Why doesn’t Mike Tyson ever get criticized for dropping WBC belt to duck Lennox Lewis?

Bowe was theatrical in literally dropping the belt in the trash can to avoid Lennox.

Nobody was clamoring for Tyson-Lewis in 1995. At that point, Lennox was not nearly considered the best, though already age 30. Tyson-Holyfield was talked about since even 1988. It was a much bigger fight, even though Holyfield was considered old and a sacrificial lamb.

 

I never thought, in either case, it was really the boxer who gave up the belt…I remember posting on this with regards to Bowe a while back. Rock Newman was the primary objector to the Lewis fight, and Bowe played along with the publicity. Similarly, I always thought the Lewis thing was much more to do with Don King wanting to keep control of the belts.
But you’re right, there’s inconsistency in the criticism, which is probably just down to people having likes and dislikes when it comes to boxers , like everything else.

 

He does to some extent but I think at the time there was more clamour for Tyson v Holyfield even though most felt Holyfield was done after Moorer 1 and the heart scare.

I guess he got a bit of a pass because he wasn't long back and people were just happy to see the super fight that should have happened 4 years earlier made.

Lewis also wasn't quite at the top of his game then in terms of getting his dues. He'd lost to McCall a couple of years earlier and struggled past Ray Mercer. The Morrison win was quality but Lionel Butler and Justine Fortune weren't exactly putting him back on the map.

Lewis didn't really get his proper dues until he beat Holyfield in 99 even though he had a very good record even up to that point.

That said it was still a duck and I think it worked out worse for Tyson as even though Lewis would always have been a bit of a stylistic nightmare for him, I think he has a better chance of victory here than in 2002. Obviously the Holyfield route didn't work out for him either so maybes in hindsight they would have thought more on this (though money talks and Holy was probably more money at this time anyway).

 

There was much more interest in Tyson Holyfield at the time, so it seemed like a logical compromise.

Then as now, people wanted to see the belts unified.

 

Mutual agreement between the 3 of them. Lewis accepted the step aside money. He was happy for Tyson to age out further.

Later Lewis forced the Rahman rematch and tried to force a Tyson rematch. He didn't want to force the 96 Tyson fight

 

Because Holyfield Tyson had been postponed.

I think Tyson thought that Holyfield was the easier fight and decided to go for it. But in no way do I believe Tyson was scared of 96 Lewis. The only super impressive performance that post McCall Lewis had was vs a slow plodding Morrison who was likely suffering effects of HIV.

Lewis had not yet demolished Golota and Briggs, not yet beaten McCall. No one regarded Lewis as the best in the world at the time.

the irony is that Tyson would be at least 50-50 vs Lewis in 96.

96 Tyson still had fast footwork unlike 2002 Tyson. He would land a lot more on Lewis and this version of Lewis was not as refined as the 2002 version. Tyson also was in better shape at this stage then in 2002.

big mistake. If he took on and beat Lewis in 96, his legacy would be greater.

 

I always assumed he wanted the big and seemingly easy payday of fighting Holyfield. I assumed he would have faced Lewis at some point otherwise Lewis would have made an issue of it(it did sort of turn out that way). Anyway Lennox was definitely on the rise but only with the benefit of high sight that we Know Lewis was a fantastic all time great fighter rather then just a big name of the time.

 

Why do you say this?

 

Because Lewis wasnt that popular or feared at that point, Tyson-Holyfield was far more anticipated, and Lewis refused to fight Tyson on Showtime where Tyson had an exclusive contract (being an HBO fighter) so rather than try to hash that all out Lewis was happy to accept an easy payout and not have to potentially get knocked out again like he did against Tyson's sparring partner. At the time this was a guy who had won what many thought was a gift decision over Ray Mercer.

 

It does?

 

Probably because the jug of criticism is already full for Tyson. The guy has been picked apart and is probably the most criticized boxer of all time.

 

Holyfield was seen more favourably than Lewis back then. If he'd fought Lewis people would have been asking for how much longer he was going to avoid Holyfield. It's one of those situations where you have two worthy fighters and either is a viable option. If he'd fought some random instead he'd have been called a ducker and rightly so. Let's not forget there was more money for a Holyfield fight and at the end of the day that's what it's all about for these guys.