Lennox Lewis would not have lasted 12 mineutes with Tyson when he was committed

2002 Tyson is no where close to 1987 Tyson. It's not even close. That's like comparing Sugar Ray Leonard in 1997 vs Leonard of 1982.

tyson fought and knocked out a bunch of old men... even holyroid busted him up twice...tyson didn`t have the mentality to deal with lewis, he would have eaten his jab all night just like what happened to him last time. I agree with this.

I don't know who would have won had they fought,but i will say 1986 ,1987 Mike Tyson knocks out the 2002 version of Tyson in 1 round. That's how big a difference it is. You can't lay off 4 years due to prison ,lay off many other years because of the Evander incident and be the same fighter skill wize. Mike's type of style was a young mans style. He lost the ability to make you miss,but immedietely make you pay with a counterpunch. Tyson also had good stamina back in 86 and 87 and had much better hand speed back then. He went 12 rounds with James Quick Tillis ,Tucker ,Bonecrusher and had great stamina through the fight. He was able to fight at a fast pace without tiring so easy. I dont think the 1996 version of Tyson last 3 rounds with the 87 version of Tyson. Neither Evander or Lewis ever fought Prime Mike Tyson.

Tyson folded against every great test in his career. Tyson couldn't beat a small heavy like Holyfield. He'd never beat Lewis. Tyson is one of the biggest myths in boxing.

If Lewis can't even land a jab without getting mauled how the hell is he successfully going to land a powershot uppercut where much faster and more skilled fighters had failed. lol,,,,youre a joke. lewis is twice as skilled,,,bigger..stronger and faster than anyone tyson fought in his prime. his jab wouldnt have had any trouble finding tyson

The funny thing is. Tyson out of his own mouth in the post fight interview said that he would have NEVER been able to beat a guy like Lewis because he was too big and too skilled. Any person who knows the career of Tyson, also knows that he always had trouble with fighters that were a lot bigger than him. Muhammed Ali said exactly the same thing about Mike Tyson in an interview with Sugar ray Leonard.Tyson was there also and Ali said he would never beat Tyson he was to raw.... But does that mean he couldnt?

An in-shape, focused Tyson would KO Lewis inside of 5 rounds.:boxing:

when are people gonna get over the fact that tyson busted out?

Lewis was a great fighter. He unified his division, fought the best in a great era, and avenged each of his rare losses in decisive fashion. He was the first and last great euro fighter.

The fact is that the Tyson lovers on here are trying to compare Tyson at his best, and then saying how would he have not beaten a guy that got not out by Rahman. Just a little tip for all you guys. Lewis trained for about a day because he knew that Rahman was not in his class. He got caught by one punch. Alot of the greats have been beat by one punch KO's. It is the nature of the sport! If you are going to compare them, then don't bring up the losses that they both had when they were clearly not focused!!! Tyson at his best had great head movement and a killer KO punch, but even at his best struggled with guys who were as big, tall and skillful as Lewis. Lewis at his best commanded fights with his jab with the rght coming in quickly behing it. He also had one of the best Uppercuts the HW division has ever seen. I personally think that at there primes, they both would have had some worries fighting the other. Tyson because he would have been hard pressed to get close enough to land the killer shot that we all know he could deliver. And Lewis because he would have know that if he made one mistake and let Tyson get within range then the fight could be over. Personally, I think that Lewis, with a proper prep would have been able to use the skills that he learnt through the am's to hold Tyson of far enough, that he would have to start coming in low and trying to throw the big right hand that gave him many of his wins. If this was the case, Lewis would have absolutely KO'd him by either a series of UC's or the Big right hand. I am not english by the way, and have seen pretty much every HW fight since 1950 on video or live. Just the way I see it!!!

To me, those records seem fairly comparable. The fact that you've listed Tyson as one of Lewis' biggest wins shows the lengths you will go to do try and prove yourself. Anyone with even an ounce of boxing knowledge knows that Tyson wasn`t a big win for Lewis, it was one of the easiest pay days of his career. It seems to me that your only argument is that Tyson had this magical prime in which he was immortal for about 36 months, after which he suddenly lost the ability to box and cannot be considered as the same person after this point. That is ridiculous. Tyson has never beaten anyone of note and when he fought someone who was great, he got destroyed. No amount of selective editing of his or Lewis' record will get past that.

If "if" were a fifth we'd all be drunk, what we do know for sure is that when they did meet Tyson got KTFO

Yeah, you said enough to hang yourself this time (mainly because I'm being fairly even-handed here and you are being horribly one-sided. It makes your argument, which effectively seems to be that NO version of Tyson would ever beat any version of Lewis seem much less accurate than my version of prime Tyson would've beat Lewis at that time): Which fight are you talking about? I have never this kind of behaviour from Lewis. There is the fight with Briggs where after being almost knocked out on his feet late in the first round, Lewis covers up and before long gets drawn into trading with Briggs. Even allowing Briggs to punch him, despite having already tasted the canvas due to Briggs' power. Now of course, Lewis ultimately destroyed Briggs, but he did show that he was able to get drawn into a toe-to-toe fight, which is my whole point. A big problem of Lewis' here was apparently a lack of conditioning and training...which fits quite nicely into my 'complacency' claim. There's the Gary Mason fight, which was toe-to-toe until Mason was knocked out in the 7th round (in fact, this one is a good indication as it was Lewis' first big high-profile UK fight where he had a lot to prove). Nearly the entire fight with Klitchko was toe-to-toe, which is why both of them took a lot of damage. Again in this fight, there were doubts about Lewis' age and how his chin would stand up to Vitali's knock-out power, so its not unlikely that Lewis went toe-to-toe to prove himself. Zeljko Mavrovic had an awesome fight with Lewis where Lewis stood and traded with Mavrovic virtually ever single time he was clocked. Lewis also traded a hell of a lot with Ray Mercer. Then of course, there were the two fights where Lewis was so complacent that he completely let his guard down and was knocked out with one punch. The whole issue of complacency relates to a fighter who belives that the person they are fighting is so inferior that they take risks they would not normally take. If Lewis fought Tyson in his so called prime (which according to you lasts about 36 months in fights against old men) he wouldn`t take such risks. Lewis' complacency came down to a couple of things (dont claim that its only superiority, thats a rather ignorant opinion). It can either be over-confidence/arrogance or it can be pride. Lewis demonstrated to me a number of times throughout his career that he was too proud to take punishment and just cover-up, he would always make an attempt to out-slug the boxer he was fighting. This was ESPECIALLY noticeable when he was fighting in big matches where people had been doubting or questioning him. He never had that concern when he finally fought Tyson, because after a couple of seconds in the ring with him, he'dve had no doubt whatsoever that Tyson was no real threat. Furthermore, by the time he fought Tyson, he had matured considerably and had been VERY recently humbled by Rahman. Thats not the kind of thing you forget easily. I sincerely doubt he'd already learnt that lesson before Tyson was past his prime, as he hadnt suffered his first knock-out defeat to McCall by then. Teddy Atlas on ESPN classics - (whom I assume knows more about Mike than you or I) said that Douglas won because he was not afraid of Tyson. He also said that Tyson had better nights in terms of reflexes in the past, but was for all intense and purposes, the same fighter as the previous title fights. The difference being that Douglas was not going to give up and was not afraid at all of Tyson. Atlas saw Tyson on a daily basis and is a far better judge of Mike's skills than you are. Kevin Rooney, who trained Tyson during his prime and who knew 'Prime Tyson' a damn sight better than either me, you OR Teddy Atlas said that Tyson was a shadow of his former self against Douglas and that his mind was all messed up by then. Atlas on the other hand, had a rather bad history with Tyson and even allegedly threatened Tyson with a gun at one time. I'd take Rooney's word over his and frankly, if this were a court, Atlas' judgement on the matters would be given no credence whatsoever. Far from it, it shows that Tyson could be dominated round after round and could do nothing about the situation. When he was past his prime. Whilst Lennox was caught twice with two lucky punches, which in heavyweight boxing, usually results in a KO. Ali was dropped by single punches...it doesn`t mean anything really.. How many times was Ali knocked out by them? How many times did he not make the 10 count? You want a clue? It was none. The reason being that if Ali ever allowed himself to be as complacent about his opponent as Lewis did, his chin and his recovery allowed him to get up from it. There are very few lucky punches in boxing. Lewis had his guard down each time he was clocked, thats not a lucky punch. Thats carelessness. And onto your other point about Tyson fighting a bunch of old men past their prime. I never particularly wanted to discredit Lewis' record, because that wasnt my point. But you're so annoyingly one-sided it seems necessary: Lewis' biggest wins: Mike Tyson - Undeniably the best part of a decade past his prime. Went on to do NOTHING after Lewis beat him. Evander Holyfield - 1 draw, 1 win. Long past his best. After beaten by Lewis, only won 2 of his next 6 fights. Vitali Klitschko - A stoppage because of a cut caused by an accidental headbutt, where Klitschko was winning on the cards. Mike Tyson's biggest wins: Trevor Berbick - Long past his best. Wins 11 of his next 13 fights after Tyson. Larry Holmes - On his way out when Tyson destroys him. Yet wins 21 of 24 fights after then in a career where he is only ever knocked out once...by Mike Tyson. This is despite fighting Holyfield after Tyson and McCall (who knocked out Lewis remember) and Mercer. Michael Spinks - Unification fight, undefeated, at his prime. So severely and clinically despatched that he never fought again. Frank Bruno - At his peak. Comfortably beaten. Bearing in mind this is a Frank Bruno who WAS taking Lewis to school years later and who also won a World Championship defeating...Oliver McCall. To me, those records seem fairly comparable.

he would have knocked out any version of tyson ^^^ end of thread.

I agree anything can happen....but i think Lennox had the advantage.

Lewis fought the best and beat the best...Tyson fought the best and lost. He then fought the worst and lost...He had 10 or so fights against old men where he knocked them out..he's done well to build such a reputation on 10 fights...but the fact remains that any half decent fighter he has ever faced, he has lost...all this about 'prime mike tyson' is laughable...its no coincidence that his prime fights were all against washed up old men or paper champions.Precisely bro but it doesn't change the fact that a prime tyson could have beaten a prime lewis. As I said earlier nobody realy knows what could have, would have, should have...

Lewis fought the best and beat the best...Tyson fought the best and lost. He then fought the worst and lost...He had 10 or so fights against old men where he knocked them out..he's done well to build such a reputation on 10 fights...but the fact remains that any half decent fighter he has ever faced, he has lost...all this about 'prime mike tyson' is laughable...its no coincidence that his prime fights were all against washed up old men or paper champions.

A well trained lennox would have beat a prime tyson and vice versa. Nobody really knows man but as far as boxing legacy is concern, I think lewis was the greater fighter.

Because Lewis had a habit of doing it, of getting involved in scraps if someone caught him well instead of relying on his boxing. It got him in trouble a number of times in his career that his skills were able to just about get him out of. Which fight are you talking about? I have never this kind of behaviour from Lewis. Do you? Or is this all conjecture, the whole thread? Yes, I thought so. Its not groundless at all, its based in educated opinion. Lewis was a complacent fighter, he also had a great ego and throughout his career many times a huge chip on his shoulder because he didnt feel he was getting the plaudits he deserved. The reason he wasnt getting those plaudits is because everyone told him throughout his career that he wasnt the true champion while the question-mark of Tyson hung over his head. When he finally fought Tyson, Mike was old and tired and had lost most of his skills. Lewis on the other hand had developed a maturity that he did not have in his youth. It was the perfect time for Lewis to take the fight. If he demonstrated an immaturity and an arrogance that got him clocked and involved in scraps a number of times against fighters with inferior reputations in his youth as a fighter, what makes you think that he wouldnt do the same against someone who was better than those fighters and who many felt was the best fighter on the planet? The whole issue of complacency relates to a fighter who belives that the person they are fighting is so inferior that they take risks they would not normally take. If Lewis fought Tyson in his so called prime (which according to you lasts about 36 months in fights against old men) he wouldn`t take such risks. What praise am I heaping on him? That if he went toe-to-toe with Lewis he would have won? Oh shit, how over the top I am. What a joke. I think thats a pretty fair statement to make and many others would agree. Again...if you think that Tyson was 50% of his best when he fought Douglas, you are the joke. His prime was long before that. Teddy Atlas on ESPN classics - (whom I assume knows more about Mike than you or I) said that Douglas won because he was not afraid of Tyson. He also said that Tyson had better nights in terms of reflexes in the past, but was for all intense and purposes, the same fighter as the previous title fights. The difference being that Douglas was not going to give up and was not afraid at all of Tyson. Atlas saw Tyson on a daily basis and is a far better judge of Mike's skills than you are. Would that suggest that...he was complacent and lost concentration when he thought that he was on top?...Doesnt that back up what I'm saying pal? Far from it, it shows that Tyson could be dominated round after round and could do nothing about the situation. Whilst Lennox was caught twice with two lucky punches, which in heavyweight boxing, usually results in a KO. Ali was dropped by single punches...it doesn`t mean anything really..

tyson would of beat lewis very easily becuase lewis was admittedly scared of the young tyson.. and if tyson smells fear he was relentless.. bruno was beating lewis before he got lucky... and look what tyson did to a 6'4 247 pound bruno