Erik Morales v Naseem Hamed This bloodbath of a contest was just about a done deal until that idiot Naz called out Barrera in his in ring interview aftr putting Augie Sanchez on a stretcher. It was widely believed that the winner of EM/MAB in 2000 would step up to fight Hamed at 126, all was going well until Naseem opened that big mouth of his. As good a fight as Naz/MAB was, I dont think it would have topped this one stylewise. Some people think that because of styles, Naz could do better v EM than he did MAB, some think that if MAB could outbox the prince then Morales could do likewise but more effectively being taller with the longer reach etc. we will never know. For me, it all depends on which Morales shows up... if the boxer Morales shows up, its a long night for Naseem somewhere in the range of a 10-2 or 9-3 UD.... if the crazy Morales shows up, expect a war with Morales being rocked several times & Naz taking flash KDs but still landing the less frequent but more solid blows, after a back & forth war, I see Morales scoring the tko in rd 6 by ref stoppage when Naz is busted up & stops trying to throw back with his back on the ropes. This was a boxing tragedy that it didnt happen. :-(
Lewis-Tyson, when it was originally supposed to happen, was in 1996. I don't think a 1999-2000 fight would've been much better than when they did fight in 2002. Morales-Hamed is a good choice. Morales is the favorite, but he does like to trade a lot. Hamed would fare better IMO in this fight than he did with Barrera.
Lewis-Vitali II Unless Tyson fought on a platform, any year would end in the same result. Didn't matter if they were sparring at 16 or in their later stages.
Lewis would of been an early knockout victim if they would of fought between 86-91, I think it would of been a 50/50 if the fight took place in 96, and if it was 99-00, 70-30 Lennox.
Hamed was more exceptional than Morales but Morales was rangy and dangerous the fight would be a war someone gets knocked out in 5 rounds probaly Morales be leaving the ring on a strecther
yeah because mercer is so much taller than tyson right. **** even rahman and mccall barely have 2 1/2 inches on mike. and mike's prime skill puts all of the aforementioned to shame. I'd still favor lewis solidly around 2000 or so, but again mike looked good around that time. whether you admit it or not Tyson looked absolute **** in the ring vs lewis IMO the worst ever. At least a lewis victory at at an earlier time would've meant something.
Lewis would beat any version of Tyson, prime or not. Stylewise a total nightmare for the baddest man on the planet, he would be eating the jab all night long.
I agree 100 percent. A prime Tyson would have put up a better fight then in 2002 but Lewis was simply too good of a boxer to lose to Tyson at any time in Tysons career. Look at all the fighters Tyson destroyed in the mid - late 80's. None of them are on Lewis' level, at least not when Tyson fought them (meaning Larry Holmes). Biggs and Bruno had Tyson beat if they didnt forget their game plan in the middle rounds and let Tyson come in and trade with them. Tyson was a great puncher and a good fighter, Lewis was a great puncher and a great fighter. Prime Lennox Lewis vs. 1989 Mike Tyson: Lewis TKO or KO 10 of 12.
Nope. They fought as 16 year olds and it is well documented that Lennox owned him then as well. Tyson is too short and Lennox is too skilled. It is black and white.