Wlad is already a greater champion than Mike Tyson.

The more I think about it... interesting thread.

 

Yes, I agree. For all his supposed 'tactical genius', poor old Wald would fall to pieces once Tyson penetrated his jab and landed a few on his delicate jawbone. Utter destruction of the Iron Giant by Iron Mike.

I can see Tyson yelling....timberrrrrrrrrrr and Wald falls, unconscious to the ground! No need for the count.

 

Im absolutely sure that Tyson would KO Wlad in round 1 if they ever fought.

 

if he stays champ for 3 years more, he would surpass tyson

 

Wlad wouldn´t survive one round in the same ring as a prime Tyson, prime Ali or prime Joe Frazier.
The predator

 

To say Tyson is a better Boxer than Wladamir is Laughable. Tyson was a better Brawler maybe, but not a boxer in so far as the "Sweet Science" goes.

Tyson was more exciting to watch, who doesn't like to see a guy get knocked into ******ation?

It's funny, and I wish these forums would have been here in the 1990's, and we could go look at old posts and see people saying "Tyson is better than ALI ever was!" when Tyson was in his prime, and other people retorting "Tyson never would have beaten a prime Marciano, Lewis, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, etc.

It's a big circle folks, some of it a circle jerk.

10 years from now people will be saying "He never could've beaten a prime Klitschko!"

 

It's not a question of nuthuggery...

All my my points are certainly more valid than the guy i was responding to.
Here's his post:
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4314703&postcount=98
here's mine
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4314940&postcount=104

I'll respond to your remarks.
You say:

Back in 86 , Tyson's obstacle to win the WBC belt was Berbick.

That is , an overrated & shot version of Berbick of course. (not that it would've changed much since the guy wasn't fantastic even in his prime but was extremely overrated all because of his victory over a past prime Muhammad Ali , who was just a mere shadow of his former self in 81. )

As a matter of fact Ali's fight vs Berbick even was the final of his career.

SO , in other words , in 86 , Berbick was already over the hill.& that's who Tyson had to beat for the title.

You know Wladimir certainly isn't perfect.
But the same goes for Tyson. Or Berbick for that matter. He actually already had 4 losses on his record before Tyson added the final nail in the coffin of his overrated career.


Then , in 87 , Tyson had to beat Smith for the WBA title (Smith , who already had losses against the likes of Witherspoon , Tubbs , Broad , Marvis ).

Again, in 87 , he had to beat Tucker for the IBF title. And here's a quick reminder , Tucker was the only , undefeated champion Tyson ever defeated in his entire career.

On the other hand , Wladimir defeated several undefeated title holders.
Chagaev (undefeated prior to his fight vs wlad)
Ibragimov (see above)
Peter (see above)

Quick Recap.
For his first title fight Tyson had to beat Berbick (who already had 4 losses and was over the hill)
Then he defended his title & also took the WBA belt from Smith (smith already had a few defeats on his record).

Then finally ! He beats an undefeated IBF champion (Tucker)...

Another important victory on Tyson's record was of course , his fight against Spinks. (another important one but who also was cherry picking his opponents , not to mention he even went as far as to refuse to fight tucker (the IBF contender of the time) & fought Cooney instead.

Cooney aka the definition of "white hope".
Like i said before. The only people who do not see any flaws in Tyson's career. Or Any other ex-champs for that matter...Have a very selective memory.

Wlad Klitschko is himself , far from being perfect.

But only deluded & biased fanboys tend to give their version of the story. Whenever you listen to their side of the story. Everything is flawless , amazing , god-like. (Tyson himself was propulsed to the status of a demi-god , thanks to the crazed american media hype machine).

Then came the innevitable.

Time suddenly stopped and fans around the world couldn't believe their eyes. Their god , getting owned by a mere gate keeper (Buster Douglas). Everybody was trying to find a rational explanation. Douglas , himself became "god"...at least for a period of 8 months...(till Holyfield put him back in his place).

Hell even a sega genesis game was renamed after his victory over Tyson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Blow

(& to think that i even bought the damn game , but i was just a very impressionable kid back then)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvRMMDe4pVE

It's not like Holyfield did the impossible...Douglas already had embarrassing losses against the likes of Bey & White.

Isn't it funny ? Here you are , mentioning wlad's 3 losses and of course , totally ignoring the other side of the story. It's so easy to **** on wlad's career & to suck Tyson's dick isn't it ? The media did for years. So much so , that even in 2009...

You get absurd threads like this one.
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149537

And countless of "prime tyson" would've done this and that..type of threads.

It's also worth noting that Tyson never won a rematch in his career.(lost twice against Holyfield)
But Klitschko did. (against Brewster)..

Of course , i can already see tons of fans saying that Brewster was "done" as a fighter.(Liakhovich partially ruined this guy's career) & others will quickly dismiss brewster as just some scrub.

Sure sure...But if you're gonna do that , than you also have to accept my critics and my previous points...If you're gonna mention Golota , then you shouldn't ignore the fact that Brewster also added a nail in the coffin of this mental midget's career.

Just like you shouldn't ignore the fact that Bowe was ridiculed twice by this very same mental midget.

No champ is perfect. Not even Lennox. (but at least Lennox was a way superior champ than Tyson ever was) , but he also had to suffer a terrible loss (against Rahman). It's also easy to **** on the "old" Maskaev.

Sure pointing the fact that an old fart like Maskaev won a title is a valid point.

But if you're going to dismiss today's era , then you also have to dismiss the time when a past prime Foreman was dominating. We're talking about a + 43 or 44 super slow Foreman here...Finishing Moorer , Cooney...

Was that an indication of Foreman's greatness ? or an indication of the abysmal division Foreman was fighting in ? (no matter how you look at it , kudos to the old man though...)

See my response above...

True. Not that it would've changed much though. Like i always say , it seems to me that Tyson was lucky to dominate an era in which there were no such specimens as Lennox or Vitali. (physically huge & talented opponents)...

Prime Tyson couldn't finish the likes of Tillis & Green.

As far as Tillis' case is concerned...we're talking about a 6'1 tall fighter here.

Mitch Green was 6'5 , with a reach of 82 (only without wlad's or Lennox's talent)

It's also interesting to note that prime Tyson couldn't finish Smith.

Smith had a reach of 82 and a was 6'4 tall. (tall yes but a bum compared to the likes of Lennox or Vitali , Dimitrenko , Virchis ..and hell even Valuev)


So would Tyson murder a guy like Wlad ? Who knows..

I personally see it as a 50/50
Anything can happen because both fighters (prime for prime) have flaws.

 

Based on title fight record?

 

That is not really saying much but okay.

 

One last thing...

If you accumulate All the victories and losses of Tyson's opponents (58 fights in total) , you'll get a result of:
1303 WINS

But if you do the same for Wlad's opponents
(that's 56 fights in total)
you'll get:
1297 WINS

BUT , If you substract Tyson's two last fights (so that we can compare the two , 56 fights vs 56 fights)

You have 1240 victories for Tyson's opponents

So...
wlad's opponents = 1297 wins
Tyson's opponents = 1240 wins...

Let's also count the losses...



i'm only gonna count the losses their opponents had AT THE TIME both wlad & Tyson fought them) In other words if McBride has more losses after his victory against Tyson , i'm not gonna count them. I'll only pay attention to the losses he accumuluated before he fought against Tyson.

Tyson's opponents have a total of:
206 LOSSES

Wlad's opponents have a total of:
349 LOSSES

the total of Tyson's opponents had 143 fewer losses
But total of Tyson's opponents had 57 fewer victories


But Wlad's career is far from being over right now....

But i almost forgot , since Tyson had 2 more fights , it would be unfair to count them. so i'm gonna substract McBride + Williams. (both had 4 and 3 losses before fighting Tyson) 4+3 = 7
206-7 = 199 losses

But here's more interesting. Let's now compare the accumulated victories and losses of the guys who defeated them. We get:

Tyson = 196 victories and 19 losses
Klitchko = 91 victories and 15 losses

 

I think that before you use the word great with any fighter, they need to get into a war and come out on top. I haven't seen that happen yet with either Klit.

 

You must be an actuary

 

Michael Spinks

Tyson hadn't reached his prime when he fought those two

I seem to recall that Klit couldn't stop Sultan Ibragimov, which just goes to prove that it ain't easy to kayo a guy how is intent only on survival.

 

Remind us, how did he do in his rematches with Puritty and Sanders?

 

Oops...you're right about spinks. And yes Klit couldn't finish Sultan but this also illustrates my point and what i was saying earlier...No champ is perfect. and that's why i personally also see tyson vs wlad as a legit 50/50.

Each time a fan talks about Tyson , you get the feeling that we're talking about a demi-god...someone untouchable. It certainly wasn't the case. He had his flaws like everyone else...even in his prime.