Tyson/Wlad Comparison Bogus

Tyson was better for a shorter period of time...Wlad has longevity, partially because his brother waters down the competition...

Tyson had a balls out attacking style that captivated the world...Wlad has a safety first style that bored audiences right off the cable networks...

That being said, Wlad is an atg, just going about it in a tedious way...Would not rate him above Tyson based on length of title reign, quality counts...The statement one makes is not always what one says but, how one says it...And one who uses fewer words is usually the one people listen to...

I like Wlad, he's grown on me again, just don't think he's rated higher than Tyson...

 

Could ask the same of the 3 fighters who ko'd Wlad...

 

Oh, and Douglas was better than all three.

 

This is not impressive at all:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSrUf-OXurk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSrUf-OXurk[/ame]

 

Currently I have Tyson ahead of Wlad on the All Time Heavys list and as I'm sure you know, I'm a huge Klitschko fan but I'm also honest.

 

That's a bit of a stretch though..........:rofl

 

Tyson was #1 at beating up cab drivers and old club fighters, no one.....no one even comes close.

 

Not actually, McCall was not even in the top ten when Douglas beat him, Berbick was clearly over the hill. And Page was gone.

 

Still better than Brewster, Purrity and Sanders :yep

 

I believe that both Wlad and Tyson is strong willed.. Every boxer is lol.
I think it is coming down to Wlad and Steward being smarter than Tyson (And whoever coached him post cus amato)..

 

so fighting more entertaining fights against that list you mentiond and losing them all means he is better than wlad??**** OFF i wrote **** off in caps because u deserve it that way for that post...idiot

 

This is an oxymoron and I've never heard a single valid argument why Tyson '90 was supposed to be so infinitely worse than '88.
People tend to bring up lack of passion, bad training, personal issues etc. but if Tyson was half as good as people claimed him to be he should have blown out Douglas no matter what. And the fact that he never won a significant fight after that "incident" defintely favors my point of view.

Hopkins was jailed with 17 and went on to become a boxer Tyson couldn't dream of. I don't buy a single excuse for Tyson's poor performances after the Carl Williams fight simply because they have been disproven by other fighters who went through the same **** and yet managed to come out on top.

 

Right on man...This picture is still being painted, and regardless of petty debate, Tyson was king of his short era, Wlad is the king of his as well, enjoy them for what they are, kings...Vitali deserves that title too...

 

Maybe so...

 

Why do you guys keep making this stupid thread? Regardless of what you think abouit tyson, he beats Wlad. He's a bad style matchup for him ,period. And whether you like it or not he was a much better fighter. That's no opinion that's just fact if you know boxing. Ask any boxing trainer or anybody involved in the sport and I doubt they'd disagree.