Was 2002 The Earliest Tyson-Lewis Could Have Really Happened

[ThatOne]

Please discuss...

[Goodnight, Irene]

Not even near to it. King paid step-aside money to Lewis as far back as 1996. During the Lewis-Mercer telecast, the announcers spoke about Lewis and Tyson happening, again, in 96. It was YEARS later than it couldve been (to the detriment of Lewis' legacy).

[ThatOne]

Thank you.

[Syntax Error]

Goodnight, Irene has nailed it.

The fight could & should have happened in 1996, but Lewis was too big a risk for too little reward in 1996.

The supposedly washed up Holyfield was supposed to be a far easier & far more lucrative option for Team Tyson, but it didn't work out that way though.

[loaded_gloves]

Not many people at the time were confident Lewis would beat Tyson, given his Mercer performance. Even the fiercely pro-Lewis Sky commentators and UK based Boxing Monthly questioned whether he would ever be ready for Tyson.

Lewis certainly wanted the fight, and Tyson had no fear, and it was more down to a Showtime/HBO, King/Maloney power struggle. King essentially sacrificed the WBC belt and hoped McCall would repeat the trick. Lewis willingly accepted the 3 mil (who wouldn't?) and didn't force the Tyson fight.

They could have and should have fought in 2001 but Lenny got himself whacked by Rahman in Africa.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Not many people at the time were confident Lewis would beat Tyson, given his Mercer performance. Even the fiercely pro-Lewis Sky commentators and UK based Boxing Monthly questioned whether he would ever be ready for Tyson.

Lewis certainly wanted the fight, and Tyson had no fear, and it was more down to a Showtime/HBO, King/Maloney power struggle. King essentially sacrificed the WBC belt and hoped McCall would repeat the trick. Lewis willingly accepted the 3 mil (who wouldn't?) and didn't force the Tyson fight.

They could have and should have fought in 2001 but Lenny got himself whacked by Rahman in Africa.

In 2001, it wouldve been just as one-sided, however.

In fact, Id venture to say Tyson's chances are flat minimal any time after his second loss to Holyfield. From roughly 1997 on, Lewis was entering his long-awaited pomp, while Tyson was fading almost day-to-day.

[loaded_gloves]

I agree, after the Holyfield rematch Tyson was done mentally at the elite level. He could still whack an Andrew Golota or a Frans Botha though, which is quite impressive.

[Crease]

The fight could & should have happened in 1996, but Lewis was too big a risk for too little reward in 1996.

I wouldn't say that Lewis would have been that big a risk for a prime Mike Tyson, I think that's a bit much...
And a poster said quite rightly saidbefore;

Not many people at the time were confident Lewis would beat Tyson
and Tyson had no fear

In my opinion, Lewis was a clever guy. He knew that he could forge out a succesful career in the Heavyweight division without having to face a prime Mike Tyson.

Lewis instead let Holyfield contend with the problem that was Tyson and he swooped in at a later date to take the unified titles...

[Crease]

And to answer the title question: NO.

A Tyson vs Lewis fight could have happened in the mid 1990s but Lewis was smart enough to keep his distance.

[Ambling Alp]

We don't really know why fights that might be interesting most fights don't materialize. It's easy to say that so and so ducked so and so, but we usually don't know for sure. It could the other guys doing the ducking, or other reasons.

Tyson certainly could have been fighting much better opponents between the Holyfield and Lewis fights. Obviously, he was getting older (as was Lewis), but he declined faster. The main reason was probably because he wasn't staying sharp. That is his own fault.

The best opponent Tyson fought inbetween those fights was probably Frans Botha. The worst that Lewis fought in that time was Frans Botha.
What I have always found amusing is that Tyson fans thought he was going to destroy Lewis right before there fight. The interest in that fight was huge. After Lewis beats him handily, all of a sudden the fight doesn't mean anything.
If Tyson would have won, would the fight have mean absolutely nothing?
I think Lewis deserves some credit for performing well and winning so easily.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Well, yes and no. I had just turned 18 when they fought, and I was as sure of a Lewis victory as Ive ever been of anything in my life. Tyson was shot to bits and the bout has limited value to Lewis' legacy as a result. A few rabid Tyson fans shouldnt bump up the wins value.

At the same time, Lewis did it as easily as expected, to be fair to him.

[mrbassie]

The fight could & should have happened in 1996, but Lewis was too big a risk for too little reward in 1996.

I wouldn't say that Lewis would have been that big a risk for a prime Mike Tyson, I think that's a bit much...

Prime Tyson in 1996?
Don't get me wrong, he was a lot better in '96 than when he actually squared off against Lewis but he wasn't anywhere near as good as he was in the eighties.

[yancey]

The fight could & should have happened in 1996, but Lewis was too big a risk for too little reward in 1996.

I wouldn't say that Lewis would have been that big a risk for a prime Mike Tyson, I think that's a bit much...

Prime Tyson in 1996?
Don't get me wrong, he was a lot better in '96 than when he actually squared off against Lewis but he wasn't anywhere near as good as he was in the eighties.

Yep, that is how I remember it, too. 1988 was probably Tyson's peak.

[Syntax Error]

The fight could & should have happened in 1996, but Lewis was too big a risk for too little reward in 1996.

I wouldn't say that Lewis would have been that big a risk for a prime Mike Tyson, I think that's a bit much...
And a poster said quite rightly saidbefore;

Not many people at the time were confident Lewis would beat Tyson
and Tyson had no fear

In my opinion, Lewis was a clever guy. He knew that he could forge out a succesful career in the Heavyweight division without having to face a prime Mike Tyson.

Lewis instead let Holyfield contend with the problem that was Tyson and he swooped in at a later date to take the unified titles...

Lewis never had the opportunity to face prime Tyson.

Lewis turned professional in 1989, right at the time that Tyson was in his pomp. By the time Lewis rose high enough in the rankings to be considered amongst the 'big boys', Tyson was in jail.

The best Tyson that Lewis could feasibly have faced was the 1996 version, but Tyson was well past his best in '96, even though he was still fairly formidable.

[orbtastic]

I think "not" facing Tyson for Lewis was more about avoiding dealing with Don King and being tied up in options than it was about anything else. Tyson was the one who vacated that WBC title and paid Lewis step aside money in '96.

DK had kept those titles on ice more or less since Holyfield/Bowe whilst Tyson had been inside, the Lewis issue was always a thorn in his side and he put enough obstacles in his way to try and prevent him holding/fighting for that WBC title (Ruddock, Tucker, McCall, Butler et al). Was Jackson also a DK fighter? I can't recall.

[Techno89]

The answer is No

It could have easily happened in the Mid 1990s.

[Ezzard]

We don't really know why fights that might be interesting most fights don't materialize. It's easy to say that so and so ducked so and so, but we usually don't know for sure. It could the other guys doing the ducking, or other reasons.

Tyson certainly could have been fighting much better opponents between the Holyfield and Lewis fights. Obviously, he was getting older (as was Lewis), but he declined faster. The main reason was probably because he wasn't staying sharp. That is his own fault.

The best opponent Tyson fought inbetween those fights was probably Frans Botha. The worst that Lewis fought in that time was Frans Botha.
What I have always found amusing is that Tyson fans thought he was going to destroy Lewis right before there fight. The interest in that fight was huge. After Lewis beats him handily, all of a sudden the fight doesn't mean anything.
If Tyson would have won, would the fight have mean absolutely nothing?
I think Lewis deserves some credit for performing well and winning so easily.

I do understand your argument but I do think there is something in what is being said (and I’m no Tyson apologist).

A fighter gets top a point where they are expected to lose because they are past it. Beating them means something, but not too much.

Foreman, on his comeback, had nothing to lose. He was an old fat man. He was supposed to lose. So even in spirited defeat it reflected well on him. His KO of Moorer was a great moment in sports. Had Moorer won nobody would ever mention it.

Had Ali beaten Holmes it would have been momentous. But Holmes winning meant very little.

Had Mercer beaten Holmes we’d have shrugged, because Holmes won it was quite a big deal.

Duran’s career went on for years like this.

If Hagler had beaten Leonard we’d have all said Ray was past his best and been out of the ring for a long time. It wouldn’t have impacted negatively on Ray’s standing. We’d have remembered him as one of the truly great welterweights. Most people wouldn’t have considered it one of Hagler'sbest wins in the same way nobody considers Duran to be one of his best wins.

[Ambling Alp]

I think we are sort on the sam e page. I do think the situatuion was a little different that Hagler-Leonard. Hagler was expected to destroy Loenard; he had some huge advatanges.
However going in, a lot of people were picking Tyson. Lewis did not have any huge advantages. (Tyson wasn't coming off a huge layioff or anything like that. )
Not saying it was a huge win for Lewis. However, he performed well and should get some credit. Strange as it sounds, I alwasy thought if Lewis wouldn't have performed well but still won a competitive fight, he would have actaully got more credit. The way it turned out, all almost everyone says about the fight was that Tyson was horrible. It was partially becasue Lewis made him look horrible, but he gets almost zero credit for it.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Lewis had all the big advantages you could ask for, Alp.

[Ambling Alp]

Not sure you understand what I mean. It wasn't like Tyson was coming off a huge layoff, fighting in weight class above him, or something like that. People point out Tyson's age, but Lewis is actually older than him.
Not saying that this is the same if they fought several years earlier. However, this should count for something. This fight usually gets dismissed as meaning absolutely nothing.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Age doesnt mean much in this case. Lewis was in his prime, Tyson shot. Lewis also had a big edge in size.

The bout is bordering on meaningless.

[jezzamundo]

So the original question in this post has been answered - however, if they had fought in 1996 who do you think would have won?

I tend to think Lewis would have won in a more competitive fight than what eventuated in 2002. Lewis by either a clear decision or mid-late rounds KO.

[Ambling Alp]

Age doesnt mean much in this case. Lewis was in his prime, Tyson shot. Lewis also had a big edge in size.

The bout is bordering on meaningless.

I have said why i don't think it should be considered meaningless. The fact that Tyson was already supposedly shot and Lewis (while taking more punishment in his career up to that point) not indicates that Lewis had a better career. And since they are heavyweights, the size factor is meaningless.

[Goodnight, Irene]

What do you mean size is meaningless because they're HWs? Its not an advantage for Lewis to have 15-20 extra pounds, about 10 inches in reach and 6 inches in height!?

[Ambling Alp]

Of course it can be an advantage to have superior reach. It's not an excuse. Lewis was bigger and Tyson was faster. You could go on and on. Lewis could do certain things better, Tyson could do other things better. That's not what I am talking about.

I am talking about things like injuries, layoffs, age, wear and tear etc. Tyson was really at no disadvantage here. He had every opportunity to train and compete that Lewis had.

Furthermore, Tyson was not shot. There is no evidence from previous fights that was. Past his best? Absolutey. However, there is a lot of ground between being in your prime and being shot. An awful lot of people (not just rabid Tyson fans) thought he would win.
Lewis in his prime? Can't believe that you think that. He certainly didn't look in his prime against Rahman. And I'm not just talking about the ko punch.

Lewis did not decline as much as Tyson in large part because he stayed sharp by fighting more difficult opponents in the last few years before their fight. Tyson didn't take any risks and just fought 2nd and 3rd rate opponents.
Again, not saying that this is the same if they had fought several years earlier. However, Tyson shouldn't be allowed to do a Roy Jones and fight weak competition, then fight the big names when he is older and have it not counted at all against him when he loses.

When rating Lewis and Tyson careers, their fight should be a positive factor for Lewis and a negative factor for Tyson. Certainly not the end all be all, but it should count for something.