What if Rahman would have defended against Tyson instead of the Lewis rematch?

Rahman was coming off the win over Lewis in 2001, not the Maskaev defeat.

Tyson knocked out Botha, is that reason to say he beats Rahman ?
Botha's record is not as good as Rahman's. Botha threw shoe shine punches, powder puff stuff. He outboxed Tyson. If those were Rahman's punches for 4 rounds, Tyson would be dead man walking, he'd be in serious trouble, gassed and ready to quit or just waiting to get KO'd.

Rahman took big punches from Tua and Sanders and he did KO Lewis.

Tyson was all done in 2001.
There's no getting around that. He was finished.

 

You have to be a troll.

Just because Rahman nailed Lewis while he laid on the ropes cracking a million dollar smile like a dumbass, he's suddenly a superior fighter for one fight and one fight only in the rematch to Lewis? The Oleg fights sandwhiched inbetween have no bearing?

Really, Rahman was a better fighter going into Oleg II than he ever was previouisly in his career. He was in better shape and boxing more sharper.


I don't know if Rahman is stopping Tyson if he couldn't hurt the fragile Oleg or Barrett with his jabs of doom. Rahman is powerful, but only if he can catch you with his lunging right.

This would be like the Golota fight. Rahman does not take pressure well as Steward hmself pointed out. He can't counter, he quits throwing when you throw. Tyson's pressure and punching would have Rahman backing up, arms extended...lights out.

 

You're overrating Tyson 2001.
He looked terrible against Nielsen, he couldn't finish him, and was utterly outclassed by Lewis.
Golota was a scared quitter, Botha had no power.

Rahman in 2001 was better than those guys Tyson was beating.
Tyson was just shot, there's no disgrace in that. It happens to all of them if they stay around too long.


Tyson in 2001 was not even a fraction of what he'd been when he'd LOST to Douglas in 1990.
And Rahman may not have been as good a boxer as Douglas, but he was a world champion, good enough to beat a sub-par Lewis.
But Tyson wasn't even "sub par" in 2001, he was utterly shot, an absolute shell.
He was well on his way to being the guy who couldn't get past Williams and McBride.

 

As long as Tyson can still throw his right cross and apply pressure, he has a very good chance of blasting Rahman out.

Oleg I, Lewis II, Oleg II..doesn't matter, Rahman's slow jab just left him open as all hell for right hands. His inability to counter and back up defense isn't doing him any favors either.

Tyson's win against Golota is getting undersold. It shouldn't, it was a very impressive performance from Mike.

As for Rahman being so much better than Golota...I wouldn't say that.

 

Who says they have no bearing.
By all means consider them if you want.
But let's look at Rahman's form c.2001, that's the only way to do this fairly.

1998 He went 10 tough rounds with a prime David Tua, and was blatantly fouled by an after bell punch, ahead on points.

1999 He was KO'd in 8 by Oleg Maskaev, ahead on points.

2000 He outfought and stopped hard-punching Corrie Sanders.

2001 He KO'd Lennox Lewis for the championship, and then was KO'd by a peak form Lewis in the rematch.

2002 He went 8 rounds with an old Holyfield, and narrowly lost a TD by headbutt.

2003 Went the distance with David Tua, in a disputed DRAW. (Tua who had KO'd old Moorer and Oquendo the previous year.)
And he lost a dreary 12 rounder against Ruiz


....... and if you want to talk about results that came later, we'll do the same for Tyson (Williams and McBride), and we don't want that.

Anyone should be able to see that Rahman's mixing in a higher class than Tyson in 2001, and is at the peak of his powers.
In my opinion, Tyson wouldn't have done as well against Tua or Holyfield (obviously), and we know he didn't do as well against Lewis.
All you can point at is Maskaev, and I doubt Tyson would have lasted as long as Oleg did.

But for some reason people have faith even in a 2001 Tyson to get Rahman with "an early KO punch" .....

He was younger and more hungry in 2001. And is just as good shape.

Tyson in 2001 isn't going to be slipping many punches. He's going to be plodding into punches and winging all his shots, maybe for a round or two, then he's going to fall apart and just take punishment, like we saw against Lewis.

Tyson's wouldn't be able to pressure any world-class heavyweight who wasn't scared of him at this point in his career.
Golota was a fragile-minded nutcase, coming off a glorious quit job against Michael Grant.
Tyson wouldn't back up Rahman to any great effect at all, not at this stage of his career.

Like Magna said, it's as if some of you people don't even have eyes.
Just look at Tyson around this time. A mere shell. And look at his choice of opponent, it's ridiculous.

 

Even teh Hook can see 2000 Tyson is NOT teh same as 2001 Tyson. :deal

2000 Canny Mint Tyson (fast)
[yt]S69x3aMKnVU[/yt]


2001 Turdy Tyson (sloooooow)[yt]E-KjhQd_t5M[/yt]

 

And Golota's performance was an utter joke. From the opening bell he fought like a scared fighter, throwing those "get away from me" pitty pat punches, and looking scared stiff, then he quit after 2 rounds.

Not exactly surprising considering his track record for being mentally unstable and a melt-down merchant.

Hasim Rahman was the champion of the world, confident, cocky, coming off the KO over Lennox Lewis, absolutely wouldn't be at all intimidated by Tyson's reputation.
In those respects, he's the polar opposite of Golota.

 

Oi Conn, since Golota was a past-primer in 2000, how about 1996 PRIME Golota VS 2001 Rahman?? :think

 

Rahman wins by DQ

 

Andy Golota hit bloody hard with mint combos in 1996 - does he not have a chance to KO Rahman before he quits??

 

Tyson sucked in 2001 but the entire division sucked a lot more.

Tyson was a blimp for Nielson how can you compare? Do you think he would show at 240 pounds to fight for the title? Maybe he does but I think he gets up to fight Rahman more than Lewis because he would think he could win.

Tyson tested positive for weed and supposedly only ran on a treadmill for 3 weeks for Golota yet he was still handling these pretenders fairly easily with little effort.

 

All I see is a tired chin argument.

Wlad has fragility. Does 2001 Tyson beat him too?

 

Your reasoning seems to be - "Tyson didn't train right for Nielsen because Nielsen was no good. He didn't train right for Lewis because Lewis was TOO GOOD. That means he'd probably train right for Rahman" ...... but you are really making a huge leap of faith there, in my opinion.

Knowing what we know about Tyson at that stage of his career, his mental state, his lifestyle, his prescribed use of anti-depressants, his insecure ring behaviour since the bite fight, his fights with promoters and trainers ..... all of this crazy ****, where he seemed to hate himself and the world around him.

Isn't it just likely that that was it for him, he's finished. It's over, he can't get motivated even when he tries, he's just lost the skills and the will to train and fight. He's an empty shell. Even being champion again, he wouldn't have seen much point in it.
That was Tyson in 2001.
It's not to do with Nielsen, or Lewis. Or anyone else.
It's all about Mike Tyson. He was finished as a boxer.

 

Also the guy who beat BRewster, who in turn beat Waldo

What about Golota who went onto beat Byrd?

He is but is he superior to Golota?

 

Wlad was and is ten times the fighter in speed and ability. Thats why Rahman only landed 30 punches and was beaten to a pulp by him.