We disagree. Wlad was much better both at that technique he constantly used, & much better at landing the jab or 1 2 with an occasional hook & tying up. Green & Smith never did that other than with Tyson, they were an intimidated boxer & slugger, respectively. If all the holding that should be illegal is permitted as it so often is... A much larger ATG who was champion for years is very likely to beat anyone.
Green and Smith felt his power and his speed and were unable to mount an offense to keep them in the fight. Wlad may try his 1-2 then tie up tactics but a sharp Tyson counter would either force him to fight or to hug neither of which would fare well for Wladimir.
It doesn’t really matter if Wlad was better than Smith and Green. It’s how they’d have matched up stylistically. Wlad would have found it extremely difficult to have landed a jab on Mike. How would Wlad have won the rounds just by initiating clinches all of the time? Mike wouldn’t have been there to have been constantly clinched and leaned upon like how Povetkin was. At some stage of the fight, Mike’s speed and elusiveness would have gotten him inside of Wlad’s reach.
Mike could be hit and hit often with the jab. He could only keep up that evasive bob and weave for so long. Douglas proved this in spades. Wlad's jab was as hard as Buster's right hand. Mike had answers as long as he was asking the questions. Wlad would ask his own questions with that jab, with the right and the hook off the jab. Folks act like Wlad tipped over every time he was pressured and prefer to point out either pre-prime and or post-prime results and ignore a 10 year sample size where he dominated over some excellent fighters.
Mike was absolutely exhausted after just 5 rounds in Tokyo because he’d hardly trained for the fight. He had no stamina whatsoever. You can see that by rewatching the fight. He was completely gassed, where he just looked for a huge power shot in order to bail him out of trouble. Douglas also had a will of iron that night. In this scenario, Wlad would have gone into a fight with a prime version of Mike Tyson, who’d have been fighting to his full capabilities. And a prime version of Wlad would have been extremely cautious. Because a prime version of Wlad obviously knew that he’d suffered 3 knockout losses earlier in his career, which also included a scare against Samuel Peter. Ten years of cautious dominance over mostly B and C level guys wasn’t enough to have given Wlad huge confidence against an undefeated version of a prime Mike Tyson, who was a ruthless finisher, and who possessed supreme confidence as well as every attribute that Wlad was vulnerable to. Mike would more than likely have intimidated Wlad both inside and outside of the ring. IMHO, I don’t think that Wlad would truly have believed that he could have beaten a version of Mike Tyson from 1988. And I think that his tactics would have reflected that.
Only once? That's good to know, given that you really can't know that any "Tyson-istas" have voted. You give Tyson a 20% chance? But you seemed fairly certain a Tyson/Wlad bout would " This content is protected ", in an earlier post in this thread. I mean, you were almost certain of a Wlad win, earlier, were you not? If you now give Tyson a 20% chance, does your vote for Wlad come with a caveat/rider? If so, is your vote invalid? Are there other Wlad-voters, who think like you do? Can we reduce the value of their votes, as well? Disproportionate to what? I think you overestimate the "caveats and riders", both in terms of their number and their value, as reasoning for why the poll results have turned out the way they have. I would be interested to know how many individual voters have done so, with stated provisos, relative to the number of votes received. I think we can tell. Probably because I cannot help but view your take as over-complicating what is a relatively straightforward exercise. I have not drawn from this thread what you perceive as voting laced with doubt. So, in part, I was implying that there is no need to caveat a pick in this case. Although, in the post of yours I first responded to, you did mention something to the effect of Rooney being in Tyson's corner, as an example of one of the caveats, which is what prompted my referencing of '88 Tyson, being a stipulation of the Poll. Again - I think you might be over egging the number of caveats given, relative to the number of voters. Even if caveats had been posted for every vote, you can't know to what extent these reflect a doubt. Ultimately, a vote is a pick of the fighter one thinks will win. There is always the option to abstain, if one is truly unsure. So, as I previously allude to, you have doubts, but still voted for Wlad. Do we need to dissect the reasoning behind your individual vote to see how sure you are? Of course we don't. There are, at the time of me writing this post, 52 votes for Tyson. How many of those votes came with written caveats, qualifications and riders? Moreover, once you have that number and ratio, how would you then go on to quantify the claimed lack of certainty, this figure allegedly represents?
It was more unwilling to mount an offense than unable-they did not want to risk being knocked out, which was likely, but without enough confidence to try it would have been much more likely. Wlad would choose to hug. Difference between him & Bonehugger & Green is he could land effectively & tie up & force resets super effectively. You think Tyson's speed & skills would be enough to overcome this. I think there would be a reasonable chance, but it is by no means the most statistically likely outcome. And IF Wlad was allowed to be a Klinchko, especially against a much smaller man who was often easily tied up... Tyson would have little chance.
I really doubt that Wlad would find it very difficult to land a jab on Tyson. That is an extreme statement, that a much smaller fighter could neutralize the first defense of a way larger great jabber. Even a rusty Ali, with less of a size (length)) difference between them, who in FOTC had some trouble finding Frazier with the jab as often as any other opponent, still jabbed him silly until he wore down later. Tyson could likely take that punishment too, although Wlad hit somewhat harder. But that does not mean Tyson could have evaded the clinches-& if like in Ali-Frazier 2 it was indulged, Tyson is not going to nail him. Wlad was way better than Tyson's opponents at landing before he tied people up. Ask yourself-how often in a hypothetical match up where the result could reasonably be interpreted either way...Do I go with the guy who i really do *not* want to win? I suspect like most you are letting what you wish-I would prefer Tyson take out the larger octopus also- color your interpretation of what is likely to occur.
This is often overlooked. There is a difference between being a good fighter and being a good boxer. Wladmir would not be able to put on a clinic using surgical precision firing crisp text book attacks at his comfortable outside range for 12 rounds. That is simply not going to happen against a man as fast and as ferocious as Mike Tyson. The only time Wladmir is able to box like that is against slow, plodding, heavy footed guys that lack defense and head movement. When he has a moving target like Fury or an aggressive guy who won't back off like Peter or Brewster it's a completely different story. The reason Wladmir got so much praise in the Joshua bout is because for once in his life, he actually fought and went to war going back and forth with furious exchanges. I personally have that bout as a top 100 all time performance despite his loss. Wladmir to this day is traumatized by his early stoppage losses and has a hard time opening up. People can bring up his long streak of title defenses all they want, but rarely did he ever face someone who would force him to fight and go to war. Tyson, win or lose, is going to make him fight, period. And if that happens his chances go up exponentially because Wladmir will leave himself open at some point and Tyson will be able to land something big. I'm not saying Tyson wins with the first real shot he lands in an instant, but it will definitely cause some damage and potentially swing things in his favor.
Re the Wlad/Joshua bout, I couldn't agree more, in that Wlad's performance was worthy of praise. I would add, however, that Wlad's failure to capitalize on the trouble he had Joshua in, speaks as much to the 'Wlad as boxer, not fighter' viewpoint, as any other of Wlad's performances.
I tend to agree with this. That's why I think he'd UD Mike instead og KOing him late even if he could. Some people have pointed out Tyson had a kind of silent agreement not to punch out of clinches, and I think that's valid. Wlad likewise often had the same silent agreement where he'd not try press for the KO as long as the other guy didn't try to get too violent. He'd be happy with the points win. It's debatable whether this is good or bad. Younger Wladimir was more of a scrapper, but he lost more. Older, Steward style Wlad was less ambitious but also much harder to get to.
