deluded??.. i'll just leave that one to you, yeah. little??.. no, i'm 6 ft. british??.. yeah i am, what's that got to do with it? trying to squeeze bruno in every god damn thread??.. this is the first time i've mentioned bruno on this forum. wlad would humiliate bruno??.. who's the deluded one NOW?? when did bruno do steroids??? you saying bruno would be all over the place after being hit with a few right hands and left hooks just shows you don't really know what your talking about.. do you?? bruno had a very good chin, and was hit by some of the games biggest punches.to knock him out, they had grind him down first.no one ever knocked him out with just a few punches, dipstick. and when he lost, he was always competitive.. and that was against much better fighters than wlad will EVER be!! i'm not saying bruno is great.. but he's certainly not the chump your making him out to be. prime for prime - vitali beats him in a very tough fight.either on points or late stoppage.wlad on the other hand, though.. gets knocked out!!
Byrd and chambers would eeasily beat many of these bums from the 80's. there eras are equal. lol at people trying to overhype bruno and biggs and these other one hit wonders
Tyson fought pretty much all the best heavyweights of the time the only one missing is Witherspoon.Although not great the likes of Tubbs,Thomas and Berbick were very good fighters,lazy but good.Mike could not really do any more than he did.His era was full of talented guys who were just lazy. Wlad has beaten decent fighters but the division is nowhere near as strong at the moment.He just missed out on fighting some of the 90s guys and is unlucky that he is around in an era where guys just dont seem to want to fight for some reason.The Haye fight fell through as did the Povetkin one.He is left with the likes of Valuev,Chageav agian or Peter again.Id pick Pinklon Thomas at his best to beat all those guys.
Tyson fought everyone who was out there in his prime (except Holyfield who had just come up from Cruiserweight and they would've fought in 1991 had Tyson not lost to Douglas Tyson's quality opposition include: 1) Michael Spinks-TKO 1st round for Ring Magazine title- (Spinks was 31-0 at the time and is an ATG) 2) Larry Holmes-TKO 4th- (of course LArry was past it, but still an ATG and a brutal KO) 3) Tony Tucker- UD for IBF Title, Trevor Berbrick-TKO 2nd round for WBC title, James "Bonecrusher" Smith- UD for WBA Title, Bruce Seldon-TKO 1st to regain WBA title, Frank Bruno-TKO 3rd to regain WBC title Other name opponents of the time included: Tony Tubbs (TKO 2nd), Frank Bruno (TKO 5th), Razor Ruddock (TKO 7th), Buster Mathis Jr. (Ko 3rd), Tyrell Biggs (TKO 7th) Tyson also fought ATG's Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis as well. The thing the seperates Tyson from the Klitschko's is that he KO'd just about everyone he fought, especially in title fights. Furthermore, Mike's 1st round destruction of the undefeated ATG Michael Spinks tops anything on both Klitschko's resume.
The Klitschko brothers would have ruled in Tyson's era (without Tyson there) and Tyson would have ruled in today's era. Though I slightly favour Tyson's era, it's not a serious difference.
People like to take shots at Tysons competition but its actually a lot better than the guys out there today. Tucker,Bonecrusher,Ruddock,Spinks,Berbick,Tubbs would beat every one out there today not named Klitchko.
Spinks is an ATG at 175, not at HW. Both Klitschkos have a higher KO% than Tyson, especially in title fights.
Bonecrusher, Berbick, and Tubbs don't beat a lot of guys out there now, they've all lost to lesser fighters. Tucker, Ruddock, and Spinks would be competitive with everyone out there aside from the Klitschkos.
Most well thought out posts of this entire thread. To *compare eras* is rediculous, anyway. An utter waste of time that is completely meaningless, as you have no idea how Tyson, himself, would fare against Vitali, himself. Its much more than *how good they look against so and so*.
Tyson's era was better hands down. I still think the Klits beat most of the eighties fighters except for Tyson and Holmes (early eighties version) though.
Comparing the 80's and this era now is doable. I think its harder when you start talking about the 50's on down. Thats when you start to see dramatic differences in training, diet, preperation ect.. 80's to now...not so much.
Fair enough on that but Spinks 2 wins against a past it Holmes are better than any win on either Klit brothers resume. Sorry dude, but it's a fact. The Spinks win, and the manner in which he did it, was better than anything that either brother has ever achieved in my opinion. Tyson/Spinks was a megafight much like Mayweather V Pac would be today, and Tyson just steamrollered the guy. When either of the Klits has a win of that magnitude on their record then we can talk, but until then they'll always be inferior.