WLAD Vs Tyson of Douglas Fight

Cherry pick?? He got his rematch with Brewster, beat Peter, and defeated alpha champ Ibragimov, crush former lineal champ Rahman, and now is unifying the title.

Sure these guys ant top guys from past eras, but this is not cherry picking. Wlad is faceing the best out there.

 

Don't forget his win over unbeaten Calvin Brock. This may be Wlad's most under rated win, Brock had beaten top ten ranked McCline convincingly as well as a crushing KO of Zuri Lawrence.
I thought Brock had a good shot to take the title from Wlad because he had a powerful left hook and heart. He gave Wlad one of his closer fights recently and took some rounds before getting blasted. Brock was one of the best fighters of the past few years actually, Wlad fighting him certainly isn't "cherry picking"

 

There are some very good arguments going on throughout this thread. But, also a lot of one-sided views. Some are picking Wlad exclusively due to Tyson's loss to Douglas, while others are claiming that Wlad's whole resume is weak from top to bottom and wouldn't even beat average contenders during the 80's.. I don't agree with either side.

Rather than rehash the tired and overly repeated rhetoric of " Tyson wasn't the same ", I'm simply going to chalk it up to this: Tyson vs Douglas was only 1 of 41 showings of Mike During his first career, and his true prime. It was merely a rare case where one man was giving the very best performance of his career, while the other gave the very worst of his..... The match shouldn't be ignored by any means whatsoever, but it also needs to be put into limited context when creating fantasy matchups..

As for Wladimir Klitschko, I do feel that he is often sold short by those who are not avid fans of the 2000 era, ( incidently I am not a fan of it either. ) Its true that he suffered three bad losses-two of which went unavanged and to lesser opponents. Its also true that he can't claim a win over a legitimately great fighter. However, it should be noted that upon changing trainers and fight techniques in the ring, he has improved considerably, has avenged his most recent loss, and has beaten a slew of large ranked heavyweights who are by no means bums.

In the 1980's, Wladimir Klitschko would have been a one of a kind fighter in a category of his own. About the only good thing out of Europe in that decade, was Frank Bruno, and not much else. Lewis was still basically an amateur and Francesco Damiani would never materialize. Wlad would also be one of the few fighters who stood 6'7", weighing 240 lbs, and above all else in chizzeled physical shape. I also dare say that his jab and boxing ability would have made him about as close to a twin to Larry Holmes as anything that was available ( though I feel Holmes was better. ) Lastly, his biggest weakness was always the left hook.. Seeing how the 1980's was over loaded with fighters who relied too heavily on their right, finding a man who's style was a good fit for Klitschko would have been a challenge, no matter what most people think..

In conclusion: Mike Tyson, Larry Holmes and Evander Holyfield are probably the only fighters I would actually bet money on to beat Wlad during the 80's. On an off night, he might have gotten upset by someone like Tim Witherspoon, but I wouldn't place any stock in the claim. He would have definately been a top contender, and perhaps even the best of the alphabet titlists. On the night Douglas fought Tyson in 1990 - and NOT on the night that Spinks fought him, Wlad would have my vote to win a convincing verdict, probably by stoppage.

 

Tyson. Pretty easily as well.

 

He beat Rahman?:huh
I never said Wlad is a bad fighter, I did say he is an excellent boxer with a great jab and a great righthand. I did say he cant fight, and he cant.

 

Yes, the Rock who ko Lewis.
I think it was last year after the Thompson fight, Think it lasted 7 rounds if I recall.

 

Didnt recall that fight but you are right. It still doesnt change how I feel about Wlad. I was looking forward to the Haye fight, just because he talked a good game, but Chagaev should go quickly.

 

The thing is Chagaev would mean more to the divsion, lineal since than Haye ever would.

If Wlad kos Haye or vice vesa, were still in the same shape, no lineal champ.

This fight right here will make one.

 

Tyson was pretty much done by this point. He'd have a shot in the first two rounds or so, but if he didn't get to Wlad by then, he'd take a one-sided beating.

 

Nice post this.

Despite me not being a fan of his style, Wlad for me is by no means a poor fighter. He's difficult to beat despite a few nasty shortcomings and for me there is no doubt he would have held a title in the early to mid 80's - probably the WBA version that guys like Tate, Coetzee, Page etc. treated like a hot potato.
How dominant he would be is another question, but it's well possible he could have strung together some nice wins over the 80's crop.

 

How can you say Wlad is a "cherry picker" but then say Tyson fought "everyone"?? Wlad fought titleholders, former titleholders, and rising/unbeaten prospects just like Tyson did in his career. Who's been willing to fight Wlad that he should've fought instead? In the last year he's avenged one of his losses, unified a couple titles, and beat a former lineal champion. How can you give so much credit to Tyson for doing the same kind of things, but then say it's "cherry picking" when Wlad does it?

Tyson was only willing to fight "everyone" for about a 2 or 3 year stretch, until he won the lineal title by beating Spinks. After that he continually bypassed a fight with Holyfield for about 2 years straight, also wouldn't fight guys like Witherspoon after he had worked his way back up the rankings. Even after he lost the title to Douglas, he could've challenged Holy for the title much sooner, but kept putting off that fight as well, either saying "One more fight first" or backing out with "injuries."

As for saying Tyson's post-jail career should be entirely "discounted," Wlad is around 34 now and not at the peak of his career either, but he's still going after anyone out there who will fight him. He signed to fight Haye, and when Haye got "injured," he tried to make a fight with Valuev (who turned it down) and now is signed to fight Chagaev.

 

Thank you sir...

 

Tyson had a solid careers worth of fights by the time he went to prison, losing only once. He faced everyone available and everyone who earned their shot at the title (Witherspoon was knocked out of the tournament by James Smith). If he would have never fought again after prison his legacy would still go down as a great one. Tyson was signed to fight Holyfield after the Ruddock fights. I doubt Tyson was avoiding Holyfield, (a much smaller man), to fight Ruddock instead, it was more promotional issues between Don King and Main Events, but thats a huge long story in itself. The short is Tyson wanted Holyfield to get his belts back, King woudlnt play ball without options on Holyfield. Tyson at one point left King and signed with Steve Wynn to face Holyfield thus triggering his ultimate downfall.
Regardless of who Wlad beats in this horrible era in heavyweight boxing, there will always be discounts to his legacy by his losses to crappy fighters.

 

Wlad would not have survived the uppercut that Douglas suffered in the round eight!

 

Assuming it landed. A pre-steward Klitschko might have gotten careless, but after polishing up his skills upon changing trainers and fight philosophies, Wlad was not the type of fighter to just walk right into shots like that.