Originally posted by Bozo_no_no
We're talking about him fighting a guy who's biggest career wins are over Lt. HW Michael Spinks and an out-of-shape, very old Holmes.
Tyson and Klitschko have lost to Lewis. The difference is that people say Tyson wasn't close to his prime (though there is not much of an age difference between him and Lennox) and that Klitschko made his fight with Lennox a lot closer and had a real shot at winning it before being stopped on cuts. Maybe Lewis was training harder for the Tyson fight but I guess we agree that the Lewis who beat Klitschko would've beaten Tyson soundly as well.
Tyson in his prime was a good fighter no doubt. And though I don't rate him among the Top 25 HWs he stormed through the division. But styles make fights. And Klitschko with his height and reach and his fighting style is the complete nightmare for a fighter like Tyson.
You can't just compare the achievements of two boxers and predict the outcome of their bout basing on that. It might be a factor but if it was that important Ken Norton still would be a nobody
And by the way Klitschko is by far no Top 15 fighter but NEITHER is Tyson.
I've pointed out repeatidly the reach and height difference between the two. Klitschko can afford his stylistic and technical flaws against Tyson. His reactions are good enough to catch Tyson most of the times he tries rushing in. Tyson can't work his jab to get inside since Klitschko is too tall. Klitschko looks robotic and goofy but he is physicly gifted enough to make up for it against smaller fighters.
Comment