for Lewis over Tyson .. aside from the fact that he destroyed him H2H at the same age he maintained a greater constant degree of excellence through out his career, he suffered far fewer losses, he was much bigger, etc .. The prime Tyson of 1988 may have been better but that is more speculative than comparing them on what was actually accomplished.

 

This^^ is a warped version of history and quite ridiculous.

The party offering the money (Tyson) to the opponent they'd much rather not fight (Lewis), is the party looking to avoid the risk. That much is just plain old common sense.

Moreover, the step-aside money was a temporary measure, in order to allow Tyson to unify the WBC title with the WBA strap, held by Seldon. Lewis remained Tyson's WBC Mandatory and was up next. Tyson, however, dropped the WBC belt after beating Seldon, rather than face Lewis as his Mandatory (and Lewis had anticipated this).

 

It's important to note that Tyson's camp offered Lewis a career high $13.5 Million in 1996 which he rejected. Keep in mind that Lewis was fresh off a controversial win over a 35 year old Ray Mercer and not too far removed from losing his WBC title (that he won in a courtroom) and losing it via the right hand of Tyson's former sparring partner.

Keep in mind Lennox Lewis had been the #1 contender for Frank Bruno's WBC title and was bypassed by Mike Tyson who forcibly skipped the line. The Tyson camp didn't feel that Lewis was in any position to dictate the terms to the A-Side WBC Champion. They made an offer, Lewis refused they decided to move on because they felt, at the time, that all roads eventually lead to Tyson. The step aside money was simply the price they paid for keeping the WBC title without defending against the mandatory.

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/04/sports/boxing-bronchitis-stops-tyson-seldon-fight-is-off.html

 

It's more important to remember that:

- King was always going to have been forced to negotiate with the Lewis camp eventually, due to a court injunction, applied in the March of '96; later reaffirmed by the New Jersey Supreme Court in May the same year.

- as a Mandatory, the bout would have been open to purse bids, if these negotiations failed, which the Lewis backers were confident they would win. Despite Lewis allowing Tyson to fight Seldon, Lewis would still have remained a mandatory.

- the terms King was insisting upon in these negotiations, consisted of his usual implements for controlling the Heavyweight scene. Specifically, that King would be the sole promoter of the event; that a network, which the prospective opponent (Lewis) was not currently contracted under (in this case Showtime) be given the rights to air the fight; that King would retain promotional rights of both fighters, regardless of outcome.

- that King/Tyson had already intended to challenge for Seldon's WBA strap only, without defending the WBC title.


Given the above, the alleged offer of $13.5M from King has no sway here. Why would Lewis and his team have accepted any offer from King, under his terms; especially, when they were mandated to challenge for the WBC Title anyway and were prepared to bid for it?

Your claim that the "

This content is protected

", does beg the question as to why he and King would pay money to keep the title and then relinquish it, once they'd played out their hand? The price they ultimately paid for not fighting Lewis was $4M and the WBC title itself. In light of them having given up the title rather than face Lewis, the $4M seems to have been a bit of a wasteful extravagance, in the end.

The lengths the King/Tyson duo went to, in order to not fight Lewis, were extraordinary. They were not confident of the win. It's really that simple.