Prime Mike Tyson vs Prime Wlad Klitschko

I don't want to get involved in your debate with Dino, but couldn't a 22 year old version of Mike, have beaten today's version or any other version of Wlad?

Also, Mike wasn't prime against Douglas.

Forget his young age at the time. When a guy is in his prime, he is both physically and mentally at 100%, fighting to his full capabilities.

Mike's prime ended, as soon as King and the money came in, and boxing was no longer his number one priority.

 

I agree.

Tyson had reached his peak before he lost to Douglas.

After Cayton went, and King and the money came in, he never progressed any further.

Because he didn't want to. He didn't have the desire.

Instead of dedicating himself to training and continuing to learn his craft by studying the greats of the past, his number one priority became chasing women and partying.

He only had four years at the top, where he gave everything he had.

From 89 onwards, it was all downhill.

But that doesn't mean that a 22 year old version of Mike, fighting to his full capabilities, couldn't have beaten some the greats of the past, as well as the Wlad of today.

 

As far as I'm concerned, they're not excuses, they're factors.

Yes, I have alluded to the sad loss of his mother on several occasions.

But that is what spurred him on.

I've seen a great documentary, and have read interviews etc.

They asked him if he wanted to pull out, and he said no.

He then used all of his anger and his great sadness, to motivate him going into the fight.

The man had an absolute will of iron that night in Tokyo.

After Tokyo, is when he grieved.

He then lost to Evander in just three rounds, and then he never fought again for six years.

Now that speaks volumes to me.

If you don't agree with what I've wrote, I respect that.

But just out of interest, I'd like to ask you two questions, if you don't mind?


1. If Mike had've fought Douglas in June of 1988, instead of Michael Spinks, do you think Douglas would have knocked him out?


2. If Evander had've fought Douglas in Tokyo, instead of Mike, do you think he would have knocked him out easily in just three rounds?


Thanks!


:good

 

I hate when my favourite gets beaten waaaaahaaaaawaaa boohoo

 

Of course altering the dates and speculating on what ifs won't change anything.

But the point is, when a fighter gets beat, it's not always due the fact that they were inferior to their opponent.

Sometimes, other factors play a part.


Michael Spinks was a great fighter. According to Mackie Shilstone, he wasn't a natural LHW. His natural walking around weight, was in the 190's, and he had to work hard to get down.

He showed in his fights with Larry Holmes that he was a great fighter, even if you think that Holmes deserved the decisions.

But against Mike, he froze.

Everyone around him has alluded to that.

If he'd have gone into the fight with Mike in a different mindset, and he'd have stuck to a gameplan, the result may have been different. Nobody knows.


Maybe you're right, maybe Douglas would always have beaten Mike. We won't ever know, but I don't think he would have, and all I'm doing, is asking people to consider my logical opinions.


Now Wlad lost to Sanders, Puritty and Brewster in his 20's.

And people say that wasn't Wlad at his peak. They claim his peak is right now, in his late 30's.

I'm not going to disagree with that.

But I don't think it's fair that people scoff that Mike was past his peak at just 23/24, and then say that Wlad is at his peak now in his late 30's.

If people are saying that Wlad wasn't at his best against Sanders etc, then why can't I say that Mike wasn't at his best against Douglas?


Fighters don't peak at certain ages.

A fighter peaks when he's mentally and physically at 100%, and he's fighting to his full capabilities and beating good opposition.

With Mike it came early, and with Wlad it came late.


I truly believe that a 1988 version of Mike Tyson, would have beaten Douglas, and possibly Evander and Lennox.

Likewise, I truly believe that today's version of Wlad would beat the versions of Sanders, Puritty and Brewster that he lost to.

Even though he lost two of those fights at 27 and 28, he wasn't at his peak.

Just like how Mike wasn't peak after 1989, when his life had spiralled out of control and boxing no longer became his top priority.


:good

 

A fine contribution.

:good

 

Loudon, imagine Bonecrusher Smith with faster hands, more power and just as much(if not more) reluctance to get hit or engage in a s****.

To me, the ref plays a major role in the outcome. Mike, even then before he lost his sh!t, wasnt the most patient or foul free guy. I see this fight ending (ordered from what I think is least to most likely)....
in an early Mike Tyson KO due to Wlads lack of infighting and questionable punch resistance

In a NO contest due to repeated warnings to both fighters (Wlad for holding all the time, Mike for throwing elbows and hitting on the break)

In one of the 2 actually winning by DQ

and finally, the most likely outcome (in my mind anyway), Wladimir Klitschko winning by a somewhat lopsided UD (9-3, or 10-2), in a fight where the vast majority of fans and press feel like the winner is a total of an azzhole and would prefer to watch Mikes next fight anyway.

P.S. Post prison Mike gets stopped in 9 IMO

 

S C R A P is a bad word? In what country?

 

I respect your opinion Dan.

I respect anyone who uses logical examples to back up their points, even if I don't agree.

I can't agree that Mike would have lost a 9-3 or 10-2 decision.

But I enjoyed reading your post, and it's great that we view things from different perspectives.


:good

 

It's not the word S.C.R.A.P. mate.

It's the C.R.A.P. part of the word.

It's the new censorship on here.


A few days ago, I tried to say that Joe Calzaghe had s.c.r.a.p.e.d. by Bernard Hopkins when they fought in 2008.

But it blanked out the r.a.p.e. part of the word.


I've had to edit lots of my posts in the last few days.

 

You are.

Mental strength can't overcome a substantial difference in ability. It might help a boxer edge a fight between equals. Antonio Barrera has pulled this off a couple of times around.

It's not circumstances that decide, it's how you deal with them. Mike Tyson was mentally flawed, Wladimir Klitschko was not.

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that who Tyson was mentally was catching up with him? Can you see Manny Pacquiao go downhill because he makes money? Or Floyd Mayweather? Those guys are a different breed.

To me, this statement makes no sense at all. I'm not sure what "shot" means in this case. If Tyson couldn't be bothered to train properly, that's just beeing lazy.

We don't know how James Douglas was affected by the passing of his mother so we shouldn't make guesses. The simple truth is that people who are able to hold up their own end have it in them, regardless of what goes on around them.

Tyson run over a whole bunch of good boxers, but just as Wladimir Klitschko he didn't fought fighters cut for greatness. The plain truth might be that Tyson was beatable all along, so someone kicking his **** and getting his **** kicked in return isn't all that strange.

I don't find it convincing to credit Douglas win to the death of one of his parent. I doubt the passing of my own mum will make me defeat a dominant heavyweight boxing champ of ATG-standard.

Has it occured to you that the punches Douglas stood up to against Tyson might have ruined him? It's a possibilty that makes a whole lot of sense. Tyson won many fights against good athletes by simply forcing them into an exchange. His punches were dynamite!

I'd consider circumstances if they were more severe than Tyson making fortunes and Douglas taking a huge mental blow before the fight.

I don't think Roy Jones Jr vs Glen Johnson is comparable. Jones Jr was a walking zombie while Tyson and Douglas went to war. I also think Jones Jrs non performence against Johnson was partly about him going downhill for good, and partly a temporary all time low.

If you want to judge fighters from their best ever moments only and pay no attention to their usual self, of course those stats makes no sense.

Beeing at your best in terms of speed, power and reflexes has everything to do with beeing in your prime.

A boxers prime is when his youth overlapses with his development of boxing skill. It's absolutely not about those one or two moments of their career when Good reached down to them from above.

:bart

If Tyson is the better man, I think the version who fought Lennox Lewis could have been enough. It's a toss up fight to me. Tyson has a set of great assets but didn't fought any greats (No, ancient Larry Holmes doesn't count) and Wlad has a much different set of great assets as well as weaknesses that should be able to exploit.

 

I didn't say that he was only prime in that fight, I said a 23 yr old tyson, are you saying that his prime ended when he was 22? I mean this whole thread is based on Prime vs Prime and you can't seem to grasp that.

So when would you say Tyson's prime was in 86 when he went 10 rounds with the dangerous Jode Ribalta? I've been told that he was never back to his best after prison. so that means his prime was 85-91?

he fought nothing but bums until he went the distance with Tillis, what I'm telling you that you can't seem to understand is that the best version of Wlad (that's what Prime means) is not the Wlad that lost to those fighters (Purrity, Sanders, Brewster) but that the best version of Wlad is the one that has barely lost a round in the last 8 years. he's figured it out and is dangerous.

again Wlad by TKO 5 or 6 (Prime vs Prime)

 

Listen mate you'd be better off talking to a brick wall than this dumbass.

 

It's a 50/50 fantasy fight, no right or wrong answers in my opinion.

 

I agree with this.Wlad also has great footwork so it would be difficult for Tyson to get inside.