Fair Enough man... From what I can gather, the question is: Wlad Vs. Michael Spinks...? Wow..Tough fight to call... I mean Spinks beat a somewhat old Larry Holmes twice, even though the fights weren't exactly blow-outs, he still beat a man I don't think Wlad would have beaten... That being said, I still would give Wlad a slight edge in the skills dept. over Spinks, and "IF" Wlad can show me the settled down version of Wlad Klits, with the powerful jab (that didn't make the last trip to Germany but was prevelant against Iggy); also add in a better mix to his punches, combinations and angles along with a smart aggressive game plan, and Wlad Klitschko KO's Michael Spinks... But if Michael can fluster Wlad and get him to open up his guard, or if Wlad gets lazy after he throws his jab and keeps his left low as he does way too often for a Heavyweight for my liking, I think the Light Heavyweight turned Heavyweight Champ, Michael Spinks expliots his holes and wastes Wald Klitschko... It's a tough call as Wlad has been way too unpredictable and inconsistent regarding his performance level over the years imo... But I think that's in and around where Wlad would rank with the ATG Heavyweights so far in his career (even though Michael Spinks really was a Light Heavyweight)... The main thing I disagree on is that Wlad is in his prime; I mean the guy has a lot he can improve on, and could be a dominate force for many years to come, but he really has to find a way to up his game, he has to learn how to take "smart chances" in the ring and he totally has to learn balance when throwing combinations (he leaves himself off balance and wide open quite a bit after he launches a big right hand, when really he should be in position to follow up with a left hook, imo)... To make things clear, as I have slammed some Klitschko nut-huggers already in my short stint talking with my fellow fight fans here on ESB; I am not a Wlad Klitschko hater... I actually like both brothers as boxers and I am grateful for the excitement they have/are adding to my favourite sport; but they are over-rated (not Tye Fields over-rated mind you ... lol). My nephews dad is huge Klitschko fan and we argue about the bros. all the time, yet I still root for them to win most of their fights, and I obviosuly respect them... But I have watched way to much boxing, both LIVE and on TV to grant either an honest comparison to the "proven" ATG's... That's it that's all..
Hey man thanks for stating your opinion. But it was actually Vitali I was interested in. The whole discussion was about him and Tyson. Someone here comes out and say that Tysons greatest wins was over MIchael Spinks 1988 and Larry Holmes was this fight in 88 also- i think it was , it was before the spinks fight right ? I say that Tyson was GREAT. But I am also saying, it is not because he beat a lot of TRULY GREAT fighters. That is not necessarily his fault. That Ali and Foreman (in prime condition) and others was not in his time and area. He beat the guys in front of him, what more could he do. Also I think It was only the 20-22 year old Tyson that was great. Past 22 years old Tyson was not great, he was good but not great. I say that also it is not necessary to beat up legends in order to be called a legend yourself. It is an unfair criteria. You are asking something impossible of a person if you ask that. I am just saying that I dont think that Tyson beat anybody(in their prime) who was better than VITALI. This is not necessarily something that has to be edged into stone. It is my opinion based on the knowledge that I have. Some people then say to me that Tysons two greatest wins( which in their opinion is Michael Spinks 88, and the HOlmes figh, the fight where Holmes was 38 or 39 years old.) Mike did beat those two guys up pretty well. Spinks in the first round and Holmes in round 4. I say that Vitali would have done the same . He would have beaten Spninks and the 1988/89 version of HOlmes. Maybe not in 1 or 4 rounds, but he would have won. I think so. Spinks and Holmes were not Mikes greatest wins, I THINK. Maybe it was Bruno and Razor Ruddock. Those were really good boxers. But I think that Vitali would have beaten them also. Maybe not as convincingly as Tyson. But eventually he would have beaten them. So to say it again: A 22 year old Tyson would have defeated a prime VITALI. And that would then have been his greatest win, because all the other guys THAT TYSON ACTUALLY BEAT, Vitali would have beaten them two. For the record the two greatest heavyweights that I have ever seen is Mohammed Ali and Lennox Lewis.
I am just reading my post above. I am not very clear or precise. Please excuse me, I have the flu, I can barely think or write. But I think that the message comes across.
neither of the klits, have been in there with a guy of tyson´s class.. the klits look good agaisnt technical flawed fighters, because their size advantage puts them in a position, to take advantage of those flaws.. a guy like tyson in his prime, doesnt have those flaws or technical problems. lets remember klitty boy vitty, got his face re-arranged by a semi retired lennox. thats the first opponent on klitty´s resume, who has world class. the best vitty ever did, was a 6 round tko loss agains lennox, who wasnt anywhere near his best. a prime tyson, despite being shorter, does infact have the same class. a precision puncher, who delivers combinations with speed and power. with his upright stance, klitty would be perferct to nail, with a left hook to the body. tyson would slip that jab without much trouble, that includes wladdys aswell, and at some point land a grueling combo and put him out. likewise i would say, a prime lennox would ko vitty the klitty. his punches in their fight, looked a little slower and lesser in power, then in his prime. prime tyson via ko, nice little left hook to the body.