Prime Tyson vs Wladimir Klitschko

You've outed yourself as a troll comparing Sam Peter to George Foreman. Eddie Chambers was an over weight cruiser and he beat Peter easily. Was Chambers better than Joe Louis?
Also , a past prime Middle weight in James Tony went 24 rounds against PRIME Peter and done enough to win the first fight but wasn't awarded the decision on the cards.
Joe Louis would lay the slow unskilled oaf Peter flat on his back like he did to 235 pound Tony Galento.

No , you're wrong again.. Haye failed against Wlad and ran twice from Fury. He beat a rubbish Valeuv who could barely out box a 46 y o Holyfield in his previous fight. So , Haye is not proven against SHWs at all.

But this is just more blatant hypocrisy and double standards as you are boasting about cruiser weights beating SHWs again , while in another paragraph claiming cruisers from the past could not compete against modern SHWs. Your arguments are all over the place and its clear you are only a pro Klitschko boot licker.

Joe Louis is more proven against SHWs than both Byrd and Haye. Byrd struggled badly against all the big guys he faced. Even winning by robbery against MaCline / Oquendo and getting a draw against 40 y o old Golota.

Joe Louis obliterated -
6'4 Abe Simon
6'6 Buddy Bear
6'4 Primo Carnerra

Prime Carnera was better than the half retired and old Valeuv David Haye barely scraped by. So there goes your theory that Haye and Byrd were more proven against bigger guys. They weren't. FACT.

There's the win over Buster Douglas for starters. Buster >> Wach. . Buster will always make a HW jab list as he possessed one of the most underrated jabs at HW.
Buster has floored guys with just the jab , whereas Wach can't even throw a jab.
Tucker had coordinated foot work on the front and back boot and threw smooth , fluid punches with good rhythm.

Wach had two left feet and pushed out slaps with horrid technique. In short - he can't box , at all.

 

Prime Tyson wins, the size isn't an issue when you have ATG speed, ATG head movement, ATG upper body movement. He gets inside and drops Wlad with an overhand right

 

Maybe you have no integrity or standards?

Wrong , you said Tyson never stopped any HW over 6'3 outside Lou Saverse because the guys over 6'3 had losses.
That was your reasoning and its one of the weirdest , most stupidest things ive ever read. But its to be expected coming from the guy who claimed Vitali should have been allowed fight to the death against Lewis.

Ezzard Charles has 25% loses , was he a bum? Glen Johnson has the same and he was not a bum. Williams , Tucker , Tubbs , Biggs were only bums to people who don't like the fact that Tyson dominated more bigger guys then he struggled with. The former - Biggs , was an Olympic gold medalist.

Its not what the footage on film shows. That is the FACT!!!.

 

This is what I initially stated:

"Excluding opponents who weren't bums (boxers with 25% or more losses out of their records). Mike Tyson never KO'ed a single heavyweight taller than 6 foot 3 inches in height and his only stoppage was a controversial one against Lou Savarese."

Do you have a difficult time understanding this statement? Any boxer with 25% or more losses is irrelevant in one's record because they are 'bums'. And thus, beating even a tall 'bum' is as good as beating a 7 foot taxi driver or a drunk alcoholic. It means NOTHING!

The only wins that matter are against opponents who are ranked highly. I challenge you to find me a single boxer today, from any weight division that has 25% or more losses out of his career record and is ranked in the top 10 of any weight division in any ranking organisation. Hint: YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO! Do you want to know why? Because those boxers aren't of a high enough quality to be ranked that highly.

This is the reason why I exclude bums (boxers with 25% or more losses) out of one's record.

Or are you seriously suggesting Mike Tyson's performances against those bums and low ranked tall opponents is evidence that he could beat Wladimir Klitschko, who is a CLEAR non-bum and high ranked tall boxer? If you are, then please explain the relevance!

If Mike Tyson struggled and failed to cleanly KO a single opponent that isn't a bum + taller than 6 foot 3 inches in height. The chances of him being able to KO the best tall opponent in Wladimir Klitschko decreases significantly and so do his chances of winning.

 

What has Buster Douglas done to be better than Mariusz Wach? The same Buster Douglas who was up and down like a yo-yo against a feather fisted (-40% KO record) and former cruiserweight Evander Holyfield? Or getting knocked out brutally many times in his career? None of those things ever happened to Mariusz Wach!

Mariusz Wach by 1980 standard, has as good, if not a better jab than that of Buster Douglas. His chin is astronomically superior. Mike Tyson couldn't even hurt Wach, even if he tried. He would break his hand before he even began putting a dent on a mutant like Wach. Mike Tyson's best punches were bouncing off Kevin McBride's body like they had the power of a little boy. They had almost no effect! Mainly due to Kevin McBride's body being much bigger size. This is the same Kevin McBride who was put to sleep and nearly embalmed by a single punch by Mariusz Wach after McBride had already destroyed Mike Tyson.

Mike Tyson would be a minor nuisance to someone like Mariusz Wach.

Having good rhythm, fluidity and coordination isn't necessary in the heavyweight division to be better than others head to head. Chin + physical strength + punching power + size are more important attributes.

A less coordinated and less fluid Nikolai Valuev has a better heavyweight record with no clear losses (both losses by majority decision) out of 50 bouts than the record which Buster Douglas has.

And unlike Buster Douglas, Valuev also wasn't down like a yo-yo multiple times in his career and knocked out brutally multiple times

So Mariusz Wach > Buster Douglas and Tony Tucker at heavyweight!

 

Louis would easily dissect Sam Peter. Ask Wilder. Weight is just an excuse.

 

Peak version of Wlad is just too intelligent to get caught by prime Tyson. Physical advantages would be too much.

 

There is an easy and obvious avenue for Tyson to score the KO here I'm sure everyone is aware. But Wladimir takes him via the means that the majority of those siding with Wlad have already said. Too big in height and reach, the jab, the clinch, the IQ, the IQ especially against smaller fighters, right hand straight power and those match up well with Tyson's deficiencies. I'm not sure it is the fight that I would say I would put at 80/20 or anything, but I do always seem to ride with Wladimir in this one.

 

I also think Mike Tyson is a better fighter then that professional golf player that knocked wald the **** about

 

Tyson might struggle with the Cruiserweights of today who are around 6'3.

I don't fancy his chances against 6'6 245lb monsters.

 

To be honest Wlad was "green" and a little bit "arrogant" at that moment. With the Steward in the corner, Wlad would have defeated Corrie, just letting Corrie wear himself out.

 

wlad ko1
.

 

arghghhh no i shouldtn be posting after an nightshift sorry.

 

I was thinking maybe that Sanders is better than Danny Williams too ???

 

Tyson would get frustrated very quickly and go dirty imo