Vitaly Klitschko vs. Mike Tyson

How do you define "legacy fight" ?

I think the Michael Spinks fight was obviously Tyson's legacy fight, and was considered such before and after it happened.

Also, the Berbick fight was a "moment of truth" and a tremendous showing, the foundation for any real legacy he was building.

The fights Tyson LOST to Douglas and Holyfield were not considered as meaningful to his reputation going in, and are actually significant in that he lost to such overwhelming underdogs, not that winning them would have meant a great deal.
They become his "legacy fights" BECAUSE he lost ?

 

Vitali would get broken down bad IMO. He had an iron chin and a huge heart, but his defence towards the body attack was NOT good...he'd, as another poster above said, wilt. Again, the grind-you-down type of attrition puncher that Vitali was wouldn't keep Tyson off of him, and Vitali was never the "huggy bear" type that took Tyson the distance. He was a warrior, and that would be his downfall.

 

He's not anti Tyson, more very pro Vitali.

 

Anyway, i like Tyson here for sure. Vitali doesn't have the skillset, snap or general ability to beat Tyson at his peak.

 

Lewis and Holyfield were Tyson's legacy fights because they were his best opponents. Tyson had his rear handed to him in both fights, never finished them, and won maybe say three rounds total in these three fights. Tyson never avenged a bad loss to Douglas either.

Spinks was scared out of his shoes. Tyson did not score late KO's except one 10 round stoppage vs a much weaker opponent. He did not turn the tides in his favor in any of his fights when things were not going his way. I'm not sure if a guy 5'10" can land his best stuff on a guy 6'8" who has knack for punch anticipation and making guys miss by leaning back. Did Tyson land anything serious on the " super heavies " he fought in Lewis, Smith, Tucker?

Tyson was a great starter and top puncher, but his game tailed off in the mid to late rounds. Vitlai is not an easy guy to stop early, and has the type of punch out put and power to stop Tyson late.

 

The Lewis fight was a long way past Tyson's prime, and like I said before, the Holyfield fight was not considered particularly meaningful going in, nor was the over-the-hill Holyfield considered his best opponent to date. Holyfield was thought of a washed-up and easy pickings.
Winning the Holyfield fight would not have gained Tyson much "legacy" credit at that time.
Lewis-Tyson was a sick joke really, a circus.

That just adds to Tyson's legacy. His "legacy fight" against Spinks was a one-sided massacre, the rival defeated psychologically before the bell rang. That's good for Tyson's standing. The same guy (Spinks) didn't seem scared of Holmes or Cooney.

Well, I know better than to get into a drawn-out argument with you when it comes to Vitali.
I agree with a lot of your points on Tyson, who I feel is often overrated.
But I think Tyson would batter Vitali.

 

I disagree. And forget at the time, if Tyson beats Holfyield its his best win period.

Tyson could not land much on the 6'5" Lewis who fought him the same way Vitlai would. Was Tyson a bit past it yes. Was it close? No.

Well Holmes was in his mid 30's and Cooney was a mess of a man outside the ring. Why be scared of them?

Based on what? Vitlai will not be afraid of Tyson like Spinks, Bruno, or Seldon were. The lumbering oaf comment was ignorant. Vitlai made tons of guys missed and dominated on all scorecards. If that is your version of a lumbering oaf, then so be it. You simply don’t like Vitlai at all.

 

I dont see how you can say that. Holyfield had lost 2 of his last 4, and had looked bad (old, shot, or sick) in 3 of his last four, including his most recent, a win (over Czyz).

Almost everyone was saying Tyson would mash him, and that the fight was going to harm boxing, Holyfield was shot and his life in danger, should be refused a licence. Shame Tyson was in jail when Holyfield could still fight, shame they didn't fight earlier, etc. etc.

I cant remember anyone saying "This will be Tyson's greatest win". And we all expected him to win.
If he had blasted Holyfield out it would be viewed like the Holmes fight.

Firstly, and most importantly, Tyson was WAY OFF HIS BEST.

Secondly, just as a side note, Vitali isn't Lewis.

And your question implies he had reason to be scared of Tyson. Which suggests Tyson was special.

You brought up the "scared Spinks" thing, perhaps you should explain what you think relevant about his alleged fear.

This is funny. I'm usually accused of having an anti-Tyson agenda.

 

I don't think Holyfield looked bad vs Czyz. It was the media who made the fans worry. Holyfield was never worried.

Disagree. This was a huge fight. Eveyrone wanted to see it as it matched two very good champs vs each other. Holyfield was not one to be " blasted out " but if Tyson did it, its his best win.

In 1996? I think Tyson was just exposed as being a bully and front runner. Yeah he was a bit better pre-prison, but he was still very good in the mid 1990's.

I agree. Leiws could be KO'd by one punch, which might make him easier for Tyson to beat if you think about it.

Yes, the hype, agression, and power around Tyson had lesser fighters scared of him. Spinks froze with fear, as did Seldon and others. Tyson was perhaps the best guy ever vs fringe contender types and journeyman.

I never said you were anti Tyson. You said that. My remark was anti Vitali with the lumbering oaf comment.

 

I thought Holyfield looked bad against Czyz.
I thought he looked worringly gassed early against Bowe (3rd fight).
I thought he looked awful against Moorer.
When I watch the fights now, all these years later, I think the same.
Holyfield simply looked bad.

Holyfield was never worried, but if you called him up today and told him he's fighting Wlad Klitschko in six weeks I doubt he's worried.

People wanted to see Tyson against anyone in 1996. And Holyfield was the first really respected "name" he faced after prison, Holyfield an American crowd favourite.

Were you following boxing in 1996 ? If so, then you're exercising some unforgivable revisionism with the way you are describing Tyson-Holyfield.
Almost everyone expected Tyson to win in a few rounds, with a brave but over-the-hill Holyfield in real danger of getting badly hurt in the process.

I said Tyson was WAY OFF HIS BEST against Lewis, in 2002.

Vitali beats 2002 Tyson. If that's the question, yeah, I'd back Vitali. But prime-for-prime I say Tyson batters him.

Lots of elite fighters did not freeze with fear, and Tyson whipped them handily.

Relative to someone as phenomenally quick and as fluid, precise and compact as Tyson, I think Vitali is "oafish".
Not just Vitali, I'd describe others as oafs against Tyson.