Prime Tyson vs Wladimir Klitschko

I'm not even confident that Mike Tyson would beat Alexander Povetkin on points either.

Keep in mind that Povetkin has never been out-boxed or outpointed clearly and legitimately by ANYBODY. Wladimir Klitschko, albeit past his prime, had to foul his way to a victory. And the other tough fights he had against the likes of Eddie Chambers, Marco Huck and Carlos Takam. He managed to adjust after losing a few rounds and then managed to either win close decisions or managed to win by KO.

Meanwhile, Mike Tyson has been out-boxed by many opponents. CLEARLY and LEGITIMATELY!

Keep in mind that Povetkin's work rate and stamina >>> Mike Tyson's who gasses very easily and can't sustain a high work rate in the later rounds.

And taking into consideration that Alexander Povetkin's chin, durability and toughness > Mike Tyson's. This becomes a horrible match up for Mike Tyson.

Mike Tyson's best chances to win are by an early KO. And I can't see that happening because Povetkin is too durable for that to happen. And if the fight goes past the midpoint, Povetkin is going to be too busy to let Mike Tyson win a decision. The more likely scenario is Mike Tyson fades, gets his will broken and gets stopped.

This fight will resemble Mike Tyson's fight against Evander Holyfield. The main difference is that Alexander Povetkin's punching power >> Evander Holyfield's punching power.

Either way, Povetkin isn't going to give up (he never did against any opponent) whilst Mike Tyson is the likely one to surrender when things get tough (which it most likely will).

 

Are you referring to the same Joe Louis who would be a cruiser weight / light heavyweight by modern standard? The guy who mostly weighed below 200 pounds?

Never mind Samuel Peter, some of the cruiser weights of today would beat Joe Louis. Including Murat Gassiev, Oleksandr Usyk and possibly even Mairis Briedis.

Times have changed and the heavyweights of yesteryear, including some of the champions wouldn't even qualify as worthy opponents for an average modern heavyweight.

Are you referring to the same Tony Tucker who was brutalized, dropped and KO'ed by a glass jawed Herbie Hide in 2 rounds? The same Tony Tucker who was stopped and dropped multiple times? The same Tony Tucker Mike Tyson couldn't even come close to dropping in 12 rounds, even once?

If anything, Mike Tyson's fight fight against Tony Tucker actually proves how slim Tyson's chances are at winning against an iron chinned super heavyweight like Mariusz Wach who is EVEN taller than Tony Tucker, with an EVEN longer reach and with an astronomically superior chin.

Multiple of Mike Tyson's best punches weren't even bothering Kevin McBride. Tyson couldn't even effect or put a dent on Kevin McBride even if he wanted to. The same Kevin McBride was nearly embalmed and put to sleep by a single punch by Mariusz Wach.

Mike Tyson NEVER beat a heavyweight that is as tall as Mariusz Wach, that is as physically big with as good of a chin as Mariusz Wach. It never happened!

Let's see:

1) Conroy Nelson: Had 24 losses out of 47 bouts = 51% losses out of his career record. Ergo, he doesn't count.

2) Sammy Scaff: Had 35 bouts and lost 14 out of it = 40% losses out of his career record. Ergo, he also doesn't count.

3) David Jaco: Had 25 losses out of 50 bouts = 50% losses out of his career record. Ergo, he also doesn't count.

4) Mike Jameson: Has 16 losses out of 32 bouts = 50% losses out of his career record. Ergo, he also doesn't count.

5) Reggie Gross: He is 6 foot 3 so he doesn't count because I specifically referred to boxers who are TALLER than 6 foot 3. And even if we do count him, he has 8 losses out of 27 bouts = 29% losses out of his career record.

6) Jose Ribalta: Has 17 losses out of 56 bouts = 30% losses out of his career record. Ergo, he also doesn't count.

7) Alfonza Ratliff: Has 9 losses out of 34 bouts = 26% losses out of his career record. Ergo, he also doesn't count.

8) Pinklon Thomas: He is 6 foot 3 so he doesn't count.

9) Tyrell Biggs: Has 10 losses out of 40 bouts = 25% losses out of his career record. Ergo, he also doesn't count.

10) Tony Tubbs: 6 foot 3 so he doesn't count.

11) Carl Williams: Has 10 losses out of 40 bouts = 25% losses out of his career record. Ergo, he also doesn't count.

12) Henry Tillman: He is 6 foot 3 so he doesn't count.

13) Andrew Golota: No contest so it doesn't count OFFICIALLY. It's not a win for Mike Tyson OFFICIALLY!

14) Lou Savarese: Has 7 losses out of 53 bouts = 13% losses out of his career record.

Lou Savarese is the only heavyweight Mike Tyson OFFICIALLY beat that was taller than 6 foot 3 inches that wasn't a 'BUM' (a boxer with 25% or more losses out of his career record).

All the other opponents of Mike Tyson you listed are either shorter than 6 foot 4 inches, or bums (with 25% or more losses out of their career record) or both. Ergo, they don't count!

 

Wladimir Klitschko has great linear footspeed. He also has a uppercut, just doesn't use it when he doesn't need to.

 

Again revealing what a complete dope you are here...not a partial one a COMPLETE one..

 

The same Joe Louis who was the same size as the Chris Byrd was a two time world HW Champ in this modern era.

Usyk and Gassiev will make good HWs when / if they move up. But do you agree that Peter would beat Joe Louis ? I take it you do.

So Klitschko's best wins - smallies Haye and Byrd were not worthy to the average modern day HW , which would include guys like Wilder, Whyte , Miller , Ortiz , Charles Martin etc.. Good to know.

Im referring to prime Tucker who beat Douglas and took Tyson the distance. You're referring to the washed up version from the late 90's.

But since everything is predicated entirely on size , hyping up a cruiser destroying a Super Heavy weight completely demolishes the core fundamental argument you've been pushing non-stop. It also goes against everything. stated in the HW Blog

So they weren't tall - above 6'3 - because they had losses? What exactly am I dealing with here?

 

Rousey is sitting there right next to him and you said the quote was from 2002.

 

Joshua is only 20 fights in and has fought handful of undefeated fighters, he's the only champ in history to Unify so quickly in such short fights....you are a dope and you have no concept of the sport, your posts prove that.

The fact that he fought Klitchko who had literally hundreds more rounds than Joshua's 50 something, and use that in the argument also again shows how stupid you are...lol....

 

This fight can go either way, both of those magnificent Heavyweights were bullies who folded under pressure...

Evander Holyfield sons both of them

 

Thats why Tucker isn't am ATG, yet Wlad is. Although I agree that Tucker is the best of the fighters you posted, the others where C level at best.

And the fact you claim all those fighters are durable, more so than Wlad to further your case is pretty weak imo.

You are talking like Wlad goes over in every fight off soft punchers.

Wlad is durable, durable fighters don't go into the 11th round against the top guy in the division after an 18 month layoff.

 

Well not really.

Wlad was his oldest and coming off a 18 month layoff and also coming off a defeat at the hands of Fury.

It's not like Joshua just beat a 35/36 yo Wlad.

Also the handful of undefeated fighters Joshua has beaten, I'm going to assume you are referring to Whyte (shyte), Breazeale and Martin are living proof the division is at a very weak point in the fact they are all top 10 rated.

However, Breazeale has got room to improve and I believe he will.

Division is weak.

 

So did SKY TV pundits not have Wlad ahead at the time?

Plus he was ahead....correctly on 1 scorecard.

Facts remain that YOU cannot be impartial when it comes to Joshua.

 

wlad is an atg becos he hits harder?

wtf

 

[url]http://www.mrinitialman.com/OddsEnds/Sizes/sizes.html[/url]

 

Hard hitter equates to ATG.....who said this?

I thought I was blocked idiot?

 

I give Joe Louis the same chances at beating Samuel Peter as I give Oleksandr Gvozdyk at beating Samuel Peter. Which is slim to none!

In fact, Joe Louis vs Oleksandr Gvozdyk would be a far more reasonable and a a far more competitive match up.

Joe Louis vs Samuel Peter would go in a similar way to how George Foreman vs Joe Frazier went. Joe Louis is physically smaller than most cruiser weights today, never mind heavyweights and he would by modern standard, be a light heavyweight.

Wladimir Klitschko's best opponents like David Haye and Chris Byrd are far more proven against modern super heavyweights. And David Haye is practically the SAME size as Deontay Wilder. So you're argument is moot to begin with when comparing the two.

Anyway, this isn't even a discussion about comparing Wladimir Klitschko's opponents to today's heavyweights. There isn't a huge variance between the heavyweights in Lennox Lewis's era, Klitschko's era and today's era.

Prime, washed up version or not, there is nothing to suggest any version of Tony Tucker is better than Mariusz Wach. In fact, I would favor Mariusz Wach to defeat every opponent Tucker has defeated and have an even better record than what Tucker has compiled if he faced the same opposition. I would also heavily favor Wach to defeat the Mike Tyson that Tony Tucker faced via KO. Mike Tyson had a suspect chin, along with Tony Tucker. Mariusz Wach has one of the greatest heavyweight chins in the history of boxing.

The fact that he was 'washed up' or 'past prime', doesn't excuse Tony Tucker to get brutalized and be dropped like a yo-yo by a glass jawed, blown up cruiser weight in Herbie Hide. That exposes Tony Tucker's own suspect chin and qualities.

Mariusz Wach is also 'past prime' and 'washed up' right now. But, do you still see him getting dropped multiple times or getting brutally knocked out like how Tony Tucker did? NO! Wanna know why? Because Mariusz Wach's chin is PROVEN to be REALLY and LEGITIMATELY be one of, if not the greatest in the history of all of boxing,

Meanwhile, Mike Tyson gets dropped and KO'ed brutally by a bum named Danny Williams who has a double digit losses (26 losses) and over 50% losses out of his career record. Wanna know why? Because Mike Tyson's chin is probably made of glass!

Don't give me the 'age' and 'injury' excuse. Mariusz Wach is older than Mike Tyson and was injured in fights as well like Mike Tyson but has still not been dropped once by anybody in his entire career. Alexander Povetkin is older than Mike Tyson and has only ever been dropped by arguably the hardest hitting heavyweight of all time in Wladimir Klitschko and has never been dropped by bums / journeymen like Mike Tyson has.

In reality, Mike Tyson is overrated and sucks! His chin, durability and body isn't suitable for him to compete against modern super heavyweights. He'll get squashed like an irrelevant insect!

And no, size isn't the only factor. It's size + skill. Mike Tyson would NEVER be favored to beat any super heavyweight that is also skilled like a Klitschko, Lennox Lewis, Tyson Fury or an Anthony Joshua. Mike Tyson would only be favored to beat super heavyweight scrubs that aren't very skilled like the Tony Tuckers, Mitch Greens and Bonecrusher Smiths of this world.

There is a difference between being tall + bum and being tall + non-bum and I've explained this very clearly already. Either you lack the intelligence to comprehend this or you're deliberately pretending you don't understand this.

Bum = a boxer with 25% or more losses out of his career record.

Non - Bum = a boxer with less than 25% losses out of his career record.


Mike Tyson has KO'ed / stopped BUMS that are taller than 6 foot 3 inches in height. However, Mike Tyson only stopped one NON - BUM opponent that was taller than 6 foot 3 inches in height and his name was Lou Savarese. And even that was a premature stoppage.

Face it, Mike Tyson is ineffective against taller + non-bum / skilled opponents. That's just a fact!