1996 Mike Tyson vs. 2014 Wladimir Klitschko

who says its a good victory, you?

you create your own double standards and pretend other people are wearing them.

and then you still cant answer the post.

ULTIMATE FLOP.

 

People talk about old Wlad.

I think that Klitschko today might be as good as he has ever been!

 

He's doing now what he was doing 10 years ago. Exactly the same.

 

Except that he is smarter and mentally stronger.

 

Mentally tough fighters don't hold on for dear life every 10 seconds.

 

I don't think it necessarily follows.

Fighters generally adopt whatever tactics are most likely to get them the results they want, regardless of mental strength.

There is no number in being a beaten hero.

 

I wouldn't say Bruno " destroys " wlad, but wlads holding and pushing down, back wouldn't work too well against Bruno who had great physical strength. Bruno could fight a bit on the inside as well. Tough matchup for wlad I think. The outcome probably depends on whether Bruno gasses, would wlad be busy enough for this to happen?

 

I did answer post prison Tyson is 9-5-0-2 his best victory came against Bruno.

He lost everytime he stepped up and was fed a diet of c level fighters who still made him look ordinary at times I.e Botha, Nielson.

Other than that he had thr great victories over such credible contenders as Savarese, Francis, Norris. atsch

As I said Wlad would be too big, powerful, technical and professional for the post prison flat footed 6 round fighter that Tyson had become.

Wlad late rounds TKO.

Again stop trying to be a clever little rag head.

 

I would say Wlad would be the stronger fighter to be honest. Bruno has a punchers chance but Wlad is the superior athlete and I think he'd bomb Bruno out late rounds once Bruno has started to tire.

 

Fair enough :good. Wlad is physically strong and always in great shape, but so was Bruno and I think wlads usual technique of tiring out the other fighter doesn't work so well here.
Both have better chins than they're given credit for imo and it could be a long, hard fight for both.

 

This version of Tyson doesn't win against Wladimir for obivous reasons such as his loss of love for the game. 1988 Tyson destroys Wladimir.

 

Wlad didn't 'then' beat Brewster. It was years later after Brewster was retired by a loss and a detached retina.

MaCall was coming off two good wins. The two rematch's are not comparable.

 

Why would Bruno be the one to tire. He went 12 hard rounds with MaCall.

Wlad was knackered by the end of the fight with Haye and Haye did nothing but flop to the floor.

Wlad threw nothing but single shots and rested plentiful on Haye's shoulders , yet he was still gassed out. How is that?

Why wouldn't it be Wlad the one to tire , since he has shown far more susceptibility to fatigue throughout his entire career.

 

When did I say it wasn't immediate?

I didn't think I would have to say it wasn't immediate because anyone who needs it stated would have to be an imbecile don't you think?

Both Lewis and Klitschko fought their respective rematches 3 years after their initial loss.

You also say McCall was coming off two good losses? He had 2 wins in the year previous to a green as **** 6-0 Maskaev and a win against a guy who was 16-1 and went on to lose his next 4out of 5 fighters before retiring.

Brewster was coming off the loss to Liakovich and McCall was fresh out of rehab. So if you claim Wlads win is tainted then you have to admit so to was Lewis's.

Try again :hi:

 

Losses was a typing error.

He was on a two fight win streak , including a one round victory over prime Maskeav.

After Lewis , he then went and won about 20 fights.

Brewster was finished. A shell of himself and was advised against the fight by his team. He was out for over a year and took a loss that caused his injury induced retirement.

The Brewster rematch was a farce before it even started. He was unranked and the fight was utterly meaningless.