Some fighters simply have a fanboyism that's out of control. It's like a mental image of a fighter has been built up of an Achilles on steroids, and damn whatever the actual fights were like.
Wlad is not my “beloved”, I’m not emotionally involved in this topic unlike you “kid dynamite”. Again post prison Tysons road to the belt was exceedingly easy due to the weak champions at the time up until running into Holyfield, post Holyfield he borderline cherry picked his opponents, there was no attempt to fight any legit top 10 ranked heavyweights up until Lewis 5 years later, he got totally dominated, so how do you really know he just walks through Wlad? As for 88’ Tyson, he was a phenom, but a 3/4 year window of a title run has clouded certain people’s overall view of the product, unless you are a casual. Tyson doesn’t have the variety or gas tank to wrestle and hold (which Tyson did a lot, he wasn’t a great in close fighter) to go the distance with a guy who is bigger, quick for a big guy and a couple of big fights would have Tyson thinking twice about rushing in. Tyson early or Wlad mid rounds.
In the greatest Individual combat sport ever, the difference between being King of the Mountain and looking down at everyone else .... and being up at the top of that mountain with someone standing next to you ... is EVERYTHING
Same reason why I picked Tyson by ko. I’ve appreciated Wlad a lot more recently but Tyson will definitely land something big eventually.
The Wlad/Ibragimov bout is one of the worst Heavyweight Championship bouts in history. I suggest it was only one of the worst, because it pales in comparison to that train-wreck of a so-called contest with Povetkin. That this bout is even brought up in favor of Wlad is a mystery - when every man and his dog (save those who are Wlad's fans) knows it was an utter disgrace. You predict: It has not been lost on me that Wlad's one and only bout in 2009 was against a guy with the alias 'White Tyson'. Chagaev was an injury-prone wreck; recovering from Hep B and a short-notice replacement for Haye. His best win had come two to three years earlier, in the form of an SD victory over Ruiz. You might disagree and consider his next win, an MD over Valuev, to be Chagaev's best - but there is not much difference in the level of these contests, really. Chagaev retired against Wladimir on his stool, after round-9. Wlad's fight before Chagaev in December, '08, was against a knackered, overweight, 36-year-old Rahman, who was stopped on his feet by Wlad in round-7. Both Rahman and Chagaev both fit, partially or otherwise, into @Glass City Cobra 's description of Wlad's opposition. But, according to you, a peak Tyson gets sparked by Wlad within the same timeframe as Rahman and can't last as long as Chagaev? I don't think you or any other of the Wlad discipleship have room to imply that the posters backing Tyson to beat Wlad have veered off from "intellectual honesty".
You sound rather indignant. To call poll results 'completely and ridiculously wrong' is quite the statement to make. Ridiculously wrong according to who? Wlad has himself to blame, thanks to his negative style, his negative tactics and forgettable run as champ. He'll likely never be fondly remembered as this great champion except in very select parts of the world because of the above-mentioned. His weaknesses are well established. It wasn't just his chin. The poll is lopsided because people never fully bought into Waldo. Likely never will.
So, the poll results are "ridiculously wrong" because they do not agree with your opinion? Are you one of these types, who would demand a democratic vote be taken over and over again, until you get the result you like the look of? I don't suppose you have considered that you might be wrong, have you? Why are such caveats required when '88 Tyson has been stipulated in the poll and Wlad was never up against anything like the offensive threat of a peak Tyson? I think this is a sheer case of being able to use one's eyes and realize Wlad would be in a world of trouble against a fighter, who was geared for delivering his offense against taller out-boxers, carrying with him a heavy, two-handed arsenal, perpetual movement, extreme speed, power and desire to leave Wlad a slumped mess on the canvas. It's not rocket science, really. No. This is just wishful thinking, of which a lot exists when it comes to expectations from Wlad, due mainly to his long, but quite uneventful tenure.
Intellectual dishonesty is avoiding simple direct questions. You cherry picked a handful of opponents and what's funny is wlad performed egregiously in several of them. The vast majority of Wladmirs opponents were in fact slow, plodding obese cave men. I notice you conveniently left out guys like Samuel Peter, Thompson, or Wach? As usual you think athleticism and stats are the end all be all and ignore the context. Haye's accomplishments at heavyweight? Stopping the mediocre c level Chisora, stopping an old Ruiz, and a disputed decision over the flat footed bum Valuev. Against wlad he talked tons of trash then in the actual fight only made a handful of half assed efforts to win, then cruised to a decision loss. Also, Wladmir was literally docked a point for excessive holding. Povetkin is by far the worst example you could bring up. Wladmir humped his back like ab elephant in the mating season. Even the most die hard fanboys admit this was an ugly performance. Chambers accomplishments...? What were they again? Byrd was slick and good, but he was a tiny light heavy moving up in a weak era. No different from Roy Jones or Archie Moore or Michael spinks moving up to attempt a title grab in a weak era. Bragging about this win would be like an Ali fan bragging about his win over Bob Foster. Now for the 2nd time I would like to ask, which of Wlad's opponents during this title run would you give more than a 25% chance of beating Tyson?
@Seamus doesn't stick around to back up his claims because to argue something you first have to believe it yourself and he knows deep down that Tyson is a terrible matchup for Wlad. The only intellectual dishonesty on display in here is claiming WK controlled the entire division with his jab , as if to say he never clinched or hugged in his career.. Its no wonder he runs away when challenged. Remember when WK called 40 year old semi retired Mormeck the Mike Tyson of the division? Read bellow..lol https://www.boxingnews24.com/2012/03/wladimir-clinched-15-times-in-the-1st-round-against-mormeck/
As usual in Classic it's the idea of the fighter that's remembered in people's minds that is pitched against another idea of another fighter. Referring to actual footage seems to be pointless or ignored. We're basically playing with the He-Man action figures at the moment and arguing about whether Skeletor is stronger than He-Man. A few points: 1) the only guy that fair-and-square sparked Wlad out in his physical prime was Sanders, and he fights nothing like Tyson. He's bigger, taller, a southpaw and shoots a straight left rather than looping punches. Klitschko has taken some big shots and not gone down, and he has gone down and gotten back up to win the fight. He doesn't have a glass jaw and he does have fighting spirit. This idea that Tyson blanks him with the first big punch he lands is nonsensical. 2) The other two times Wlad was sparked in his physical prime were as a result of exhaustion. He blew his wad. Any fighter can blow his wad and lose. Some would argue that happened to Tyson himself against Douglas. 3) Wlad Klitschko specialized in dominating small fighters. Under Steward he maximised his advantages and the little guys had minimal chance. Lewis vs Tyson gives us an idea of how it might have played out, because Lewis had a similar approach under Steward. 4) Tyson struggled to deal with a really good jab. Glass-jaw Biggs and Thomas, while they lasted, showed us this. Douglas peppered Tyson with the jab and disrupted him with it. Wlad has arguably a top 3 jab in HW history. 5) Tyson struggled with the clinch his whole career. Pinklon Thomas made Tyson look pedestrian with his clinch, and so did Botha. Now, Mike knocked both those guys out in the end, but then, they weren't exactly on a Klitschko level. 6) Wlad has an enormous reach advantage over Tyson. This matters because Wlad would look to maximise that advantage all the time. He steps back to nullify the attacks of smaller guys and gives them pizza face with his jab. The fact that Tyson's best punches are looped exacerbates this problem. I have no problem with the idea that Tyson could KO Wlad. A guy like Mike might KO anybody. I have a problem with the fact that the forum doesn't bother analysing the matchup and resorts to referring to an idealized version of Tyson that doesn't exist, and a likewise negatively idealized version of Wlad that also doesn't exist. It's kind of sad, tbh.
Mike clearly had a bad night against Douglas who fights very differently from Wlad. However Tyson beat Tucker quite convincingly and he also beat Smith and Green by incredibly wide margins. In fact between Green, Smith & Tucker they won a combined 7 rounds (using the most generous score cards) out of a total of 34 rounds vs Tyson. Objectively speaking, I wouldn't call it kryptonite. Unless of course, you trying to say that a Tyson win doesn't count unless it's a KO victory.
Few are blind to Tyson's weaknesses. He gets called out on them almost more than any other fighter on here. Isolated incidents like one right uppercut by Tucker, or a Smith who lasted the distance and landed one meaningful punch are zoned in on and used as evidence for whatever argument. Even your own example, using Thomas and Biggs who survived a few rounds but ultimately got absolutely wrecked, as some form of proof that these were glaring flaws. Tyson gets away with precious little on here, in fact. A lot of the criticism is valid, yes. He did fall into clinches too much. He was less dangerous in the later rounds of a fight. He was a frontrunner. He did struggle against a strong, determined fighter who was not afraid, confident, and prepared to fight back hard. All true. But look at the guys that beat him. They were prepared to take risks, to take punches and fire back. They fought Tyson. I'll ignore that they had to withstand a withering assault or survive a heavy knockdown first. Tyson had to be beaten down, round after round. Lewis, though definitely superior in that fight, also was prepared to stamp his authority on the fight, and take fire if he needed to. (And really, when even use the Lewis fight as an example? Tyson was a three round fighter at best at that time. Is that really a fair representation of Tyson at his best?) We can talk about pre-prime Wlad, post-prime Wlad, pre-Steward Wlad, post-Steward Wlad, whatever version. It doesn't matter. He always capitulated quickly when facing adversity. That's not being dishonest. The film is right there. The times he showed some spunk was the first fight with Peter and the fight with Joshua. Besides that? Can you imagine the howls of derision if Samuel Peter had Tyson stumbling around like a drunk? Anyway, it's about the psychology that matters. If a fighter can't let his hands go against a Fury who is pecking and poking his way to a decision, then I have to question that very sincerely. Was Wlad simply too afraid to take that chance and open up? Fury went into his back yard, reached over and took his title, and walked out with a smile, and Wlad watched him do it. (!!!) Where was his fighting spirit and champion's heart then? Now how in the heck is he going to respond to Mike Tyson? Tyson is not going to peck and poke at him. He's coming for blood. No, I don't think Tyson stretches him with one punch. But that one punch is followed by another and another and another, thrown with bad intentions. Tyson was lethal if he smelled blood. Amazing finisher. Talk of disrupting rythmn is fine and well, but Wlad's rythmn is very easily disrupted. Tyson has very quickly hands and feet. Can Wlad really just back off and circle, like he did against many others? Not to disparage his opponents, but many were lead-footed with next to no head movement. Nothing at all like Tyson. Will he be able to suck Tyson into clinches that easily? Some, yes. Tyson did have that vulnerability and Wlad was very good at that. But few managed to do it successfully, without being caught in the end. Not if they wanted to win. Tyson doesn't have to worry about counterpunches like he did with Holyfield. Wlad didn't counter and either backed off or clinched if an opponent turned aggressive. Wlad had a world-class jab. Great punch. Tyson was world-class in evading jabs and countering. He did it to Biggs, he did it to Tucker, he did it against Williams he did it against all his opposition in his prime. All tall fighters with good jabs. So it's not a given that Wlad just dominates with the jab, at all. Tyson was a rythmn fighter, but Wlad even more so. Way more so. When his rythmn got disrupted, he got all weird. He was very risk-averse. So unless Wlad can establish his jab, get into his rythmn which he relied on so heavily, and Tyson turns all passive and does next to nothing on the return end, I have a very hard time seeing Wlad not having a very hard time. We've seen what happens when Wlad has a very hard time. I won't mention Tyson's body punching and his own underrated jab, which he used to good effect against Tucker when Tucker wouldn't play nice. Lastly, I think we're all guilty sometimes of thinking of either idealized versions of fighters, or a very, very specific version of a fighter (Tokyo Douglas comes to mind) so I hear what you're saying. It's true. If people think Wlad beats Tyson, ok. No problem. Vice-versa too. It's all just opinion anyway. But I do think most posters do look at things honestly, and give an honest opinion. In this case, Wlad is not seen as a winner against Tyson by the vast majority of members, who I believe to be honest. Agree to disagree.
