Most dominant Eastern European?

I should add Andres Kotelnik.

Wrong........

Only two fighters from the list are 'dominant',and thats in a piss poor division

Wladimir Klitschko.

I clearly said First 54 fights In that span Wlad was down 11 times(meaning the ref showed him fingers 11 times) and Tyson was down only twice. The reason I stopped at 54 fights was because Tyson was over 35 when he was ko'd by Lennox. We cant really compare Wlad to that part of Tysons career until Wlad gets a little older. But as of now Wladimir's resume' is garbage and none of his opponents were ever accused of being an atg, or even having the potential to be one. All of Wlads losses came against the trash of the superior heavyweight era: A streaking Brewster, a 37 year old golfer and a 20 loss journeyman. His best wins are against a supermiddleweight and a one-dimensional slow Nigerian. Wlad doesnt even break the top 15. Maybe if he went undefeated he couldve gotten into the top 10, but poor opposition would prevent him from touching Marciano who had 4 ATGs on his resume'. Wlad will be remembered for the weak era he existed in, and the double digit knockdowns he suffered. LOL at your post. ATG monickers have been thrown around by US historians, it's a very subjective measure, if you take a look at any objective measure of Wlad's record and compare it to any HW "ATG" in the top 10 he will be in at least the top 5. Wlad never fought a supermiddleweight (unless you are talking about a natural HW Byrd who had to starve himself and come down to LHW after his career was done, loosing badly and proving that he is truly a HW, at the very least a CW) or anyone who campaigned at that weight but Tyson's claim to fame is beating a LHW in Spinks, who fought his whole prime as a LHW at 168-172 and only came to HW for 5 fights at the end of his career. Or how about Muhammed Ali - he was beating up on 177 pounders and 180 pounders for half his career. I digress though, let's just stick with Tyson. Wlad already had 18 title fights and 13 title defenses and he is still fighting, Tyson had 16 title fights and 10 title defenses and he is done, his stats aren't going to get any better. Wladimir has beaten 8 world champions (major belts; IBF, WBO, WBC, WBA) and Tyson beat 5, one of them being a LHW champion. Wlad's KO% 84, Tyson 75%. Out of the champs that Tyson beat only Holmes and Spinks stand out, one was a LHW and the other was 39-years old, clearly past his prime. Tyson had 3 KOs losses, 2 TKOs, and 1 DQ, where he would have gotten KOd if he didn't resort to biting Holy's ear off. Wlad tasted defeat only 3 times. It's clear that Wlad is better in every category, oh and the combined win-loss ratio all of Wlad's opponents is better than that of Tyson's. Wlad is better than Tyson, by every objective measure. Maybe biased nostalgic old farts like Bert Sugar will call this a weak era, but that's only because the US fighters are not dominating, so you all have to make excuses for it that your top fighters are playing golf or poker or something.

Oh ok, so he has been KOd three times, but only has 2KD? Don't you have to be on the canvas for at least 10 seconds to get KOd? Oh, I get it, you are not counting Williams, but you are counting every single time YOU think Wlad was down. Something is wrong with your math. As I said before, Wlad has not been down 11 times as you say. Tyson was KOd 3 times, one time by a guy with less power than Byrd, Wlad has never been KOd. That kind puts things in perspective for you. Tyson built his name on the McNeelies and LHWs of the world, when faced with anyone in his era that was a good fighter and wasn't intimidated, he folded. In all honesty, Tyson is a top 15 HW fighter of all time, Wlad is a top-10 fighter, very closely approaching top 5. I clearly said First 54 fights In that span Wlad was down 11 times(meaning the ref showed him fingers 11 times) and Tyson was down only twice. The reason I stopped at 54 fights was because Tyson was over 35 when he was ko'd by Lennox. We cant really compare Wlad to that part of Tysons career until Wlad gets a little older. But as of now Wladimir's resume' is garbage and none of his opponents were ever accused of being an atg, or even having the potential to be one. All of Wlads losses came against the trash of the superior heavyweight era: A streaking Brewster, a 37 year old golfer and a 20 loss journeyman. His best wins are against a supermiddleweight and a one-dimensional slow Nigerian. Wlad doesnt even break the top 15. Maybe if he went undefeated he couldve gotten into the top 10, but poor opposition would prevent him from touching Marciano who had 4 ATGs on his resume'. Wlad will be remembered for the weak era he existed in, and the double digit knockdowns he suffered.

youre living in your teletubie dreamland :dunce: you are the one in dream land. mike tyson is overrated as ****.

people love to go to extremes in matchups like Wlad vs Tyson, but in reality it would have been an unpredictable fight. I can definitely see Wladimir being able to push Tyson away on the outside with his jabs and hooks off the jab. I can also see him effectively being able to tie up Tyson...Tyson may have been an inside fighter, but in reality there was a lot of clinching in his fights. And yet we all know the explosiveness and destruction of Tyson's punches, and Wlad's tenativeness and lack of durability. I think we can all see Wladimir doing great, and then getting smacked and the whole fight changing instantly(not necessarily having Wlad automatically KOed, but I can see him stumbling around the ring for two rounds like a drunken sailor until the fight was stopped). people underestimate Wladimir's heart, and likewise people underestimate the variety and body punching of Tyson. because of the natural disadvantages both of them have and the fact that their styles are almost completely opposite, if they fought 10 times, you may as well have flipped a coin ten times to see who would have won. oh and as for the question, yea, its definitely Wladimir. Very reasonable post. A lot better than crap like: "Tyson would beat both Klitschkos at the same time." or "Tyson would eat both of the Klitschkos and their children." The sad thing is that the Klitschkos haters are so desperate for the Klitschkos to get beaten that they have to resort to fantasy match-ups to do it or to say that the whole division is terrible because they know no man alive can beat either Klitschko in a boxing ring today.

people love to go to extremes in matchups like Wlad vs Tyson, but in reality it would have been an unpredictable fight. I can definitely see Wladimir being able to push Tyson away on the outside with his jabs and hooks off the jab. I can also see him effectively being able to tie up Tyson...Tyson may have been an inside fighter, but in reality there was a lot of clinching in his fights. And yet we all know the explosiveness and destruction of Tyson's punches, and Wlad's tenativeness and lack of durability. I think we can all see Wladimir doing great, and then getting smacked and the whole fight changing instantly(not necessarily having Wlad automatically KOed, but I can see him stumbling around the ring for two rounds like a drunken sailor until the fight was stopped). people underestimate Wladimir's heart, and likewise people underestimate the variety and body punching of Tyson. because of the natural disadvantages both of them have and the fact that their styles are almost completely opposite, if they fought 10 times, you may as well have flipped a coin ten times to see who would have won. oh and as for the question, yea, its definitely Wladimir.

In all honesty, Tyson is a top 15 HW fighter of all time, Wlad is a top-10 fighter, very closely approaching top 5. There is nothing left to say! You are right, there isn't, good place to leave off, mentioning the legacy that Wlad will leave when he retires (barring another loss).

I'm only talking about wlad's chin, not his wins or losses. I'm not disputing anything you say about wlad excetp if tyson hits him hard he's going to sleep. I never said anything about counting losses. Somehow you inferred that. what I said was the Tyson post douglas was different. Not because of the losses, because he had gone through prison, divorce, getting $100 mil stolen from him. Your argument is that Tyson wouldn't land but if SOMEHOW he did Wlad would just shake it off. Look, if you honestly believe that then there is almost no point in continuing. You make excellent points but you can't reasonably refute any post questionning wlads chin. Mike Tyson (the one with Kevin Rooney) who moved his head constantly and found a way to get inside on evrybody he fought would get inside on Wlad. Sorry, Mike Tyson didn't get inside on everyone, agaisnt tall fighters he always struggled. He couldn't KO 6'4" Bonecrusher, or 6.5" Mitch Green, or 6'5 Tony Tucker. He got KOd by 6'4"-6'5" Buster and 6'6" Lennox and quit against 6'6" McBride. Wlad, being in the same league as Lennox and with similar style, better power, would have KOd Tyson. The chin thing is a myth and even if there is some truth to it, Tyson isn't touching it, not with his 5'10" height and 71" reach. Every fighter that beat Wlad had at least a 77" reach (at least) and 6'2" height.

In all honesty, Tyson is a top 15 HW fighter of all time, Wlad is a top-10 fighter, very closely approaching top 5. There is nothing left to say!

Wlad has a better resume than Tyson. youre living in your teletubie dreamland :dunce:

Wlad has a better resume than Tyson.

Maybe you should take your own advice. Take Tysons WHOLE career into perspective - don't separate it out by pre-prison and post-prison Mike, like you have been doing. Every post of yours before this has been saying that we shouldn't count the 5 losses after Buster because he was past his prime and we shouldn't count the Buster loss because Buster's mom died and he became superman. Take your own advice and own up that Tyson would never beat a fighter like Vitaly or Wlad. Taken as a whole Wlad's is way more dominant than Mike - less losses, longer reign, never quit on anyone, never KOd, higher KO%. I'm only talking about wlad's chin, not his wins or losses. I'm not disputing anything you say about wlad excetp if tyson hits him hard he's going to sleep. I never said anything about counting losses. Somehow you inferred that. what I said was the Tyson post douglas was different. Not because of the losses, because he had gone through prison, divorce, getting $100 mil stolen from him. Your argument is that Tyson wouldn't land but if SOMEHOW he did Wlad would just shake it off. Look, if you honestly believe that then there is almost no point in continuing. You make excellent points but you can't reasonably refute any post questionning wlads chin. Mike Tyson (the one with Kevin Rooney) who moved his head constantly and found a way to get inside on evrybody he fought would get inside on Wlad.

Tyson was only down twice in his first 54 fights against Holyfield, Buster.... Wlad was down 11 times in his first 54 fights against mostly bums.... Tyson would win because Wlad crumbles under chaotic pressure...A pre-liakovich Brewster, an awkward Sanders, and a crazy Peter throws him out of his safe zone. Wlad prefers the soft predictable fighters like Chambers and chagaev, or the friendly geezers like Thompson and shot Rahman. http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5773/purrity.gif ..yea I can think of at least 6 different ways Tyson could own this guy... Oh ok, so he has been KOd three times, but only has 2KD? Don't you have to be on the canvas for at least 10 seconds to get KOd? Oh, I get it, you are not counting Williams, but you are counting every single time YOU think Wlad was down. Something is wrong with your math. As I said before, Wlad has not been down 11 times as you say. Tyson was KOd 3 times, one time by a guy with less power than Byrd, Wlad has never been KOd. That kind puts things in perspective for you. Tyson built his name on the McNeelies and LHWs of the world, when faced with anyone in his era that was a good fighter and wasn't intimidated, he folded. In all honesty, Tyson is a top 15 HW fighter of all time, Wlad is a top-10 fighter, very closely approaching top 5.

Nope, never said Wlad has a glass jaw, you did. I am still trying to get you to prove why that statement is true. Just cause he was KD 7 times in 60 fights, doesn't mean that he does. A prime Tyson has been laid out cold by punchers who have a lower KO% than Byrd (Buster), Byrd couldn't do sh*t to Wlad. It seems Tyson's chin is the one that needs to be questioned, not Wlad's. 1) Tyson would never land on him 2) Even if he did, Wlad would shake it off and keep doing his thing 3) Wlad would put that soft chin of Tyson's to sleep Tyson was only down twice in his first 54 fights against Holyfield, Buster.... Wlad was down 11 times in his first 54 fights against mostly bums.... Tyson would win because Wlad crumbles under chaotic pressure...A pre-liakovich Brewster, an awkward Sanders, and a crazy Peter throws him out of his safe zone. Wlad prefers the soft predictable fighters like Chambers and chagaev, or the friendly geezers like Thompson and shot Rahman. http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5773/purrity.gif ..yea I can think of at least 6 different ways Tyson could own this guy...

Tyson used his height to his advantage by crouching down to 3 feet to avoid punches. Wladimir can not deal with chaotic aggression and thats why he hasnt fought a real livewire since Peter I. Tyson is a faster, smarter, and more technically sound version of Peter.... While we're on the subject, Holyfield would beat Wlad as well...this current era is just not very good. We'll see what a confident Wlad will do to Peter in their second fight, I say he puts him to sleep. Peter is also much bigger than Tyson: Peter is 6'2" 243 with a 77" reach Tyson is 5'10" and was around 220 in his prime with a 71" reach Tyson did not have the reach or the height to get to Wlad. Peter has 6" reach and 4 inches height on Tyson and that's why he had some success but that was a Wlad just coming off a disapointing Brewster loss and Sanders loss not too long ago. Wlad own any version of Tyson, there is just too much hate and bias here to admit otherwise from certain posters. Any rational person would look at Tyson's career and see that he never did well against tall fighters. They would then would take a look at every fighter that gave Wlad problems and see that that had much longer reach than Tyson and were taller and heavier than him. Tyson's midget arms wouldn't reach Wlad's chin, and if they did, Wlad would survive. Not so much the other way around, Tyson would be eating those jabs and even a well-placed jab from Wlad would send him to the canvas. Tyson got KOd called by a guy with a 54% KO ratio, that's laughable when people talk about chin, they should talk about Tyson's chin and not Wlad's.

Astronomical? Out of almost 60 fights? First of all that's bull sh*t. Going from last to first - Sam Peter only 1 real KD (the other two were rabbit punches were Wlad lost balance), Williamson no KD, Wlad lost his balance, 1st Brewster fight 2 KDs, Sanders - 4 KDs. That's 7 KDs, with more than half coming from one fight. Tyson was KOd 3 times, TKOd 2 times, and DQd once. Wlad only had 3 TKOs and has never been KOd cold like Tyson has, and they both had about the same amount of fights (58 vs 57). By the time Wlad is done he would have 60+ victories, a higher KO% percentage, less losses, no stoppage losses, and a longer reign than Tyson. I would actually give Ali a higher chance of beating Wlad because he was 6'3" and had a much longer reach than Tyson. Like I said before, Tyson was at least 5 inches shorter and was missing at least 7 inches of his reach compared to every guy that beat Wlad. Tyson would never land on Wlad. Tyson used his height to his advantage by crouching down to 3 feet to avoid punches. Wladimir can not deal with chaotic aggression and thats why he hasnt fought a real livewire since Peter I. Tyson is a faster, smarter, and more technically sound version of Peter.... While we're on the subject, Holyfield would beat Wlad as well...this current era is just not very good.

So in other words you agree wlad has a glass jaw, but he still beats mike because, somehow, mike never lands ANY punches? Nope, never said Wlad has a glass jaw, you did. I am still trying to get you to prove why that statement is true. Just cause he was KD 7 times in 60 fights, doesn't mean that he does. A prime Tyson has been laid out cold by punchers who have a lower KO% than Byrd (Buster), Byrd couldn't do sh*t to Wlad. It seems Tyson's chin is the one that needs to be questioned, not Wlad's. 1) Tyson would never land on him 2) Even if he did, Wlad would shake it off and keep doing his thing 3) Wlad would put that soft chin of Tyson's to sleep