Current Wladimir vs the Best Version of Mike Tyson

[Jel]

The best version of Mike TYson vs Seth Mitchell will be a BARN Burner.



(lol jk)

[TysonBomb]

haha comparing frank bruno to wlad. tyson wasnt the toughest fighter mentally, lets face it everyone who he fought before buster douglas was **** scared of him. i can see wlad frustrating him with his jab and movement and ko him in later rounds. best chance tyson has is in the early rounds, after that it will be all wlad.

Wlad would have a heart attack while entering the ring against prime Tyson

Tyson would slip and deliver a counter left hook with power that Wlad has never felt before that would turn his delicate, fragile jaw into micronized debris.

Tyson is all wrong for Wlad ... it would be more of a hunt than a fight.

Wlad is bad against pressure fighters, guys with fast hands, and guys with power. Tyson is off the charts in terms of power and speed ... and he was extremely difficult to hit with his defense ... and the amount of ferocity he attacked with would overwhelm Wlad.

Wlad is just the second coming of Lennox Lewis who is less skilled but hits slightly harder ... Tyson has no equal and there will never be anyone like him ever.

[kenso]

Yes, but what you can do is pull out certain fighters guys like Lennox,Wlad,Vitlai,Tyson fought during their physical/boxing primes that were like inferior versions of each other.

I get what you are saying . I'm only pointing out the "hypocrisy" (for lack of a better word ATM) in the "analysis" that is constantly being put forth on these fantasy match ups. If someone wants to break down a fight, then we should list specific reasons why - like you have previously in the thread. That is what makes good discussion. What does NOT make good discussion is saying that a fighter would have lost to another for *arbitrary reason* when this *arbitrary reason* applies to almost every great heavyweight in history.

Some of the most common ones are:
1. Said fighter lost to a bum
2. Said fighter has the tools to win
3. Said fighter has never faced someone on the level of other fighter

Aside from that, there is also blatant idiocy/hate or "nuthuggery" of fighters. People often post under the guise of an unbias fan, but usually offer no more analysis than "Tyson was the greatest of ALL TIME" or "Klitschko fights in the weakest era ever, he's a joke". The problem is, that most of the time, there is no legitimate analysis going on. We just have a bunch of people throwing the same three reasons(or similar ones) that I listed above back and forth at each other in favor and against both fighters.

My personal thoughts on the original question:

The idea that Klitschko is no more than a 70s HW bum in a "poor era" is quickly fading. He is approaching a historic run of title defenses, represents himself and the sport very well, and comes in as good shape as any HW in history has. There is a reason he is in discussions like these. If you are one of the few that still feel Klitschko isn't the real deal, then don't even bother adding to the thread, because you are likely blind, or stupid.

[lazy]

Tyson by ktfo. But Wlads management would not let Wlad in with a Tyson, that's what Vitali is for.

[kenso]

Wlads management would not let Wlad in with a Tyson, that's what Vitali is for.

Really? What fighter do you think Wladimir has avoided to suggest this? He fought Sam Peter (first time) and David Haye, and at the time, these guys were regarded as the most dangerous punchers in the division. He ended up falling off, but at the time, Sam Peter was a beast.

[SlySlickSmooth]

Wlads jab will feel just like the slip bag for Tyson

[Jel]

I get what you are saying . I'm only pointing out the "hypocrisy" (for lack of a better word ATM) in the "analysis" that is constantly being put forth on these fantasy match ups. If someone wants to break down a fight, then we should list specific reasons why - like you have previously in the thread. That is what makes good discussion. What does NOT make good discussion is saying that a fighter would have lost to another for *arbitrary reason* when this *arbitrary reason* applies to almost every great heavyweight in history.

Some of the most common ones are:
1. Said fighter lost to a bum
2. Said fighter has the tools to win
3. Said fighter has never faced someone on the level of other fighter

Aside from that, there is also blatant idiocy/hate or "nuthuggery" of fighters. People often post under the guise of an unbias fan, but usually offer no more analysis than "Tyson was the greatest of ALL TIME" or "Klitschko fights in the weakest era ever, he's a joke". The problem is, that most of the time, there is no legitimate analysis going on. We just have a bunch of people throwing the same three reasons(or similar ones) that I listed above back and forth at each other in favor and against both fighters.

My personal thoughts on the original question:

The idea that Klitschko is no more than a 70s HW bum in a "poor era" is quickly fading. He is approaching a historic run of title defenses, represents himself and the sport very well, and comes in as good shape as any HW in history has. There is a reason he is in discussions like these. If you are one of the few that still feel Klitschko isn't the real deal, then don't even bother adding to the thread, because you are likely blind, or stupid.

Good post.
I know Tyson tends to get over rated at times. Wlad tends to get under rated at times.(a lot actually)

I personally feel that Wlad is already an top 10 ATG HW and will finish as top 7.

BUT I also must point out something people don't talk about.

Wladimir was given more chances than other fighters who have failed because during those stretches there was no true young heavyweight super star.
When Wlad was knocked out by Purrity, his stock fell and the focus went to Tua/Ike. Ike went to jail and Tua never recovered from the Lennox fight.

Wlad's promotion train went right back on track. After the Sanders K,O this is when if he was to be in the early 90's he would never have gotten back on track. But because in 2003 onwards, the heavyweight division was dying rapidly, Wladimir was once again given the full focus and allowed to rebuild up to the Brewster KO. He was given yet another chance because by 2005 there was nobody left other than him and Peters.


If Wlad was to lose 3 times in the early 90's, the focus would never have gone back to him. It would have been on Tyson,Bowe,HOlyfield,Lewis,Morrison. He would not have regained the spot light.

That's just the way boxing politics worked. So when people say Wlad is lucky he's in this era, it don't always mean that they think he won't have been able to beat the 90's heavyweights, it just means that during the 90's star packed era of HW'S, Wlad's 3 losses basically means marketing death.


I guess I wanted to say Wladimir is a bit lucky he fought in a heavyweight era where there were no other young stars to market when he suffered a string of defeat. The only semi star was Peters.

And let's face it, an overweight Nigerian was never gonna take the HW marketing scene by storm.


As for the people saying the 70's guys would have beaten Wlad. That is stretching it big time.

Ali and 70's Foreman had the style to trouble Wlad, but every single other 60's 70's fighter would have been a under dog.

[kenso]

Wladimir was given more chances than other fighters who have failed because during those stretches there was no true young heavyweight super star.

I see what you are saying but I think it not necessarily that in itself. At the end of each of those fights, ESPECIALLY the Brewster fight, he was being written off as a fraud big time. He legitimately worked his way back up through the rankings each time and did what he had to do to get the title shot(s). Other divisions are really no different. Take the career of Zab Judah for example. This guy has been up and down his entire career, but always seems to get a title shot because he beats the contenders to get there.

I think if Klitschko was in a stacked division, he would have been heralded as a gatekeeper for a little while, but would have eventually found his way back up to the top. It just wouldn't have been as fast.

As a side note:
I agree that Peter was never going to take the world by storm. However, the version that fought Wlad in their first fight would have been a solid fighter in many eras, although never more than a momentary belt holder. He wasn't that over weight at that time. He was 243 lbs and you could see his abs. He hit hard as hell, wasn't slow, but just didn't have the tools of a long-standing world champion.

[Jel]

I see what you are saying but I think it not necessarily that in itself. At the end of each of those fights, ESPECIALLY the Brewster fight, he was being written off as a fraud big time. He legitimately worked his way back up through the rankings each time and did what he had to do to get the title shot(s). Other divisions are really no different. Take the career of Zab Judah for example. This guy has been up and down his entire career, but always seems to get a title shot because he beats the contenders to get there.

I think if Klitschko was in a stacked division, he would have been heralded as a gatekeeper for a little while, but would have eventually found his way back up to the top. It just wouldn't have been as fast.

As a side note:
I agree that Peter was never going to take the world by storm. However, the version that fought Wlad in their first fight would have been a solid fighter in many eras, although never more than a momentary belt holder. He wasn't that over weight at that time. He was 243 lbs and you could see his abs. He hit hard as hell, wasn't slow, but just didn't have the tools of a long-standing world champion.

Yep. I agree with this entire post.

1-Yes, in a stacked era he would have been a gatekeeper for a while, but would have found his way back to the top anyways. Just would have taken longer.
2- Peter in that first Wlad fight would have been top 10 in the 90's or 70's, .
But ONLY for that stretch of time, because let's be honest he declined rapidly.


I also agree that you don't really need an ATG on your resume to be a top 10-7 ATG.

But what you do need is a big bunch of world class fighters and a few elite ones.

I think people might differ in opinion from what is world class.

I think it's fair to say this:

ATG: Wladimir, Lennox
Elite: Riddick Bowe
World Class: Chris Byrd, Tony Tucker,

World Class abilities: David Haye, Andrew Golota, etc.

i think if you defeat fighters with world class abilities it still counts as a big win. Guys like Haye do not have the resume Adamek does, but imo it's a better win.

[Jel]

Except for Douglas, who beat a prime 24 year old Tyson.

A couple of things on that.

H2H, you take the best versions. It's just a fantasy game lol.
Yes, Douglas beat a Prime Tyson. He did. But you don't use that version in a h2h.

We use the Berbick-Spinks version against Wlad's Haye,Thompson,Wach version.