Ifeel like Tyson is overrated and Vitali is underrated.
Vitali is 6ft 7 with a lot of ability, Bruno was only 6'3 and he hurt Tyson in '89, if he could have followed it up, Mike was gone. Tyson is only 5'10, even Chisora is 6ft +
It's obviously not all about height but I think Vitali is just too big.
Bruno hurt Tyson because he was a big puncher, NOT because he was taller then Tyson. If anything height is the most overrated attribute when it comes to boxing.
Ifeel like Tyson is overrated and Vitali is underrated.
Vitali is 6ft 7 with a lot of ability, Bruno was only 6'3 and he hurt Tyson in '89, if he could have followed it up, Mike was gone. Tyson is only 5'10, even Chisora is 6ft +
It's obviously not all about height but I think Vitali is just too big.
bruno was a strong fighter himself.
tyson in 88 is where his prime ended. after 88 tyson fell out of his prime......
people don't understand that tyson was a very weird fighter. he was more powerful then he ever would be at the age of 17 to 20. his prime came very early.........(hints him being the youngest champion in heavyweight history)
very weird fighter he was..........
i think he was so explosive fast & viscous that he wore his body out much faster then other fighters.
people don't realize this when we're talking about the vitali vs tyson dream matches. they only look at A out of prime tyson.
tyson in 88 is where his prime ended. after 88 tyson fell out of his prime......
people don't understand that tyson was a very weird fighter. he was more powerful then he ever would be at the age of 17 to 20. his prime came very early.........(hints him being the youngest champion in heavyweight history)
very weird fighter he was..........
i think he was so explosive fast & viscous that he wore his body out much faster then other fighters.
people don't realize this when we're talking about the vitali vs tyson dream matches. they only look at A out of prime tyson.
Fair enough, I've heard that said before.
Still though, the size difference is huge and not only that but Klitschko is not just big but good, with a great chin (Lennox uppercut) and can mix it up if it gets rough and he also fights behind the jab which makes it tough for a smaller man.
Haye is much better than Valuev but if Nikolai was actually any good Haye would have had no chance, some people thought Valuev won anyway. That's the size difference we're looking at here with Tyson-Klitschko.
Still though, the size difference is huge and not only that but Klitschko is not just big but good, with a great chin (Lennox uppercut) and can mix it up if it gets rough and he also fights behind the jab which makes it tough for a smaller man.
Haye is much better than Valuev but if Nikolai was actually any good Haye would have had no chance, some people thought Valuev won anyway. That's the size difference we're looking at here with Tyson-Klitschko.
the size is a question..........
but I've always been a firm believer of talent over size.......I believe that if a 5'2 fighter has enough talent he could pummel guys 4 times his height.
I think I'll go with the young prime Tyson. He'd be one of few favoured to beat Vitali in a head to head fantasy fight. Tyson had the speed and he was difficult to hit.
Not surprising even if this was a 50/50 fight according to most.
Klitschkos will always get a lower amount of votes because many posters on this board hates their fans.
simply not true, if we hated the Klits we'd vote them low, if we ahted the fans we wouldnt let it affect our appraisal of Klits.
Its not a poll about their fans, its about the Klits, for which we reserve an accurate judgement based on their endless parade of defending against midgets, unfit fatboys and near fortysomethings, or a combo of as many of these attributes as possible.
Comment