Okay, not in reality. But let's imagine. Suppose the Mike Tyson of the 1990s remains the juggernaut he seemed to be in the late 1980s. Meaning that he's crushing all before him, there's no reason to think that a challegner moving up in weight will fare any better against him than did Michael Spinks. And meaning that there's not much money for folks coming up from below, and no fractured heavyweight picture to make 175-pounders think that this or that alphabet titleholder is beatable. Look at the talent lost to the heavyweight division and imagine what they could have done if they'd stayed at 175: Michael Moorer, James Toney, Chris Byrd and Roy Jones. All four of those guys, in shape, are more natural light-heavies, despite earning alphabet heavy titles. [Byrd only fought under 175 in his first two fights -- but I'm looking at the fact that he always said he was aiming at heavyweight $$$ and always looks soft and undertrained at heavyweight as evidence that he could have continued at 175 if he'd wanted to.] They're all roughly the same age, born between 1967 and 1970. The likes of Hill, Maske and Michalczewski would still be in the division. Plus late-career cameo appearances by Mike McCallum and Thomas Hearns. Add in the oddities like Montell Griffin and Fabrice Tiozzo, and you've got enough talent at the top to give us a decade's worth of PPV matchups. I think Byrd's the guy whose life improves most in this alternate universe, both in terms of bankroll and all-time boxing stature. Mixing it up at the top of a division like that gets you hall of fame stature even if you don't always win (i.e. Thomas Hearns), and I think he'd stand a good chance of beating most of those guys at 175. Moorer probably does better in the ring but worse at the bank. I'd figure Jones and Toney to do about as well in both areas. But it'd be a light-heavy division fight fans would talk about forever.
