Mike Tyson vs either Klitschko brother

Wlad gets knocked out,you cant have a poor chin and expect to survive against Tyson,Vitali loses on points in a tough fight,if you think either fighter beats Tyson you know nothing about boxing..

 

Douglas? atsch Wlad may not have the greatest chin, but it's better than Busters ever was, that's for sure lol....

 

So you think Wlad would of survived the savage uppercut that dropped Douglas like a tonne of bricks along with all the other shots Buster took?
Wlad goes down from the first shot Tyson lands and stays down.
Buster also showed skills , fought a fight and gameplan Wlad has never shown in his career.

 

Poor chin? Wouldn't say so. Anyway Tyson doesn't have what it takes to beat either Klitschko brother.

 

All the new boxing fans are commenting on this thread. I'm guessing majority sub 21 years of age.

They've seen Wladimir destroy people in his TITLE defences that Tyson was fighting on the way UP as a 19 year old and all of a sudden Wladimir's legacy is enhanced.

 

Tyson fought a bunch of crackheads and winos dragged from the gutter... The 80s HW division was a mess.... Today is far better regardless of what anybody says... Clean fighters, no crackhead/wino contenders.

 

Go ask current or former fighters, trainers, promoters and people who train in boxing gyms does tyson have what it takes you keyboard warrior..

 

Tyson would KO wlad inside 5 - slips the jab and gets through with uppercuts

Vitali beats him.

 

Having recently just finished reading Tyson's fantastic biography, it's a wonder how he lasted as long as he did or did as well as he did.

A peak Tyson ('87 - '88 ) would, in my honest opinion have beaten either of the Ks in just a few rounds, although it might have taken him a round or two longer to break down Vitali.

Again, it's all opinion, but it's easy to remember the '90s Tyson who was a coke head, alcoholic and deeply troubled individual, whilst many forget the raw savage speed, power, aggression and intensity he fought with up to and shortly after the death of Cus.

 

Many people would argue both ways. That's my opinion, no need to get aggressive if it doesn't suit you. I've explained various times why I think that 22 years old Tyson doesn't stand much of a chance, especially against Vitali.

 

Like he Destroyed B. Smith and Tony Tucker?

Tyson was a flash in the pan, he was done in less than 4 years.

Both Klit's rule with an iron fist. Tyson doesn't last the distance.

 

Strange how everybody remembers Douglas loss, but no one mentions Brewster or Purrity.

Anyway, I do not think Wlad would be able to handle the kind of pressure. He has no inside game (apart from clinching, but he may get hit or DQ'd there), and whenever he meets any decent opponent he is extra-cautious... which is effective strategy generally, but not against Tyson. And his chin is also below average.

I would give Vilali much better chance. Very good chin, a bit bigger than his brother, and also tougher mentally.

 

I think Tyson takes out Wvlad in the early rounds overwhelming him with speed and combinations. Vitali is all wrong for Tyson in my opinion. He fought great backing up letting guys run into his punches(great timing).

 

Vitali would not beat prime Tyson, 1986-88. No way, no how, no sir.

And mostly likely not even defeat the version of Tyson who beat Ruddock twice.

Vitali would claim 'injury' and *****-out, same as he did vs. Byrd when the going got ruff the tuff-less got going, and against blown up middle weight with powder-puffs for fists I might add.

 

Wow lol. Good post.