Mike Tyson: After Holyfield II

I've always wondered why Tyson took the path that he did after Holyfield 2 leading up to Lewis. Everything after Prison until Holyfield 2 was appropriate.

McNeeley was simply a comeback fight. Tyson looked pretty rusty despite his decisive win. Pass Granted. Mathis was also another comeback fight. Given his 4 year layoff I'd say that this was his last pass on those gimme fights. Bruno was the WBC Champ. Seldon was the WBA Champ. (Say what you want about Seldon, he had the belt).

Holyfield 1: Hindsight proves given Holyfield's post Tyson success that this was a pretty good legacy fight. Foresight shows it was a fight people wanted to see. I couldn't substitute this for anything. Not even a Lewis fight at that point in time. Holyfield 2: It was a necessary fight for his legacy and for his wallet.

Now was Tyson in his prime? No but he didnt need to be in order for him to pick up better names in his resume. Was he still a top fighter in the division? Again he was not as his best but at that point he had a few good scraps left and a very short window.

So his schedule after Holyfield 2 up to Lewis was:

1. Botha (TKO5 1/16/1999)
2. Norris (NC 1 10/23/1999)
3. Francis (TKO2 1/29/2000)
4. Savarese (TKO 1 6/24/2000)
5. Golota (TKO 3 later NC 3 10/20/2000)
6. Nielson (RTD7 10/13/2001)

If he took this path instead what would if have done to his legacy or all time ranking?

1. vs. Botha (same as original date): Personally I thought it was a good enough come back fight, for Tyson.

2. vs. Michael Moorer (1/23/1999): Sure Moorer was taking a hiatus after the Holyfield fight but only the Tyson name could have lured him back in the ring given the potential payday. Also being former Champ (Linear and Alpha)would have made Moorer a decent name on the resume. Very winnable fight for Mike and a much better sell than Orlin Norris.

3. vs. Ray Mercer (1/29/2000): At this point Mercer was 38 years old on a hiatus but still very a durable fighter. It would have been a much better name than Francis and I'd imagine it would do better in terms of revenue. Was Mercer shot? Well he would have been alot fresher than against Mike than he was against Wladimir in 2002. It would have also been a much sterner test for Mike than Francis was. And of course very winnable.

4. vs. Andrew Golota (06/24/2000): I have a hard time believing Golota would kept the Orlin Norris he had scheduled if he had one with Tyson lined up. I personally never cared for Savarese. Given the fact Golota fought Mike anyway almost 4 months after I really don't expect a different result in this fight.

5. vs. Micheal Grant (10/20/2000): At this point Micheal Grant had taken a break from boxing after Lewis assaulted him in their fight 6 months earlier. HBO's hype job was exposed but was still not far removed from when he was expected to be the "heir apparent." Looking to cash in, Grant's handlers would have quickly ended Micheal's hiatus if offered a payday against Tyson. He's a better big man than Lou Savarese.

6. vs. Shannon Briggs (10/13/2001): Rather than fighting the Jason Waller's of the world, Briggs handler's would have moved quickly to secure this fight instead. Tyson on the other hand would have been in the ring with a more appropriate fighter. Brian Nielson was and always would have been a time waster. Tyson's stamina was questionable at that point but so was Briggs give his opponents at the time. For Mike a Lewis fight had been looming for some time and had Lewis won in South Africa against Rahman the first time, their meeting would have taken place sooner. Fighting Briggs would have generated larger revenues, prepared him better and it would been a better fight than Nielson. IMO it was Tyson's fight to lose.

I personally still think Lewis would beaten Tyson in 2002. But I'd wager that this path post Holyfield would have made him more competitive, slightly richer (well...briefly) and given him a better legacy. There's obviously many variables to consider in the making of those fights and the effects it would have had on Tyson's standing in the division and other opponents had they taken place at the time they did. But bottom line it would have added 2 former linear champs to his resume. If you include Alpha Champs, it would have added 4.

The purpose of this thread isn't to recalibrate Tyson's career so that I can make him a better fighter than he already is but it's more so questioning his handler's decision making and how they potentially impacted his legacy. Assuming he chose the path that I highlighted (and won the fights obviously) would it move him up at all in anyone's ranking?

Or would it stay the same?

And on another note is there a better 6 fights he could have taken and won leading up to Lewis?

 

That may have been true, but its not like the fights that I highlighted would have given him significantly more risk. They were all very winnable fights which would have brought in more money.

 

Do you think he could have beaten the fighters of the "alternate path"?