Tyson vs Tillis - who really won??

Why?? An unmotivated uninterested Corrie Sanders did it rather quickly.

 

-He did. Norris was clinching him heavily at the end of the round as I recall and Mike looked pretty annoyed by it.

-Norris got fouled hard and he certainly milked it. I believe he was trying to get a DQ win.

At any rate, Norris was certianly not knocked the **** out.

 

atsch

 

I think he meant based on experience. Tyson detractors are so quick to pick on everything, but the fact is that Tyson was very young in his career, and it was clearly a learning experience in the early stages of his career.
Tyson was good enough to challenge for the title at a very young age, but that didnt change the fact that he was young and relatively inexperienced, even after unifying all three belts.

 

If we are going to continue to go there. Prime for Prime Mike has a slight edge over Wlad but they are certainly comparable in achievement.


Mike Tyson's record against top 10 Annual Ring Ranked opponents before Buster Douglas:

top 10: 7-0 5 KOs Top 5: 4-0 3 KOs

(Heavyweight top 10 record at this time)

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Trevor Berbick#7 1985 (4-2)

Other Noteworthy Non-Ranked Opposition: Former Champion Larry Holmes


Wlad's record against top 10 Annual Ring Ranked opponents since Steward:

top 10: 7-0 6 KOs Top 5: 3-0 3 KOs

(Heayvweight top 10 record at this time)

Eddie Chambers#4 2009 (2-1)
Ruslan Chageav #3 2008 (2-0)
Tony Thompson #9 2007 (0-0)
Sultan Ibragimov #6 2007 (1-0)
Lamon Brewster #7 2006 (2-1)
Calvin Brock #7 2005 (1-0)
Chris Byrd#1 2005 (4-1-1)

Other Noteworthy Non-Ranked Opposition: Samuel Peter (3-3)

 

I dont want to get into this type of discussion. I cant even compare the the two eras. In my mind its not even close.
Tyson was never stopped by journeyman either which in my mind is a huge detractor.

 

-Fair enough though I personally think the level competition is certainly comparable. Outside of Spinks and Byrd, your not looking at too many consistent world beaters.

-Buster Douglas was a journeyman. And Tyson closed out his career with two more journeyman loses. However, Wlad and Tyson are two completely different types of career paths..in fact total opposites.

-Note, neither fighter has anything to be ashamed of. Both are damn fine runs. I'm not bashing or propping up either. Just presenting the facts which I think are very interesting if not startling in their similarities.

 

Douglas was not a journeyman, he was an ranked contender who had already fought competively for the title. Purrity was always a stepping stone or gatekeeper for inexperienced young fighters and was never good enough to challenge for a world title.

 

Yeah and Buster Douglas put Tyson to sleep. If he could do it so could Wlad. Let's be totally honest, apart from Lewis, Klitschko is better than all of Tyson's opponents.

 

I suppose Douglas was still top 10, though his inconsistenties and three year absence from the title scene had led to him being widely labeled as a journeyman at the time. Perhaps it was a tad too harsh. He was still not the type of an opponent any Champion was expected to lose to. Just as Purrity wasn't the type of fighter a prospect was suppose to lose to.

 

When you take into account how this fight would unfold, its not even close. Tyson would put pressure on Wlad far harder than the fighters that stopped him with, so lets be honest, how good is Wlad once you take away the distance? Not very good at all.

 

Watched this a while ago and I had Tyson winning. Tillis showed Tyson was not some kind of unstoppable machine, but he didn't beat him.

 

Douglas challenged for the title about two years prior to the Tyson fight against Tony Tucker and was doing quite well before packing it in. Douglas was never labeled as a journeyman, and never consistently lost to the level of fighters that Purrity did. He rebuilt himself for a second run at the title by beating Mcall and Berbick to get his shot. There is no comparison between the two at all.
I think most would agree Douglas had more skills in his pinky finger than Purrity had and thats why he easily beat a better version of Purrity in Mcall.

 

Wlad has never showed the kind of mobility and combination punching that Douglas showed on that night, or chin. Remember, Tyson had fired Rooney and was clearly not at his best, his footwork and defence were no way near as good as just a couple of years previously, but he still dropped Douglas. Would Wlad get up from a punch like that? Not based on his record he wouldn't. Most people are talking about the Tyson of 86-88 when they mention him at his best, and that version would be a nightmare for Wlad, just like it was for every other big man Tyson faced.

 

Cooper looks to have some long arms for a stocky guy under 6' :think.