Mike Tyson 1988 vs. Wladimir Klitschko 2009

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Omega74, Apr 30, 2021.

Who wins?

  1. Tyson by KO

    66 vote(s)
    85.7%
  2. Klitschko by KO

    6 vote(s)
    7.8%
  3. Tyson by UD

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Klitschko by UD

    5 vote(s)
    6.5%
  1. ecto55

    ecto55 להחזיר את ממלכת דוד Full Member

    1,261
    357
    May 28, 2009
    I should clarify, the 94-6% Tyson to Waldo pick rate isn't 'wrong' because it favours one side or another, or because it contradicts my own expectations; its 'wrong' (or perhaps I should say it presents a skewed outcome) because of its excessive favoritism of Tyson.

    I know the mechanics of how / why that occurs (individual picks collected into a poll) but usually an informed crowd gets it right. Ask ten thousand people how many jellybeans are in a jar and the averaged answer across that group will usually be nail on correct. So when I read that peak Tyson crushes peak Wlad with about 94% to 6% certainty, yet read riders, caveats and qualifications to these picks over the past 20 pages (eg. 'Tyson by quick kayo if Wlad's not allowed to hold') then it seems that many of these picks aren't as certain as the 94-6% rate suggests.

    My own view is qualified (Tyson has a 'live' punchers chance early) but I'm on the b-side of the poll result. So, my issue is there is an unsettling tension between many posters comments and the poll result...and I've seen it before here. Its a pet peeve I guess.

    I completely understand that, and as someone who watched boxing through both the 80's and 00/10's, and can tell you I was much more interested in watching Tyson than Wlad. But Tyson's limitations cannot be denied, and my belief is that play directly into such strengths that Wlad possess. Its a shame, but most sports (soccer, afl, cricket) found that playing / competing with flair, instinctive-ness and creativity was an unreliable fuel, and that 'playing the percentages' was a much safer way to obtain the 'W'. Hence, across many sports the rise defensive tactics and strategies, often requiring rule changes to 'free up' the sport for fans / audiences benefit. Its a common tendency. Wlad was taught this principal and, boringly, fought this way. Its just more successful more often. Boxing isn't immune to development. That however, is an argument that goes to the merits of people's choice (Tyson-Wlad) and my is no more valid than another and not what motivated my post.

    In sum, I think the poll is a blunt instrument and fails to reflect the amount of riders and qualifications people have with this hypothetical.
     
    BCS8 and fists of fury like this.
  2. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,702
    1,295
    Dec 16, 2012
    Yes if being cautious & clinching both more & effectively helps you win, that is better.
    It would be great if Tyson could get to him. But it seems more likely that a much bigger World Class opponent who is good at clinching will be able to thwart most anyone-if they are allowed to do so.

    Which they should not be allowed to do often, but it is usually allowed.
     
  3. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,702
    1,295
    Dec 16, 2012
    Huh? I started the whole post with IF. I did not weigh in about what is most likely to be allowed.
    But there is no reason to assume that the rules would be enforced either like you described, or as Wlad benefited from forever, or '70's Ali.
     
  4. ecto55

    ecto55 להחזיר את ממלכת דוד Full Member

    1,261
    357
    May 28, 2009
    Of course I could be wrong, it has happened once before. My issue isn't with the Tyson-istas picking Tyson, I give him a pretty live 20% 'punchers chance' myself, but with the poll result disproportionately favouring one fighter despite all those caveats and riders that came with so many of the Tyson picks' posts. It looks absolutely mental for the forum having peak Tyson 95%+ favoured over peak Wlad. I'm pretty sure Tyson himself said he didn't himself believe he could have a shot against these massive modern giants - which later stimulated Wilder to suggest he'd crunch Tyson. Wilder was wrong, but as a theme Tyson was correct...it is increasingly difficult for him to maintain competitiveness were he time-machined to today. But I digress, its the 95-5 rate that irks me.


    I think you misunderstand my point. The caveats ride with Tyson picks...and suggest to me that many Tyson pickers actually have a latent concern that Tyson couldn't pull this one off. Tyson, so long as a 'good referee' and 'no holding' are caveats. Tyson, so long as he wasn't crunched by Wlad early while coming in is a caveat. Hence the 95-5% Tyson over Wlad poll result doesn't genuinely reflect the doubts of many of our Tyson pickers on here. And that's a good thing, I have a rider than Tyson has a slim puncher's chance....and picked Wlad. But 95-5% in favour of one in a peak vs peak championship fight is bizarre and makes this place look like sherdog boxing forum, surely that can be admitted.

    ...and yet so many Tyson picks came with caveats, qualifications and riders. I don't think as many people are as sure about this as you are.
     
    BCS8 and Entaowed like this.
  5. ecto55

    ecto55 להחזיר את ממלכת דוד Full Member

    1,261
    357
    May 28, 2009
    My point about the poll result exactly. Its looking like sherdog boxing forum here with that result.
     
    Bokaj likes this.
  6. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,702
    1,295
    Dec 16, 2012
    Very good, except I have no reason to believe that people who guess jelly beans numbers in jars are either informed in how to estimate them, nor that a statistically large enough sample that is averaged out will be anywhere near exactly accurate.
     
    Loudon likes this.
  7. Loudon

    Loudon Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    35,344
    5,079
    Mar 7, 2012
    Could you envisage a scenario where he’d have done that successfully for 12 rounds?

    I honestly can’t envisage it. And it’s not because I don’t want to. I’m trying to be objective.

    I think Mike would have caught him, hurt him and stopped him.
     
  8. ecto55

    ecto55 להחזיר את ממלכת דוד Full Member

    1,261
    357
    May 28, 2009
    Very little technical analysis tbh...and I think most people's memory of Tyson is from youtube clips or Tyson's Biggest Hits vhs. Neither gives a good picture other than to emphasize the punching ability.
     
    BCS8 likes this.
  9. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,702
    1,295
    Dec 16, 2012
    Yes of course I can.
    It would be the most likely outcome-unless Wlad is denied much grabbing at all.
    You could argue that a Bonehugger & a couple others like Green were not able to do win.
    But Wlad was somewhat better than them.

    And even so Tyson did not stop those clinch-aholics.
    While they were also not as good at it, largely because that was not their usual styles, unlike Wlad, they were not as adept at stifling offense that way.
     
  10. Loudon

    Loudon Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    35,344
    5,079
    Mar 7, 2012
    There would be no logic in only have given Mike just a 20% chance to have won.

    Wlad was vulnerable to speed, power and pressure.

    He didn’t like to fight.

    He was psychologically scarred from his early knockout defeats.

    Mike would more than likely have intimidated him.

    It would have been a very tough stylistic match up for Wlad, as Mike would have been very elusive.
     
    fists of fury and ironchamp like this.
  11. ironchamp

    ironchamp Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,207
    726
    Sep 5, 2004
    The poll is reflective of the overall sentiment. Smart money would be on Tyson. This isn't meant to be a knock on Wlad, we are in the classic forum after all, but most of us don't believe Wlad is capable of defeating Mike Tyson in his prime. You want to chalk it up to favoritism be my guest it doesn't change the fact that Tyson would have beaten up Wlad if they fought.

    By the way the only thing Wlad would accomplish if he was "allowed to hold" is that he can preserve his ego with a UD loss rather than a KO loss. You can't beat Tyson without taking risks. Wlad simply would be out of his element if he took risks against a fighter with Tyson's hand speed, power and athleticism.
     
    Man_Machine and Loudon like this.
  12. Loudon

    Loudon Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    35,344
    5,079
    Mar 7, 2012
    Those guys just looked to survive.

    They lost most of the rounds.

    Wlad wouldn’t have won a fight with those same tactics.

    At some point, it’s only realistic to assume that Mike would have gotten inside Wlad’s reach.
     
    ironchamp likes this.
  13. Loudon

    Loudon Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    35,344
    5,079
    Mar 7, 2012
    Exactly.

    Those awful tactics wouldn’t have won him the fight. And I think that Mike would still have gotten to him at some point.
     
    ironchamp likes this.
  14. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,702
    1,295
    Dec 16, 2012
    We disagree. Wlad was much better both at that technique he constantly used, & much better at landing the jab or 1 2 with an occasional hook & tying up.
    Green & Smith never did that other than with Tyson, they were an intimidated boxer & slugger, respectively.

    If all the holding that should be illegal is permitted as it so often is...
    A much larger ATG who was champion for years is very likely to beat anyone.
     
  15. fists of fury

    fists of fury Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,152
    1,009
    Oct 25, 2006
    Fair enough.