This timeless comparison between three hall of famers has already been discussed extensively elsewhere — but here we go again.
In terms of natural, innate boxing talent & physicality — then Tyson is no.1 by some distance. Forget heavyweights, he maybe the most prodigious natural talent across all weight classes, period ! The reason for this is simple — he is & remains the quintessential example of an early bloomer.
Holyfield is no.2 in terms of natural boxing talent. Another great amateur who successfully transitioned to the pros. Believe me, this transition to the pro game is much easier said than done. There are almost as many examples of failed Olympians as successful ones.
IMHO, Lewis was the least naturally gifted of the trio but eventually became a great boxer in his own right — due to a number of factors. In no particular order of precedence, these include athleticism, luck, know-how & perseverance.
To this day, he remains the most athletic of the super heavyweights & gained the know-how of using that size from the legendary Manny Steward. Had Lewis not run into the Michigan great, there was a very realistic possibility— he remained an also ran. Oppositely to Mike Tyson, Lewis is the quintessential example of a late bloomer & an example of the life parody, “ If at first you don’t succeed then try, try again.”
