Who's greater: Wladimir Klitschko or Mike Tyson?

I'd take that golfer over McBride, Williams and Douglas.

 

atsch Anyone who claims TYSON doesnt know a dam rhing anout boxing . VLAD is greater by a wide margin . :deal end of this story .

 

atsch MIKE lisped like a *** and talked about sex with men . Hope this helpd you a bit .:good

 

Tyson never ducked anyone.

Wlad's been ducking Vitali for his entire career.


(Actually, I'm half serious. Why do the Klits get a pass on this?)

 

why is this even a question?..Again? It's well past time for a cull. There are just too many morons in the world.

 

Agreed. Wlad would take Tyson out 9 times out of 10. Seems like to many people are stuck in the past.

 

Wladimir is.

 

all these alts saying Wlad

forgot to vote in the poll

you dumb ****s. VOTE MORE FOR WLAD

so he can win the poll idiots, don't just post and say 'wlad'

VOTE
deal

 

You have to look at it from two ways beacuse it's not an simple question.


1.Who is the more acomplished boxer
2.who is the greater boxer in terms of abillity.

1 For me is without a doubt Wladimir even though he dominated a weak era he has done it all.
2. In his prime Tyson looked unbeatable, When wladimir was supposed to be in his prime he got knocked out. But the way it's looking right now Wladimir is heading to a victory here too.


So all in all atm Tyson takes this just on the sheer fact that he dominated in a way no one has ever done before. Wladimir will probably go down as one of the greatest boxers of all time when it's all said and done.

 

I think this is a good point and one which is often overlooked.

Fighters who have two very different styles rarely have equally long careers. A style which heavily focuses on speed, power, agility and quick reactions is not going to age as well as a style which is far more methodical and patient. For that reason, it's unfair to judge these fighters by the same standards. Look at Joe Frazier. His peak was in 1970 and he was clearly past his prime by 1972. Fighters who have such a demanding style never, ever have long primes. They also tend to peak earlier than other heavyweights, often reaching their peak in their early/mid 20s whereas 'boxers' reach their primes later.

You can't have one uniform standard in boxing which all boxers are judged by. What is a more impressive feat? Benitez being a world champion at 17 or Hopkins being a world champion at 47? Is one more impressive? Why is either of those more impressive than a fighter who reaches his peak at 27? It's all genetics and that's something we fans can't judge.

Going back to Tyson, I also agree his longevity is underrated. His peak may have ended quite early but he was still beating good fighters like Golota almost 15 years after his peak.

 

Wlad is obviously greater than Tyson.

- Wlad has the superior resume

- Wlad is more dominant

- Wlad has more knockouts and a higher KO%

- Wlad has way more title defenses

- Wlad has more consecutive title defenses

- Wlad has defeated more top 10 fighters

- Wlad has defeated more world champions

Tyson can't hold Wlad's jockstrap.

 

Tyson was a glorified bum beater. He is one of the most overrated fighters of all time. He was a one dimensional punching bag. He was a mentally weak punk who always folded like a cheap tent when things didn't go his way. He lost 6 times, got KTFO 5 times, quit twice. He never avenged any of his losses.

Either Klitschko destroys Tyson.

 

[url]

This content is protected

[/url]

This content is protected

[url]

This content is protected

[/url]

[url]

This content is protected

[/url]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zfPK6X_gi0[/ame]

 

was laughing at this at first but in 5 years if wlad keep it up its gonna be hard to argue that wlad legacy will be better.

 

Tyson by a country mile. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a spastic/eastern european/redneck/all of the above.