1996 Mike Tyson vs. 2014 Wladimir Klitschko

Brewster was an ex champion who lost his title in the fight previous you idiot.

McCall was a crack riddled fighter fresh out of rehab

That's far more of a farce.

Plus prime Maskaev I assume your talking about the 6 fight novice who was thrown in at the deep end.

 

He was winning fights and was a ranked challenger . Thats all that matters. Nobody cares if he was on the yeyo or not. He still racked up 20 wins post Lewis.

Brewster was retired for over a year , unranked and took more bad loses before going back into retirement.

Get Wlads nuts out of your mouth.

 

Brewster was an ex champion coming off a loss the previous year to Wlad. Plus he was still a ranked fighter!

If you think a fighter who is fresh out of rehab and has a breakdown during a fight is more worthy than a fighter who just one fight previous was a champion then it shows what mind you posses.

I love the fact that every Wlad victory burns idiots like you.

 

MaCall was weeping in the first fight as well. So what? MaCall was coming off wins.
Brewster came off a loss in which he suffered a career ending injury.
There is no case for your argument here.

They sell glow in the dark monkeys that are part jelly fish in Japanese markets for people like you.

 

1996 Tyson was still a rather formidable fighter. Still had enough speed and power to be a huge threat to Wlad. No one Wlad fought in 2014 is even close to a 1996 Tyson. Tyson's win over Bruno in 96 is way more impressive than any of Wlad's wins in 2014.

The Pro 96 Tyson argument: What's hard to get out of my mind are two of Wlad's opponents. Brewster. He blasted Wlad out, and Sam Peter, a slow idiotic skill-less clubber gave Wlad huge problems. Is 1996 Mike better than those two. I think so.
Actually, I think he's a lot better. Tyson by KO is the conclusion.

The pro Wlad: Tyson's loss in 1996 came to Evander Holyfield. Wlad is a different type of fighter and could not implement that strategy. I supposed if Wlad can clinch for a good 7 rounds straight he'll be able to pull off a win.
(but if this is the 90's and the great Mills Lane is ref, Wlad rightfully loses by DQ)

In conclusion, the pro 96 Tyson case is a bit stronger imo. I'll pick him maybe 6 out of 10.

 

Who is this MaCall you speak of? You keep referring to him.

If you cannot see the difference in the McCall of the first fight and the mental midget who turned up in the second you are more re****ed than i initially though.

First fight; tears of Joy.

Second fight; tears of an Emotional wreck who was having a breakdown mid fight.

 

Read the thread title dumbass.. Wlad wouldn't punch himself out against someone like 96' Tyson in 2014, maybe in 2004.....

 

tyson was a shot fighter in 96 so wlad would win ..........1991 version of tyson different story

 

There's no such thing as 'punching yourself out'. Boxers punch. Thats what they do.

Brewster banged Wlad hard to the ribs in round 2 and nearly took his head clean off with a left hook in round 3.

That is what lead to his demise. As well as not being allowed rest on Brewster's shoulders.

Wlad 2004 onwards is the same as Wlad now. Absolutely no difference.

He just hasn't fought anybody as dangerous since. In fact he was better back then. Younger, sharper , faster.
Still he was no match for Brewster who was not better than 96 Tyson.

Put all these factors and equations into a probability matrix and Tyson comes out the winner 9 times out of 10.

 

Theres a saying that you cannot educate the poor and sir you are proof of this. :thumbsup

Thick as .....

 

Are you trying to insult me now cos i bested you in boxing talk ??

Run along now ya knickers.

 

:rofl

Sorry son but you boxing knowledge is s h I t e

 

Hi Dino.

Bye Dino. :hi:

 

Yeah, he's not even trying to hide who he is lol..... I called him out on that, and he responded with "I'm not Dino, but he told me about this place" or something like that. :rofl

 

shoeshiner