WLAD Vs Tyson of Douglas Fight

One thing that Wlad has shown time and time again, is that he cant handle pressure or a tough long fight. Hes lost to one journeymen and two somewhat decent fighters and his win over Peter was razor close. How could he be considered great? He has a terrible flaw that makes him a one dimensional fighter. Some of the guys that pushed a strong Tyson into the later rounds and kept coming could have fatigued Klistchko and beaten him in the later rounds. Wlad has proved hes susceptible to that in the Purrity fight. Someone who could punch hard and take a good shot to get inside could beat him early, the proof is there too in the Brewster and Sanders fights.
You cant be a great fighter if you dont have all the intangibles and Wlad has shown on four occasions he does not.

 

Spoon also beat tubbs and bonecrusher and other people who were contenders, just because Wlad has beaten more fighters of the same level doesnt make him any better. Witherspoon arguably beat Holmes and i don't need to hear the 'he was old excuse', it was 5 years after Holmes became the champ.

 

But you could say the same about Tyson, and certainly for most of the '80s HWs as well.

Besides, we've seen that a fighter doesn't need to be a true great in order to beat Tyson - and certainly not to beat McCall.

 

Tysons reign was from 86-90. He was undefeated, unified all three titles separately in a tournament that consisted of all the best available fighters. He didnt lose before or during his run to unify the titles or for several defenses after winning it. There is no comparison to the two fighters.

 

Why does doing that mean that there can be no further comparison between the two?

You just made a point of saying a fighter needs all the intangibles in order to be great. Whether Tyson managed to achieve something like unify the titles at one point doesn't change what his intangibles were or weren't. Besides, you can find things Wlad did that Tyson didn't do either - like prove he can avenge a loss, or regain his prior status in the division after a loss.

 

To be fair though, it's a lot easier to regain status as #1 when you're biggest rivals for the crown are Lamon Brewster and Chris Byrd as opposed to Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield for Tyson.

 

Your comparing apples to oranges thats why. Tyson showed he had all the intangibles in his prime with a lot of consistency. Just because he had one loss during his best doesnt mean he had a serious flaw. With exception to Rocky Marciano all the great heavies have lost. Tyson never got the chance to redeem himself against Douglas, but that doesnt mean he couldnt. Douglas was the one missing that important intangible e ven though he had very good skills. Tyson was able to put it together for 39 plus fights against good solid opposition, Wlad has shown he cant do that against good, to mediocre, to subpar compeition.

 

there was that period in time where the argument can be made that tyson was the best to have entered the ring. unfortunatly his glorious career was tainted by none other than himself. i honestly feel that tyson on his best night was unstoppable. i have trouble seeing even ali being able to deal with such a irate version of tyson. i do not like wlad k at this period of time and a lot of it has to do with his brother as well. im sure ill grow fond of him once hes been retired for awhile, i had the same problem with larry holmes for the longest of times with amateur losses to nick wells and duane bobick and him never wanting to avenge them in the pros some how didnt settle with me. i finally came around and realized that larry was one hell of a champion. time heals grudges i guess.

 

Not quite, he never showed the kind of resilience, the ability to come from behind or adjust to meet changing situations in fights, that are some of the most important intangibles.

How a fighter recovers from losing, being beaten up and/or KO'd, is a significant intangible as well, which he also fells short of.

No, but the fact he was so thoroughly dominated does.

The great heavies that lost at or near their best either put up competitive fights (ie: Ali against Frazier/Norton) or fixed the flaws that cost them the fight and came back visibly better fighters (Louis-Schmeling, Lennox-McCall).

 

I honestly think THIS VERSION of Wlad, would lose to the Tyson that got smashed by Lewis.

 

Any version of Tyson beats Wlad. Tyson is a stylistic nightmare for him. Wlad is also a huge bum.

 

Tyson was terrible in Tokyo but he did land one big shot on Buster and put him on his back.I think with Wlad being a lot slower he may get nailed by a simmilar punch.When hurt Wlad falls to bits.I pick Mike by ko.

 

Really? He lost to Douglas, came back and beat the guy who beat him twice in the amatuers, then he fought three fights, one against Stewart, huge puncher, and Razor Ruddock, huge puncher in two very grueling fights, one of which went the distance. I dont think he had much problems after the Douglas loss. Tyson had dominated guys that had beaten Douglas, were better than Douglas, and had the same style as Douglas. Wlad has consistently lost to guys who have been able to stand up to his power and put pressure on him, not to mention the fighters that Wlad has faced for the most part suck!
I dont consider Tysons career post prison as an argueable point to this discussion, he wasnt the same fighter. In his prime he lost once and many believe he didnt prepare properly for the fight, didnt take it seriously, and definitely had an inexperienced crew in his corner, in fact he admits it quite candidly in his documentary. Even if you dont believe that, his resume is far more impressive than Wlads and is often under valued, but in reality he had a lot of fights in a short time period, and it was not a cherry picked resume like Wlads, he fought everyone.

 

I pretty sure Wlad beats Tyson in the Lewis fight and beyond. Lets not under rated Wlad here. If Williams and McBrain beat Tyson, I think Wlad crushes this Tyson.

Prime Tyson wins imo. I do think Wlad has a shot vs the Tyson of 1990 in Toyko vs Douglas.

 

No Bum trains like Wlad, sure Peter is a bum or Brewster, because they show up out of shape, but I will not lable him as a bum.

Wlad trains and ALWAYS comes in top shape. Thats more than you can ask for the rest of the divsion.