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)
  2. Klitschko by KO

    6 vote(s)
  3. Tyson by UD

    0 vote(s)
  4. Klitschko by UD

    5 vote(s)
  1. ironchamp

    ironchamp Boxing Addict Full Member

    Sep 5, 2004
    Green and Smith felt his power and his speed and were unable to mount an offense to keep them in the fight. Wlad may try his 1-2 then tie up tactics but a sharp Tyson counter would either force him to fight or to hug neither of which would fare well for Wladimir.
    Loudon likes this.
  2. Loudon

    Loudon Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Mar 7, 2012
    It doesn’t really matter if Wlad was better than Smith and Green. It’s how they’d have matched up stylistically.

    Wlad would have found it extremely difficult to have landed a jab on Mike.

    How would Wlad have won the rounds just by initiating clinches all of the time?

    Mike wouldn’t have been there to have been constantly clinched and leaned upon like how Povetkin was.

    At some stage of the fight, Mike’s speed and elusiveness would have gotten him inside of Wlad’s reach.
    Last edited: May 3, 2021
  3. Seamus

    Seamus Devotee of the Little Red Book Full Member

    Feb 11, 2005
    Mike could be hit and hit often with the jab. He could only keep up that evasive bob and weave for so long. Douglas proved this in spades. Wlad's jab was as hard as Buster's right hand. Mike had answers as long as he was asking the questions. Wlad would ask his own questions with that jab, with the right and the hook off the jab.

    Folks act like Wlad tipped over every time he was pressured and prefer to point out either pre-prime and or post-prime results and ignore a 10 year sample size where he dominated over some excellent fighters.
    Bokaj, Kamikaze and Entaowed like this.
  4. Loudon

    Loudon Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Mar 7, 2012
    Mike was absolutely exhausted after just 5 rounds in Tokyo because he’d hardly trained for the fight.

    He had no stamina whatsoever. You can see that by rewatching the fight. He was completely gassed, where he just looked for a huge power shot in order to bail him out of trouble.

    Douglas also had a will of iron that night.

    In this scenario, Wlad would have gone into a fight with a prime version of Mike Tyson, who’d have been fighting to his full capabilities. And a prime version of Wlad would have been extremely cautious. Because a prime version of Wlad obviously knew that he’d suffered 3 knockout losses earlier in his career, which also included a scare against Samuel Peter.

    Ten years of cautious dominance over mostly B and C level guys wasn’t enough to have given Wlad huge confidence against an undefeated version of a prime Mike Tyson, who was a ruthless finisher, and who possessed supreme confidence as well as every attribute that Wlad was vulnerable to.

    Mike would more than likely have intimidated Wlad both inside and outside of the ring.

    IMHO, I don’t think that Wlad would truly have believed that he could have beaten a version of Mike Tyson from 1988. And I think that his tactics would have reflected that.
    Brixton Bomber likes this.
  5. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    Jun 9, 2010
    Only once?

    That's good to know, given that you really can't know that any "Tyson-istas" have voted.

    You give Tyson a 20% chance? But you seemed fairly certain a Tyson/Wlad bout would "settle down to a methodical, metronome pounding at range", in an earlier post in this thread.

    I mean, you were almost certain of a Wlad win, earlier, were you not?

    If you now give Tyson a 20% chance, does your vote for Wlad come with a caveat/rider? If so, is your vote invalid? Are there other Wlad-voters, who think like you do? Can we reduce the value of their votes, as well?

    Disproportionate to what?

    I think you overestimate the "caveats and riders", both in terms of their number and their value, as reasoning for why the poll results have turned out the way they have. I would be interested to know how many individual voters have done so, with stated provisos, relative to the number of votes received.

    I think we can tell.

    Probably because I cannot help but view your take as over-complicating what is a relatively straightforward exercise. I have not drawn from this thread what you perceive as voting laced with doubt.

    So, in part, I was implying that there is no need to caveat a pick in this case. Although, in the post of yours I first responded to, you did mention something to the effect of Rooney being in Tyson's corner, as an example of one of the caveats, which is what prompted my referencing of '88 Tyson, being a stipulation of the Poll.

    Again - I think you might be over egging the number of caveats given, relative to the number of voters. Even if caveats had been posted for every vote, you can't know to what extent these reflect a doubt. Ultimately, a vote is a pick of the fighter one thinks will win. There is always the option to abstain, if one is truly unsure.

    So, as I previously allude to, you have doubts, but still voted for Wlad. Do we need to dissect the reasoning behind your individual vote to see how sure you are? Of course we don't.

    There are, at the time of me writing this post, 52 votes for Tyson. How many of those votes came with written caveats, qualifications and riders?

    Moreover, once you have that number and ratio, how would you then go on to quantify the claimed lack of certainty, this figure allegedly represents?
    JohnThomas1 likes this.
  6. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    Dec 16, 2012
    It was more unwilling to mount an offense than unable-they did not want to risk being knocked out, which was likely, but without enough confidence to try it would have been much more likely.

    Wlad would choose to hug. Difference between him & Bonehugger & Green is he could land effectively & tie up & force resets super effectively.
    You think Tyson's speed & skills would be enough to overcome this.
    I think there would be a reasonable chance, but it is by no means the most statistically likely outcome.

    And IF Wlad was allowed to be a Klinchko, especially against a much smaller man who was often easily tied up...

    Tyson would have little chance.
    Last edited: May 3, 2021
  7. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    Dec 16, 2012
    I really doubt that Wlad would find it very difficult to land a jab on Tyson.
    That is an extreme statement, that a much smaller fighter could neutralize the first defense of a way larger great jabber.
    Even a rusty Ali, with less of a size (length)) difference between them, who in FOTC had some trouble finding Frazier with the jab as often as any other opponent, still jabbed him silly until he wore down later.

    Tyson could likely take that punishment too, although Wlad hit somewhat harder.
    But that does not mean Tyson could have evaded the clinches-& if like in Ali-Frazier 2 it was indulged, Tyson is not going to nail him.

    Wlad was way better than Tyson's opponents at landing before he tied people up.

    Ask yourself-how often in a hypothetical match up where the result could reasonably be interpreted either way...Do I go with the guy who i really do *not* want to win?
    I suspect like most you are letting what you wish-I would prefer Tyson take out the larger octopus also-
    color your interpretation of what is likely to occur.
  8. Glass City Cobra

    Glass City Cobra Boxing Addict Full Member

    Jan 6, 2017
    This is often overlooked. There is a difference between being a good fighter and being a good boxer.

    Wladmir would not be able to put on a clinic using surgical precision firing crisp text book attacks at his comfortable outside range for 12 rounds. That is simply not going to happen against a man as fast and as ferocious as Mike Tyson. The only time Wladmir is able to box like that is against slow, plodding, heavy footed guys that lack defense and head movement. When he has a moving target like Fury or an aggressive guy who won't back off like Peter or Brewster it's a completely different story.

    The reason Wladmir got so much praise in the Joshua bout is because for once in his life, he actually fought and went to war going back and forth with furious exchanges. I personally have that bout as a top 100 all time performance despite his loss. Wladmir to this day is traumatized by his early stoppage losses and has a hard time opening up. People can bring up his long streak of title defenses all they want, but rarely did he ever face someone who would force him to fight and go to war. Tyson, win or lose, is going to make him fight, period. And if that happens his chances go up exponentially because Wladmir will leave himself open at some point and Tyson will be able to land something big. I'm not saying Tyson wins with the first real shot he lands in an instant, but it will definitely cause some damage and potentially swing things in his favor.
  9. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    Jun 9, 2010
    Re the Wlad/Joshua bout, I couldn't agree more, in that Wlad's performance was worthy of praise.

    I would add, however, that Wlad's failure to capitalize on the trouble he had Joshua in, speaks as much to the 'Wlad as boxer, not fighter' viewpoint, as any other of Wlad's performances.
  10. ecto55

    ecto55 להחזיר את ממלכת דוד Full Member

    May 28, 2009
    A joke, obviously, but taken at face value I suppose.

    Well, without naming names you can surely suspect...I can't say that a pick for Tyson that comes with a post about Tyson's biceps, hyper-vasularity and 'punching with bad intentions' (don't we all do that when we punch?) means the poster is a Tyson-ista, but these type of posts always seem to funnel in for the same few fighters (Tyson, Pacquiou, Foreman etc). Very rarely do they flow towards a sublime boxer in the same way. So can I really be blamed for suspecting there is a juvenile tendency within these posts / picks? Power is an overrated quality in boxing anyway, but when overrated power is itself overrated I really don't how to begin to argue against it. Its almost impossible.

    I still am certain of a Wlad win, and my calculation that comes to a 80/20 spit in favour of Wlad. Its not irreconcilable....in fact, this is the whole of point of my recent interaction with this thread. My opinion is that Wlad puts a methodical clinic on Tyson, but Tyson's early speed might catch Wlad. I think the chances of a specifically trained-for-Tyson Wlad (not an amorphous 'peak' version taking a quality from this fight or that fight) getting caught are negligible, so a slim potential (10, 20, maybe 25%) chance exists. Surely these riders almost always exist. I have no problem with these riders, as you correctly read I do them and think its actually a good thing....but the way it translates in the poll seems perverse.

    Disproportionate to the aggregate of comments where there was less certainty in many posts. I see mentions about factors that can influence fights as reservations about the likely outcome. I mean, these people express them for a reason. I guess others don't see it that way.

    Perhaps....I read a few in a couple of pages and extrapolated that across the thread. Even so, the way it interacts with the poll results is a common issue and a pet peeve. Ideally, when someone has a pick they could 'load' their pick with the degree of sureness they have. So, my pick would be 80% sure (which is pretty damn sure for a boxing match - i.e. I'd put money on it) of one pick. It'd also be a good way to determine who are the alts, teenagers and kooks.

    It just gets depressing, especially when you see a John Henry Lewis or a Burley polling at 0-10 or 2-15. I understand the allure of the familiar and also modern marketing methods, but this is two relatively modern guys. I'm just surprised I suppose.

    Well, I usually start with the axiom that there can only ever be five basic outcomes in a boxing match, and then proceed to do the technical stuff to eliminate the unlikely. Then I factor in the context, so like in the Hagler - Burley fight, there's bugber all chance that Hagler fighting in 1942 off four weeks notice and without his monastic camp is the fully-prepped / conditioned Hagler we know / love from the 80's. Makes a big difference. Loudon made a great point earlier about knowledge of the other fighter's abilities in a hypothetical - from both Tyson and Wlad's perspective....I haven't fully worked through that yet, but as you can see the contextual stuff can make or break a fight. So, it is complicated if you actually think it through, and caveats and riders are a 'good sign'; but you may be right in that I'm trying to explain the poll results in an artificial way.

    Well, Rooney was sacked in '88 and we are talking about 'peak' Tyson, which the Tyson acolytes say is in '88. So you can have Tyson trained / cornered by Rooney, or Tyson trained / cornered by Jay Bright, both in 1988. I wouldn't want to be being pounded on by Wlad for ten rounds and need to rely on Jay Bright for the magic-cat-out-of-the-hat masterstroke to win the fight....let alone what it would say about Tyson's fight prep. So it rightfully is an important consideration. Riders and qualifications to picks matter.

    I think there is a way...a loading factor could be attributed to each pick based on the pickers certainty. So I'm 80% sure of 1 pick.

    Of course you do. If someone picks Tyson because he wears black trunks or is American then he's a moron. If he picks Tyson because he believes Wlad is susceptible to a dedicated, multi-round body attack in close, then there is a reason/s behind the pick to justify it.

    I'm not sure, but enough for me to notice it. Take Entaowed for a recent example....its a vote in the Tyson column but doubt exists. There's a limitation with these polls and that's without getting into the wackos who have / use alt accounts for polls to 'substantiate' their opinions.
  11. Glass City Cobra

    Glass City Cobra Boxing Addict Full Member

    Jan 6, 2017
    Man_Machine and JohnThomas1 like this.
  12. Odins beard

    Odins beard Fentanyl is one hell of a drug.... Full Member

    Apr 13, 2014
    I most certainly am not, but you grab him he holds back
  13. BCS8

    BCS8 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Aug 21, 2012

    Keep walking kid.
  14. BCS8

    BCS8 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Aug 21, 2012
    I tend to agree with this. That's why I think he'd UD Mike instead og KOing him late even if he could. Some people have pointed out Tyson had a kind of silent agreement not to punch out of clinches, and I think that's valid. Wlad likewise often had the same silent agreement where he'd not try press for the KO as long as the other guy didn't try to get too violent. He'd be happy with the points win. It's debatable whether this is good or bad. Younger Wladimir was more of a scrapper, but he lost more. Older, Steward style Wlad was less ambitious but also much harder to get to.
  15. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    Dec 16, 2012
    This is a discerning & intelligent post!
    But as for what you said about my opinion...I had not voted yet, & actually I was saying that Tyson's chance goes way up if the rules against clinching were enforced.
    But I still do not have much confidence there, it would be near 50-50 given the size differential (only relevant when the Big Man is World Class too), & Wlad's ability to land some offense.

    Actually if I vote based upon no information on how things are refereed, given that often boxers are allowed too much holding, if we average in that happening I would say Wlad wins more often!

    Even though I would want the fight to be clean, & generally favor the man who wants to engage more, & someone so much smaller (although due to his lower body, more muscle for his height).