Lewis vs. Tyson II 2005: Would It Be Any Different?

[Hurlex]

285 i ment*

[Kimmy]

Tyson has gone back too far that even an 80% Lewis would beat him. Tyson isn`t the Tyson of old, why are people so insistant that one day he`s gonna turn back the clock or land that big punch. Forget, Tyson should retire before he suffers serious damage!

[Derranged_]

I'm a huge Tyson fan and even if Mike was in tip-top condition in 2005, I think it would be the same result. Lewis'jab and size are just too much for Mike to overcome.

How bout we turn the clock back to 1986 when he forcefully took the title from Berbick. I think that version of Tyson could have definately beaten Lewis. Mike had physical aspects and more importantly the mental ones to destroy virtually any heavyweight in his era and any one since then.

[Kimmy]

I think you summed it up by saying took the title from Berbick. Berbick like the vast majority of Tyson`s early opponents were terrible. The 80`s produced an array of bum heavyweights and Tyson fed off them. People like Tony Tubbs, Plinklon Thomas, Bonecrusher smith and Carl Williams. The only name opponents Tyson defeated were Holmes ( 3 yrs out the ring and 38 yrs old ) and Micheal Spinks who was having his 5th fight at heavyweight having been a light heavyweight.
Tyson looked spectacular in these fights but allot to do with that was the fact that the quality of oppistion was so poor. After Spinks and Holmes the next time Tyson fought a name fighter was a shot to bits Evander Holyfield, a 25 to 1 underdog who had appeared the previous year to have suffered a heart mumur during a fight ( Bowe 3 ). Hardly finding the best Comp for Tyson. He did fight Lewis and got a one sided beating. So on reflection if one wanted to praise Tyson for his accomplishments as a boxer whatever rank you position Tyson you`d have to consider Ezlard Charles to also be there because on achievement and quality of opponent, Charles faired no worse. Yes Tyson was exciting and won his fights quickly but he isn`t a legend. Every opponent who stood up to Tyson defeated him. He had one or two fights that were defining ( Lewis, Holyfield II ) but he lost them and looked poor losing them. It isn`t Tyson`s fault that in his prime there weren`t any good fighters about but it stands. The power and excitement alone doesn`t make a great heavyweight. Tyson has never shown heart, desire or the ability to win a fightifidence he was losing. In reality Tyson would be very luckly to make the top ten heavyweights of all time because he was a flash in a pan, went on a roll and when someone beat him he could never recapture what he once had because his conificence was so battered. How can one consider a fighter with such a weak mental attitude to fighting a legend? How indeed!

[FrankJack]

If I were to judge them both by their last performances, then I'd have to go with Tyson. In their first fight (I told everybody around me for TWO YEARS that Tyson would not beat Lewis), Tyson looked like he forgot that he had skills. Son wasn't going to the body like normally would, wasn't slipping punches, just looked like a very strong average fighter. In the first couple rounds, Lewis did have some trouble though. He was never hurt, but Tyson did land some pretty good shots to his head. But, he seemed to try to win the fight one shot at a time in this fight, and he should know better than anybody that he can't fight like that, he doesn't train to do that.

Fighting in 2005, I see Tyson slipping alot more of those jabs that he was victim to in their first fight and going to the body alot more. I don't see Tyson letting himself get wrapped up so easily a second time around either, he'll probably be throwing that uppercut more frequently that close. Lewis would use his jab alot and try to stay away, I think. Throwing the cross alot, too probably. It'd be a good fight, I think.

[Truth]

I think you summed it up by saying took the title from Berbick. Berbick like the vast majority of Tyson`s early opponents were terrible. The 80`s produced an array of bum heavyweights and Tyson fed off them. People like Tony Tubbs, Plinklon Thomas, Bonecrusher smith and Carl Williams. The only name opponents Tyson defeated were Holmes ( 3 yrs out the ring and 38 yrs old ) and Micheal Spinks who was having his 5th fight at heavyweight having been a light heavyweight.
Tyson looked spectacular in these fights but allot to do with that was the fact that the quality of oppistion was so poor. After Spinks and Holmes the next time Tyson fought a name fighter was a shot to bits Evander Holyfield, a 25 to 1 underdog who had appeared the previous year to have suffered a heart mumur during a fight ( Bowe 3 ). Hardly finding the best Comp for Tyson. He did fight Lewis and got a one sided beating. So on reflection if one wanted to praise Tyson for his accomplishments as a boxer whatever rank you position Tyson you`d have to consider Ezlard Charles to also be there because on achievement and quality of opponent, Charles faired no worse. Yes Tyson was exciting and won his fights quickly but he isn`t a legend. Every opponent who stood up to Tyson defeated him. He had one or two fights that were defining ( Lewis, Holyfield II ) but he lost them and looked poor losing them. It isn`t Tyson`s fault that in his prime there weren`t any good fighters about but it stands. The power and excitement alone doesn`t make a great heavyweight. Tyson has never shown heart, desire or the ability to win a fightifidence he was losing. In reality Tyson would be very luckly to make the top ten heavyweights of all time because he was a flash in a pan, went on a roll and when someone beat him he could never recapture what he once had because his conificence was so battered. How can one consider a fighter with such a weak mental attitude to fighting a legend? How indeed!

How come every time theres a thread about Tyson it always turn into "In reality Tyson would be very luckly to make the top ten heavyweights of all time because he was a flash in a pan, went on a roll and when someone beat him he could never recapture what he once had because his conificence was so battered." I have already heard this 800 million times, all I asked was would the fight be any different in 2005. All you had to say was no because you believe Tyson in shot and has been for some time. And to say tIn reality Tyson would be very luckly to make the top ten heavyweights of all time because he was a flash in a pan, went on a roll and when someone beat him he could never recapture what he once had because his conificence was so battered. And you can hate Tyson all you want but in reality he is a legend.

[Truth]

Kimmy although I disagree I do respect your opinion and everybody elses.

[Truth]

Tyson's a legend just based on his impact on boxing, sports and the world, then you throw in the fact he is the youngest heavyweight champion ever and he won the title twice. Theres not much of an argument, he is an instant hall of famer.

[Nautilus]

It would be about the same.

Tyson had made a career out of KO-ing cusisers and old people, and Douglas, Evander, LL, and Williams really exposed the guy.

No more hype for Mike. Mike is not hungry=good any more. He has not been hungry since the Douglas fight.

The rest of his boxing career will be extremely tough. Every second top 10 boxer will end up KO-ing him.

[Hurlex]

i dont think byrd and ruiz or toney would ko tyson...just wanted to say that..not argueing lol...

a prime tyson would have no problem but the tyson we have no is very unlikely to win...he stil has the power no matter what anyone saids....also tyson is a legend no matter what anyone saids...he exciting and besides marciano, louis, ali and tyson no one else will ever be remembered as much