would mike tyson be significant in todays heavyweight division ?

i think Tyson would put the fear of god into Wlad, its just not a good matchup for Wlado at all. Tyson was a tremendous talent in his prime, good from close range and brilliant from mid range, he was fast, he could mix it up and had power in both hands. If anything did come back he could soak it up before coming back with something better. Obviously most people know what ive said above already but a select few seem to have forgetten that Wlad hasnt dealt with "in your face" kind of fighters particularly well in the past. I understand that Klitschko has improved since he was bumrushed by Saunders and struggled with Peters but its also fair to say that Tyson was on a different planet to the aforementioned fighters and that seed of doubt in Wlad's head from those difficult nights still exist to this day. Tyson would stop Wlad during the first half of the fight.

 

Fact is that Vitali couldn't put away a 39 year old like how Tyson did the job on Holmes.

He was ahead on cards but if he was great, he should have taken Lewis out of there asap.

He didn't and lost and got his face mashed up in the process. Damn, Lewis was so outta shape but when he could find what little energy he had to jab Vitali, it smacked him in the face every time. Not BS stoppage or robbed by judges but legitimate loss. A cut is a loss just like Henry Cooper. Tough **** if you skin is flaky.

The only obvious thing is however you want to spin it, there is always a question on Vitali because his only test he had he failed to rise to the challenge. Simples.

 

Tyson would beat the top contenders, i'm not sure about the Klitschko's though.....he would have a good chance against Wlad.....

 

Tyson was always a bit overrated. He never beat anybody at his peak (86-90) that wouldn't have been handled just as easily by Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe, or the Klitschkos. Tubbs, Tucker, Thomas, Williams, etc... not really any better than Byrd, Chagaev, Peter, Chambers, Ibragimov, etc... We tend to look at the past with more reverence than it sometimes deserves. Mike was an all-time top 20 (not 10) heavyweight, sure... but he wasn't invincible. By 2005 he had lost badly to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. Had he kept fighting, he would have deteriorated faster than Holyfield has. Mike in his current form would lose to anyone in the current top 10, possibly top 20.

Now, Mike in his prime would certainly be top 5 in today's era, sure. Would he supplant the Klitschkos? Um.... maybe. Explosive, certainly. Faster, powerful, skilled, yes. But... watch some of Mike's fights, even in his prime. He was very passive when clinched. He let guys tie him up inside. Someone larger, stronger, just as skilled and experienced, like, I dunno... one of the Klitschkos holding him, leaning on him, wearing him out... Mike could be frustrated. Mike could lose focus and confidence. If he couldn't blast out either Klitschko within 6 or so (50-50 prospect with Wlad, maybe 20% chance with Vitali), then I see him falling apart and getting stopped late. Sure, he could look spectacular when his opponent was scared to death or physically inferior. But, even a few of his wins, he was extended the distance against fighters who were nowhere near the K brothers level. Not saying he couldn't beat Wlad or Vitali... but I wouldn't be shocked to see either of them handle Mike.

 

Size matters. But look at Pac being people above him in weight class. And Tyson had way more skill than K Bros.

Maybe the K Bros can win out on size alone. But really I sincerely do not wish to believe that 'cos otherwise boxing is meaningless if greater skillset does not make up for size advantage. Might as well go watch weight lifting or wank on the biggest man in the world gay porn.

Boxing I watch to see skill on how to be a fight better. The K bros is like watching how to fight like a poof because of your size and just hold on meaning for me.

 

He was extended the distance but still won every round.He was a shell of a fighter when he went in with Lewis and still extended him further than Vitali.

Can you name some good fighters that the K Bros have beaten because itsa huge ***** has struggled to name one for over an hour now and may need your help.

Pathetic really seeing as he is their biggest fan.

 

Tyson is not overrated. Tell me what quality do you think he is overrated by? Def? Heart? Chin? Speed? Workrate? Technique? What exactly is he lacking as a boxer?

You can claim his opponents are weak all you like. It is v easy to do that for any era. He can only beat what is in front of him but what I see is complete boxer that had everything and can take people out like no other.

K Bros had weak opponents yet somehow they are suppose to be some amazing boxers and yet haven't won a significant fight. Vitali had his one chance and blew it. Wlad showed his has a glass jaw and would be KTFO with a quality oppenent yet someone they can stand up to Tyson? Plz.

 

Peak Tyson would be a favourite over every active boxer today. Whether or not he;'d beat them is a different matter.

Remember Tyson has only once been an underdog and that was when completely shot vs Lewis.

 

And you say Im spinning? You replaced Spinks with Tyson because you feel he'd have a better chance vs Wladimir!atsch Sorry but we can;t change history. It would look like this.

#1 Wladimir vs # 1 Spinks.

#2 Vitali vs #2 Tyson.

 

so let me get this straight ur telling me holmes retired at 37 then came back at 39 to fight tyson and your comparing that to vitali fighting lennox even tho lennox was still the ud world champ and still fighting at the top??plus the fact he took it on 11 days notice and it was his 1st real jump in class..please uve just ended the argument for urself my man ffs..put down your klit hatter manual and step away from the keyboard before u type something stupid again

 

what is he lacking as a boxer??can you seriously not tell the difference between a boxer and a slugger ffs...what is it with tyson fans holy ****

 

I'm sinking the peroni at the minute so pardon my french.

Fukin hell you and your fanboy ways. Can't you work out that some boxing fans don't have bias and agenda like you fanboys?

The reason I swapped them is because of the holmes-spinks rematch. I assume you watched it? That should explain it all.

Otherwise that's like saying briggs was the world champ when lewis beat him which is utter bull****.


As an aside, ask yourself this, why would I give a **** over who has the best chance? In what way could it possibly benefit me?

 

I also feel as you did that Tyson would have a better chance against Wladimir over an iron chined, hard-to-hit Vitali. And thats why you switched Tyson and Spinks, I believed better of you before, but now its clear your just a Klitschko hater putting up a non-bias front.....

 

1) why should spinks be rated above tyson

2) if I was a klitschko hater i'd have preferred to match tyson with the inferior brother, not the one who's ruled for 6 years running.

3) I genuinely don't give a **** what you think about me, had you seen the spinks-holmes rematch, plus understood that berbick beat pinklon thomas prior to losing to iron, not to mention tyson is clearly a superior hw to spinks, you'd see it's the logical choice.

4) you're one of these closet wlad haters who believes he's somehow less of a threat compared to vitali even though he's beaten much better opposition.

 

Tyson would have absolutely smoked the entire current division. Maybe Vitali could him some real problems, where as with Wlad, I see Tyson being to much for Wlad as his style is suited perfectly for Tyson.