Mike Tyson vs Hasim Rahman 2001

[Heartbreak_Kid79]

If Lennox wouldn't have had the rematch clause, there was a very good chance that Mike Tyson would have been the first guy Rahman defended against.

So say if Tyson gets the title shot in november 2001.... could he win and become a 3 time champ?

[Goodnight, Irene]

Tyson would have to become a two-time champ, before he became a triple. He only held the crown once.

Anyway, I call this fight a near-pick 'em. Tyson was effectively shot by this stage, & Rahman has always struck me as just a God-awful fighter. It really could swing in either direction.

Whoever won wouldn't be champion for long. Not with Lennox Lewis circling like death from above.

[dempseyfire]

Tyson would've lost to almost anyone in the top 6-8 in 2001. Rahman took a peak Tua to school I don't see how he wouldn't vs a shot Tyson. It would've been like the later Danny Williams fight with Tyson having his early moments but Rahman taking over the fight and winning by late TKO.

[Heartbreak_Kid79]

Tyson would have to become a two-time champ, before he became a triple. He only held the crown once.

I wasn't meaning just the UD title, that was including Mikes WBC/WBA brace from 1996.

When Ruiz was taking on Haye, the media were saying Ruiz could join the elite group of 3 time champs.... of course Ruiz has only been a WBA champ, and never UD champ.
I suppose I was looking at it like that.


Anyway Mike was still pretty durable at this point.... he had a good workout against fatty Brian Neilson, and of course it took Lennox a good 8 rounds to get the job done the following year.
I think Mike would still out box Rahman early to mid rounds.... just depends on how tired he got, providing Mike of course doesn't tag him... in which case its lights out!

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Rahman by wide decision or Tyson quits late.

All bets are off if Rockhead employs that BunnyHop he was using in the Lewis rematch. I've always wanted to ask him what the hell that was.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Rahman by wide decision or Tyson quits late.

All bets are off if Rockhead employs that BunnyHop he was using in the Lewis rematch. I've always wanted to ask him what the hell that was.

What's that you're referring to?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Rahman by wide decision or Tyson quits late.

All bets are off if Rockhead employs that BunnyHop he was using in the Lewis rematch. I've always wanted to ask him what the hell that was.

What's that you're referring to?

He came out in the first round hopping like he was mimicking a bunny with his arms spread high in the air. A lot of people forget about it, I honestly don't know how to properly explain it.

[jrc26]

Tyson would have to become a two-time champ, before he became a triple. He only held the crown once.

Anyway, I call this fight a near-pick 'em. Tyson was effectively shot by this stage, & Rahman has always struck me as just a God-awful fighter. It really could swing in either direction.

Whoever won wouldn't be champion for long. Not with Lennox Lewis circling like death from above.

Winning both the WBC and WBA titles within 6 months in 96 doesn't count? Why is that exactly? Because it was against Bruno and Seldon? If we are playing that game then neither of the Klitschkos are champions right now because they didn't beat anyone better than Bruno for a belt.

Who was the champion in 96? Henry Akinwande with the WBO belt that he beat Jeremy Williams for, or Michael Moorer with the IBF belt that he beat Axel Schultz for?

Of all of the sketchy fighters who claim 3,4,5 and even more championships, I don't see how you can possibly have a case to say Mike wasn't a 2 time champion.

[Goodnight, Irene]

It's real simple. They call it lineage. Go look up who was the champ --- no subjectivity, multi-belts, or anything else. Tyson was a titleist in '96. That is not the same as what he did in '88.

[Heartbreak_Kid79]

It's real simple. They call it lineage. Go look up who was the champ --- no subjectivity, multi-belts, or anything else. Tyson was a titleist in '96. That is not the same as what he did in '88.

A titleist is what i meant in the initial question.
After all i said Tyson could be a 3 time champ.... not THE 3 time champ.
If that makes sense :)

[jrc26]

It's real simple. They call it lineage. Go look up who was the champ --- no subjectivity, multi-belts, or anything else. Tyson was a titleist in '96. That is not the same as what he did in '88.

Who was "The Champ" in 96? Akinwande? Michael Moorer? Holyfield coming off his loss to Riddick Bowe? Riddick Bowe getting owned by Golota? Please tell me you aren't talking about George Foreman who dumped the WBA belt because he didn't want to fight Tucker then dumped the IBF belt for not wanting to fight Schulz again...after Schulz beat him? If Mike Tyson wasn't "The Champ" by holding 2 of the 3 main belts then I guess there wasn't a champ. I guess that means Holyfield was just a titleist for beating Mike? Then Lennox Lewis was just a titleist for beating Holyfield and McCall? When exactly does someone become a champ rather than a titleist? When Irene likes the fighter and says so? Lineage worked in the 70's when there were 2 belts and guys actually fought each other.

[hitman09]

It's real simple. They call it lineage. Go look up who was the champ --- no subjectivity, multi-belts, or anything else. Tyson was a titleist in '96. That is not the same as what he did in '88.

Who was "The Champ" in 96? Akinwande? Michael Moorer? Holyfield coming off his loss to Riddick Bowe? Riddick Bowe getting owned by Golota? Please tell me you aren't talking about George Foreman who dumped the WBA belt because he didn't want to fight Tucker then dumped the IBF belt for not wanting to fight Schulz again...after Schulz beat him? If Mike Tyson wasn't "The Champ" by holding 2 of the 3 main belts then I guess there wasn't a champ. I guess that means Holyfield was just a titleist for beating Mike? Then Lennox Lewis was just a titleist for beating Holyfield and McCall? When exactly does someone become a champ rather than a titleist? When Irene likes the fighter and says so? Lineage worked in the 70's when there were 2 belts and guys actually fought each other.

Going from memory here, but wasn't Foreman lineal champ at the time?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Diehard lineage backers are their own group. Personally I think that being relevant went out the window when everyone started recognizing 4 title holders. Everything ends up fragmented and it comes down to opinion in most cases.

There are also people who get lineage confused with the Ring magazine and their own agendas.

It's up for debate, but foreman's belt can be easily traced back to Holmes, so Irene is certainly within his rights to call him the champion. For me at that point I considered Tyson vs Holyfield to be for all the marbles.

[skelp]

Big George Foreman was the true Linear/Lineal Champ in 1996. He stripped of the Belts for his refusal to defend against Tony Tucker and Axel Schultz. But, lets face it the belts have little value to the true boxing fan or purists.

Regarding, Tyson vs Rahman. As long as Rahman remained defensive for the first three rounds, he would have been able to take control of Tyson and outwork him. Rahman would win this on points, with much clinching along the way.

[Syntax Error]

Tyson had nothing left in his locker to beat any fighter of consequence by 2001.

He was fine against the Julius Francis' & Lou Savareses of the world, but against a 2001 Rahman, he'd have had his jockstrap ironed & handed to him in a plastic bag.

Rahman by mid to late TKO.

[jrc26]

Big George Foreman was the true Linear/Lineal Champ in 1996. He stripped of the Belts for his refusal to defend against Tony Tucker and Axel Schultz. But, lets face it the belts have little value to the true boxing fan or purists.

Regarding, Tyson vs Rahman. As long as Rahman remained defensive for the first three rounds, he would have been able to take control of Tyson and outwork him. Rahman would win this on points, with much clinching along the way.

That is fine, but I have a hard time accepting that Axel Shultz would have been the true linear champion, had he been given the correct decision against Foreman, rather than the winner of Holyfield/Tyson. I don't think anyone would have recognized Schultz as linear champion over either of them, so it goes to show that lineage is very subjective.

[hitman09]

Big George Foreman was the true Linear/Lineal Champ in 1996. He stripped of the Belts for his refusal to defend against Tony Tucker and Axel Schultz. But, lets face it the belts have little value to the true boxing fan or purists.

Regarding, Tyson vs Rahman. As long as Rahman remained defensive for the first three rounds, he would have been able to take control of Tyson and outwork him. Rahman would win this on points, with much clinching along the way.

That is fine, but I have a hard time accepting that Axel Shultz would have been the true linear champion, had he been given the correct decision against Foreman, rather than the winner of Holyfield/Tyson. I don't think anyone would have recognized Schultz as linear champion over either of them, so it goes to show that lineage is very subjective.

The champion isn't the best fighter. The champion is the guy who beat the former champion. That's the only criterion. Or it should be.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Big George Foreman was the true Linear/Lineal Champ in 1996. He stripped of the Belts for his refusal to defend against Tony Tucker and Axel Schultz. But, lets face it the belts have little value to the true boxing fan or purists.

Regarding, Tyson vs Rahman. As long as Rahman remained defensive for the first three rounds, he would have been able to take control of Tyson and outwork him. Rahman would win this on points, with much clinching along the way.

That is fine, but I have a hard time accepting that Axel Shultz would have been the true linear champion, had he been given the correct decision against Foreman, rather than the winner of Holyfield/Tyson. I don't think anyone would have recognized Schultz as linear champion over either of them, so it goes to show that lineage is very subjective.

Axl would have been the lineal champion and nobody would have cared. Zsolt Erdei has been the lineal Light Heavyweight champion for years. That and a quarter will get you a nickel.

When the lineage is broken, it's human opinion that starts it again anyway. I mean Larry Holmes picked it up from a previous win over Mike Weaver. That's hardly proper though we all agreed that Larry was the man.

Lineage is a nice tool to look at the past, but it doesn't mean anymore than the "prestigious" Ring belt.

[Goodnight, Irene]

It's real simple. They call it lineage. Go look up who was the champ --- no subjectivity, multi-belts, or anything else. Tyson was a titleist in '96. That is not the same as what he did in '88.

A titleist is what i meant in the initial question.
After all i said Tyson could be a 3 time champ.... not THE 3 time champ.
If that makes sense :)

Yes, I know, mate. I was addressing JRC in this post.

[Goodnight, Irene]

It's real simple. They call it lineage. Go look up who was the champ --- no subjectivity, multi-belts, or anything else. Tyson was a titleist in '96. That is not the same as what he did in '88.

Who was "The Champ" in 96? Akinwande? Michael Moorer? Holyfield coming off his loss to Riddick Bowe? Riddick Bowe getting owned by Golota? Please tell me you aren't talking about George Foreman who dumped the WBA belt because he didn't want to fight Tucker then dumped the IBF belt for not wanting to fight Schulz again...after Schulz beat him? If Mike Tyson wasn't "The Champ" by holding 2 of the 3 main belts then I guess there wasn't a champ. I guess that means Holyfield was just a titleist for beating Mike? Then Lennox Lewis was just a titleist for beating Holyfield and McCall? When exactly does someone become a champ rather than a titleist? When Irene likes the fighter and says so? Lineage worked in the 70's when there were 2 belts and guys actually fought each other.

LOL. I guess in your book Holyfield & Bowe didn't fight for the linear title in 1993, right? Bowe had dumped a belt to avoid Lewis, after all.

I love how I cite a simple, straight-forward thing like lineage (the man who beat the man, the simplest of all tracks, after all) & your facetious response is, "When is someone champ? When you like them & say so?" The irony --- doubtless, lost on you --- is that you disqualify Foreman simply because you don't like what he did.

Good one. Idiot

[Goodnight, Irene]

Big George Foreman was the true Linear/Lineal Champ in 1996. He stripped of the Belts for his refusal to defend against Tony Tucker and Axel Schultz. But, lets face it the belts have little value to the true boxing fan or purists.

Regarding, Tyson vs Rahman. As long as Rahman remained defensive for the first three rounds, he would have been able to take control of Tyson and outwork him. Rahman would win this on points, with much clinching along the way.

That is fine, but I have a hard time accepting that Axel Shultz would have been the true linear champion, had he been given the correct decision against Foreman, rather than the winner of Holyfield/Tyson. I don't think anyone would have recognized Schultz as linear champion over either of them, so it goes to show that lineage is very subjective.

LOL! You are being such a hypocrite. Here you are effectively stating, "I don't like Foreman or Shultz for my own reasons," yet accusing others of bias. What a joke.

Foreman beat Moorer, & no one won a fight against him until Briggs. That's not subjective.

[skelp]

That is fine, but I have a hard time accepting that Axel Shultz would have been the true linear champion, had he been given the correct decision against Foreman, rather than the winner of Holyfield/Tyson. I don't think anyone would have recognized Schultz as linear champion over either of them, so it goes to show that lineage is very subjective.

Well, as much a high profile fight and the excitement that Holyfield/Tyson gave us; it was not for the true Heavyweight Championship, it will go down as an Alphabet Title Fight. Anyway, Schultz never got the nod, he was in many eyes the uncrowned Heavyweight Champ of the World. He'll be tormented by this knowledge for the rest of his days.

[jrc26]

Big George Foreman was the true Linear/Lineal Champ in 1996. He stripped of the Belts for his refusal to defend against Tony Tucker and Axel Schultz. But, lets face it the belts have little value to the true boxing fan or purists.

Regarding, Tyson vs Rahman. As long as Rahman remained defensive for the first three rounds, he would have been able to take control of Tyson and outwork him. Rahman would win this on points, with much clinching along the way.

That is fine, but I have a hard time accepting that Axel Shultz would have been the true linear champion, had he been given the correct decision against Foreman, rather than the winner of Holyfield/Tyson. I don't think anyone would have recognized Schultz as linear champion over either of them, so it goes to show that lineage is very subjective.

LOL! You are being such a hypocrite. Here you are effectively stating, "I don't like Foreman or Shultz for my own reasons," yet accusing others of bias. What a joke.

Foreman beat Moorer, & no one won a fight against him until Briggs. That's not subjective.

Irene please share more of your expertise with me. You should start your own thread: Irene know's boxing, grammar, and short women. That way everyone will know exactly where to go in order to learn from you. You are the linear boxrec champion of knowledge.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Great post. Don't contend the points being argued, or who was champion & why. Terrific.

Then again, maybe I'm being too harsh. Since you have no case anyway, I guess this is all which can be expected from you.

Foreman was the champ. Tyson was not. That's not a debate. That's a fact.

[jrc26]

Great post. Don't contend the points being argued, or who was champion & why. Terrific.

Then again, maybe I'm being too harsh. Since you have no case anyway, I guess this is all which can be expected from you.

Foreman was the champ. Tyson was not. That's not a debate. That's a fact.

You are the best! You are right; this is not a debate because I refuse to debate you. You are a child who once again resorts to name calling, which seems to be your calling card the moment you disagree with anyone. You display a level or arrogance that I have never seen before in a boxing forum. I really hope that your message board hero syndrome is backed up by whoever it is that sits behind that keyboard. My guess is, as with most message board heroes, that it isn't. I am picturing a tiny man who lives with his mother. But, whoever you are, you need not waste anymore time stalking my posts on here as you have been blocked. There are tons of far more knowledgable boxing fans here who I can read and discuss with.

By the way; between the last time you were stalking me over your erection for Ike Ibeabuchi and today's little infatuation with me, I have received 4 messages from people ranging from "Just ignore him and he will go away" to some very choice name calling that I won't repeat. If that many people have a problem with your conduct here...maybe the problem is YOU.

Cheers grammar king! Don't waste your keystrokes because I won't even see it.