Lewis vs Tyson - Pure Boxing Ability... who's better?

Simple question.

When it comes to ATG heavyweight lists we would normally find Lewis in a higher position than Tyson due to his longer title reign combined with a number of very good names on his CV as well as a number of other factors. Tyson on the otherhand had a much shorter prime, which counts greatly against him

But the question for this post is for pure boxing ability at there relative peaks who was the better fighter????

Tyson - PRIME Mike Tyson is the greatest fighter ever FACT!!!!!!!!

In all things measurable it's not easy to separate them. They were both very accomplished fighters, though in different ways. In things not measurable it's probably Tyson's ferocity up against Lewis' poise and unshakeable self - belief, with Lewis having a decided edge, in my opinion.

Head to head, on any given night, I'd see it as a pick 'em.

counter punching: Tyson
head movement: Tyson
footwork: Lewis
jab: Lewis
hooks: Tyson
uppercuts: Tyson
combinations: Tsyon
guard: Tyson
stance: Lewis
body punching: Tyson

Tyson wins 7-3 on my card.

Tyson failed against people who were not afraid of him.

Lewis takes him out 9 times out of 10.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Tyson failed against people who were not afraid of him.

Lewis takes him out 9 times out of 10.

Thats not answering the question.

D4thincarnation wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Tyson failed against people who were not afraid of him.

Lewis takes him out 9 times out of 10.

Thats answering the question.

I know, thanks.

Maybe I could compare jobs and award points for it.

Maths can prove anything, people tend to use it when they can't thiink of proper reasons.

Like Manny being an "8 weight champ" means he is better than SRR

He failed once in his prime against Douglas. Tyson's stretch of victories before then was impressive. I doubt Tucker and Smith were scared of him, or anyone else. What would scare Bonecrusher Smith? Intimidation was part of Tyson's game, some opponents evidently just flaked. We probably didn't see the best of Spinks or Frazier in their fights. But, Bruno came out strong because he was scared, it can work both ways.

Its a tough fight to call, an ultimate heavyweight contest. In real life I get the impression Lennox was a little scared of Tyson. But, in the ring as ever he was pure focus. Tyson was a skilled boxer, with good movement and excellent hand speed for a heavy. The swarmer/ peak-a-boo style served him well, no problem against men of Lennox's size. But, Lennox was also a boxer. His jab could control the centre of the ring and keep Tyson on the back foot. To close to call.

Lewis.

Tyson was quicker and more mobile in his prime, had good head movement, power and hooks. Lewis was harder to hit, had a better jab, uppercut, right cross, was physically and mentally stronger and for me had better all round pugilistic skill and a better boxing brain. Prime for prime Lewis is the better fighter and beats Tyson more often than not.

ArchBritishchris wrote:I doubt Tucker and Smith were scared of him, or anyone else.

All due respect, chris, but Bonecrusher clung on to Tyson for dear life throughout the entire fight.

Bonecrusher feared for his safety in that fight. He didnt come to fight, he came to try and not get hurt.

He was scared.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Bonecrusher feared for his safety in that fight. He didnt come to fight, he came to try and not get hurt.

He was scared.

Agree with you and HumanWindmill.

In that fight bonecrusher was in survive mode for all 12 rounds. Maybe thats mostly down to Tysons's skill but from what i can remember about it he was holding onto tyson whenever he could just to get through the rounds.

Smith didn't fall down after the first punch, he'd probably taken more punches against Tyson than anyone previously and went the full distance. He clinched a bit when Tyson was at close range, but thats not a bad strategy. Smith was competitive for 12 rounds and the left jab was effective for periods. He did clinch a little more late on, but stamina wasn't one of his strong points. The punches from Smith kept coming for 12 rounds and the 11th was one of his best. I don't think he won many rounds, but he did alright. The Tyson of this era was certainly formidable, those hooks were accurate punches.

I think there's not much between them - 50 - 50 in terms of overall attributes, but I'd still pick Tyson to KO Lewis 9 times out of 10 in a handful of rounds.

Lewis's suspect chin and mediocre work rate makes Tyson a tough ask for the first 6 rounds.

ArchBritishchris wrote:Smith was competitive for 12 rounds and the left jab was effective for periods. He did clinch a little more late on, but stamina wasn't one of his strong points. The punches from Smith kept coming for 12 rounds and the 11th was one of his best. I don't think he won many rounds, but he did alright. The Tyson of this era was certainly formidable, those hooks were accurate punches.

Sorry, but Smith wasn't competitive for twelve seconds, let alone twelve rounds. He looked terrified, and was in survival mode from the get go. Everybody agreed, following the fight, that his performance had been shambolic, and the one glory moment, late in the fight, when he DID land on Tyson only served to compound his shame, rather than exonerate him, since it left many questioning why he had lacked the ambition during the rest of the fight.

It was a non - event, and not far removed from Lewis v Akinwande.

Thats a harsh appraisal of Smith's performance. Whats he supposed to do stand in front of him and trade? He tried that for periods and took shots, so a tighter defence was a good idea. Smith tied up Tyson when he attempted to get close or underneath him, but he boxed from centre ring for long periods as well. As I remember, Smith threw plenty of forward jabs and landed some very good shots. For periods he took the fight to Tyson, 9 through 12 he was still battling away. By this time, Smith was an experienced fighter and he certainly wasn't overawed. That was a competitive performance, although he was in no danger of winning it.

fearlessBamber wrote:I think there's not much between them - 50 - 50 in terms of overall attributes, but I'd still pick Tyson to KO Lewis 9 times out of 10 in a handful of rounds.

Lewis's suspect chin and mediocre work rate makes Tyson a tough ask for the first 6 rounds.

Complete fallacy about the suspect chin of Lewis. He was only ever dropped twice in his career, both by hayemakers that he was too complacent to coming, and got back to his feet both times. Seen him take huge punches from the likes of klitschko, Holyfield et al and they've just bounced off him. There was nothing wrong with his chin that a bit of better concentration on two occasions wouldn't remedy.

On the contrary, chris, it's an accurate appraisal.

I remember the fight very well, and I remember the derision with which Smith's performance was greeted. He most certainly did not, at any stage, take the fight to Tyson, who became increasingly frustrated at being grappled with and tied up.

Just about everybody agreed at the time that Smith had exhibited zero ambition.

Every fight should be like Ward vs Gatti or the fighters a coward? If the opponents trying to hit you, block, use defence, move out of the way. Smith didn't stand in front of him and take full punches. A clever strategy would be tie up an opponent who is attempting an offence and then land your own punches at the right time. There was some clinching, but not for long periods at a time. For a heavyweight contest, when talking about largely built men, the clinching was about standard. In fact the fight was exciting, both landed numerous punches. In a sense, the fight shows Tyson's susceptability to leading jab.

Smith even tried showboating in round 12, not many did that against Tyson. Ultimately, Tyson was to quick for him and landed full, strong punches. What happened against Frazier, Bruno and so many others when Tyson did this - that was pretty much the end of the contest. Smith was still there at the end of the fight, no lame knock out, didn't quit. That was an impressive performance. Using a defensive tactic helped him in the fight, he enabled Tyson to throw and land less punches. Its actually quite commonly used in boxing. But, that was an exciting fight - both tried hard to win it.

Tyson was faster nd a much better inside fighter.

Lewis was a much better range fighter.

Two very different styles so its hard to compare. Their skills were geared towards the way they fought which was very different.

For pure skills like combinations, hand and foot speed, blend of power and movement etc I would go for Tyson in the 80s probably.

ArchBritishchris wrote:Every fight should be like Ward vs Gatti or the fighters a coward?

I didn't say that, and neither did you make any comparison to Ward v Gatti during your original post.

You claimed that Smith hadn't been intimidated by / afraid of, Tyson. I believe he was, and so did most who saw the fight, including the live audience, TV commentators, analysts, and, if his expression was any indicator, Tyson himself.

Smith's performance was not worthy of a world title challenge.

This is how BoxRec describes the fight, by the way :

- Tyson easily won his second world title but Smith's negative tactics turned the fight into a dreary spectacle.

- The bout was billed as a must-see collision of two big punchers but instead Smith spent almost the entire 12 rounds trying to survive.

- The WBA champ Smith held and grabbed Tyson every time his younger opponent got within punching range.

- Only in the final seconds did Smith open up, rocking Tyson with a big right hand, but it was much too late to make a difference.

- Tyson won widely on the scorecards without enhancing his reputation.

You've got to be wumming if think Smith tried to win that fight. He clung on for dear life for about 90% of the fight and pretty much made absolutely no attempt to win.

kevchadders wrote:Simple question.

When it comes to ATG heavyweight lists we would normally find Lewis in a higher position than Tyson due to his longer title reign combined with a number of very good names on his CV as well as a number of other factors. Tyson on the otherhand had a much shorter prime, which counts greatly against him

But the question for this post is for pure boxing ability at there relative peaks who was the better fighter????

~Why sir, with due respect, it's Mr. Mike because of style and talent, but any rational discussion of the man defies the laws of logic and civility because of his deranged personality disorder.

You don't unify 4 separate belts by the age of 21 without talent bleeding out of every pore. The bob and weave style incorporates more skills than any other style and is the most difficult to perfect at the level he fought at.

I would close in noting that Tyson is only 1 notch below Mr. Lewis on the IBRO list, staggering respect when you consider that 75% of his career came in his first 5 yrs by which time he had cleared $100mil, the next 15 yrs being propped up in the ring as a 4 rd KO specialist against mostly inferior fighters for ungodly wads of cash when not loitering in prison.

That kind sir, takes more than just top talent and ability.

samevans1 wrote:You've got to be wumming if think Smith tried to win that fight. He clung on for dear life for about 90% of the fight and pretty much made absolutely no attempt to win.

I'm fairly sure D4th would have had Smith winning by a landslide entering the championship rounds.

Bob wrote:

samevans1 wrote:You've got to be wumming if think Smith tried to win that fight. He clung on for dear life for about 90% of the fight and pretty much made absolutely no attempt to win.

I'm fairly sure D4th would have had Smith winning by a landslide entering the championship rounds.

Ha !

10 - 1 - 0 going into the last, I should reckon.

120-106
119-107
119-107

Sounds like a close competitive fight to me, the two judges who gave Smith a round were also being very very generous. Not sure how anyone can call a fight that was so one sided so wrong.

I dont know why this is called close. Tyson would destroy Lewis in under 3 rounds every single time they fought.

You mean the same way he knocked out the inferior Smith, Tucker and Douglas in under 3 rounds?

Lewis far superior, in my opinion. Tyson was a good brawler, but never had the tools to beat Lewis. Regardless of when they met he would have found himself eating that ramrod jab, not to mention the uppercuts.

Both rather good though!

imperialghosty wrote:You mean the same way he knocked out the inferior Smith, Tucker and Douglas in under 3 rounds?

We're talking about a prime Tyson here....not the one that turned up to those fights, but the ninety one second wonder that took out Spinks before stepping down from Olympus and ingratiating himself with us mere mortals by showing chinks of fallibility (like rape, and problems with opponents who can jab).

Do try and keep up.

azania I can't see where you are coming from, when they did meet ,Tyson was given a boxing lesson and I don't care how many times they fought the result would have been the same. If he was so sure of winning when he was in his so called prime why was Lewis payed off not to fight him?

rapidringsroad wrote:azania I can't see where you are coming from, when they did meet ,Tyson was given a boxing lesson and I don't care how many times they fought the result would have been the same. If he was so sure of winning when he was in his so called prime why was Lewis payed off not to fight him?

Lewis was payed off not to fight him so Tyson could fight Holyfield. Tyson wasn't in his prime then.

Tyson is like a myth. His "prime" lasted about 4 minutes and in that time he could apparently beat anyone.

All his defeats are put down to the fact he lost focus which is total nonsense. Lewis did not crumble when an opponent was not afraid of him in the way Tyson crumbled to average fighters like Douglas.

Tyson does not get in my list of top 10 heavies, his has neither the records nor brilliant performances to get there.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Tyson is like a myth. His "prime" lasted about 4 minutes and in that time he could apparently beat anyone.

All his defeats are put down to the fact he lost focus which is total nonsense. Lewis did not crumble when an opponent was not afraid of him in the way Tyson crumbled to average fighters like Douglas.

Tyson does not get in my list of top 10 heavies, his has neither the records nor brilliant performances to get there.

All Lewis' defeats are put down to loss of focus or poor preparation aswell.

Tyson is definately a case of a very talented fighter who for several reasons had a short prime.

I find the suggestions that Tyson was destined to lose once an opponent wasnt afraid of him or that his private life, incarceration and marriage had no bearing on him to just as far fetched as the idea that he was the best of all time during his prime.

There is a distinct diference in the pre and post jail Tyson. The movement has diminished, he doesnt set up the lightning combos anymore and starts headhunting, neglects his fundementals in favour of blunt trauma etc. Thats before you even consider how off the rails he was mentally.

I wouldnt have him in top 10 on acheivement, but on potential and skills he could have been had the rest of his life been kept in check.

imperialghosty wrote:You mean the same way he knocked out the inferior Smith, Tucker and Douglas in under 3 rounds?

Well they took a beating (except douglas). But if McCall can the more than average Rahman could starch Lewis, I dread to think what the Tyson of 86=90 would do to the chinny lewis who had decidedly average footwork.

Oh I forgot, Lewis was not prepared for Rahman and McCall caught him with a lucky punch. Silly me.

rapidringsroad wrote:azania I can't see where you are coming from, when they did meet ,Tyson was given a boxing lesson and I don't care how many times they fought the result would have been the same. If he was so sure of winning when he was in his so called prime why was Lewis payed off not to fight him?

Oh of course. And the version of Holy that Lewis fought was his best. Lewis was given step aside money to make the even bigger Holy/Tyson fight. Face it, in USA Lewis was a no name.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Tyson is like a myth. His "prime" lasted about 4 minutes and in that time he could apparently beat anyone.

All his defeats are put down to the fact he lost focus which is total nonsense. Lewis did not crumble when an opponent was not afraid of him in the way Tyson crumbled to average fighters like Douglas.

Tyson does not get in my list of top 10 heavies, his has neither the records nor brilliant performances to get there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't McCall and Rahman make Lewis crumble in a heap? Oh yes. Lewis lost focus and didn't train.

Lewis' face right before Rahman floored him told the whole story of that fight. He underestimated him and thought he would coast it, he was smirking right before Rahman decked him and it proved in the rematch when Lewis took him apart.

King Beer wrote:Lewis' face right before Rahman floored him told the whole story of that fight. He underestimated him and thought he would coast it, he was smirking right before Rahman decked him and it proved in the rematch when Lewis took him apart.

Always an excuse for Lewis. Facts are that the post jail Tyson was an inferior version of the one who terrorissed heavyweights for 4 years. That Tyson would have destroyed Lewis.

Lewis had poor footwork, a terrible pawing jab which he pushed out without snap. Ready made for Tyson.

Have to say, was never a fan of Lewis, maybe it was the Canadian thing or simply that he was boring.

I dread to think what torture my eyes would've seen had he ever faced Harrison!

King Beer wrote:Have to say, was never a fan of Lewis, maybe it was the Canadian thing or simply that he was boring.

I dread to think what torture my eyes would've seen had he ever faced Harrison!

Ha. I remember watching "an audience with lennox lewis" where Ian wright did all the talking.

I've always had the opinion that you become a great fighter by beating great fighters.

Lennox has beaten better boxers than Tyson.

D4thincarnation wrote:I've always had the opinion that you become a great fighter by beating great fighters.

Lennox has beaten better boxers than Tyson.

The question isn't about career achievements though, it's about at their individual bests who do you think would have won? No one can argue that Lewis had a better career than Tyson, but their is a case for saying an at peak Tyson could have beat an at peak Lewis.

Tyson was a talented animal, pure and simple - a human wrecking ball of a fighter with excellent movement and great reflexes, at least when he was champion the first time around.

Lewis was a thinking man's boxer with great jab, half-decent footwork and the ability the change tactics when things weren't working how he wanted.

Both could hit like a steam train and both believed their own hype too much, resulting in losses. Tyson believed he could steamroller through everyone and fell apart when someone stood up to his bullying and/or all-guns-blazing tactics (Douglas, Holyfield and to a much lesser fighter in Williams at the twilight of his career). Lewis believed he was superior to everyone he fought and he paid the price twice by not taking things seriously enough. He did avenge both losses, something Tyson never did.

You could argue til you're blue in the face about them facing during Tyson's "prime" but the fact is that when Tyson was ripping through the various alphabet holders and contenders first time around, Lewis had barely started in his pro career. So it would never have happened. Would you put a 2 fight novice in with the Heavyweight champ? Nope, me neither.

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Tyson is like a myth. His "prime" lasted about 4 minutes and in that time he could apparently beat anyone.

All his defeats are put down to the fact he lost focus which is total nonsense. Lewis did not crumble when an opponent was not afraid of him in the way Tyson crumbled to average fighters like Douglas.

Tyson does not get in my list of top 10 heavies, his has neither the records nor brilliant performances to get there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't McCall and Rahman make Lewis crumble in a heap? Oh yes. Lewis lost focus and didn't train.

No, Lewis lost because he got caught with 2 bigs shots. He lost to the better man on the night, no problems admitting that. The difference is that Lewis avenged those loses, Tyson did no such thing.

Tyson is a hugely overrated fighter who lost to anyone who was will to fight him. Same can't be said for Lewis.

The fact that people put Tyson in the top 5 on the "perceived" ability is shocking. He wouls have a case if he had dominated challengers for years, but he didnt. Tyson was a fighter with wonderful skills, but when tested he didnt have it in him to turn a fight around and go into the trenches, an absolute must for all boxers.

This thread is full of so much folly. Anyone that thinks the mythical "prime" Tyson of witherspoon, Spinks and shot holmes fame beats the best version of a 6'5" 240lb jabbing, right crossing, uppercutting, technically superior, mentally and physically stronger, Olympic gold winning ATG Lennox Lewis doesn't understand boxing and is living in a dream world buying into the myth of mike tyson, rather than the less impressive reality.

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:You mean the same way he knocked out the inferior Smith, Tucker and Douglas in under 3 rounds?

Well they took a beating (except douglas). But if McCall can the more than average Rahman could starch Lewis, I dread to think what the Tyson of 86=90 would do to the chinny lewis who had decidedly average footwork.

Oh I forgot, Lewis was not prepared for Rahman and McCall caught him with a lucky punch. Silly me.

He was so chinny he was only ever knocked down twice and got back up both times if my memory serves me right, doesn't suggest to me someone who is 'chinny'

You do also realise that Lewis Tyson was the fight everyone wanted to see especially stateside, the fact it smashed all previous PPV records backs that up pretty well too

Lets also remember that the Tucker and Smith fights both occurred bang in the middle of his prime and he was unable to smash either of them out of there in under 3 rounds so suggesting he does that to Lewis is ludicrous.

After the first knockout by McCall Lewis was trained by Emanuel Steward who was McCall's trainer at the time. From then on Lewis's left jab became one of the best in the business setting up many a finishing right,ask Rahman in their rematch and Tyson despite having the ref in his corner when they fought.

imperialghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:You mean the same way he knocked out the inferior Smith, Tucker and Douglas in under 3 rounds?

Well they took a beating (except douglas). But if McCall can the more than average Rahman could starch Lewis, I dread to think what the Tyson of 86=90 would do to the chinny lewis who had decidedly average footwork.

Oh I forgot, Lewis was not prepared for Rahman and McCall caught him with a lucky punch. Silly me.

He was so chinny he was only ever knocked down twice and got back up both times if my memory serves me right, doesn't suggest to me someone who is 'chinny'

You do also realise that Lewis Tyson was the fight everyone wanted to see especially stateside, the fact it smashed all previous PPV records backs that up pretty well too

Lets also remember that the Tucker and Smith fights both occurred bang in the middle of his prime and he was unable to smash either of them out of there in under 3 rounds so suggesting he does that to Lewis is ludicrous.

The fight smashed all Box office records because of Tyson's antics prior to the fight. People bought it wondering what he was going to do next. By then Tyson was finished.

Look at the Akinwande fight in R5. Lewis was decked but called a push. Bruno shook him up several times (poor defence). Bruno even out=jabbed him. Vit had him of queer street also. There was always a question mark avove Lewis's chin.