Tyson from Etienne versus Lewis: Any difference in the outcome?

Rooney also spoke about it... Tyson stunned the young Lewis in the first 2 rounds, bloodying his nose but after that Lewis had the measure of him and Tyson struggled with Lewis' jab.

Do some research fan boy

 

First hand quotes from both fighters trainers who were there at the time seems pretty concrete to me :roll:

 

I 2nd that!
I dont believe that Lewis at his very best, has a chance with Tyson at his.
I think most of the posters here are about 15 and never saw Tyson at his fearsome best.

Lewis was considered vulnerable his whole career, Tyson at his peak was considered invincible.

He was so good, that years after his peak and after a 3yr prison term he was still 40 to 1 on odds v Holyfield.
Dont let how his career ended let you forget how brilliant he was.

 

Tyson appeared invincible because he was fighting bum of the week for a majority of his so called prime. Lewis fought a much higher caliber of opponent

 

Lewis gives him an even worse beating.

 

Dont agree with that.
Lewis was getting outboxed by Bruno, and got beat IMO by Mercer and starched by McCall. Thats why he was thought of as vulnerable.
Tyson could only beat what was in front of him, but by 22/23 was already considered by many as the best ever.

 

The fight doesn't go as long probably. If Mike goes in throwing bombs then yes there would have always been that punchers chance but with the long reach advantage its equally as likely that if Mike was opening up to throw Hayemakers Lewis catches him early as well.

 

Tyson gets KO'd either way. Now, go **** yourself.

 

Tyson was still shot in '03, just not fat, I say he gives Lewis 3 hard rounds before gassing instead of just one & gets KO'd a bit later too.
I reckon Tyson of the Golota fight in 2000 would give Lewis 5 very difficult rounds, before gassing, but it would be interesting if Lewis chose to slug with him, as he'd find himself tiring too after the 5th.

 

As stated before, lewis problem was lewis not getting up for fights.
Razer Ruddock was suppose to give Lewis all sorts of problems after his matches with Tyson, did not go around.

Same with Goliata after Bowe, again never went a round.

Bruno gave Lewis a hard time for six rounds, at no point does Lewis think he is not going to knock out Bruno.

Mercer got closet to beating Lewis over the distance.

Rahman fights look at first and then the second see the difference in Lewis condition and more importantly attitude.

I said before look at betting for the fights. The more odds on Lewis was the greater likelihood he would lose. I think you guys under estimate how costly a poor attitude is in a boxing match. Who else had problems taking boxers lightly, Ali. He had some poor ones against fighters way worse than the guys he was beating.

 

fair point i guess....i guess tyson team worked on an if it aint broke dont fix it kinda theory....one dimensional to me means unimaginitive, uninspired and reliant on ONE trhing whereas tyson had a whole box of tricks to rely on...but i do see your point..if his marauding, pressure style didnt work, he got ****ed.....

but then, so did smokin joe....he one dimensional too.....so did young foreman....so, i guess, did dempsey..all one dimensionsal...??/

 

Good post. Agreed on all counts.

 

Dude let me tell you something, nobody gets away from The Lion's jab, nobody, that is all.

 

no, because he also won the first round in the fight against Lewis

you know what I'm sayin?

since 1999, Tyson could only fight for 3 rounds. He was lucky he managed to caught Etienne and Botha with one good shot... but if he fought opponent with skill and determination that could keep him at bay... he's nothing. But then again, people just love to see Tyson because when his super punch landed, its lights off.

 

He'd perhaps have been a bit quicker on his feet but Lewis still would have beaten the **** out of him.