Had Tyson had knocked out or at least beaten Lewis...

tyson always congratulates his opponents after his losses. hes down right redicilous when it comes to praising fighters that beat him. he never ever makes excuses for his losses. someone also asked him a while back was he on medication for the lewis fight and he said no, which is not true. he doesnt want to take anything away from any of the people that have wins over him. Yup, that's one category for Tyson that I always thought he was better than just about any boxer ... he sure was humble in defeat, never making any excuses

I pick Mike Tyson over anybody on a 'who beats who' basis .. ( 86 - 88 version ofcourse )

tyson , holy, lewis, bowe

y do u hav to consider barrera better than him IMO barrera is nothing man, morales is the best barrera doesn't take on the toughest he can find morales does and he stays active like mad takes on chavez, then hernandez, then barrera, then morales, then raheem (which is suppose to be a tuenup), then most likely will face pac again barera loses to pac, comes back almost a year later and beats an old ayala, then gets by morales then beats fana (o wow lol), now peden barrera nothin??? come on thats just hating, barrera when he retires will go down in the hall of fame and hes already a living legend. i like barrera better than morales and i think he is better than morales but i at least acknowledge talent and morales is just like barrera, a legend and hall of fame fighter. when you say barrera dont take on the toughest fights he can find, on recent activity ill give you that, but look at barreras whole career, dont just judge him over a 3-4 fight span. the guys fought quality opponents. and no disrespect to hernandez or jesus chavez but who have they beat to be considered great fighters??? just because morales beat them does that make them great??? they were all like pedens before they fought morales. you gotta remember too, barreras nearly 32 years of age, theres gonna be a time when you have to slow it down a bit, when youve had 65 fights and quite a few wars you cant blame barrera for not lookin after one big fight after another. morales is younger, he just turned 29, but im sure when morales hits 32 hes gonna be takin it easy a little bit. look at both of their careers not recent activity, both are 3 weight champions, both have fought tough opponents and both are great fighters.

i like morales to i like barrera a little better but just barely. to say barrera doesnt take on the tough fights is crazy. i agree peden and fana are not good, specially not compared to morales fighting pac and raheem. but barrera did beat morales. all im saying is barrera is higher ranked then pacman because he beat morales who beat pacquiao. thats all. yes pacman beat the shit out of barrera badly. im not denying that.ye but i would still put pac hgher then barrera

If Tyson would've beat Lewis.... He wouldn't have lost to Holyfield either... You're basically asking....where would Tyson be if he had some heart... actually more like if Tyson landed some good punches that felled Lewis...whether he was dominating the fight or not...even a lucky punch

If Tyson would've beat Lewis.... He wouldn't have lost to Holyfield either... You're basically asking....where would Tyson be if he had some heart...

tyson would have to be cause he would have beat lewis who beat holyfield who beat tyson. just like you have to consider barrera better than pacman even though he lost to him. barrera beat morales, who beat pac, who beat barrera. anyway tyson was drugged for the lewis fight if he would have been more aggressive he could of koed him. the first round was good for him but then that was it. y do u hav to consider barrera better than him IMO barrera is nothing man, morales is the best barrera doesn't take on the toughest he can find morales does and he stays active like mad takes on chavez, then hernandez, then barrera, then morales, then raheem (which is suppose to be a tuenup), then most likely will face pac again barera loses to pac, comes back almost a year later and beats an old ayala, then gets by morales then beats fana (o wow lol), now peden

holyfield the best out of the 3, hes fuckin himself up tho right now

He did'nt so who cares Tyson is never going to be better than he really was by making up Hypothetical situations what if ,what if It is what it is.Tyson was O.K.

tyson would have to be cause he would have beat lewis who beat holyfield who beat tyson. just like you have to consider barrera better than pacman even though he lost to him. barrera beat morales, who beat pac, who beat barrera. anyway tyson was drugged for the lewis fight if he would have been more aggressive he could of koed him. the first round was good for him but then that was it. but remember, styles makes fights, so just because barrera beat morales, that doesnt mean that he can convincingly beat pacman, their styles just dont match.

I remember Tyson landing about one good combination in that fight. I think it was in the 5th round. A left to the body and then an uppercut besides than it was nill for him. One good combination in an entire fight is really nothing gloat about. And it didn't buckle Holyfield.

thats not ring savy thats flat out cheating. the headbutt in the seventh round was awful and really fucked tyson up badly. Tyson was dominated in that fight from round one. He was knocked down in the 6th the headbut did not change the course of the fight at all.

So what if he used a few tricks. Its part of boxing. Holyfield was already past his physical prime and had to use intelligence and ring savy to win fights at that point.

Your hating on Holyfield for fighting Dirty? For f**k sake Tyson bit his ear off...lol

but he came back and beat tyson, he cheated his ass off with the headbutts, elbows, and low blows but after that he was considered great, and he dominated michael moorer in their rematch. Now your just hating on Holyfield. He didn't fight that dirty against Tyson. Even Tyson said so in the post fight interview. interviewer: "it looked like he heabutted you a couple times" Tyson "Yeah well I probably headbutted him too, he fought a good fight I am not the one to make excuses."

holyfield was still good when lewis beat him twice. tyson was drugged so that doesnt really matter to much. briggs hit him good but never knocked him down. why do you say mccall is good but rahman is not? that doesnt make any sense, mccall beat lewis with one punch and that ws it. he broke down in the rematch, and rahman has done much more in his career than mccall. Holyfield was considered past his prime when he fought Bowe the 3rd time. The way he slapped around Michael Moore in the fight preceeding the first Lewis bout creates the illusion he was still good but the truth is he was past his prime by the 3rd Bowe fight. Even took place when he was considered past his prime vs Tyson where he was 7-1 underdog.

I rate Holyfield as the best out of the 3. In only his 12th pro fight he defeated in a 15 round war via Split descision one of the greatest light heavyweights of all time in Dwight Quawi/Braxton. Beat him again in a rematch, eventually became Undisputed Cruiserweight Champion. Then went to heavyweight, defeated James Quick Tillis, Pinklom Thomas, Michael Dokes, all be KO in his first 3 fights at heavyweight. Became undisputed Heavyweight Champion in 1990 from defeating buster Douglas by KO 3. Defeated George Foreman by descison, etc. If you look at his record he fought nothing but Championship Caliber opposition from his 12 pro fight onward. He never lost to anybody except the highest quality of opposition before he got old. Lewis lost to McCall who was good figher, and Rahman who is not so goood a fighter in my mind and he struggled with alot of Less than elite level fighters like Frank Bruno, Shannon Briggs, Ray Mercer, and others. He beat Holyfield and Tyson, but that does not mean a whole lot to me because just look at the records of Tyson and Holyfield post Lewis. SORRY TO NOT ANSWER YOUR WHAT IF QUESTION.