Prime Mike Tyson vs Prime Wlad Klitschko

Fair enough.

I respect your opinion.

:good

 

Good post, I'm sick of the excuses for Tyson's drubbing against Douglas. The man was outclassed and outfought from the opening bell against a fighter that was his Kryptonite, the fight was so one sided Douglas would have beaten two Tyson's.

Funny how the Tyson nuthuggers make every excuse up in the book when facts are Douglas had been pretty damn ill just prior to the bout and had been on some strong medication for the ailments, we probably didn't even see Douglas at his best in Tokyo yet he still prevailed by being the better fighter.

 

Has no one here ever had devestating news occur to them at just a bad time? Where you really need to take a break from everything? I think thats pretty much what happened to Tyson. If not, then why else would Douglas go on to be a gigantic nobody in the HW division? Yes, he had an iron will that night and he showed up for that 1 event of his lifetime. However, Mike was not mentally there anymore after his divorce. Why else would he get knocked down against Greg Page?

 

Maybe just maybe Tyson's style was made to suit against Douglas??? By discrediting Douglas you're making Tyson look even worse, shouldn't a so called all time great handle such an average fighter whatever the excuse? It's not as though he was injured or out of condition, keep on digging those holes....

 

mike Tyson beats wlad one punch on the chin and wlad would be panicking than its only a matter of time before mike ko's him.

 

what wlad has been ko'd by lesser fighters then Tyson his chin is made of glass.

 

it doesn't matter why his prime was over, the fact is the best version of Tyson is a 23yr old Tyson and the best version of Wlad is not the one that lost to Sanders and Purrity...

for someone who claims to be smart enough to read someone elses mind you lack the comprehension to understand basic logic.

the question is Prime for Prime... Prime Tyson only lost to Buster Douglas whatever the reasons, and a Prime Wlad in my determination has not been beaten...

to clarify Prime Wlad for me is not the young destroyer who walked through Mercer and Shufford etc. Prime Wlad is the more intelligent fighter who retains the same power and yes is a little boring from time to time but has barely lost a round in the last 8 years...


that's why I say Wlad wins this fight... if you want to take a 23yr old vs a 23yr old then I think it's much more of a 50/50 depending on who lands the first big punch... but again that's not the question

 

That's what these dumbasses cannot comprehend, Tyson was fully developed at a young age and had basically reached his limit in progression, each fighter develops and matures differently.

 

AnotherFan,

I don't believe I'm overdoing anything.

Of course everyone has different circumstances surrounding them.

But IMHO, you're completely underestimating the psychological side of things.

Coming back from a brutal loss, or fighting whilst injured, is not the same as what Mike went through.

Because when Wlad got beat, he was hurt inside.

But he had a burning desire to come back and better himself, and he worked on his flaws with one of the greatest trainers of all time. He had Manny and Vitali by his side, and he wanted to come back stronger. He was 100% committed and he had a drive to succeed.

Mike didn't have that will to carry on learning. He didn't have the desire to commit himself to giving his all. Again, people will read this and say "well, that was on him, I've no sympathy." Which is understandable. But that's the truth. Boxing is as much mental, has it is physical. Wlad came back to prove a point and to win the belts. Whereas Mike came back just to get paid.

From 1989, Mike wasn't the same guy mentally. The signs were there before he fought James. Wlad would never have chased women, partied and cut corners in training. He'd never abuse his body like Mike. He'd never fight just for the money. It's no good having the skill, without the will.

Mike was mentally shot in his early 20's. That's a fact as far as I'm concerned.

James was obviously devastated by the passing of his Mother. He was asked several times if he wanted to cancel the fight. He said no, and used all of his anger and sadness, and went ahead with the fight, and put all of his emotion into his training. He had a will of iron that night, and after the fight, is when he grieved. Again, you may not have an ounce of sympathy for Mike, and that's fine by me. But Mike wasn't there mentally, and he didn't train properly. He was nowhere near 100% both physically and mentally. You could see that, when he was on chat shows etc. What happened after the fight? Evander dumped James in just three rounds. What does that tell you? You're saying that Mike got beat, just because James was a better fighter. Yet Evander handled him in three rounds?

We know that styles make fights, but Evander wasn't good enough to crush a guy in three, who'd just knocked out Mike. The scenario reminds me of Glen Johnson winning nine rounds against Roy, and then knocking him cold. After which he went on to lose to Clinton Woods. I know I can't prove it, but I'd have bet my life, that if Mike had've fought to his full capabilities, and James hadn't have lost his Mother, James would never have won that fight. I'd also have bet my life, that if Evander had've fought James in Tokyo, there's no way he'd have beaten him in just three rounds. When Evander fought James after Tokyo, James's heart wasn't in it. What happened after the fight with Evander? James didn't fight for another SIX YEARS! Six years! So what does that tell you? It speaks volumes to me. He never gave his all against Evander. He didn't lose in three rounds, just because Evander was so superior. The mind is stronger than the body. Psychology plays a huge part in anyone's life. A guy's mindset determines what he can and can't do.

So it seems absolutely ridiculous to me, that you can just pass of the win, without questioning it, and looking at any other factors.

On his day James was a good fighter. But he had lost to Tucker and Ferguson a few years earlier. Also, Mike arguably beat better fighters than James before he fought him.

So there's no way I'm buying that Mike lost to James, just because he wasn't as good, without looking at other factors.

He was better on the night.

Just like how Glen was against Roy.

Look at their careers.

There's no way Roy lost to Glen, just because Glen was a better fighter.

Please answer me this question honestly.

If Glen Johnson had fought Roy in 2002, before he'd gone to HW and back, and had been knocked out by Tarver, would he, in your honest opinion, have won every round against Roy, before knocking him cold in the 9th?

If you answer no, then you have to consider other factors as to why he lost in 2004, such as his mental state etc.

That's what I'm doing with Mike.

Because again, from 85-88, Mike looked awesome.

Whilst James lost to Tucker and Ferguson.

James then knocked out Mike.

Evander then easily beat James.

Then James had a six year retirement.

Those are the stats.

But those stats don't make sense to me at all.

There must have been other factors that contributed to those results.

You don't have to stubbornly claim anything.

A boxers prime has nothing to do with age. A boxers prime is when he's physically and mentally at 100%, while fighting to his full capabilities.

People only scoff at people like me, because of Mike's age.

They can't comprehend how a guy can be past it at 24.

But that's because they don't look at the psychological side. They only look at what seemed to be, a fit, 24 year old guy, with a good few years before he reached his peak.

Do you like football?

George Best was past his best after his early 20's.

There's lots of similarities with Mike.

He went from a guy who's only passion in life was playing football and training, to a guy who drank, partied, and got laid.

Football no longer became his top priority. He started turning up late for training, and then he started missing training. He was past his best at 26, and he never regained his previous form. He produced moments of magic now again, but he was never the same. He only really had about five years at the very top.

Paul Gascoigne was the same. He only had five years at the top.

I'm sure there's many other examples as well.

It's a question of styles, and both fighters being at their best, fighting to their full capabilities.

If you put a post prison version of Mike in with today's Wlad, he wouldn't have had a chance.

Can you imagine Wlad as he is now, fighting the version of Mike that fought Lennox?

I wouldn't be able to watch it.

But I would honestly have put money on any version of Mike from 86-88, to have beaten any version of Wlad that you choose.


:good

 

So your telling me the best version of Tyson is the Tyson who was partying in Japan and had his long term trainer frozen out by King and replaced with a couple of dumbos before he lost to Douglas?
You're telling me thats a fact , but then you can pick and choose Wlads prime because you can't deal with the fact he was blown out by ordinary men.

Such is the pure ignorance of Klitschko nuthuggers who follow only a man and not this sport of a whole.


And Douglas looked like a world beating, special talent when he beat Mike.
That can't be said about Brewster , Purrity , Williamson and Sanders.
They boxed like their usual , normal selves and still beat Wlad.

 

You were such a laughing stock -under the name -Copernicus -on another forum , that you quit posting there:rofl

When you first came here under - Dreamcatcher - you were banned after a few months for being an idiot

You're still an idiot and a horrible poster who only supports boxers from the Eastern Bloc.
Ive no interest in you like you have in me. Don't quote again.

 

Im more important to you than you are to me. You took that last post badly and now you've gone on an emotional breakdown.
Complaining about people giving me attention , then you go bumbling my threads:rofl
You pathetic panty liner. You're an absolute joke. You give me more attention than anyone on here and i want nothing to do with you.

 

I'm sick of people who say that Douglas beat Mike, just because he was a better fighter, without taking into consideration many other factors.

After Douglas beat Mike, he got hammered by Holy in just three rounds, and then never fought again for six years.

If you look into it and look at many factors, it appears that Mike wasn't at his best for the Douglas fight, and Douglas wasn't at his best for his fight with Evander.

If Douglas hadn't have beaten Mike, somebody else would have done shortly afterwards. It was on the cards from the Bruno fight.

His life was a mess, and he wasn't training properly.

If you have no sympathy, that's cool.

But if you're going to fight guys while you're not at 100% both physically and mentally, and you're not fighting to your full capabilities, then sooner rather than later, you're going to come unstuck.

That's what's happened.

 

Maybe Mike wasn't at his best, and Douglas fought the fight of his life, due to having an iron will because of the sad loss of his Mother?

You clearly lack perspective.

 

Good post.

From 1989 onwards, Mike fought for the cheque, and not for the love of the game.

It's no good having the skill, if you haven't got the will.

You have to have both to reach the very top.