Well the general consensus was that he was unbeatable before Douglas, and a shadow of his former self after. This is a difficult one, I'll ahve to go and think it over :huh
Wrong! Wladimir Klitschko has no chin and is afraid to get hit. Vitali would have been a much better match up and harder opponent.
Yeah, and Brewster only beat Wladimir becuase his trainer just died. :rofl The fact is that if nothing was wrong with Wlad he would've stopped Brewster the first fight just like he did in the second fight.
I don't agree with Ali having a better jab than Wlad anyway, but I did say since Holmes didn't I? Pay attention if you're going to play the game.
This thread is not to be taken seriously, as it was obviously an attempt by someone to stir the pot... Apparently it has worked. Anyway, on the subject of Wladimir Klitschko vs Mike Tyson, I'm assuming that we are looking at these two men during their absolute best years. For me, Tyson was at his peak from 1987-1989, while Wlad's prime is probably from about 2005-present. I really can't see Klitschko doing much to upset an undefeated Tyson at his best. He may however be able to utilize his size, reach and boxing ability to survive the first few rounds and even score some points, but at the end of the day, I see this fight ending in similar fashion to the first Frank Bruno bout. Tyson pounds him to submission between rounds 4-6.
Fair opinion even though I disagree. I believe Tyson's competition during the 80's was worse than today's bunch & that version of Tyson had never fought anyone like Wladimir or Lennox.
i think tyson scares the living daylights out of him.for christs sake he was negative and shitting himself against the "fake" tyson ibraimov.it wouldn't go beyond 5 rounds.
Frankly, I don't see where bringing up Lennox Lewis has anything to do with a direct comparison between Wlad and Tyson, but if you want to throw his name in there, then fine. As for Tyson's competition vs Klitschko's, I don't want to get into a whole debate about who fought better men, but I do feel that Wlad's timid nature, shaky chin, and inability to regain composure once he's hurt could be a big problem for him in this fight. I think Wlad's size and boxing ability may win him the first 2 or 3 rounds, but once he's shaken, Tyson is likely to finish him. I can't see him getting off the canvas or even the ropes for that matter to score a win.
Buster was more dedicated for that one fight than Corrie was because of their motivating reasons.... way to miss a point. :yep Show me where I said he won only because his mom died. :deal I notice you didn't address any of the other points. Interesting.... :think
I would take Wlad. Tyson has shown no evidence whatsoever that he could beat a highly skilled big. Tyson was owned the only times he fought ATG's and even a retired Holmes collecting a paycheck gave him fits initially. A 5'9 Tyson would get beat by Wlad. Wlad would hold if he got on the inside, tire Tyson out, then jab on the outside and then lower a left right that would end the fight. The Tyson myth is hilarious. But if Wlad had a competent uppercut, then it would definitely be a no brainer. That is Wlad's only offensive weakness and it is one of Tyson's kryptonite.