Tyson v Lewis, twelve years earlier - Different outcome?

I'm not going to respond to a hero worshiper. I I'm a little older than Tyson and Lewis and I saw first hand both of their careers first hand. And while Tyson seemed to go through fighters like a hot knife through butter, nobody knew how he'd do when his plan A didn't work, and as it turned out he never had a plan B. So if you make the assumption that some fighters will in fact fight back, and/or box as would be the case of say Foreman, Ali and a prime Holmes, it's not too hard to think that perhaps they could find a way to win.

 

I think it depends where you hit a fight as to whether or not you hurt your hand, not how many times. I don't believe Lewis set any compubox records during that fight.

 

What I think is the fight would unfold somewhat similar to the way in did when they fought. Tyson trying to impose his will and get inside, Lewis trying to manhandle him and hurt him with uppercuts to try and get distance. What's notable and I think it would be the case whenever they fought is just how much bigger and stroinger Lewis is relative to Tyson. Tyson for the most part was use to getting inside a fighter, throwing a few combinations and watching the fighter whilt. Hell most cases the fight was over before it began because the opponent was scared shitless before the fight even started. Holyfield showed what could happen if you just stood there and fought him. Douglas showed that a bigger fighter could impose his size on him and use his reach effectively.

So while Tyson on a h2h basic is likely in the top 5, so is Lewis, Ali, Holmes and perhaps Foreman. I simply don't believe Tyson is heads and shoulders above these fighters like some people do.

 

12 years earlier , oh dear Lennox you would of had your head taken off in 3 rounds !!!!!!!!

 

This is a reasonable response I can agree with. But you can't always take a fighter at his word, because if you did, you'd have to think Tyson could never beat Lewis because after they fought he said he could never have beaten him, even in his prime.. Having said that I think you could mark that remark to a fighter who just got the crap beat out of him and wasn't in a position to make an objective comment on this.

 

What does this have to do with me or my post?

 

Anyone mentioning Lewis's losses against Rahman or McCall needs to also mention that at the height of his career (spare me the Kevin Rooney, Cus D'Amato, focused Tyson with a full moon out beats anyone horse****), Tyson not only lost to a fighter of that caliber, but was comprehensively outboxed, beat up, dominated, then KTFO

 

Thread closed!!!! :yep

 

I never heard Tyson say that.

 

For the last time Lewis beat the SAME Tyson that fought Neilson and Williams, things would've been different if they fought Peak H2H, that doesn't mean Lewis would lose, just like I think things wouldv'e been different had Tyson fought a Peak Holmes, I think Tyson would've had his hands full with Holmes.

 

TYSON was a beast when he was much YOUNGER!

 

Douglas easily beat Mcall, so whats worse? Rahman was worthless. Douglas at least had some real boxing skills, and yes the stars and moons aligned that night for a perfect performance against a fighter that maybe didnt take him too seriously. Something similar to the Rahman situation, but again whats worse losing to Douglas or Rahman?
Regardless of what you believe about Tyson he still only lost once in his prime. Besides that it was pretty much complete domination. There wasnt questionable wins such as Mercer or Bruno or one punch KO's at the hands of Tyson's sparring partner, which is right around the time this fight is being discussed.

 

Why 12 years? It's not fair to compare a 1990 Lewis who's had a dozen pro fights with a guy who's been a world champ for 3 years and had nearly 40 fights.

A better matchup is the 88' Tyson versus the 00' Lewis, or a matchup between the two in 1996 when they were supposed to fight, but politics ****ed it up.

 

'88 Tyson wins.... '96 Tyson loses

...against any Lewis