Mike Tyson (Holmes Fight) V W Klitchko (Joshua Fight)?

Hmmmm.......shouldnt the burden of proof lie with you since its you that made the claim?

 

Certainly. here is Wladimir Klitschko's boxing record:

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/7035

 

I didn't ignore the context of your post. Their was none. You used a fight where Tyson was over ten years past his peak, had just returned from a 2 year lay-off, and was shot. It wasn't "all kinds of hell" as you attempted to pass over. He was somewhat troubled, because of all of these factors. Even the commentators were saying "Tyson showing no speed at all", "he looks like he's in slow motion" and called him "the mark of a shot fighter". Despite all of this he still ended up brutally knocking his opponent out early. It's laughable the depths you have to plunge to to use this in an argument against him.

 

I agree. It would resemble Tyson vs Bruno and Smith as well. Wladmir has longer arms than Holmes, a more defensive fighter, and was physically stronger. Holmes, by his own admission, was pretty much done with boxing until Don King opened up the brief case full of cash--literally showing up for a pay check. Wladmir was also inactive and old but had a renewed vigor and determination to end his career on a high note...hence his fight of the year with the inexperienced but very game and well schooled Joshua.

For those reasons I feel Wladmir lasts a little longer than Holmes. He has his moments frustrating Tyson with his solid jabs, right hands, economical footwork, and clinch spamming. Probably even rocks Tyson once or twice if he puts his body weight into it. But this is when Tyson was at his peak with his 2nd to none head movement. Wladmir simply wouldn't be able to land enough consistently to stop Tyson due to his elusiveness combined with Wladmir's fear of being countered (Tyson was a well oiled machine and used to dodging jabs and 1-2 straight shots from skilled strong boxers in their 20's let alone 40's). But in the end, Tyson is just too rough, fast, explosive, and accurate for Wladmir and drops him twice en route to an 8th round stoppage.

Wladmir wouldn't even be able to win a decision if he somehow survived due to point deductions from excessive holding and being dropped multiple times. Tyson would be the busier guy outlanding and out-working Wladmir who would be mostly jabbing and holding 50% of a round.

 

It's laughable that you ignore the fact that Tyson has ALWAYS had problems with hit n holders. Wlad excelled in beating short fighters with little reach. He's almost like an amalgam of everything that gave Mike problems: he's a big jabber that uses distance to control the tempo and who likes to suffocate the attack of smaller men on the inside.

Here's PRIME MIKE having difficulty with old man Tillis, who likewise hit and held him to muffle his attack.

This content is protected

I await your new portfolio of excuses.

 

You literally just created a straw man. We weren't debating the Tillis bout. We were debating Tyson's bout with Botha which you disingenuously and laughably used in an argument against Tyson. Now that you've been defeated, you're trying to ashamedly change the subject. Not under my watch you don't.

 

Oh, oh, oh. Are you quite sure? I foresee embarrasment for you.

Let's back it up.

88Chris05 said "That style isn't going to cut the mustard against Tyson." referring to Wladimir's boxing system.

my very next post references Botha using a hit n hold style against Tyson and having much success:

BCS8 "A much lesser fighter than Wlad had Tyson in all kinds of trouble with his hit n hold tactics."

then you jump in with

"using that version of Tyson to make an argument for Klitschko."

there's a reason I said

"It's pretty disingenuous of you to ignore the context of my post."

Now that you've made a fool of yourself and proven that you can't follow a simple argument across a few posts, you're trying to change the argument. Kindly take some vitamins, drink some coffee, and try to focus. The argument is about Klitschko's style. Whether it would be effective or not.

Clearly, Tyson had trouble with those elements of Wlad's style.

 

I fail to see any miscomprehension on my part. It's very simple, you could've used ANY other fight around Tyson's prime which he struggled with people who somewhat resembled Wlad including Tillis and Smith and you would've had a somewhat arguable position. Yet you chose a fight where Tyson was over ten years past his prime, shot, and coming off a near 2 year lay-off. In any case, I made a thread on this very subject. We can continue our discussion there.

 

maybe im mistaken here but arent we talking bout the wlad of 41yrs of age and his last fight? His previous fights have nothing to do with the debate. Im judging him solely on the Joshua fight, which as you know full well, is the subject here.

 

I see.

So Joshua = Tyson. They fight the same, have the same style and are the same size. Wlad would fight them identically.

Got it.

 

And I did not because the Botha fight really highlights Tyson's difficulty in dealing with a boxer that hits and holds. Tillis (who is a garbageman's version of Wlad) show how Tyson struggled with fighters that were jab and movers.

 

Relevance has nothing to do in a debate with BCS8. Come on man keep up

 

im not even gonna get into that last nonsensical reply. Your clearly unable to address straight forward statements and i aint gonna argue with you, so im gonna have to bail. You have a good day sir

 

Clearly you have no wish to explore the actual context of such a fight and prefer to engage in fanboyism and absolute statements.