Prime vs Prime Mike Tyson vs Wlad Klitschko Who Wins?

So Tyson wasn't prime when he fought Douglas then in your opinion?

 

Mike Tyson would deStory Him. H e's nowhere near tough enough to stay in the ring with Tyson more than six rounds

 

first of all,after feeling tysons's power in round 1 bonecrusher held and ran for dear life.Mitch Green, Tony Tucker,Razor Ruddock? all had great chins.tell me,has any great puncher knocked out everyone? louis,baer,dempsey,jeffries,frazier,foreman,shavers,tua,lyle,all had opponents that would not fall.

 

Pre Steward Wlas prime? no mainly because Steward as he did with Lewis, had Wlad put together and probably use all his strengths for the first time in his career.

Although pre Steward Wlad was much more offensive and exciting to watch. He never held and tell me when anyone had seen a 6'4+ heavy through a better left hook off the jab? And is able to double and treble it up.

 

Are you sure about that? That tells me you haven't watched any of his fights because he's been doing that his entire career up until the Povetkin fight where he is starting to show his age (even then he won every round and knocked Povetkin down 4 times).

You are creating a ficticious narrative of Wladimir as a fighter based on 1 fight where he was beating the living **** out of Brewster then suddenly went through the most shocking and suspicious metabolic fatigue ever witnessed in the history of boxing and never again seen for the rest of his career.

If you actually watched the Tyson vs Douglas fight you would see that is exactly what he did and any tall out boxer with half a brain would do. He boxed Mike on the outside, whenever Mike got close he clinched until the ref broke and reset them or he pushed him off. This is the exact same gameplan Wlad would use and he would do it even better because he is a much bigger puncher than Douglas.
Even the shot James Tillis who had lost 4 out of his last 5 fights was doing this to Tyson going the distance and frustrating him.

Was Douglas known for having a strong punch resistance? Not at all. He had been stopped 3 times from punches before he fought Tyson.

Wlad has actually showed a pretty impressive jaw in the end of that fight when he was completely exhausted with his arms at his waist taking hard shot after hard shot from a real power puncher like Brewster(73% KO) and showing no signs of being hurt from punches. He basically collasped from fatigue at the end of the round and the fight was halted by the ref when was nearly about to pass out from exhaustion walking back to his corner.

There is more evidence to suggest Tyson's chin was more suspect than Wlad's is percieved by some to be. In 7 less career fights Tyson has been stopped nearly 2x as much and knocked out cold by featherfisted Buster Douglas(54% KO) and stopped by blown up cruiser Holyfield (51% KO)

Wlad has only been knocked down by super heavyweight big punchers and has never been KO'd cold for a count of 10 like Mike. Never had a fight stopped off his feet and only one fight against Sanders was a TKO resulting from an opponents punches.

It doesn't really matter though because Wlad would keep Tyson on the end of his tremendously quick and powerful jab and right cross and box his face off, clinch him or push him away when Tyson gets close and then knock his ass out in the later rounds.

Now Wlad has transformed into the second coming of Carl Williams?!
You're an absolute clown.

 

I never claimed the statistics or some of the arguments were originally mine. I didn't simply copy and paste either most of it is in my own words and I added my own fight analysis. I should have cited the stats and some of the arguments but this isnt an essay just a post on a boxing forum.

You can use any ad hominem you want about me or the author of that blog, but the information and arguments presented are rock solid and based on objective analysis of stats and facts and not the fallacious, bias bull**** you post here regularly.

I know you won't touch on any of the fact based arguments, like Tyson's diminished performance against heavier opponents, because you can't.
Another thing you can't argue against is that Wladimir is the type of opponent that Tyson didn't do well against. Apart from his physical advantages over Tyson, he fights tall and doesn't mix it up in close-midrange where Tyson does his best work and like Lennox Lewis he possesses the KO power to put Tyson away with one punch. Not that this was ever in dispute considering the featherfisted Douglas and blown up cruiser Holyfield stopped Tyson. Wladimir's vastly superior fight IQ (and general IQ) gives him the ability to adjust to use the ideal strategy for defeating individual opponents. Tyson could only fight one way and when his opponent wasn't afraid and changed things up on him he could not adjust.

The common sense and author's definition a fighter with a career 54% KO rate like Buster Douglas IS featherfisted.

From reading you vapid, feeble excuses for posts I can tell that I know far more about boxing than you and so does the author of the blog who can actually generate concise arguments that follow a clear logical path and back them up with facts and statistics.

I don't agree with the author's position that Mormeck would have been THE best win of Ali's career but it certainly would have been on paper one of the better wins of his career based on Mormeck's credentials of being a 6 time champion, good record and coming in at a trim 216 (which would have been one of Ali's heaviest in shape opponents). He certainly was more skilled and credentialed than many other fighters Ali was making title defences against like 40-14 180 pound Henry Cooper(who dropped Ali in their first fight), glass chin bum Spinks(who beat Ali), 34-19 bum Jimmy Young who should have gotten the decision, Alfredo Evangelista, Jean-Pierre Coopman, Richard Dunn and the list goes on and on. Mormeck was just a stay busy fight for Wlad.

 

Enough with the numbers of that bogus website already!

It is not information; it is data, interpreted to draw conclusions of the author's choosing.

It is flaky analysis, at best, with gaping holes in author's methodology.

One of this blogger's articles, in particular, focuses on a comparison of "George Foreman vs Wladimir Klitschko – Who is the hardest hitter?", which, on its own, raises several questions about the blogger's approach. This so-called analysis also includes references to Tyson's statistics.

http://www.heavyweightblog.com/2490/george-foreman-vs-wladimir-klitschko-who-is-the-harder-puncher

The factors used in presenting the statistical comparisons, by the HeavyweightBlog.com, include...

- Weight of opponent, relative to the subject (e.g. Wlad, Tyson, Foreman. etc.), at time of the subjects fighting them.
- Quality of opposition, based on opponents' records, at time of the subjects fighting them (but only against a certain caliber of opponent, as defined by the blogger: "non bummy").
- Frequency of KO's (but only against a certain caliber of opponent, as defined by the blogger: "non bummy").
- The section/stage of the fight that the KO's were scored in (1-6; 7-12; as well as a detailed breakdown of rounds 1, 2 and 3).
- KO's scored only against opponents using an Orthodox Stance (i.e. results against Southpaws removed).
- Results against common opponents.

I have not checked the veracity of the figures themselves. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not the numbers are accurate; given their stark manipulation and the significant oversights made by the author in their interpretation.

Here are just a handful...

a) the lack of articulation and validation of the assumptions made by the blogger, upon which the analyses heavily depend.
b) inadequate explanations provided for confounding variables (of which there are so many that it would immediately render the analyses unfit to support the inferences made by the blogger)
c) no other attempt to address confounding variables, within the presentation of the stats themselves, as a means of controlling their interpretation.
d) points b and c are underlined by the principal error of having confused 'correlation' with 'causation'. i.e. failing to recognise that the variation in the results for each subject will not have been directly and solely caused by variations in the subjects' respective punch power.

The above doesn't even scratch the surface of the flaws and there are numerous other examples, throughout the blog, of misconception, bias and sheer inaccuracy, which demonstrate a lacking in understanding of the sport.


A prime example of where this blogger misinterprets the data, purposely or otherwise, at point of summary, is with this statement:

"However you try to spin it: Wladimir Klitschko's record is 1-2 KO leagues above Tyson and 3-5 leagues above George Foreman."

At no time, during the course of the analysis, does the blogger explain what is meant by a "league". It is not referenced on the 'Definitions' page, either. And yet, he or she defines the number range of "leagues" quite precisely.

If you're going go fall for this type of smoke and mirrors and start spouting arbitrary percentages, based on someone else's questionable presentation of the numbers then I really do pity you.

 

I don't agree with all the arguments he makes like the one you just used as an example.

When he says "non bummy" he is expunging the "bums"(12 or less wins or losing 25% of fights by his definition) on the boxer's record as usable data.

It certainly doesn't lack for validity because the data measures what it is supposed to, is accurate(from as much as I have bothered to fact check) and is not arbitrary as all the fight data being used from the subjects is being manipulated by the same independant variables.

I am simply taking some of the valid arguments and statistics he posted on a hypotetical Klitschko vs Tyson fight that support my argument.

Of course it doesn't prove causation, this is boxing after all and anything can happen. Tyson could shatter his knee like in the Williams fight or Wlad could tear a bicep or another serious injury that significantly impacts the results.

As for confounding variables, yeah there are a ton (some of which he controls for) but it is an infintely more substantial and interesting argument than saying

I can tell that the main gripe you have with this guy is that you simply can't stomach the opinion that Wladimir would whip Mike Tyson.

 

at ForemanFlab in here trying to convince everyone that Waldo would last three rounds against a prime Tyson. Shutup, ******.

 

Do you want me to make a list of the fighters a hell of a lot worse than Wlad who did?

Your another idiot on this forum:yep

 

*You're

.. And yes, you are an idiot. :deal

 

Please go deeper into your analysis that Wlad doesn't make it past 3.

 

Look goose, you're smarter than the average klitard here, but we both know Tucker was dominated most of that fight. Does Wlad have a chance? Sure. I just wouldnt fancy it. As far as Douglas being on the same level, i disagree. Buster was far better in nearly every department than either Brewster or Sanders.

 

Gotta go with Tyson. Moments such as Leapai's near miss in the last round of their fight come to mind, Tyson would be winging shots like that all night with twice the speed and power.

Wlad's pushing down would backfire against the ferocious prime Tyson too.