would mike tyson be significant in todays heavyweight division ?

I don't need to know who Tyson fought to see he has speed. I can just watch Tyson punching a bag to know he has power and I see his def and technique and see no other heavyweight has that lethal combo of punches.

Yeah, results matters and his later losses he was off his prime by then when he didn't have those head movements and just became a slugger.

Know why he was such a legend in this day and everybody know who he was? Because anybody who wasn't blind can see he is total fighting machine. Why did he instil so much fear was because every boxer that face him know they'll get their head ripped off by Mike.

Like I said, what weakness did he have? He lost his fable D taking more punishment than necessary and went head hunting in later years and rely too much on his power. But in his prime, can't think of a single thing he didn't have unlike Wlado who we all know have a glass jaw and prone to panic when **** hits the fan.

 

Mike Tyson and Tyson Fury?

If it is just Mike Tyson, he is just too little to do anything against the Klits. It is hilarious how much the board underrates the Klits and their boxing skill and toughness.

 

All I saw was Vitali being open target practice when Lewis had the energy to jab his face at will so why his face was mashed and Waldo had the toughness of a bunny rabbit the way he was flopping around when Sanders gave him a few good punches.

Don't see that when Tyson gets hit and deffo don't see Tyson getting tag like a punching bag when he was in his prime.

 

OK.

Champion: Wladimir Klitschko.

#1 Vitali Klitschko.

#2 Tomasz Adamek, former WBO/IBF LHW & IBF CW champion & Ring title.

#3 Alexander Povetkin, 22-0-0, 3 time world, & Olympic champion.

# 4 Eddie Chambers, wins over 5 other top ten contenders 36-2-0.

# 5 David Haye, former cruiserweight champion, 25-2-0 with 23 KOs.

# 6 Robert Helenius, KO's over 3 former champions, just 16 pro fights.

# 7 Tony Thompson, wins over three other top ten contenders.

#8 Chris Arreola, 33-2-0, only lost to #1 and #2 ^.

#9 Alexander Dimitrenko, EU champion, lost a MD to #4 Chambers.

#10 Denis Boytsov, 3 time world amature champion, not fought in 10 months.

So the worst of today are better than the best of 86..:hi:

 

People are always asking how Tyson would do against this guy and that guy, and then they use the post prison Tyson in their analysis. Tyson was at his very best in the run-up to the title. If you want to compare Tyson to someone, use the version that beat the ass off of Trevor Berbick, not the half-Tyson that lost to Holyfield.

Bubby, you can blow all the hot air out your ass you want, but all you have to do to know the answer to the TS question is watch a goddam video. Tyson murders the K brothers.

 

He was a fighting machine against ok fighters. None of those guys were bums, but none were great. That does matter. He took 6 or so rounds to beat Pinklon Thomas, who had some early success against him. Is Thomas so much better than Wlad that Tyson would beat him easier? Is Tony Tucker better than Wlad, who lasted 12 rounds? These things do matter. And when was the last time Wlad actually looked panicked? 2005? Really? Until he does it again, I consider that to be a moot argument. He's not the same fighter that he was 6 years ago.

As for weaknesses, I did mention them. They aren't physical, they are mental and emotional. It wasn't just his trainers. He finally fought someone who both could stand up to him and actually did it, in Buster Douglas. Even before, he showed plenty of flashes of being a headcase and frontrunner. He just didn't get an opponent who could put it all together.

Again, I didn't say that Tyson would lose to Wlad or is inferior. I just noted that he isn't necessarily all that much better, either. Their resumes are comparable. Tyson was more exciting, sure, but that's not the same as better. Just because he looked impressive against semi-decent fighters doesn't make him great.

 

Tony Tucker, Carl Williams, Pinklon Thomas, Trevor Berbick... these guys aren't better than either Klitschko. Not all of Tyson's 80's victims went easy. And none of them were on the level of either Klitschko. So... Tony Tucker goes 12 with a prime Tyson, yet Wlad gets sparked in 3... really? Tyson was good, even great. But he was great against those guys. People way overhype his record. Looking like a beast against Tyrell Biggs isn't that amazing.

 

atsch thats right . Judge MIKE when he was beating bums . He coinsidently lost his prime as soon as his oposition got better :yep !

 

And who was Trevor Berbick to deserve your glowing praise?

Before Berbick even fought Tyson he had lost four fights. also fought to a draw with 21-18-3 Leroy Caldwell. Berbick was KO'd in just one round by Bernardo Mercado. Who the **** was he?

Fans remember only how Tyson knocked out opponents and forget "Who" Tyson knocked out..........

 

You can't reason from single instances (Tony Tucker went 12) to make a general point. It works the other way (e.g. Sultan Ibragimov went 12 with Wlad -- you think he survives 45 seconds with Tyson?)

The argument for Tyson beating Klitschko in a hypothetical matchup isn't based on who he fought in his prime (his "resume"), it's based on the visual evidence. It's based on looking at what he was like as a boxer and realizing that we was a force of nature, something that no one had ever seen before and no one has seen since.

 

But Ibragimov, unlike Tucker, had beaten other top fighters. Tucker had not one top ten contender on his record when he fought Tyson...

 

atsch A force of nature . just f---king wow !

 

bubby. You're hopeless.