the short heavyweights

Thats why Tyson won at least 9 rounds out of 12 right? And toyed with Tucker in the 11th round outjabing him with ease right? :nut Tucker who was undefeated and a belt holder at a time. Tucker who had 1000x the chin and toughness WALDO could use right? :yep
Tysonwould not reach the brothers you say? :nut Get the **** out of here you are ridicolous. :rofl

p.s.: tyson waldo would end like Tyson-Savarese (6'5 got easily hit) and Quitali would only last 12 if he fought to survive. :deal

 

Dempsey was 6'1" and had a 77" reach.

 

i like short heavy weights but depends who. tyson was wicked and fraiser. they what bang it out.

 

maybe tucker was tougher then wlad but of course you exaggerate because do you see wlad being stopped by ruiz ? well , you will say you do , typical for you , and you will say tucker was old , shot whatever , but in reality , not that much. savaresse is after all shorter than wlad who is shorter than vitali who is critically or even beyond too tall for tyson to seriously reach (hard enough in order to stop) , both would have beaten tyson and vitali would have stopped him but not a 6'2"/6'3" tyson which should even be considered a favorite to beat wlad and maybe even vitali.
just look at tyson's losses , he lost to much inferior h2h opposition than the klitschkos. i give you this : a peak of peaks (but 5'10") tyson should be considerred a slight (but live) underdog against wlad.

 

The notion of a 6-3 Tyson fighting like a 5-10 Tyson is just wrong. Sorry. It doesn't even elicit much conjecture because it goes against exactly what every boxing coach has ever taught.

 

Wow, this post is really horrible.

 

Yeah, Wlad's only lost to the best right

****ing hell, Douglas/Holyfield/Lewis are better than anyone the Klitschko's have ever fought.

 

wrong against most of the opponents he had , not against a yet even more towering klitschko brothers. and he could have been just a little slower which may still be fast enough to repeat his achievements.
simply a relative thing.

 

but inferior h2h to the klitschkos themselves which was the point that you missed.

 

Vitali belongs above Lewis H2H when he got his face ripped off by him ?

 

Thank you Beatle.

You are one of very few who actually share the same basic opinion on Frazier's shortcomings against Foreman, if you do. I've been called a broken record on this forum with respect to what happened in 1973 and 1976.

I still believe 1968 - 1970 conditioned Frazier would have been a much tougher opponent for George Foreman. Again, not saying that Frazier would beat Foreman because he was destroyed in two fights lasting seven rounds. Still, there's no reason not to believe that the best version of Frazier at his prime weight, would make it past the early rounds against Foreman and potentially wear him down.

 

good point.
he deserved a rematch.
ripping one's face is not similar to blasting one's brain out of consciousness.

 

If Vitali had explosive one shot power, it is not a far-fetch to think that he would have knocked out that version of Lewis .

When considering how Vitali would have performed H2H against many greats you have to factor that in.

 

good point but
i think that he did not show that type of one punch knockout power because the better and safer style for him is to not commit to his punches fully and remain ready to back up in order to avoid a big counter punch.

 

He did deserve a rematch, but honestly, the fight had leveled out and Lewis had adjusted by the time it was called. And this was a terrible version of Lewis--significantly overweight and unmotivated. In the rematch, Lewis would have taken it more seriously and handled him easily, IMO.