If Mike Tyson Had Defeated Holyfield Twice And Lewis Once, Where Would He Rank Historically?

The issue with threads like this when you alter the timeline. Is that you are also greatly effecting someone else's career aswell.

Say Holyfield for example lost both fights vs Tyson along with the losses to Bowe and Lewis he already had in real time.

Do you think Holyfield would be anywhere near as respected as he is now ?

This is what people would say about Holyfield.

"A blown up Cruiserweight who only beat old fighters like Holmes & Foreman. And lost to every other notable Heavyweight in his own era."

Holyfield's all time ranking at Heavyweight without the wins over Tyson would severely plummet.

Also Tyson was heavily favoured against Holyfield at the time. So the win wouldn't of had that much of an impact compared to Holyfield beating Tyson for example.

The only real impact on Tyson's resume would be beating Lewis. But then again Lewis without the undisputed wins over Holyfield how would that effect his career ?

And it depends when Tyson beat Lewis aswell.

If he beat Lewis in 1996 when they were originally supposed to fight. The win wouldn't have as much of an impact as say beating Lewis in 2002.

There's alot of things you have to consider when altering the timeline like this. Because the fighters Tyson would be beating also wouldn't be as highly regarded.

But I disagree with alot of the comments in this thread I don't think Tyson would have an argument for being number 1.

 

3rd came to mind first but it's hard to say.

 

Mike Tyson was expected to beat "washed up" Holyfield, so he wouldn't get much credit for the win. How would Lewis be perceived if he didn't beat Holyfield? Remember, even when he was retiring in 2004, he wasn't rated as one of the greatest.

Tyson's ranking would definitely be higher tho, as his second career would be much better than in the real timeline. On top of that, Holyfield and Lewis would definitely be rated below him. He would be a sure pick for Top 5, probably Top 4, possibly Top 3 and maybe even the 1a, 1b, 1c situation with Ali and Louis.

 

Now that's what I mean and you know it. Ranking ('86) Holmes, Tubbs and Spinks above Bruno, Lewis and Holyfield is straight up ignorant.

 

That doesn't matter. That is exactly how Holyfield, Lewis, and Bruno were perceived in 1996.
Tyson would have been the overwhelming favorite, and had he beaten Holyfield on points—like Lewis did in 1999—he would have faced a massive backlash.
Ask people who followed boxing back then. Check the betting odds prior to Holyfield vs. Tyson I. Look at archived articles. It would literally have been viewed more negatively than what happened in 1988, even if Tyson had completely outclassed them. And it wouldn't have significantly changed his standing post-Bruno II, because the *majority* expected exactly that: easy knockouts.

 

The parameters are not very clear. Do you mean he retires undefeated after beating Holyfield and Lewis and somehow misses or beats Douglas? I mean yeah, you can do that with anyone's resume retroactively to make them seem like the GOAT.

But assuming everything else in his career remains the same, beating Holyfield and Lewis would still be insanely impressive. Easily top 3 of all time

 

The Holy wins would mean a bit less...he was perceived as past his best and didnt do much after.

Lets assume Lewis goes on to be the dominant heavy he became in reality...that win would mean a lot more.

Also factor in that Mike would be considered the UNDISPUSTED best of a tough era, historically that means a lot. Look at Holmes, Wlad, Marciano etc... and they don't have any wins as good as beating Lewis.

 

I remember it. And if Tyson had gone on after the McNeely fight and beat Lewis and Holyfield, his second career would be higher rated than his first career. Michael Spinks? Tubbs? Lewis and Holyfield would have went on to have good to great success, obviously.

What can I say? I think I like your posts and takes on boxing, really, but I can't agree with that one, ever.

But I don't like the what-ifs of this one anyway.. Tyson was no match for Holyfield and Lewis in reality. The nineties was a much tougher heavyweight era than the eighties were. Tyson wouldn't cow them so easily as he did before in the eighties.

 

The wins would be heavily discounted and he’d be in 3rd.

 

I'd say he would be 2 or 3; Ali would be ahead of him and maybe Louis.

 

easily #1

 

He would be ranked just below Ali. He would probably be ranked a little higher with better performances against Holyfield.

 

But what if Joe Louis had KO’d Rocky Marciano, then KO’d Walcott again and Ezzard Charles, then marched through the division and reigned while he swatted away Floyd Patterson, Ingemar Johansson and Sonny Listen … then finally retired after beating young Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali?

I mean if we’re going to rewrite history with Mike beating all those guys he couldn’t beat, why not Joe Louis ruling the heavyweight roost until his 50s?

 

Let me clarify something;
there are surely people here who followed boxing back then and must remember how that era was perceived.

When Tyson went to prison, it was considered that there was no true champion!! A prime Holyfield in 1991 was NOT regarded as the champion.
When Tyson returned in 1995, it was widely considered the worst heavyweight era in history. Seriously—check the archived articles if you don't believe me.
Seldon, Bruno, an old and overweight Foreman, Holmes, the unhinged McCall, etc. The only—absolutely the only—heavyweight boxer who commanded respect in 1995 and early 1996 was Riddick Bowe; absolutely no one else. And had Tyson beaten him in '96—which seems plausible given Riddick's rapid decline—he likely would have gained immense acclaim, just as he did after the Spinks fight. Beating Lewis and Holy would have done absolutely nothing for him—even assuming their careers played out the way they actually did (i.e., Holy beats Moorer but loses to Lewis and Ruiz, Lewis fights into the Klitschko era, etc.).

At that time, Mike Tyson was the #4 heavyweight since Joe Louis (according to *The Ring* rankings).
Had he beaten Bowe, he still wouldn't have surpassed Ali, but his standing as the best heavyweight alongside Ali would have been more secure.

What would he have gained from beating Lewis or Holyfield—fighters who weren't even in the top 10 (Holy) or top 30 (Lewis), with the former considered a has-been?