Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

[Ezzard]

In most cases, Tyson would score quicker knockouts, but if guys made it past the 6th round, than Wlad would look much better.

I have to agree.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm not so sure people can argue that Berbick, Tubbs, Smith, Spinks, etc are really that much better than the guys that Klitschko defeated. Never mind the fact that most of those guys were crapping their pants before they ever even tried to fight Mike Tyson. If they are better than the guys Klitschko defeated it is by a small margin.

I think it's pretty much a given that Vladimir Klitschko could have defeated those guys just like Mike Tyson did. I think the only one out of all the guys Mike Tyson fought and beat that would have given Klitschko any problems might have been Tony Tucker. I think people forget that a lot of the alphabet champions of the 1980s were pretty average in terms of worth historically, the only thing consistent about those guys were that they were inconsistent in their performances.

I think it's pretty much a given that Vladimir Klitschko could have defeated those guys just like Mike Tyson did. Could have. Would have, all of them? Hell no.

Klitschko beat Byrd. After that, we have to start pretending that the others guys were good.

If Purrity, Sanders and Brewster can all stop Klitschko, then a lot of guys can beat him.
Pinklon Thomas would have given Klitschko a lot of trouble.
Razor Ruddock lands anything, it's over. Tyson beat him twice.
Frank Bruno would have been a dangerous fight. Tyson beat him twice as well.

Nobody is saying that all these guys were legends. Many were inconsistent. But inconsistent means that sometimes the guy was good. That trumps someone is is never that good. Klitschko himself was inconsistent.

With that chin and that stamina would Klitschko have gone 10-0 against Tucker, Thomas, Ruddock (2x), Bruno (2x) Smith, Tubbs, Spinks, and Berbick, ? Hell no.
Would Tyson have lost to Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster? Hell no.

[gilgamesh]

I'm not so sure people can argue that Berbick, Tubbs, Smith, Spinks, etc are really that much better than the guys that Klitschko defeated. Never mind the fact that most of those guys were crapping their pants before they ever even tried to fight Mike Tyson. If they are better than the guys Klitschko defeated it is by a small margin.

I think it's pretty much a given that Vladimir Klitschko could have defeated those guys just like Mike Tyson did. I think the only one out of all the guys Mike Tyson fought and beat that would have given Klitschko any problems might have been Tony Tucker. I think people forget that a lot of the alphabet champions of the 1980s were pretty average in terms of worth historically, the only thing consistent about those guys were that they were inconsistent in their performances.

I think it's pretty much a given that Vladimir Klitschko could have defeated those guys just like Mike Tyson did. Could have. Would have, all of them? Hell no.

Klitschko beat Byrd. After that, we have to start pretending that the others guys were good.

If Purrity, Sanders and Brewster can all stop Klitschko, then a lot of guys can beat him.
Pinklon Thomas would have given Klitschko a lot of trouble.
Razor Ruddock lands anything, it's over. Tyson beat him twice.
Frank Bruno would have been a dangerous fight. Tyson beat him twice as well.

Nobody is saying that all these guys were legends. Many were inconsistent. But inconsistent means that sometimes the guy was good. That trumps someone is is never that good. Klitschko himself was inconsistent.

With that chin and that stamina would Klitschko have gone 10-0 against Tucker, Thomas, Ruddock (2x), Bruno (2x) Smith, Tubbs, Spinks, and Berbick, ? Hell no.
Would Tyson have lost to Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster? Hell no.

How weird though that Wlad inconsistent as he was reigned as Heavyweight Champion over twice as long as Mike Tyson did.

It's almost like he was....more consistent than him.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm not so sure people can argue that Berbick, Tubbs, Smith, Spinks, etc are really that much better than the guys that Klitschko defeated. Never mind the fact that most of those guys were crapping their pants before they ever even tried to fight Mike Tyson. If they are better than the guys Klitschko defeated it is by a small margin.

I think it's pretty much a given that Vladimir Klitschko could have defeated those guys just like Mike Tyson did. I think the only one out of all the guys Mike Tyson fought and beat that would have given Klitschko any problems might have been Tony Tucker. I think people forget that a lot of the alphabet champions of the 1980s were pretty average in terms of worth historically, the only thing consistent about those guys were that they were inconsistent in their performances.

I think it's pretty much a given that Vladimir Klitschko could have defeated those guys just like Mike Tyson did. Could have. Would have, all of them? Hell no.

Klitschko beat Byrd. After that, we have to start pretending that the others guys were good.

If Purrity, Sanders and Brewster can all stop Klitschko, then a lot of guys can beat him.
Pinklon Thomas would have given Klitschko a lot of trouble.
Razor Ruddock lands anything, it's over. Tyson beat him twice.
Frank Bruno would have been a dangerous fight. Tyson beat him twice as well.

Nobody is saying that all these guys were legends. Many were inconsistent. But inconsistent means that sometimes the guy was good. That trumps someone is is never that good. Klitschko himself was inconsistent.

With that chin and that stamina would Klitschko have gone 10-0 against Tucker, Thomas, Ruddock (2x), Bruno (2x) Smith, Tubbs, Spinks, and Berbick, ? Hell no.
Would Tyson have lost to Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster? Hell no.

How weird though that Wlad inconsistent as he was reigned as Heavyweight Champion over twice as long as Mike Tyson did.

It's almost like he was....more consistent than him.

Yeah, that was quite a reign. Hugged his way to one victory after another against one stiff after another.

In his prime Klitschko got stopped By Purrity. Maybe you didn't know about that.
Also stopped by Corrie Sanders.
Also stopped by Lamon Brewster.

That's three embarrassing losses against guys that a prime Tyson never would have lost to.

Tyson never lost to anyone like that close to his prime. Losing to Douglas (who fought a great fight) and Holyfield isn't the same as losing to guys like that.

[oogiebe]

50-50 on it. Tyson maybe burned a little brighter at the top but Wlad shone as a great fighter for much longer.

Agreed. well said ezz.

[p4p1]

It’s a 50/50 for me. It’s down to personal choice IMO.

[HomicideHenry]

The thing with Vladimir Klitschko is even though he had an impressive first career he was still basically unproven which is why he had the losses to Purrity, Sanders and Brewster. He was still young and raw his high ranking.

The second phase of his career he essentially worked out all of the kinks, and nobody really want a single round against him from that point on. He avenged the loss to Brewster. The fact that he was able to rebuild himself to become one of the most dominant heavyweight champions in history for me is far more impressive and greater than the criticism against him for his earlier career.

When people want to bring up the first stage of his career performances I'm reminded of people who still want to hold Tyson Fury's performances nearly a decade ago against him in the present day. It's really apples and oranges because people were still developing and getting better.

The fact is he did eclipse his brother. The fact is he did earn his own place either inside the top 10 or just slightly outside the top 10 of all time great heavyweights. Vladimir Klitschko essentially cleared out the entire heavyweight division and the only thing you can ask any champion is to be the best of his ERA with what is available.

No he never did fight his own brother Vitali, but can that really be used against him because I don't know of that many people who would compete against their own sibling in a violent manner? I think Vladimir certainly is either second best or third best behind Lennox Lewis in terms of boxing's big men (6'5"+) and I don't think there is really a strong argument in any way shape or form that the Vladimir Klitschko who reinvented himself wasn't superior to his younger self.

I think with the younger Vladimir Klitschko there was such high expectations on a young man who had yet to face real adversity and real challenges so when he was defeated it made people think of him as being no good.

But unlike people like Tommy Morrison, instead of plateauing after being defeated Vladimir Klitschko improved and made the necessary changes to have greater success which to me is the Hallmark of a true champion and all-time great because the main primary difference between those kind of guys and everybody else in the division is that they adapted and had a greater desire to make it in the business.

Compare that to somebody like Mike Tyson one can make a serious argument that post Douglas He was largely living off of his name because he never was anywhere near as good as he was prior to Douglas. He was not as committed as he was to training or being an overall fighter. The way that he was matchmaked retrospectively shows that the Mike Tyson circus needed to continue which is why he was put in there with the likes of Peter McNeeley, Bruce Seldon, and other "second string" or "third string" contenders instead of facing the likes of Ray Mercer or Oliver McCall or Shannon Briggs, etc.

An easy path to regaining an alphabet title and an easy path to a big money fight with Evander Holyfield just like there was an easy path to facing Lennox Lewis. Mind you at the time Evander Holyfield was seen as the underdog but that was largely because of the public perception that Mike Tyson was this unbeatable monster and that Holyfield was just a blown up Cruiserweight when the reality was Mike Tyson was not as good as he was back in the 1980s and Don King and everyone else knew it which is why it was more lucrative to have Mike Tyson being force-fed a bunch of weaker challenges because quite frankly Mike Tyson had that crossover popular culture appeal that other boxers simply did not have.

I'm not going to say that the older head hunting version of Mike Tyson was no good because quite frankly he had the hand speed and the power to always be dangerous no matter who he was facing but the 1990s version of Mike Tyson let alone the early 2000s version of Mike Tyson was simply an inferior version and that cannot be denied and there's no doubt in my mind that version of Mike Tyson would have been defeated by Vladimir Klitschko.

I tend to think the prime version of Mike Tyson would have also struggled with Vladimir Klitschko because he did have problems with tall rangy heavyweights as evident with the Bone Crusher Smith fight where Smith was able to neutralize a lot of Mike Tyson's attacks with simple clinching. It's seldom ever shown on Mike Tyson highlight reels because even though Mike Tyson won it was pretty much a snoozefest and I think that if Bone Crusher Smith could go the distance with Mike Tyson then I figure Vladimir Klitschko could as well and certainly would have put up a far better fight and performance against Mike Tyson.

[DrDuke]

If Wlad beat Vitali, he would be higher than Tyson, but in reality he falls short.

[keithmoonhangover]

I'm not so sure people can argue that Berbick, Tubbs, Smith, Spinks, etc are really that much better than the guys that Klitschko defeated. Never mind the fact that most of those guys were crapping their pants before they ever even tried to fight Mike Tyson. If they are better than the guys Klitschko defeated it is by a small margin.

I think it's pretty much a given that Vladimir Klitschko could have defeated those guys just like Mike Tyson did. I think the only one out of all the guys Mike Tyson fought and beat that would have given Klitschko any problems might have been Tony Tucker. I think people forget that a lot of the alphabet champions of the 1980s were pretty average in terms of worth historically, the only thing consistent about those guys were that they were inconsistent in their performances.

That's harsh on Spinks, who was an unbeaten Olympic champion, with two heavyweight wins against Larry Holmes.

[DrDuke]

I'm not so sure people can argue that Berbick, Tubbs, Smith, Spinks, etc are really that much better than the guys that Klitschko defeated. Never mind the fact that most of those guys were crapping their pants before they ever even tried to fight Mike Tyson. If they are better than the guys Klitschko defeated it is by a small margin.

I think it's pretty much a given that Vladimir Klitschko could have defeated those guys just like Mike Tyson did. I think the only one out of all the guys Mike Tyson fought and beat that would have given Klitschko any problems might have been Tony Tucker. I think people forget that a lot of the alphabet champions of the 1980s were pretty average in terms of worth historically, the only thing consistent about those guys were that they were inconsistent in their performances.

That's harsh on Spinks, who was an unbeaten Olympic champion, with two heavyweight wins against Larry Holmes.

But Holmes was past prime and was robbed in the rematch.

[Ezzard]

Mike Spinks was a truly great fighter but not a great HW. Still good though.

If Wlad had fought him he would have won. Would have been heavily criticised for taking the fight too.

[keithmoonhangover]

I'm not so sure people can argue that Berbick, Tubbs, Smith, Spinks, etc are really that much better than the guys that Klitschko defeated. Never mind the fact that most of those guys were crapping their pants before they ever even tried to fight Mike Tyson. If they are better than the guys Klitschko defeated it is by a small margin.

I think it's pretty much a given that Vladimir Klitschko could have defeated those guys just like Mike Tyson did. I think the only one out of all the guys Mike Tyson fought and beat that would have given Klitschko any problems might have been Tony Tucker. I think people forget that a lot of the alphabet champions of the 1980s were pretty average in terms of worth historically, the only thing consistent about those guys were that they were inconsistent in their performances.

That's harsh on Spinks, who was an unbeaten Olympic champion, with two heavyweight wins against Larry Holmes.

But Holmes was past prime and was robbed in the rematch.

Larry still had plenty of miles left in the tank and both of Spinks performances were proof that he belonged in the division.

[keithmoonhangover]

Mike Spinks was a truly great fighter but not a great HW. Still good though.

If Wlad had fought him he would have won. Would have been heavily criticised for taking the fight too.

I hear you brother, but Tyson was a small heavyweight and Spinks was 6' 2", had four heavyweight wins under his belt, beat the man and was the lineal champion. You can't really ask much more of him. Wlad didn't get any stick for fighting Haye, but rightly did for fighting Mormeck

[Ezzard]

Mike Spinks was a truly great fighter but not a great HW. Still good though.

If Wlad had fought him he would have won. Would have been heavily criticised for taking the fight too.

I hear you brother, but Tyson was a small heavyweight and Spinks was 6' 2", had four heavyweight wins under his belt, beat the man and was the lineal champion. You can't really ask much more of him. Wlad didn't get any stick for fighting Haye, but rightly did for fighting Mormeck

Not criticising Tyson for fighting Spinks. I agree with your summary. It had to be done. But if Tyson was champ and picked Spinks as a challenger... Same for Wlad. It would have been seen as an easy fight.

[keithmoonhangover]

Mike Spinks was a truly great fighter but not a great HW. Still good though.

If Wlad had fought him he would have won. Would have been heavily criticised for taking the fight too.

I hear you brother, but Tyson was a small heavyweight and Spinks was 6' 2", had four heavyweight wins under his belt, beat the man and was the lineal champion. You can't really ask much more of him. Wlad didn't get any stick for fighting Haye, but rightly did for fighting Mormeck

Not criticising Tyson for fighting Spinks. I agree with your summary. It had to be done. But if Tyson was champ and picked Spinks as a challenger... Same for Wlad. It would have been seen as an easy fight.

But Spinks wasn't a challenger, he was the undefeated lineal champion with two wins over Holmes and a decent win over Gerry Cooney. When they fought, it was the clear #1 and #2 heavyweights fighting each other with a 6 lbs weight difference. It was also a fight that some experts predicted Spinks was going to win. I think history forgets a lot of that.

[Ezzard]

I hear you brother, but Tyson was a small heavyweight and Spinks was 6' 2", had four heavyweight wins under his belt, beat the man and was the lineal champion. You can't really ask much more of him. Wlad didn't get any stick for fighting Haye, but rightly did for fighting Mormeck

Not criticising Tyson for fighting Spinks. I agree with your summary. It had to be done. But if Tyson was champ and picked Spinks as a challenger... Same for Wlad. It would have been seen as an easy fight.

But Spinks wasn't a challenger, he was the undefeated lineal champion with two wins over Holmes and a decent win over Gerry Cooney. When they fought, it was the clear #1 and #2 heavyweights fighting each other with a 6 lbs weight difference. It was also a fight that some experts predicted Spinks was going to win. I think history forgets a lot of that.

Thing is it was very clear that Spinks was not going to risk his mega pay day by fighting a top contender. He had a lineal belt made so he could side-step any mandatories. He was an intelligent man inside and outside the ring. He knew his limitations at HW. It was always going to be his last fight.

On paper what you say is right but very few people gave him a chance. The fight was hyped up of course. They always are.

None of this is to take away anything from either of the Mikes. Just saying if Wlad had defended against Jean Pascal or Bernard Hopkins he would have been slaughtered for it.

[keithmoonhangover]

Not criticising Tyson for fighting Spinks. I agree with your summary. It had to be done. But if Tyson was champ and picked Spinks as a challenger... Same for Wlad. It would have been seen as an easy fight.

But Spinks wasn't a challenger, he was the undefeated lineal champion with two wins over Holmes and a decent win over Gerry Cooney. When they fought, it was the clear #1 and #2 heavyweights fighting each other with a 6 lbs weight difference. It was also a fight that some experts predicted Spinks was going to win. I think history forgets a lot of that.

Thing is it was very clear that Spinks was not going to risk his mega pay day by fighting a top contender. He had a lineal belt made so he could side-step any mandatories. He was an intelligent man inside and outside the ring. He knew his limitations at HW. It was always going to be his last fight.

On paper what you say is right but very few people gave him a chance. The fight was hyped up of course. They always are.

None of this is to take away anything from either of the Mikes. Just saying if Wlad had defended against Jean Pascal or Bernard Hopkins he would have been slaughtered for it.

I've still got the Ring magazine with the odd established journo picking Spinks. He was only the lineal champion because he beat the unbeaten Larry Holmes. The fact is, Spinks was #2 in the world because of what he did in the ring, not what's on paper. If Pascal had moved up to heavyweight and got back to back wins over the #1 in the division, I don't think anyone would 'slaughter' Wlad for fighting him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Mike Spinks was a truly great fighter but not a great HW. Still good though.

If Wlad had fought him he would have won. Would have been heavily criticised for taking the fight too.

He wouldn't have been heavily criticized. He got stopped three different times by guys outside of the Top 10 and gets a free pass. Never fought Lennox Lewis and gets a free pass.

It would have been his biggest win. Spinks was better than Chris Byrd.

[gilgamesh]

I think it's pretty much a given that Vladimir Klitschko could have defeated those guys just like Mike Tyson did. Could have. Would have, all of them? Hell no.

Klitschko beat Byrd. After that, we have to start pretending that the others guys were good.

If Purrity, Sanders and Brewster can all stop Klitschko, then a lot of guys can beat him.
Pinklon Thomas would have given Klitschko a lot of trouble.
Razor Ruddock lands anything, it's over. Tyson beat him twice.
Frank Bruno would have been a dangerous fight. Tyson beat him twice as well.

Nobody is saying that all these guys were legends. Many were inconsistent. But inconsistent means that sometimes the guy was good. That trumps someone is is never that good. Klitschko himself was inconsistent.

With that chin and that stamina would Klitschko have gone 10-0 against Tucker, Thomas, Ruddock (2x), Bruno (2x) Smith, Tubbs, Spinks, and Berbick, ? Hell no.
Would Tyson have lost to Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster? Hell no.

How weird though that Wlad inconsistent as he was reigned as Heavyweight Champion over twice as long as Mike Tyson did.

It's almost like he was....more consistent than him.

Yeah, that was quite a reign. Hugged his way to one victory after another against one stiff after another.

In his prime Klitschko got stopped By Purrity. Maybe you didn't know about that.
Also stopped by Corrie Sanders.
Also stopped by Lamon Brewster.

That's three embarrassing losses against guys that a prime Tyson never would have lost to.

Tyson never lost to anyone like that close to his prime. Losing to Douglas (who fought a great fight) and Holyfield isn't the same as losing to guys like that.

What did Douglas ever do other than beat Mike Tyson?

Lamon Brewster is more accomplished than Douglas.

[Ezzard]

But Spinks wasn't a challenger, he was the undefeated lineal champion with two wins over Holmes and a decent win over Gerry Cooney. When they fought, it was the clear #1 and #2 heavyweights fighting each other with a 6 lbs weight difference. It was also a fight that some experts predicted Spinks was going to win. I think history forgets a lot of that.

Thing is it was very clear that Spinks was not going to risk his mega pay day by fighting a top contender. He had a lineal belt made so he could side-step any mandatories. He was an intelligent man inside and outside the ring. He knew his limitations at HW. It was always going to be his last fight.

On paper what you say is right but very few people gave him a chance. The fight was hyped up of course. They always are.

None of this is to take away anything from either of the Mikes. Just saying if Wlad had defended against Jean Pascal or Bernard Hopkins he would have been slaughtered for it.

I've still got the Ring magazine with the odd established journo picking Spinks. He was only the lineal champion because he beat the unbeaten Larry Holmes. The fact is, Spinks was #2 in the world because of what he did in the ring, not what's on paper. If Pascal had moved up to heavyweight and got back to back wins over the #1 in the division, I don't think anyone would 'slaughter' Wlad for fighting him.

Everything he did after beating Holmes looked like the action of a man who knew he had a good chance of losing to any world ranked heavy.

But I guess you're right if they can sell Spinks against Tyson then they could sell Spinks-Wlad. If the Spinks who met Tyson fought Wlad, same result.

[Ambling Alp II]

Spinks whipped Cooney after the Holmes fight. Cooney was a big white guy, which automatically means that he was great.

[Ambling Alp II]

How weird though that Wlad inconsistent as he was reigned as Heavyweight Champion over twice as long as Mike Tyson did.

It's almost like he was....more consistent than him.

Yeah, that was quite a reign. Hugged his way to one victory after another against one stiff after another.

In his prime Klitschko got stopped By Purrity. Maybe you didn't know about that.
Also stopped by Corrie Sanders.
Also stopped by Lamon Brewster.

That's three embarrassing losses against guys that a prime Tyson never would have lost to.

Tyson never lost to anyone like that close to his prime. Losing to Douglas (who fought a great fight) and Holyfield isn't the same as losing to guys like that.

What did Douglas ever do other than beat Mike Tyson?

Lamon Brewster is more accomplished than Douglas.

Douglas beat McCall, Berbick, and Page.
Lamon Brewster beat the wildly inconsistent Golota and literally no one else worth mentioning.

Douglas was a lot more "accomplished" than Brewster. Absurd that you would think otherwise.

[DrDuke]

Yeah, that was quite a reign. Hugged his way to one victory after another against one stiff after another.

In his prime Klitschko got stopped By Purrity. Maybe you didn't know about that.
Also stopped by Corrie Sanders.
Also stopped by Lamon Brewster.

That's three embarrassing losses against guys that a prime Tyson never would have lost to.

Tyson never lost to anyone like that close to his prime. Losing to Douglas (who fought a great fight) and Holyfield isn't the same as losing to guys like that.

What did Douglas ever do other than beat Mike Tyson?

Lamon Brewster is more accomplished than Douglas.

Douglas beat McCall, Berbick, and Page.
Lamon Brewster beat the wildly inconsistent Golota and literally no one else worth mentioning.

Douglas was a lot more "accomplished" than Brewster. Absurd that you would think otherwise.

And McCall, Berbick with Page were gawds of consistency.

[keithmoonhangover]

What did Douglas ever do other than beat Mike Tyson?

Lamon Brewster is more accomplished than Douglas.

Douglas beat McCall, Berbick, and Page.
Lamon Brewster beat the wildly inconsistent Golota and literally no one else worth mentioning.

Douglas was a lot more "accomplished" than Brewster. Absurd that you would think otherwise.

And McCall, Berbick with Page were gawds of consistency.

And Golota had already been dispatched in the first round by Lennox Lewis. What's your point? You think Brewster had a better record than Douglas?

[DrDuke]

Douglas beat McCall, Berbick, and Page.
Lamon Brewster beat the wildly inconsistent Golota and literally no one else worth mentioning.

Douglas was a lot more "accomplished" than Brewster. Absurd that you would think otherwise.

And McCall, Berbick with Page were gawds of consistency.

And Golota had already been dispatched in the first round by Lennox Lewis. What's your point? You think Brewster had a better record than Douglas?

Where I said that?