Mike Tyson v Vitali Klitschko

I wouldn't say he dodged him - he was dealing with 3 injuries back to back and in the meanwhile he tried to have an easier fight to see if he won't break down again. This kind of injury streak must be very frustraiting. When he injured himself for the third time, he called it quits.

 

Putting him ahead of many fighters is a difficult argument considering the level of fighters he fought in comparison to what he could have fought in a still decidedly weak era.

 

I am skeptical that eras vary much-besides things progressing over time.
Someone recently wrote how Holmes & Foreman's success when older-& nowhere near their primes- shows the '90's were overrated.
Sometimes one or 2 figures can be dominant & it is due to them, not everyone else being relatively weak.

But who Vitali fought is a legitimate argument.

 

I'll respectfully disagree with the Holmes and foreman analogy. Foreman beat a chinny Moorer but had no wins over upper echelon fighters. Holmes beat Mercer but no upper echelon fighters. Both we capable but limited during their second careers. My reasons for calling the era weak most lies upon the top fighters seldom fighting one another and instead just trying to get a Wladiimir payday. I also believe that besides the klitschko's the era was short on talent. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

 

Tucker was more mobile and had faster hands, but compared to Vitali, he doesn't have:

An iron chin (Tucker had a very good chin, just not an iron one)

Killer instinct (he was content with doing just enough to win a fight)

Punching power

Size (6'4")

Strength/ Dominance over opponents

I have watched a good chunk of Tucker's fights, and while he might be underrated by casuals, his abilities are blown to the moon by certain Tyson fans. I am a fan of Vitali, not a fanboy. I can say he lost fair and square to the worst version of Lewis, but Vitali is better than Tucker in every way besides his speed and footwork, which can be explained by his larger size.

 

Foreman & Holmes were older & way past their primes-of course they would not be dominant.
Question is whether having lost a good deal, them beating some World Class fighters-& coming close other times-means the '90's was overrated.

I am skeptical of that but you can make a case.
I just doubt that there as little talent in any modern era in the HW division, & it was more a case of the K-Brothers being great.
But I look forward to that thread where you provide names & make comparisons-& please include a POLL in it!

 

YES, but I would also add: to size, greater reach.
Mainly heavier with much more muscle.

Word rate & endurance.
Likely punch variety.
And I believe in his awkward way Vitali had very good footwork.

But punch output is a big deal here!

 

Vitali gets places above his abilities often. He was not on a prime Tyson level and never beat anyone as close to as good as a prime Tyson. Tyson at his peak (focused and not abusing drugs or women) was an animal like the HW scene never saw. To fast to skilled to strong. Vitali has a chance to win some rounds but I don’t think Tyson is losing this and possibly Vitali gets his first KO loss.

 

I don't see how the it's could be overrated because two top ten all time greats were able to get a few good wins at an advanced age. Besides Moorer and Mercer what other top fighters did either beat to suggest the it's were and overrated era?

The Klitschko brothers were not great. Wlad was great.....Vits cherry picked second tier competition most of his career and lost against the two best fighters he faced. Saying he was winning does not make him great, as the fact stands he lost both times.

An era can have excellent talent, but if that talen isn't fighting one another the era suffers as a whole and becomes weak.

 

Tony went the distance against Tyson and Lewis. He only got knocked out twice in his career and that was when he was completely shot as a fighter. Vitali might have a better chin, but not by such a significant amount that it would make much of a difference.

he had 47 stoppages in 57 wins, most of which came in the first 3 rounds. I don’t see how he doesn’t have killer instinct.

Vitali wasn’t much of a puncher either. He broke people down with volume.

6’5. He was taller than 6’4 Douglas, and he had a 82 inch reach, two inches longer than Vitali’s.

That’s more due to level of opposition. I don’t see tony struggling much with Sam peters or a washed up Corrie sanders.

agreed.

Disagree. Tucker had an equal or better jab, a more varied punch selection (good hooks and uppercuts), better combination punching, and a more active defence. Again, you argue Vitali is a better fighter overall, but he’s not a better pure boxer.

 

Vitali had a 80 inch reach. Tucker’s was 82 inches long.

I don’t know how you could watch the two of them and draw that conclusion. Tucker actually threw uppercuts. His left hooks were also better.

 

I despise Wlad "clinch and hold" Klitchko with a passion; but your post is spot on.

 

I think his "jab and grab", "clinch and hold" is a bit overblown. Yes, he based his tactics against opponents coming inside of his reach on this, but some people make it like every fight he had was like a Povetkin fight. Which wasn't the case. And in a lot of his fights opponents were running for their lives from him.

 

80 inch reach for Vitali.

Areas Tucker was better in
Speed , punch variety , combinations , fluidity , inside skill , upper body defensive movement.
There's nothing Vitali did that Tucker couldn't do.

If Mike struggled with Tucker you could make an argument for Vitali. But he didn't. He rinced him clean.

On Vitali's resume there isn't a fighter who bares even a remote resemblance to Mike Tyson. But there is plenty of evidence of how he would be befuddled by his defence.

 

As someone wrote recently, measurements of wingspan (which is what you mean, for reach Vitali is listed pretty long at 29"), can be very unreliable.
But nowhere do I see a massive 89" wingspan even listed for Vitali. 80" is what is most frequently seen.
If you research it you will likely see this is way off, & may have confused seeing a 79" (the first A.I. result that came up for me was 80" or 79"), but 89" would give him a 10" "ape factor", very rare even in sports where it is an advantage, like boxing & basketball.

In fact, he has narrow shoulders (so his reach is relatively better than his wingspan), so with an 89" wingspan his arms would look absolutely FREAKISH. Especially since he had relatively small hands, listed as an 11" fist.
Here is evidence about his shoulder width, & again you can see the 79" wingspan listed (Ali you can find listed from 78"-80":
https://www.google.com/search?q=doe...Z8a&sourceid=chrome&source=chrome.ob&ie=UTF-8

You seem to be CORRECT about punch variety.
I likely conflated it with work rate & awkward angles, my mistake!