Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

[Ambling Alp II]

Looking back at Wlad's first 3 losses is like looking at a team in just about any sport who dropped 3 matches early in the season. Then after making major adjustments and going on a big win streak, you look back and ask "how did they ever lose those 3 matches". Happens every year in virtually every team sport their is, and yes, sometimes it even happens in boxing.

Not at all. Look at when the losses were:

Ross Purrity was his 25th pro fight
Sanders was his 42nd pro fight.
Brewster was his 45 pro fight.
He wasn't some inexperienced kid when these fights happened.

It's more like a football team that lost their 5th game, their 8th game (by 60 points), and their 9th game (by 50 points.) To weak opponents. And they don't really have big wins to offset it. That team wouldn't be ranked in the top 25 in the polls in college football.

He didn't make major adjustments outside of clinching more. That might work against the stiffs that he beat, but it doesn't work against a Mike Tyson or a Riddick Bowe. He might have lasted longer, but eventually the glass jaw will do him in.

It's not like he has huge wins to offset the losses. notice that people almost never point out specific big wins the Klitschkos. It's always crap like WBS title defenses, cleaning the division.

The loss Joe had to Schmeling counts. The loss that Liston had to Marshall counts. It's just that no fighter in the 25 has three bad losses like he did. And all in the top 25 had better wins. So no, he should not be the top 10. And his brother has of a case since his wins are even less impressive.

[Ambling Alp II]

Moorer beat Holyfield, after Holyfield beat Bowe, so should Moorer be ranked higher than the Klits too?

Moorer had some meltdowns that count against him. (lost to Foreman, the embarrassing fight against Tua). Bowe did not.
Bowe beat a better version of Holyfield than Moorer did.

But yes, Moorer deserves some credit for the win over Holyfield. I would rank him behind Wladimir, who did beat Chris Byrd and on occasion looked very good. You certainly could rate Moorer ahead of Vitaly, who has no wins worth mentioning and couldn't go the distance in his two biggest fights.

With anyone, you can't cherrypick. You have to weigh the good against the bad.

[HomicideHenry]

It's not like he has huge wins to offset the losses. notice that people almost never point out specific big wins the Klitschkos. It's always crap like WBS title defenses, cleaning the division.

Tell me who in the 11 years following Lennox Lewis's retirement until the Tyson Fury loss was out there for Vladimir and Vitali to have fought that would have been considered a great win?

There was virtually nobody of any consequence for over a decade that remotely stood a chance. Valuev? Ruiz? Pfffft. Older and slower versions of Holyfield and Tyson? Pfffft. James Toney? Don't make me laugh.

You can't criticize them for not having big wins because there was simply nobody out there who would have been considered a big win. They played the cards they were dealt with which was a weak era in heavyweight history, and essentially dominated over what was available.

That's why we bring up alphabet champions and former champions on the Klitschko brothers resume because that is all that was available. In a strange way you're doing what you criticize everyone else for doing by taking away the best wins they had and saying it's meaningless.

[Ezzard]

Good point, Henry. Nobody was dodged. There were some potentially great fighters out there, or at least exceptional ones, but like the 80s HWs professionalism let them down. Or they just got steamrollered.

Always felt the US media never forgave Wlad and Vitali for not fighting one another.

[HomicideHenry]

Good point, Henry. Nobody was dodged. There were some potentially great fighters out there, or at least exceptional ones, but like the 80s HWs professionalism let them down. Or they just got steamrollered.

Always felt the US media never forgave Wlad and Vitali for not fighting one another.

I know the media here was pretty harsh on Lennox Lewis for never giving Vitali Klitschko the rematch. I think it basically took a decade looking back retrospectively to give Lennox Lewis any sort of respect just like it took a decade or so for people to look back on Larry Holmes and give him the credit.

As for the Klitschko brothers what was aggravating was you had two men who were so damn dominant for so long and the more hyperactive brother was simply not all that enjoyable to watch that the only fight that seemed entertaining (brother vs brother) never happened. People got sick of the Klitschko brothers even though they were good ambassadors for the sport.

Different sport but I'm reminded of Ed Lewis who was so dominant as a wrestler that people grew sick and tired of him which is why he started losing on purpose to bring in more money. I remember interviewing Emmanual Stewart back when I did atg radio and he was really bored and disappointed with the heavyweight division and would comment that even Vladimir had a difficult time being excited about being heavyweight champion because there was simply nobody out there.

I think because the brothers never fought each other it played into this notion or idea that Vladimir was always going to be the inferior Klitschko brother but I think as time went on and especially since he lost to Tyson Fury that most people would say that he got out of his brother's shadow and earned the right to say he was the more accomplished of the two.

But you can blame the weak era in large part on how the amateur system operated back then as well as the fact that most big men don't go into boxing like they used to once upon a time they end up in basketball or football or even MMA. So you did not see quality heavyweights from out of America or out of Britain for quite a long while.

I think it's still going to take maybe a decade before you see good heavyweights out of America again. I see nobody around currently who really peaks my interest except for Richard Torrez Jr but he's in the early development stage.

[Controversial]

Anyone who can stay a champion for many years deserves respect. Ok there might not be the big names on his record but as said by others that was out their hands. The hardest fights are often against title challengers as they have more to gain and are normally more focused, fit and trying to win, it's even harder when they are undefeated too. Pulling one big win out the bag can be impressive but consistency often lets these guys down. To be at the top of your game for year after year is a trait not many can sustain. As a very poor comparison I like playing pool and I'm pretty good. When I play someone good I try my hardest to win, when I play someone not so good I relax more, take more risks, make more mistakes and often lose to them more than the better players. How many times have fighters lost when they underestimate someone or don't try as hard as they should.

[Ambling Alp II]

It's not like he has huge wins to offset the losses. notice that people almost never point out specific big wins the Klitschkos. It's always crap like WBS title defenses, cleaning the division.

Tell me who in the 11 years following Lennox Lewis's retirement until the Tyson Fury loss was out there for Vladimir and Vitali to have fought that would have been considered a great win?

There was virtually nobody of any consequence for over a decade that remotely stood a chance. Valuev? Ruiz? Pfffft. Older and slower versions of Holyfield and Tyson? Pfffft. James Toney? Don't make me laugh.

You can't criticize them for not having big wins because there was simply nobody out there who would have been considered a big win. They played the cards they were dealt with which was a weak era in heavyweight history, and essentially dominated over what was available.

That's why we bring up alphabet champions and former champions on the Klitschko brothers resume because that is all that was available. In a strange way you're doing what you criticize everyone else for doing by taking away the best wins they had and saying it's meaningless.

You are absolutely correct that after Lewis retirement there wasn't anyone for them to have fought that would be considered a great win. Completely agree. Which what I have saying all along.

The era after Lewis sucked. Not their fault. You can only fight who is available.
That doesn't mean that they themselves were great. They feasted on weak opponents compared to other eras. Wladimir did beat Byrd earlier in his career, which helps him a bit.

So what could they done?
1.They could do well in the eye test. Notice after all this time is saying something like" look at Wladimir in this fight. He looked awesome. " Look at Vitaly in this fight". Why don't people do that? Because they seldom did look great, especially Vitaly. Great fighters actually look great, often.

2. Wladimir wouldn't fight Lewis. It was by far the biggest hw fight out there for more than two years.
3. Wladimir could have beaten everyone that fought as he should have. No losses to 2nd raters.
4. Vitaly should have been able to beat that version of Lennox Lewis. A great fighter would have. If he had good power, he would have stopped Lewis. If he had a good defense, his face wouldn't have looked like that and the fight would not have been stopped.
5. Vitaly should not have quit against Byrd. Have heard all the crybaby excuses. It was inexcusable. All he had to was stand in there for three rounds against a pillow puncher. Look at Bowe against Golota. Did he quit? No. Countless other fights where a guy toughed it out. Quitting like that is inexcusable.

If Wladimir or Vitaly would have beaten Lewis, they would deserved to be ranked higher. They didn't.
If Wladimir would have beaten everyone that he should have, he would deserve to be rated higher. He didn't
If Vitaly would have beaten Byrd, he would deserve to be rated higher. He didn't.

Yes there have been other guys who ducked someone, had a bad loss, quit. And that should count against them as well. as for Wladimir and Vitaly.
We shouldn't have special rules for the Klitschkos.

[Cojimar 1946]

The idea that the guys Wladimir was beating were stiffs just seems to be based on them losing Wladimir rather than any objective analysis.

In the 1990s a supposedly strong era Michael Moorer and a 45 year old Foreman became lineal champs. Guys Wladimir beat like David Haye, Povetkin, and even Pulev could likely beat Moorer and certainly would be favored over old Foreman. Had they come in another era they might have been champions.

An ancient Foreman and Moorer becoming lineal champ objectively seems like evidence against the 1990s being a golden age but people seem to conveniently sweep it under the rug. Imagine if Derek Chisora ko'd Fury to become champ. People would cite it as evidence the post-Klitschko era sucks and with justification.

[Controversial]

What should be remembered is results can differ at different stages of a career. The opinion of one judge can turn a loss into a win. The decision of a ref can turn a potential win into a stoppage defeat. Fighters can fight 10 times and it might be 5/5 at the end yet we see only the result of one fight. Too much emphasis is made on losses, what really matters is how the best version of a fighter does against the best version of another fighter on the night. The Klits were a hard fight for any opponent and lots of fighters have the potential to beat anyone on a given night.

[HomicideHenry]

So what could they done?
1.They could do well in the eye test. Notice after all this time is saying something like" look at Wladimir in this fight. He looked awesome. " Look at Vitaly in this fight". Why don't people do that? Because they seldom did look great, especially Vitaly. Great fighters actually look great, often.

2. Wladimir wouldn't fight Lewis. It was by far the biggest hw fight out there for more than two years.
3. Wladimir could have beaten everyone that fought as he should have. No losses to 2nd raters.
4. Vitaly should have been able to beat that version of Lennox Lewis. A great fighter would have. If he had good power, he would have stopped Lewis. If he had a good defense, his face wouldn't have looked like that and the fight would not have been stopped.
5. Vitaly should not have quit against Byrd. Have heard all the crybaby excuses. It was inexcusable. All he had to was stand in there for three rounds against a pillow puncher. Look at Bowe against Golota. Did he quit? No. Countless other fights where a guy toughed it out. Quitting like that is inexcusable.

1. "Looks awesome" is subjective. Mind you I can appreciate the finer points of boxing even though a lot of people are bored stiff with people who are mostly jabbers, and when you figure a lot of people over the course of a decade couldn't even win a single round against Vladimir Klitschko that is pretty awesome. He also had pretty one-sided punch outs from time to time though they were rare. Although I do insist that a lot of the big heavyweights don't look all that impressive on film because their size makes them look more awkward than fluid.

2. I don't remember all the particulars but I think between Lennox Lewis being wrapped up in mandatories and possibly injuries in training camps along with the Sanders loss it kind of prevented the Vladimir Klitschko versus Lennox Lewis match from happening in the first place.

3. There's a lot of guys who lost to second rate fighters in their careers and maybe one of the biggest names is Lennox Lewis himself being a heavy favorite over Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman, and he lost embarrassingly. Retrospectively those two men are given bigger props but at the time Oliver McCall was seen as a manufactured contender and Rahman was seen as just another easy night for Lewis.

4. If you recall the elder Klitschko brother was ahead on the cards when the stoppage by the cut came. It was the opinion then and it's still the opinion of many that Lennox Lewis was lucky that happened. Many people felt that Lennox Lewis not giving him a rematch was a kind of evidence that Lennox Lewis knew that the elder Klitschko brother got the better of him and that a return that would have been worse.

5. No, Vitali shouldn't have quit but he spent the rest of his career demonstrating that he had a heart because the criticism truly hurt him badly and I'm sure retrospectively he wished he would have continued on in the match. Inexcusable? Perhaps, but for me it's one of those things that everybody knows he would have won had he not quit and had the shoulder not blew out he probably could have got a stopage over Byrd. Had he continued his career and flopped from then on out the Perpetual criticism would be warranted but the fact that he became heavyweight champion of the world twice following that time goes to show me that people holding the Byrd fight against him is overblown.

[Ezzard]

Good point, Henry. Nobody was dodged. There were some potentially great fighters out there, or at least exceptional ones, but like the 80s HWs professionalism let them down. Or they just got steamrollered.

Always felt the US media never forgave Wlad and Vitali for not fighting one another.

I know the media here was pretty harsh on Lennox Lewis for never giving Vitali Klitschko the rematch. I think it basically took a decade looking back retrospectively to give Lennox Lewis any sort of respect just like it took a decade or so for people to look back on Larry Holmes and give him the credit.

As for the Klitschko brothers what was aggravating was you had two men who were so damn dominant for so long and the more hyperactive brother was simply not all that enjoyable to watch that the only fight that seemed entertaining (brother vs brother) never happened. People got sick of the Klitschko brothers even though they were good ambassadors for the sport.

Different sport but I'm reminded of Ed Lewis who was so dominant as a wrestler that people grew sick and tired of him which is why he started losing on purpose to bring in more money. I remember interviewing Emmanual Stewart back when I did atg radio and he was really bored and disappointed with the heavyweight division and would comment that even Vladimir had a difficult time being excited about being heavyweight champion because there was simply nobody out there.

I think because the brothers never fought each other it played into this notion or idea that Vladimir was always going to be the inferior Klitschko brother but I think as time went on and especially since he lost to Tyson Fury that most people would say that he got out of his brother's shadow and earned the right to say he was the more accomplished of the two.

But you can blame the weak era in large part on how the amateur system operated back then as well as the fact that most big men don't go into boxing like they used to once upon a time they end up in basketball or football or even MMA. So you did not see quality heavyweights from out of America or out of Britain for quite a long while.

I think it's still going to take maybe a decade before you see good heavyweights out of America again. I see nobody around currently who really peaks my interest except for Richard Torrez Jr but he's in the early development stage.

Of course, the other way to think about it is that they dominated and no other HW really got to create a had of steam to get anointed as great. Haye was a fantastic win. Solis likely would have been a great but for the injury.

Wlad, Vitali and Mike Tyson are three of the greatest HWs of my lifetime.

[Controversial]

1. "Looks awesome" is subjective.

Absolutely, even the best fighters in history can be in dull fights. Ali was in some dire fights, the Foreman win goes down as one of his greatest achievements yet he was a punch bag for almost the entire fight.

[oogiebe]

1. "Looks awesome" is subjective.

Absolutely, even the best fighters in history can be in dull fights. Ali was in some dire fights, the Foreman win goes down as one of his greatest achievements yet he was a punch bag for almost the entire fight.

No he wasn't. Watch it again, he was beating big George up pretty good.

[SteveO]

Ali was in some dire fights, the Foreman win goes down as one of his greatest achievements yet he was a punch bag for almost the entire fight.

That is a common misconception.
Ali was well ahead on the scorecards before he KO'd Foreman:
Zach Clayton 68-66, Nourridine Adalla 70-67, James Taylor 69-66

[Ambling Alp II]

It was a competitive fight for the first 7 rounds with a ton of action. A great fight. I had Ali up 4 rounds to 3. Homicidehenry had every round for Foreman.

[HomicideHenry]

It was a competitive fight for the first 7 rounds with a ton of action. A great fight. I had Ali up 4 rounds to 3. Homicidehenry had every round for Foreman.

I figure if a man is being the aggressor throughout the entire contest even if the bulk of his punches landed on his opponents arms you have to assume that he's winning the rounds even if the other opponent is landing clean shots every now and then.

Besides I am also of the opinion that if you are to be winning rounds off the champion you have to go a little above and beyond what the champion is doing, and quite frankly most of the time Muhammad Ali was just resting on the ropes and trying his best to dodge George Foreman's punches.

I think you can make an argument from round five onwards that Muhammad Ali started scoring a lot of shots while fighting off the ropes but those first four rounds George Foreman was basically in complete control.

How anyone could actually have Muhammad Ali ahead at the time of the stoppage is kind of surprising to me. At the most could say it was dead even at the time of the stoppage, but I don't know how anyone could say Ali was four rounds ahead.

[oogiebe]

It was a competitive fight for the first 7 rounds with a ton of action. A great fight. I had Ali up 4 rounds to 3. Homicidehenry had every round for Foreman.

I figure if a man is being the aggressor throughout the entire contest even if the bulk of his punches landed on his opponents arms you have to assume that he's winning the rounds even if the other opponent is landing clean shots every now and then.

Besides I am also of the opinion that if you are to be winning rounds off the champion you have to go a little above and beyond what the champion is doing, and quite frankly most of the time Muhammad Ali was just resting on the ropes and trying his best to dodge George Foreman's punches.

I think you can make an argument from round five onwards that Muhammad Ali started scoring a lot of shots while fighting off the ropes but those first four rounds George Foreman was basically in complete control.

How anyone could actually have Muhammad Ali ahead at the time of the stoppage is kind of surprising to me. At the most could say it was dead even at the time of the stoppage, but I don't know how anyone could say Ali was four rounds ahead.

It was easy. I actually watched it. Easily up a round or two.

[DrDuke]

It was a competitive fight for the first 7 rounds with a ton of action. A great fight. I had Ali up 4 rounds to 3. Homicidehenry had every round for Foreman.

I figure if a man is being the aggressor throughout the entire contest even if the bulk of his punches landed on his opponents arms you have to assume that he's winning the rounds even if the other opponent is landing clean shots every now and then.

Besides I am also of the opinion that if you are to be winning rounds off the champion you have to go a little above and beyond what the champion is doing, and quite frankly most of the time Muhammad Ali was just resting on the ropes and trying his best to dodge George Foreman's punches.

I think you can make an argument from round five onwards that Muhammad Ali started scoring a lot of shots while fighting off the ropes but those first four rounds George Foreman was basically in complete control.

How anyone could actually have Muhammad Ali ahead at the time of the stoppage is kind of surprising to me. At the most could say it was dead even at the time of the stoppage, but I don't know how anyone could say Ali was four rounds ahead.

Man, not sure, what fight you're talking about. Foreman was so ineffective and was eating so many counters. Ali clearly established a lead.

[HomicideHenry]

I personally see it differently.

Ali did not force the action. He was mostly deflecting shots. Foreman was forcing the action. True most of his punches landed on Ali's gloves and arms, but he was the only one hurting anyone in that contest. Ali landing a couple of clean shots here and there per round, in my view, does not warrant winning rounds. At best you could only call those rounds even.

The way you guys are talking is if Foreman was beaten so easily, so effortlessly, and that Ali was in complete control from start to finish--- which is simply not accurate.

Only after 5 or so rounds of throwing bombs does Foreman get lethargic and Ali started teeing off more and more and starts winning rounds.

[Ezzard]

Ali was in some dire fights, the Foreman win goes down as one of his greatest achievements yet he was a punch bag for almost the entire fight.

That is a common misconception.
Ali was well ahead on the scorecards before he KO'd Foreman:
Zach Clayton 68-66, Nourridine Adalla 70-67, James Taylor 69-66

When I read Controversial's post In thought he meant Foreman was a punchbag and that it wasn't that dramatic.

It was a very one-sided fight. Foreman was poor. Foreman and Liston were made for Ali and both were somewhat overhyped going into their fights with him.

[Controversial]

My post is being taken out of context. I quoted a specific comment about fighters “looking awesome” and I said Ali was in some dire fights. And in what most would say was his greatest win he didn’t “look awesome” against Foreman, well not to me he didn’t.

[Ambling Alp II]

1. "Looks awesome" is subjective.

Absolutely, even the best fighters in history can be in dull fights. Ali was in some dire fights, the Foreman win goes down as one of his greatest achievements yet he was a punch bag for almost the entire fight.

Well obviously, Ali was much more than a punching bag against Foreman, but anyway...

Nobody is a great all the time. These are human beings. But if someone is truly a great fighter, they will look great sometimes, and close to it often.

Of course, it's subjective. Ultimately, you have to have an opinion about how good a fighter looked in his fights.
Ali looked great in all of his fights in his prime from 1964-1967. Look great against Frazier in the 2nd and third fights, the Foreman fight and other fights.
Tyson was great against Berbick, Spinks Tubbs etc.
Frazier was great in his first fights against Ellis, Ali etc.
Louis was great against in the 2bnd Schmeling fight and many others.
Foreman, Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis. Marciano, Liston etc. all had fights where they looked great.

Vitaly Klitschko never looked great in a fight. If he really was a Great fighter, his supporters would point out fights in which he was great.

[HomicideHenry]

Again "looking great" is subjective. What looks good to you does not necessarily mean it looks good to me or anyone else. What you might call looking brilliant I might call being a hot dogger.

It's clear for all intents and purposes that alp primarily cares for aesthetics. I also tend to believe that some people mistakenly are under the impression just because a fight is great somehow also equates to them being a great fighter.

Vitali was in a great fight with Lennox Lewis. He was also in a great fight with Corrie Sanders. That doesn't necessarily mean he was a great fighter, but when you look at his overall career and high knockout percentage when you consider his size and conditioning and toughness as well as his skills and abilities you have to figure that he was one of the great heavyweights because it's pretty difficult to imagine that many people just having their way with Vitali Klitschko.

I think to this day Vitali basically holds the record of somebody being gone for more than three years and without tune up fights recapturing a version of the heavyweight title (ie, Samuel Peter). To act like the man could not fight or box and did not do it really well is not a reflection of reality.

As far as an example of him looking great I always felt his two round annihilation of Kirk Johnson was pretty damn impressive considering Lennox Lewis was supposed to fight Johnson originally and after that performance Lennox Lewis announced his retirement which basically fed into the notion or idea that Lennox Lewis wanted no part of a rematch.

[Controversial]

1. "Looks awesome" is subjective.

Absolutely, even the best fighters in history can be in dull fights. Ali was in some dire fights, the Foreman win goes down as one of his greatest achievements yet he was a punch bag for almost the entire fight.

Well obviously, Ali was much more than a punching bag against Foreman, but anyway...

Nobody is a great all the time. These are human beings. But if someone is truly a great fighter, they will look great sometimes, and close to it often.

Of course, it's subjective. Ultimately, you have to have an opinion about how good a fighter looked in his fights.
Ali looked great in all of his fights in his prime from 1964-1967. Look great against Frazier in the 2nd and third fights, the Foreman fight and other fights.
Tyson was great against Berbick, Spinks Tubbs etc.
Frazier was great in his first fights against Ellis, Ali etc.
Louis was great against in the 2bnd Schmeling fight and many others.
Foreman, Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis. Marciano, Liston etc. all had fights where they looked great.

Vitaly Klitschko never looked great in a fight. If he really was a Great fighter, his supporters would point out fights in which he was great.

So to be an ATG you have to be in great fights. So does longevity and actually defending a world title numerous times mean anything? Hopkins and FMM are considered ATGs by lots but they weren't exactly great to watch, I can't think of any I'd watch twice. Nigel Benn was in some great fights but I doubt anyone calls him an ATG. Wlad wasn't exciting to watch but that doesn't mean he was incapable of beating people. How about Jimmy Young, had more big name wins or close fights than most HWs but I wouldn't say he was a great watch and he never won a title.

[Ezzard]

People just invert a criteria to match their emotions. We all do it.