Tyson says he would have beaten V. & W. Klitschko in their prime.

I didn't view the link. But I remember the night Mike Tyson fought Orlin Norris. They interviewed Vitali Klitschko before or after the fight. Just seemed like they were talking to a being from the future.

I think Tyson is one of the best heavyweights ever. But he would've had a hard time beating Vitali. Can't see that happening, really.

 

Difficult fight for Mike for sure. And I do think a battle of primes favors Mike Tyson here. Lennox Lewis went street mode after Steward told him to adapt and Vitlay didn't do so well right after. So yeah, Vitlay doesn't handle a street fighting, 38 year old Lewis and wouldn't handle a prime Iron Mike firing from all angles.

Tyson UD12 Vitlay

 

A few years ago Tyson gave a different answer when Questioned about weather or not he’d beat the Klit brothers. He stated that he felt they’d be too big for him though I don’t have a source to provide at the moment. I’d certainly give him a chance but not sure If id favor him. Historically the bigger his opponents were the more he struggled with them. These two guys would have been bigger, stronger, better conditioned and more skilled than men like Tony Tucker or Bonecrusher Smith ever were and they had great trainers and Olympic pedigree to boot. That said I’d probably give Mike a better shot at Wladimir than Vitali mainly due to Wlad’s chin sometimes failing him...

 

Yeah, I remember the interview you're talking about. When the question was put to him I seem to recall him saying something along the lines of, "I don't know (if I could beat the Klitschkos). They're big guys, great fighters, and athletes with every generation get bigger, faster and stronger. We don't want to admit it sometimes, but they do." Something approximately along those lines, anyhow.

Difficult to tell with Tyson, though. He's liable to say one thing in one interview and the total opposite in another.

I think Vitali gets a little overrated in hypothetical head-to-heads. Easy to be seduced by his dominance and how few rounds he lost in his prime, how few of his opponents saw the final bell etc., but the fact is while there are some good fighters on his record, there are also a hell of a lot of converted / blown up Cruiserweights or even Light-Heavies, as well as some woefully out of shape, overweight plodders such as Williams, Arreola, Solis etc. A lot of his reputation rests upon the Lewis fight, where he did fight impressively and who knows, on any other day the fight could have turned out differently. But he was facing Lewis in the final fight of his career, at his heaviest ever weight and clearly with one eye on retirement.

I think it's always a bit risky and unwise to elevate fighters and their reputations on losing efforts, even if they're very valiant and respectable ones. I'm a little sceptical of those kind of fighters, especially if their win column is relatively bare. Ruddock against Tyson, Golota against Bowe (albeit Golota essentially beat himself), Groves against Froch….All of those guys won more plaudits for their defeats than they ever had for any of their wins beforehand, and on that basis were backed by a lot of people to go on and do big things. While some (especially Groves) did do quite well, I suspect the consensus is that all of them fell short of what the masses were predicting after those losses. Ruddock was supposed to be a 50:50 with Lewis but got blasted out, and then lost to Morrison who is sometimes seen as a joke figure. I remember Nicky Piper saying that Golota was the best Heavyweight in the world based on how he'd man-handled Bowe, and Foreman alluded to something similar in his commentary for that second fight. In the end, he achieved virtually nothing after those two contests. Groves did win a world title strap eventually, but never looked as good as he did in the first Froch fight again, and lost to a couple of guys in Jack and Smith who most people wouldn't have even put in his stratosphere if you'd asked them in 2013/2014.

Looking back, people got a little overexcited over those losing efforts and were hasty in propelling the likes of Ruddock, Golota and Groves into the top bracket. What seems more likely is that they got Tyson, Bowe and Froch respectively at opportune times which suited them more than the opponent, and weren't facing the best version of them, which in turn flattered them a bit. Those losing performances were the exception, and their careers afterwards which didn't live up to expectations are more of a true reflection of their proper level. In a similar vein I think Vitali's loss to Lewis has given people an unrealistic idea of how great a Heavyweight he is and flatters him somewhat.

 

When the fights could've conceivably have happened Tyson no longer had any business being in the ring. Prime for prime, it depends on the ref. With an impartial ref who doesn't allow excessive clinching, Tyson wins.

 

Most old Champions say these things. It's a big part of the mindset that made them Champions in the first place. The great Jimmy Wilde was openly contemptuous of all of his successors.

 

I think Tyson could have beaten Vitali in 2003. In fact, I KNOW he could have!

 

Yeah the excessive holding would've never been allowed in the 70's, 80's and 90's. That gets taken away and both Klits lose big time against Mike. Either way, Mike beats them both anyways. The more they open up - the bigger the chance they're skin gets opened up.

 

I think Mike could have beaten Vitali. Wlad is a different matter, but Mike just might luck out in the early rounds.

It's just that Wlad was SO good and consistent. If he waited out Mike into the middle rounds the tide would have turned. He'd have to make it the first five though, minimum. Wlad certainly had the power to stop Mike.

I think it would have been a really good fight.

 

The tide doesn't turn in the middle rounds. The tide never turned on Tyson. This whole "you have to get past 5 rounds" is BS. Posting here you should know this. Similar to Pep not landing a single punch and winning the round. It's balderdash.

Tyson obliterates Wlad as Wlad shits the bed for weeks until fight night.

 

Wlad doesn't have the chin nor most importantly the confidence. He had probably the worst chin out of the top ten (if you have him in the top ten of course) ATGs. He was also prone to panic attacks, which would be his undoing against Tyson. Sooner or later Tyson, will hit him and hit him hard, and Klitschko would unravel. As a person I much prefer Wlad, and I would LOVE to be proven wrong.

 

I completely agree. His wide eyed deer in headlights showing against Davarryl Williamson was extremely telling. And then the life and death battle against Sam Peter, I mean, GEEZ. I thought after the Peter scare that Wlad had progressed but he really hadn't. He got better at keeping opponents away. In fact, the only significant punch David Haye landed froze Wlad in his tracks. Surprised he handled that Anthony Joshua uppercut extremely well though.

Yeah Mike Tyson, Sonny Liston, George Foreman and maybe even Ike Ibeabuchi would give Wlad sleep paralysis in the middle of that ring.

 

He obliterates the cowardly Klitschko but loses to the granite

 

Agreed, ironically the instance in which Wladimir stayed the calmest under adversity was as a shot fighter at the end of the road. Agree with the rest of your post.