Lennox never seemed to be rated so highly in real time DURING his career.

Don't tell me that I'm a laughing stock because I'm basically laughing at you. Just provide some specific arguments or refer to them. Finally, at least. You use arguments like - you're from Poland, you don't write English well, you're a fanboy, you're a laughing stock, etc. OK, I accept it, but it doesn't matter for the thread.
Just write why you think Holy chased Tyson and then went to court to sue the WBC who told him to fight Tyson and he didn't want it. Can you do that or will you write something about my English again? please tell me why Tyson fighting Bruno is a problem for you, but Lewis fighting Bruno is ok? and older and more broken, in a more competitive fight... can you do it or will you apply double standards? Describe why your problem is Tubbs or Holmes fighting Tyson for the title and not Phil Jackson fighting Lewis. Just pure substance, no epithets, keyboard warrior, although I know that the lack of counter-arguments may anger you

 

OK, this is my last try to show the error of your ways, and if you still can’t comprehend, that’s on you, you’re a lost cause and a biased Tyson fanboy/Lewis hater.

Let’s start with comparing proper championship runs of both Tyson & Lewis. They had the same amount of title fights during those reigns:

1. Mike won the WBC belt by defeating number 7 rated contender and titleholder in Trevor Berbick. Lewis won the vacant WBC belt by defeating Oliver McCall who wasn't ranked at the time.
2. Mike's first defence was against number 2 rated contender, WBA titleholder Bonecrusher Smith. Lennox defended against number 7 rated heavyweight Henry Akinwande (he was a WBO title holder, but was forced to vacate to fight Lewis, WBO wasn’t a major world title at the time tho).
3. Mike's second defence was against, again, number 2 rated contender Pinklon Thomas. Lewis' second defence was number 5 rated Andrew Golota.
4. Mike's third defence was against number 5 rated contender, Tony Tucker, IBF title holder. Lewis' third defence was against the lineal champion Shannon Briggs.
5. Mike's fourth defence was against contender number 7, Tyrell Biggs. Lewis' fourth defence was against unranked Zeljko Mavrović.
6. Mike's fifth defence was against unranked Larry Holmes. Lewis' fifth defence was against number 1 heavyweight in the world and WBA & IBF titleholder Evander Holyfield. He got a draw, but we all know he won.
7. Mike's sixth defence was against unranked Tony Tubbs. Lewis' sixth defence was a rematch against number 1 heavyweight in the world and WBA & IBF titleholder Evander Holyfield.
8. Mike's seventh title defence was against the lineal champion Michael Spinks. Lewis' seventh defence was against number 1 contender to the crown, Michael Grant.
9. Mike's eighth title defence was against unranked Frank Bruno. Lewis' eights title defence was against unranked Francois Botha.
10. Mike's ninth title defence was against number 2 contender Carl Williams. Lewis' ninth title defence was against number 1 contender David Tua.
11. Mike lost the title to the contender number 7, Buster Douglas. Lennox lost to the contender number 8, Hasim Rahman.

So:

1. Both of these guys started as a one belt title holders. Mike won it off a Top 10 rated paper champ, Lewis won the vacant belt against unranked Oliver McCall. We can say Mike had a better start.
2. Mike collected all the alphabet belts quicker (in 4 fights compared to Lewis' 8 [it should have been 7 tho]), but Lewis gained the claim to the lineal title quicker (in 4 fights compared to Mike's 7). Pretty even here, depending on what you value more.
3. Mike defeated 7 Top 10 guys during his run (including 3 Top 5 guys and the lineal champion), Lewis also had 7 Top 10 victories with 6 Top 10 guys (including 4 Top 10 defences with 3 Top 5 guys and the lineal champion). On the other hand, Mike defended against 3 unranked guys, while Lewis defended against 2 unranked guys. Again, pretty even.
4. They both lost the title to Top 10 rated contender.

When we look at these reigns in comparison, they are not so far removed from each other. I would say, it’s crazy how they are similar. You can argue Tyson had a better run, but not by a significant margin. And definitely not the margin that can place Mike Tyson as the all-time great just basing strictly on it, while excluding Lewis.

So, these are their main reigns. BUT! We need to add take into the consideration the fact that Lennox regained the lineal title beating Hasim Rahman making him the fighter that defeated every boxer he faced. His second reign as the king wasn’t that good, but he still defeated number 3 rated contender in Mike Tyson and number 7 rated contender in Vitali Klitschko.

To give both fighters justice, let’s compare their paper reigns. Lennox was given the WBC belt without fighting anybody. Sort of like Ken Norton. He defended against number 5 rated Tony Tucker, unranked Frank Bruno and number 8 rated Phil Jackson. He lost the belt against number 6 rated Oliver McCall. Mike defeated a paper champion Frank Bruno, who was rated at number 7 at the time. Then he unified against number 6 rated WBA paper champ Bruce Seldon. It wasn’t a title defence as the WBC belt wasn’t on the line. Then he lost to unranked Evander Holyfield. Again, pretty similar stuff and you can argue Lewis’ paper reign was better.

Finally, let’s compare their biggest wins outside of their title reigns: both beat Razzor Ruddock. Mike did it twice, while Lennox did it in better fashion. Tyson beat Golota (it was a NC at the end of the day, but I don’t care he smoked some reefer before that fight, he beat that boy up and made him quit), while Lewis beat Tommy Morrison and Ray Mercer. Pretty close, but I would say, again, Lennox did more in his non-title career.

To grasp the main points of our discussion:

1. Mike had worse record against Top 10 rated opposition than Lewis: 11-4 comparing to 16-2.
2. He missed 2 top contenders during his reign in the 80s: Evander Holyfield and Tim Whiterspoon just like Lewis missed Ruiz in Byrd. I would add Wladimir Klitschko to the mix if we want to be 100% fair.
4. Tyson missed more top heavyweights in the 90s than Lewis did: Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman & Ray Mercer.
5. Had more losses and never avenged them.

And to address some of incoming points:

I don't care Holyfield never went the legal route to pursue Mike. I don't care about alphabet bodies politics. You need to fight your top contenders without their enforcement, if the public considers them a threat to you. Back in the days, there were no sanctioning bodies to order mandatories. And if champions didn't fight what the public considered top contenders, they were consider duckers. We need to hold all fighters in the history of the sport to the same standards.

That's why I don't care that much about unifying all alphabet belts. Nice feat, sure, but Mike wasn't the true champion to me until he beat Spinks. But he was the best in the division since '87. The fact he was lucky to take part in the HBO Unification Series boosts up his reign significantly, but ONLY IF someone is to look at the alphabet belts defences. I don’t. Lewis was the king of the division from at least 1998 with or without 3 major belts of his era. Just like I don't care if Usyk loses the IBF belt due to the politics of this particular sanctioning body. I won't hold against him the fact he won't fight Dubois and fight Fury in the rematch instead. Just like Muhammad Ali not being a WBA titleholder for the majority of his first reign is not a stain on it.

But hey, I also don't care Mike missed Holyfield in the 80's just like I don't care Lewis missed Ruiz, Byrd and Wlad. They both had valid reasons. I’m not a hypocrite holding fighters to the different standards, unlike the stuff you’re doing to make “facts” fit your narrative. And as I predicted, your mental gymnastics were sweet, trying to get out of that one. You failed tho. I don't even care that Tyson fought Bruno. The champions are allowed soft touches from time to time, and it was a big money fight in England. And guess what? Both Lewis and Tyson had similar number of soft touches in their career.

To sum up: unless you’re biased, you simply can’t make a case for Mike being an all-time great and Lewis not being one.

 

Great breakdown.

 

Speaking as a British observer, I would say that the media had definitely come round to the idea that he was an ATG, by the end of his career.

Bizarrely the breakthrough point seemed to be the Tyson fight.

 

Probably the most unbiased breakdown of Lewis and Mike careers ever seen on boxing forums

 

Wow, thank you for that!

 

First of all, thank you for the substantive post - I missed it!! and although I have a lot of reservations about your juggling of facts, it's ok when you try to justify your opinion with specific arguments. I don't really like the statement that you are replying to me for the last time because it sounds like an escape from the discussion - and I have something to write without epithets.
As you know, the argument about avoiding Holyfield came from you and when I rebutted it, you said that Holyfield doesn't matter anyway. I don't really like this way of thinking, I hope you're not one of those people who can't say - ok, I was wrong about that. But that's your business.
You know very well that boxing is not mathematics. That's why the agorithm used by boxrec to rank players is so criticized. It does not take into account the quality of victories or circumstances, which are important. Let me give you a simple example - Lennox Lewis defeated the winning Vitali Klitschko due to injury, and Chris Byrd did the same. For many, Lennox's victory is his best evening in his career, but Byrd is not even considered a worthy rival of Lewis and the fact that Lewis did not fight him is ok. Even though the same Chris also easily beat Holy and Tua, Lewis' next greatest successes. We have 3-3 here and where is Lewis and Byrd in top ATG HW?
I don't know why it is important that Lewis won the linear title in the 4th fight after winning the WBC belt and Tyson in 7. Based on this, we can say that Briggs won it before the fight for the official belt and Spinks won it in his HW debut. Do we now have to put them above Tyson and Lewis? They were much faster. The fact is that Tyson became the WBC champion in the 2nd year of his career, the WBC IBF WBA champion in the 3nd year of his career, and the linear champion in the 4rd year of his career. It took Lewis 5 years, 11 years and 11 years respectively.
So I see a big, big advantage for Tyson!!

The style of winning is important to me because it says everything. Tyson outclassed the current linear champion in the 1st round. Spinks was 32 years old, undefeated, had never been knocked out and had defeated 35-year-old Larry Holmes after his long title reign. Lewis pulled off a points win over the 37-year-old, broken-up Holyfield, who had looked terrible against Bean the year before and looked terrible against Ruiz the year after. By the way, I also don't like juggling The Ring's ranking places. You know well how often these places turned out to be complete nonsense, for example No. 15 beat No. 1, and every year is different. A simple example - according to your criterion, Tyson beating no. 2 Smith has more success than when he beat the unranked Holmes but EVERYONE knows that the win over Holmes was better, bigger, more valuable and a much better indicator of the victory Mike even though you are doing the complete opposite at this point!

 

As you know, the point about Tyson avoiding Evander Holyfield was to show your double standards according to your logic, as you don't care about Tyson missing top contenders but hold it against Lewis. I personally don't care about neither.

I know, that's why I never mentioned BoxRec once. The circumstances are: 38 year old, past prime Lennox Lewis in the worst shape of his life have beaten prime Vitali Klitschko to a pulp. That's why this victory is so impressive to some. Because of the circumstances. Saying he beat Vitali only because of the injury is dishonest - he opened his cut, worked on it, and made the ref stop the fight because Vitali couldn't even see the doctor straight. Just like Canelo Alvarez cracked BJS' face and made him quit. Just like Byrd made Vitali tore his rotator cuff while he was swinging at air because of his defensive abilities and made him quit. Just like Tyson stopped Golota by breaking his jaw and made him quit. Just like Joe Joyce broke Dubois' eye socket and made him quit, while he was losing on the cards. The same Dubois was losing on the cards before he stopped Hrgović on cuts. Injuries sustained from boxing aren't an excuse. Especially those that are obtained due to the actions of the attacker. Another Polish example - Chris Billam-Smith stopped Mateusz Masternak recently due to the injury while being behind on the scorecards. It was his doing because of the body shots and his work in the clinches. Stoppage by injury is a legit stoppage, despite excuses some fighters may have. And I already agreed with you that Lewis should have fought Byrd, but the fact is, there was no pressure from the public for that fight at that time. And since Lewis eventually took on Vitali, the second best from the next era, it kinds of repents this "sin" in my eyes.

We're only comparing Tyson's and Lewis' careers. All other stuff is irrelevant. We can say Leon Spinks won the undisputed heavyweight title with the valid claim to the lineage in his 8th professional fight, 18 months after starting his professional career. It doesn't make him a better fighter than Lewis nor Tyson. Different people have peaks at different points in their careers.

When it comes to the style and dominance of their reigns they are not that separate either, even tho I can see a clear case for Mike's dominance being more on display.

Lennox sparked out Golota in 1 round, Grant and Botha in 2, won wars of attrition against Briggs and Vitali, had a boxing masterclass against Tua, and he clearly outboxed Zeljko Mavrović and Evander. He also had a stinker against Akinwande (not his fault) and a strange fight with McCall who clearly shouldn't be there.

Mike, as a knock out artist he was, sparked Carl Williams & Spinks in 1 round (even tho Williams fight can be considered as stopped too early), Berbick and Tubbs in 2 and crushed Biggs, Bruno and Thomas in 5/6/7. He had a stinker against Bonecrusher (not his fault) and a good boxing showcase against Tucker.

The best Tyson's win is Michael Spinks. And even I, one of the biggest Michael Spinks fan, would say he would probably lose to 1999 Evander Holyfield and 2000 David Tua. I also think not only Evander and Tua but even Golota and Grant have a chance to go without a loss against a crop of fighters Mike beaten. Let's not kid ourselves - it wasn't the best era of heavyweights.

So, it is definitely fair to say Mike had more dominant reign than Lewis. But it's still not enough to consider him an ATG only because of it and say Lewis wasn't an ATG. Especially that, as I shown, these reigns weren't too separate from each other and Lennox basically stomps on Mike when we compare rest of their careers.

Oh and even if you consider Larry Holmes, an unranked fighter, worthy of being a Top 10 ranking, that's perfectly fine. As a Holmes fan, I won't disagree. But Tyson still fought 2 unranked fighters during his reign just like Lewis did during his.

 

Well laid out.

Just one point of correction that I noticed...

According to The Ring magazine's "To Be The Best' series, Frank Bruno had a Ring ranking of #8 at the time of the bout with Lewis.

For reference, all of Lewis' Ring Rated opponents can be viewed here (See: #43):

https://www.ringtv.com/634689-to-be...rs-in-the-history-of-the-ring-rankings-50-41/



For extra info and comparison, Tyson's Ring Rated opponents can be found within the 60 to 51 listing, here (See: #55):

https://www.ringtv.com/634641-to-be...rs-in-the-history-of-the-ring-rankings-60-51/

 

Thanks for the correction, sir. So Lewis fought Top 10 rated oppossition even throughout his paper reign.

 

great ranking, it's nice that you base it on Mac you have to rely on something. I learned from it that Lennox's victory over Vitali is as valuable as the victory over Lionel Butler, and Jimmy Bivins has better victories than Tyson, good luck

 

Lennox Lewis was the last man standing, Tyson self destructed, Bowe burnt out fast, PEDfield was always hot and cold with zero consistency.

Most of Lewis' s opponents were victims of the above years before, Tyson for example took several O's from those fighters.

Post prison Tyson was a clown show.

VK was his best win IMO yet VK had a garbage resume and quit vs a Cream Puff

Holyfield was done, see the Bean fight before and the Ruiz fights after.

Lewis was a great champ with good wins and zero baggage but IMO he never crossed over to be "The Man".in the public eye.

 

If that's the thing you learned from our discussion, you are indeed a lost cause.

 

I remember too in the post-fight Tyson is rambling a bit, but he does mention, “I’d love to do it again,” regarding a rematch. He needed money at the time.

 

That interview was adorable. Tyson wiping the blood off of Lewis' face and all. Showed that they were good friends after all.