Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

[keithmoonhangover]

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?

I didn't say you did. It was a question.

[Ambling Alp II]

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.

For several years, McCall, Berbick and Page were decent fighters. They were actually fairly consistent during their prime. Certainly more than Golota. They all have some decent wins.
Golota doesn't have much. All Brewster has is an old Golota and Klitschko himself.

We can go off on tangents forever.
The bottom line is that losing to Douglas (who fought a great fight) is not nearly as embarrassing as losing to Brewster.
Actually, losing to the version of Douglas that Tyson fought is not embarrassing at all. Very few fighters would have beat Douglas that night.

[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.

For several years, McCall, Berbick and Page were decent fighters. They were actually fairly consistent during their prime. Certainly more than Golota. They all have some decent wins.
Golota doesn't have much. All Brewster has is an old Golota and Klitschko himself.

We can go off on tangents forever.
The bottom line is that losing to Douglas (who fought a great fight) is not nearly as embarrassing as losing to Brewster.
Actually, losing to the version of Douglas that Tyson fought is not embarrassing at all. Very few fighters would have beat Douglas that night.

Suddenly, you present as an argument something that could have been according to your biased opinion.

Yet indeed, it's pointless to try to measure whose opposition were more mediocre. Tyson at least cleaned up everyone in shorter period, but the gap between him and Klit can't be big.

[gilgamesh]

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.

Brewster also beat Wlad which is surely worth mentioning.

What did Page ever do?

[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.

Brewster also beat Wlad which is surely worth mentioning.

What did Page ever do?

Lost to Mark Wills....... twice.

[DrDuke]

If Wlad fought like in his earlier days, Tyson would win by kayo inside about 5.

If Wlad fought like in his later days, Tyson would win by dec like against Bonecrusher.

[gilgamesh]

If Wlad fought like in his earlier days, Tyson would win by kayo inside about 5.

If Wlad fought like in his later days, Tyson would win by dec like against Bonecrusher.

But Mike would have to be in his prime which lasted about 3 or 4 years right?

Which means that from about age 25 thru 40, if they were both of the same era. Wlad would've gotten the better of Mike far more often than Mike got the better of him.

These are 2 fighters where it's harder to compare "Prime for Prime" because they hit their primes at different times.

[Ambling Alp II]

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.

Brewster also beat Wlad which is surely worth mentioning.

What did Page ever do?

Brewster also beat Wlad which is surely worth mentioning? You can't use that as an argument when when we are talking about Klitschko!!!

Page wasn't a legend, but was a good fighter. He beat Coetzee and Snipes, and could have got the decision against Witherspoon in a close fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

And McCall, Berbick with Page were gawds of consistency.

For several years, McCall, Berbick and Page were decent fighters. They were actually fairly consistent during their prime. Certainly more than Golota. They all have some decent wins.
Golota doesn't have much. All Brewster has is an old Golota and Klitschko himself.

We can go off on tangents forever.
The bottom line is that losing to Douglas (who fought a great fight) is not nearly as embarrassing as losing to Brewster.
Actually, losing to the version of Douglas that Tyson fought is not embarrassing at all. Very few fighters would have beat Douglas that night.

Suddenly, you present as an argument something that could have been according to your biased opinion.

Yet indeed, it's pointless to try to measure whose opposition were more mediocre. Tyson at least cleaned up everyone in shorter period, but the gap between him and Klit can't be big.

My own biased opinion? I can't stand Tyson. Have never made any bones about it. I am just basing it on what actually happened. Relevant details, not crap like title defenses.

The gap is huge. There are many fighters who who should be rated lower than Tyson but higher than Klitschko.

Tyson beat better opponents. It's not remotely close.
Klitschko lost three embarrassing fights to fighters far worse than Douglas and Holyfield. Tyson didn't.

If you look better on film, beat better opponents, and didn't have embarrassing looses that the other guy had, you are clearly better than him.

[DrDuke]

For several years, McCall, Berbick and Page were decent fighters. They were actually fairly consistent during their prime. Certainly more than Golota. They all have some decent wins.
Golota doesn't have much. All Brewster has is an old Golota and Klitschko himself.

We can go off on tangents forever.
The bottom line is that losing to Douglas (who fought a great fight) is not nearly as embarrassing as losing to Brewster.
Actually, losing to the version of Douglas that Tyson fought is not embarrassing at all. Very few fighters would have beat Douglas that night.

Suddenly, you present as an argument something that could have been according to your biased opinion.

Yet indeed, it's pointless to try to measure whose opposition were more mediocre. Tyson at least cleaned up everyone in shorter period, but the gap between him and Klit can't be big.

My own biased opinion? I can't stand Tyson. Have never made any bones about it. I am just basing it on what actually happened. Relevant details, not crap like title defenses.

The gap is huge. There are many fighters who who should be rated lower than Tyson but higher than Klitschko.

Tyson beat better opponents. It's not remotely close.
Klitschko lost three embarrassing fights to fighters far worse than Douglas and Holyfield. Tyson didn't.

If you look better on film, beat better opponents, and didn't have embarrassing looses that the other guy had, you are clearly better than him.

You are a notorious Klit lover, so leave behind you love to Mike.

[DrDuke]

If Wlad fought like in his earlier days, Tyson would win by kayo inside about 5.

If Wlad fought like in his later days, Tyson would win by dec like against Bonecrusher.

But Mike would have to be in his prime which lasted about 3 or 4 years right?

Which means that from about age 25 thru 40, if they were both of the same era. Wlad would've gotten the better of Mike far more often than Mike got the better of him.

These are 2 fighters where it's harder to compare "Prime for Prime" because they hit their primes at different times.

In the 90s Tyson would KO Wlad being behind on points, in 2000s Wlad would KO Mike.

[Ambling Alp II]

Suddenly, you present as an argument something that could have been according to your biased opinion.

Yet indeed, it's pointless to try to measure whose opposition were more mediocre. Tyson at least cleaned up everyone in shorter period, but the gap between him and Klit can't be big.

My own biased opinion? I can't stand Tyson. Have never made any bones about it. I am just basing it on what actually happened. Relevant details, not crap like title defenses.

The gap is huge. There are many fighters who who should be rated lower than Tyson but higher than Klitschko.

Tyson beat better opponents. It's not remotely close.
Klitschko lost three embarrassing fights to fighters far worse than Douglas and Holyfield. Tyson didn't.

If you look better on film, beat better opponents, and didn't have embarrassing looses that the other guy had, you are clearly better than him.

You are a notorious Klit lover, so leave behind you love to Mike.

I don't have anything against Wladimir Klitschko as a person. He certainly wasn't despicable like Tyson.
Just don't think he was close to being as good.
I use the same criteria to rate fighters, regardless of how much I like them. Sometimes the guy I like more was better, sometimes not.

[DrDuke]

My own biased opinion? I can't stand Tyson. Have never made any bones about it. I am just basing it on what actually happened. Relevant details, not crap like title defenses.

The gap is huge. There are many fighters who who should be rated lower than Tyson but higher than Klitschko.

Tyson beat better opponents. It's not remotely close.
Klitschko lost three embarrassing fights to fighters far worse than Douglas and Holyfield. Tyson didn't.

If you look better on film, beat better opponents, and didn't have embarrassing looses that the other guy had, you are clearly better than him.

You are a notorious Klit lover, so leave behind you love to Mike.

I don't have anything against Wladimir Klitschko as a person. He certainly wasn't despicable like Tyson.
Just don't think he was close to being as good.
I use the same criteria to rate fighters, regardless of how much I like them. Sometimes the guy I like more was better, sometimes not.

[keithmoonhangover]

My own biased opinion? I can't stand Tyson. Have never made any bones about it. I am just basing it on what actually happened. Relevant details, not crap like title defenses.

The gap is huge. There are many fighters who who should be rated lower than Tyson but higher than Klitschko.

Tyson beat better opponents. It's not remotely close.
Klitschko lost three embarrassing fights to fighters far worse than Douglas and Holyfield. Tyson didn't.

If you look better on film, beat better opponents, and didn't have embarrassing looses that the other guy had, you are clearly better than him.

You are a notorious Klit lover, so leave behind you love to Mike.

I don't have anything against Wladimir Klitschko as a person. He certainly wasn't despicable like Tyson.
Just don't think he was close to being as good.
I use the same criteria to rate fighters, regardless of how much I like them. Sometimes the guy I like more was better, sometimes not.

Same. Tyson is a rapist and I was always a Holmes. then Holyfield fan, so I never liked him. That has zero affect on how I rate him, which in this case it higher than Wlad.

[HomicideHenry]

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.

Spinks was an atg @ 175

But his wins over Holmes was strategic because it was apparent Holmes was on the decline. The fact that he avoided Tony Tucker, to instead defend the lineal title against Cooney who was inactive, shows that he wasn't really interested in being "the best." Spinks himself was plagued with knee issues, and therefore declining fast. Tyson was a fight he knew he could not win, and was scared shirtless before the bell rang. It was strictly about the money.

So think about it:

Former 175 pounder
Shot legs
Scared shirtless
Avoided anyone who was a real threat

So yeah, don't rate the win all that highly for Tyson. It's a big win on paper cus it was for the "real title," and made Tyson champion undisputed, but realistically it was one of the easiest nights Tyson's career because Spinks was not only a small heavyweight but his legs were effectively done, and he was terrified.

[keithmoonhangover]

Avoided anyone who was a real threat

Yeah, apart from facing Larry Holmes twice and Mike Tyson in a five fight heavyweight campaign, yeah, he avoided any real threat. This is a Holmes who was still fighting for a world title ten year later.

[HomicideHenry]

Avoided anyone who was a real threat

Yeah, apart from facing Larry Holmes twice and Mike Tyson in a five fight heavyweight campaign, yeah, he avoided any real threat. This is a Holmes who was still fighting for a world title ten year later.

One might consider that it also took Larry Holmes maybe another decade to find the motivation and determination to want to be the best that he could possibly be.

The Larry Holmes that fought Michael Spinks the first time was arrogant and getting pretty damn complacent and it was showing in his performances prior to facing Michael Spinks.

And regardless of what people want to say the rematch with Larry Holmes was not a robbery towards Larry it was closer and more competitive than the first fight was but Michael Spinks still edged it out.

But let's make no mistake Michael Spinks and his manager Butch Lewis wanted absolutely no part of anyone else in the division who would have upsetted the apple cart which is why they defended the title against an unheralded Norwegian and against an inactive drug addicted Gerry Cooney.

And they pushed and pushed and pushed for the Mike Tyson fight not because they thought they could win it but because it was a tremendous multi-million dollar payday bigger than anything they could have ever gotten before.

If they honestly believed they could have beaten Mike Tyson why did they avoid Tony Tucker who was the number one contender and Michael Spinks mandatory? In the grand scheme of things Tony Tucker wasn't anything to scream over so why dodge Tucker and drop the belt?

Yes beating an old, tired, unmotivated, Larry Holmes is still quite a feat for Michael Spinks but let's not pretend that Michael Spinks was some great heavyweight because quite frankly he was not. He was just there at the right place at the right time to be able to steal the title away from a man who was more interested in being 50 and 0 then dealing with the threat that was actually in front of him.

[keithmoonhangover]

Avoided anyone who was a real threat

Yeah, apart from facing Larry Holmes twice and Mike Tyson in a five fight heavyweight campaign, yeah, he avoided any real threat. This is a Holmes who was still fighting for a world title ten year later.

One might consider that it also took Larry Holmes maybe another decade to find the motivation and determination to want to be the best that he could possibly be.

The Larry Holmes that fought Michael Spinks the first time was arrogant and getting pretty damn complacent and it was showing in his performances prior to facing Michael Spinks.

Yes beating an old, tired, unmotivated, Larry Holmes

There is a lot of speculation, opinion and creative licence in a lot of what you said about Larry and Mike. The fact is, Spinks beat the #1 heavyweight in the world and won the rematch. Yes, he vacated rather than fight Tony Tucker, but shortly after that took on Mike Tyson, who was by then the #1 or #2 heavyweight in the world. Five fights at heavyweight, three of which were against the #1 or #2.

When you say Holmes was tired, unmotivated, arrogant, and complacent. These are not facts, just your thoughts.

[Riddick Bowie]

You're digging your own grave here gil.

I mean, it's not really possible to be wrong on this. It's an opinion, and I've backed up my opinion with lots of evidence.

The evidence you Tyson guys have that he's the superior fighter is....well...there's less of it.

You rattled off no of alphabet title defences without any regard for quality of opposition or era. Congratulations, your logic results in Herbie Hide's WBO reign being of equal meaning as George Foreman's actual championship reign, even tho one had KOs over Frazier and Norton and an epic loss to Ali, and the other had KOs of Willi Fisher and Damon Reed and a dismal KO-by-jab loss to Vitali. But still! One reign was 3-1 and the other was 3-1, which means they're equal.

This is beyond your understanding, but fortunately everyone else gets the point.

[keithmoonhangover]

You're digging your own grave here gil.

I mean, it's not really possible to be wrong on this. It's an opinion, and I've backed up my opinion with lots of evidence.

The evidence you Tyson guys have that he's the superior fighter is....well...there's less of it.

You rattled off no of alphabet title defences without any regard for quality of opposition or era. Congratulations, your logic results in Herbie Hide's WBO reign being of equal meaning as George Foreman's actual championship reign, even tho one had KOs over Frazier and Norton and an epic loss to Ali, and the other had KOs of Willi Fisher and Damon Reed and a dismal KO-by-jab loss to Vitali. But still! One reign was 3-1 and the other was 3-1, which means they're equal.

This is beyond your understanding, but fortunately everyone else gets the point.

Don't you think that your post comes across as the tiniest bit condescending?

[gilgamesh]

You're digging your own grave here gil.

I mean, it's not really possible to be wrong on this. It's an opinion, and I've backed up my opinion with lots of evidence.

The evidence you Tyson guys have that he's the superior fighter is....well...there's less of it.

You rattled off no of alphabet title defences without any regard for quality of opposition or era. Congratulations, your logic results in Herbie Hide's WBO reign being of equal meaning as George Foreman's actual championship reign, even tho one had KOs over Frazier and Norton and an epic loss to Ali, and the other had KOs of Willi Fisher and Damon Reed and a dismal KO-by-jab loss to Vitali. But still! One reign was 3-1 and the other was 3-1, which means they're equal.

This is beyond your understanding, but fortunately everyone else gets the point.

I'm not saying the numbers alone put Wlad ahead of Mike Tyson. I'm just saying that's one more factor.

To me their level of competition as Champion is more or less equal.

The flaws that Wlad had in his game that caused him to suffer KO losses early on. He corrected, and improved upon.

Mike Tyson never showed any improvement after his 1st defeat. He had what he had.

[Ambling Alp II]

The title defense is what you mentioned right off the bat. Even after all of this time, you have not been pointing out specific wins that Klitschko had which would help his case.

The sheer amount of title defenses is not a factor. It means absolutely nothing.

Klitschko did not magically show "improvement" in his 30s after more than 40 fights. His competition during this time was abysmal by historical heavyweight championship standards.
It's ridiculous that you try to gloss over his embarrassing defeats by pretending that he improved after all that time.

[Ambling Alp II]

I mean, it's not really possible to be wrong on this. It's an opinion, and I've backed up my opinion with lots of evidence.

The evidence you Tyson guys have that he's the superior fighter is....well...there's less of it.

You rattled off no of alphabet title defences without any regard for quality of opposition or era. Congratulations, your logic results in Herbie Hide's WBO reign being of equal meaning as George Foreman's actual championship reign, even tho one had KOs over Frazier and Norton and an epic loss to Ali, and the other had KOs of Willi Fisher and Damon Reed and a dismal KO-by-jab loss to Vitali. But still! One reign was 3-1 and the other was 3-1, which means they're equal.

This is beyond your understanding, but fortunately everyone else gets the point.

Don't you think that your post comes across as the tiniest bit condescending?

I think Billy Tully is just frustrated with all of the silly comments by someone who clearly doesn't really understand how to rate fighters.

[gilgamesh]

I know as much about Boxing as any of you guys.

[Seamus]

Wlad lost to Ross Purrity due to a horrendous fight strategy. He ran out of gas against a guy who could take quite a punch. He was way ahead at the time. Against Brewster in the first fight, something really strange happened. SEE Aftermath in Wlad's Wikipedia page. It absolutely looked suspicious to me the way he was suddenly having trouble standing. When they had their rematch Brewster's corner saw enough after 6 rds.

At 41, Klitschko gave Joshua his sternest test at the time. At 38 Tyson quit when he realised he wasn't going to beat Kevin McBride. Wlad never received the kind of acclaim Iron Mike did before his first loss, but as Tyson's legacy tarnished as he aged, Klitschko's actually improved.