Tyson all but admits he would not beat the Klitschko's

Do you think he would have given the same response if they asked him that question in 85-91? I dont think so.

at the end of the day, he had 2 choices, he could say something nice or he could have said 'i would have beat them' then everyone would be on here claiming Tyson is just an *******

 

he can also be brutally full of **** sometimes

 

Ali also said Spinks would outbox Tyson

 

He gave the Klitschko's props and rightfully so but when he spoke of the era in general he said there are many substances or steroids and certain fighter got KO'd. They may look better and more muscular but it does not make them better. I think he respects the Klitschko's for being in condition and being dominant

I think in this era we have bigger guys and 3 of them may have been able to compete with the best and they are Lewis and the Klitschko's, Bowe would hold his own but not in the era's of the dominant champions the other 3 have a good chance IMO

 

And the truth is likely somewhere betwixt.

 

One thing I like about Tyson, he is always respectful towards a vast majority of his past and the current fighters

 

Just a mediocre write up with a false sensationalist headline. Tyson never makes that statement nor does he even mention the Klitschkos at all.

 

For the reasons listed, this proves nothing.

It is not remotely Tyson "all but admitting" he would lose to the Klitchko's.

The stuff said about guys getting better overall & PEDs do not at all show that Tyson meant anything other than "I don't know", which he explicitly said.
He may well have being gracious &/or very honest. Neither gives us any confidence to believe that he thought he would lose.

The K brothers are described as 275 lbs., huh? They both fought/fight around 245. They would have much more fat &/or muscle otherwise, & be somewhat slower.

I disagree with one statement by Tyson. Steroids do noit in themselves make a fighter more skilled. Of course anyone can lose while cheating, even if the opponent is clean.

Yet they ad strength, explosive power, & of course muscle.
Some minimize muscle bulk while increasing strength/

They undoubtedly help you recover faster so you can train more often & harder. They have & can help many improve, all other things being equal.

They are horrible cheating.

 

?!?!? What?! atsch

 

"Clean fighting, no drugs, food and water - the basics." -Mike Tyson

Iron Mike's mantra is my mantra.

The true best, such as Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Holmes and Tyson did not need today's PEDs - like some - to become greats.

And what's most amazing: those old-school champions were so good they must still be favored - head-to-head - over today's huge cheats.

Moral: drugs will make a mediocre or good talent a contemporary great, but never a true all-time great. That does not come in a package.

 

Wlad has most of those attributes, Vitali doesn't. But Wlad doesn't like speed or power coming at him, so it's not straight forward.

Mikes always been a humble guy, which is good to see, his statement means very little.

 

You are living In a dream world. Drugs have been more a less institutionalised in sports since the sixties.

 

No Synth, he did not say anything like there was minimal or no drugs since the '60's. But YOUR opinion seems unduly cynical, against the evidence & a premise absent any support.

Surely you do not believe all athletes use them? We do not know what % in noxing; where is the evidence that MOST use(d) them, even just dabbling?

And you believe that the ATGs since the '60's mostly used them? Though Holyfield did, there is no indication most did, NOR any that PRIME named did.

The opposite of naively insisting everyone is clean is assuming without even good or any circumstantial evidence that everyone, or all who are successful, did. A kind of "dream world".