Wlad is already a greater champion than Mike Tyson.

Tyson would have killed klitschko in his prime....

 

Its your thread slothrop break down their resumes and title defenses. You cant just post this **** without strong evidence to back it up.

 

I'm suspending the QOTW thread for a few weeks to allow the flow of spunk to die down.

For the first time in the history of the thread the QOTW might be the same quote 2 weeks running actually - which was "Ruslan Chagaev would be a top 5 HW in just about every decade of heavyweight boxing" or words to that effect.

Looks an even more ******ed statement now doesn't it?

 

86-90 I think

 

Depends how you look at it - I've not one ounce of doubt in my mind that a prime Tyson would be WALDOS worst nightmare....but for better or worse he is dominating the division (crap as it is) and has been a champion of some sort for about 10 years. His losses are horrible yes, and his chin is very average but he's stopping people getting to it at the moment.

I'm not saying he's better than Tyson by any means, but if he keeps this up for 2-3 years and beats a few more top 10 fighters you'd have to say he dominated his era for longer than Tyson dominated his era and by that alone you could make a case for him being above him...despite Tyson being a head to head nightmare for the guy. Prime Tyson is a head to head nightmare for almost every guy in the top 10 let's face it, but they rank above him for length of dominance, quality opponents etc.

 

Tyson was a unified champ, Wlad only has 2 of the main 4 belts currently. Tyson only lost to one journeyman in his prime, Wlad lost to two (I dont count Purrity, he wasn't in his prime). Wlad never beat a hall of fame/ATG, Tyson beat two of them, Spinks and Holmes. Tyson was also the youngest champ of all time, when he was 22.

I think Wlad is a really good Heavyweight, but not a great. Should we compare overall skill level, or should I just stop there before it gets ugly?

 

Yeah 86-90 and won the title back in 96 I think and lost it again the same year. I think he became undisputed champion in 87 when he beat Tucker for the IBF, and 'linear' champion in 88 when he beat Spinks, but I might be wrong.

 

Well you started an argument here and its worth looking at. You cant make strong statements like this without reviewing title defenses and resume. making blind statements without any facts doesnt lead to any credibility. I'd be interested in what turns up.

 

Mendoza - not the first time he's made an entry either.

Do a search for the quote of the week thread and you'll see him getting very upset about it too. Lucky for him I couldn't be bothered to argue otherwise he'd be looking even dumber tonight

 

We cant rate h2h. Thats not effective through eras, we know that. So we can look at resume and titles. Tyson had a big advantage because Wlad has his brother to deal with tyson didnt have that issue. Also, Holmes was really old when tyson beat him, that takes away a lot from that win IMO. Id still favor Mike, i just want to see a stronger argument.

 

Well that's one thing that should never, ever be held against WALDO. Even I've never brought that up to take the **** and I never will.

We'll have to wait and see anyway, I suspect he will lose again and that'll be the end of the matter.