Wlad is already a greater champion than Mike Tyson.

How can you compare Wlad to Tyson when Wlad has NEVER held the same title as Mike?

 

wladi**** sucks ****

 

(Hope no one already said this one)

Iron Mike would F*** that Klit untill he loved him.

 

They are pretty even in terms of who the greater champion was I think. Tyson's never really beat any great fighters at their peak either, and please no one bring Tony Tucker's name into this, he is no better than a lot of the guys Klitschko has beaten. Tyson also got dominated in his prime by a much lesser opponent

 

If the 'sweet science' is hitting and not getting hit, then Tyson is well ahead of Wlad as a boxer. Seriously.

His fundamentals have been criminally ignored, because people look his at his knockouts. Focus on his fundamentals and you'll see just how good he was.

 

I do know that if Tyson had Chef he wouldn't have to go eating people's ears.

 

My first reaction was to follow with some of my usual anti-Wlad BS, but I'll say this instead.

While Tyson destroys Wlad H2H, and inspired a kind of fear, respect, and awe that Wlad can only dream of, he was a short lived phenomenon who didn't have the focus to stay at the top for long, and who essentially never bounced all the way back from his defeats. Wlad was reduced to his very foundation twice, and built himself back up brick by brick both times. In the end, the building might be boring, but it's a damned strong building given what Wlad's strengths are. Where Tyson fell apart mentally, Wlad never did.

To that degree, and that degree only, I respect his career more than Tyson's, and might even call him "greater". Longevity is a virtue to be respected.

 

:good

 

It is not the point. The point is, Tyson would have walked though most of Wlad's opponents, and Wlad would walk though most of Tyson's, with the exception, as I have noted, of Rudock.

 

No he wasn't.

 

Why?

Holmes was 37 years old and had already opening ducked Greg Page and Pinklon Thomas in his career.

Michael Spinks was a 33 year old lightheavy with chronically bad knees.

If I remember correctly, neither had fought in years.

These were good wins because of the names. Not great, but good.

 

We all have our own criteria, but I put most stock in the quality of fighters defeated. Mike Tyson does not have a "stellar" resume but Tucker, Holmes, Spinks, and even Ruddock are arguably better than anyone on Wladimir's list of victims. Any disagreements?

 

Right here. Repeat of points already made.

Ruddock was better than anyone on Wlad's resume. No arguement here.

Holmes was 37 years old and had already openly ducked Page and Thomas because he knew he wasn't what he once was. He was also coming off of an extenisve lay off with no tune up fights. The 40+ version of Holmes was better.

Michael Spinks was a 33 year old with chronically bad kness who had done his best work at lighthheavy. Also an extensive layoff.

The legend of Toney Tucker as a great win is based on nothing at all. His only good wins were Douglas and McCall, who, lets be honest, spent most of their careers as clubfighters. As I just proved on another thread, Douglas was beating Tucker before he tired out and quit.

Holmes, Spinks, and Tucker at that stage of their careers were very comparable to the decent but underwhelming guys Wlad is fighting.

Now prime Ruddock was dangerous.

Peace.