Tyson and Klitsckos : absolute double standards

I still firmly stand by Bowe having the better wins, it's quite conclusive what with Tyson twice being dominated by the same version of Holyfield.

The later is personal opinion I suppose.

 

Not really. It's all in who they fight.
A tough 16 year old could probably clean out a wine-O half-way house.:deal

 

You weren't mentioning wins though? Certainly not where I quoted you

Tyson beat Golota who dominated Bowe twice, Bowe beat Holyfield who dominated Tyson twice..

Aside from the Holyfield wins, Tyson has a better resume, though the Holyfield wins are signifigant

Bowe beat a prime holyfield but prime holyfield dominated a past prime Tyson

(this is going off topic)

 

tyson unified the heavyweight titles by beating every champ in the divison. that beats anything bowe has done. by miles.

that is "actual legacy & body of work" right there. :deal

 

I mentioned this earlier on in the thread.

And I look at it the same way when hearing nonsense like "Tyson wasn't in his prime against Holyfield". If he didn't put 100% of the required hours into his training camp while in his peak physical prime years then that's Tyson's fault.

I probably consider each fight to be something like 70% in the ring with the rest done in the camp and preparation for the fight.

 

Precisely @ Ploys

& as for prime, I mentioned he was past prime, as you deemed it relevant to mention Bowe beat a prime Holyfield

Whether or not dedication plays a part, beating Tyson from 86 and beating Tyson in 97 are two VERY different things. Again, that's another matter

But

Unifying and clearing out the HW division, being the youngest man to win a HW title, being the only man to unify WBC, WBA & IBF titles > Beating Evander Holyfield twice

Not sure how you can disagree

With a straight face at least

 

Tyson got his ass disgracefully handed to him at the end of his career. Not gonna happen to K2.

 

I suppose I mainly judge Tyson by his actual rivals who were in the same age group as himself and how he faired against them. Those being Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield and himself, I think there's only 2 years difference at most between them. Yes Tyson hit the big time first and scalped the 80's leftovers but there's no denying his record does not hold up well with his own era's age group.

 

While I see your point, though those 3 may have been around Tysons age (or in Holyfields case, older) Bowe and Lewis were having their first pro fights when Tyson was already unified champion, and even with his 3 years in Prison by the time he fought Holyfield he had 12 fights on him

He may have been of a similar age but in terms of ring years he was far older than all of them

By the time Bowe turned pro Tyson already had wins over Holmes, Spinks, & Bruno & tucker under his belt in doing so becoming unified HW champion, same with Lewis

Holyfield (who started a few months before Tyson) was still fighting 10 rounders at CW against guys with 15 - 6 - 3 records when Tyson was HW champ

While they are all of a similar age, I don't think it's strictly fair to call them his contemporaries in that sense

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

 

Exactly, it is a double standard.

It was impressive that Tyson won the title at a very young age. But he had a very short prime and was never the same after 1990/1991 (24 years old). In Wladimir's case, it's impressive that he has 60 fights, 36 years old and is still near his best; Wlad first appeared in The Ring ratings in 1999. And I don't have to speak about Vitali, who has made a great comeback, after a severe injury, at an age which is considered old for a professional fighter.

I think Wlad's, Vitali's and Tyson's opposition was mediocre. But I would rank Wlad first, Tyson second and Vitali third (in terms of opponents beaten).

The fact is that Tyson shouldn't be ranked much higher than the Klitschkos, especially Wlad. It doesn't matter if Tyson was more popular around the world: Tyson is also more popular than Archie Moore and that does not make him greater. It doesn't matter if Tyson has a style that you prefer to watch: that's pure subjectivity; I prefer watching Vitali, and a friend of mine likes Wlad.

 

If Wlad got his ass handed to him by Purrity, Sanders and Brewster when was younger what makes you think when he's past his "sell by" date that he won't get stopped by an unheralded fighter who won't be good enough to carry his jockstrap?

Father time catches up with the best of them. Nobody is exempt.

The only way K2 evade this is if they get out when they still have it in them.

 

Floyd Patterson is the youngest HW champion of all time.

 

Read what I said bro, then read what you said, then look at the diff between the two statements :good

 

There's no way to know what will happen. But way before Wlad's current age Tyson was a washed-up punching bag who only rode on his past and brief glory... His bottom line doesn't look well. Wlad's, at the moment, couldn't get any better.