Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

[gilgamesh]

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.

Foreman might've been ahead 4 rounds to 3 going into the 8th, but Ali won some rounds spectacularly. Particularly the 5th where I remember he tags Foreman repeatedly with big shots to end the round.

[Ambling Alp II]

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.

You don't necessarily have to be in great fights, though most greats fighters have. It helps your case if you perform at a great level regardless of who you are fighting. Helps your case if you beat great fighters. Wlad and Vitaly clearly fall short.

Does longevity and actually defending a world title numerous times mean anything? Not nearly enough to be considered great if your competition sucks. The sheer number of title defenses means nothing. Anybody halfway decent can beat 20 stiffs. Quality trumps quantity. Nobody considers Tommy Burns one of the greatest heavyweights.

Simply watching Hopkins and Mayweather you could tell that they were great.
Nigel Benn was not a great fighter. Had a few exciting fights; not great fights Never looked great. Gatti-Ward were fun to watch. They weren't great fighters.
Jimmy Young for a few years was arguably a great fighter. Btw-His fight against Norton was great to watch.
It was a lot hard to win a title during young's time. The division was strong and there was only one champion. He would have been the champion in some eras.

Wlad was better than brother. He had power and good boxing skills. He looked impressive in some fights. Vitaly never did. Wlad does at least have the win over Byrd. He also had the 3 bad losses. He had a glass jaw and poor stamina.

There are literally dozens of hws who were better than Wlad. More than that who were better than Vitaly.

[Ambling Alp II]

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.

Yes of course it's subjective. It has to be.
This isn't about aesthetics.
Weigh the big wins against the losses.
Take into consideration who the losses were against.
Take into consideration the stages of fighter's careers.
If you have film of the guy, that has to count to some degree. Often (like this case) it simply backs up what everything else points to.

Lewis was at his absolute worst. Was slow and easy to hit. Vitaly still could find a way to win. A hard puncher stops Lewis. A guy with good defense would not have had his face look like like that against that version of Lewis.

An obese Kirk Johnson? Congratulations. wow.
Sanders- Vitaly Klitschko was laughably bad. It was like a tough man contest. No defense. Sanders was not a very fighter. Nobody thought he was anything until he beat Wald. The rest of career is nothing.

Shows how desperate Vitaly apologists are.

He had two big fights in his career. One against a clearly past it Lewis. The other against Byrd who was good defensively but had no power. He lost them both. Couldn't last the distance in either. Yet somehow, some way, gets credit for them.
He was 0-2 in fights that matter.

[gilgamesh]

I don't know that 0-2 in "Fights that matter" is entirely accurate.

But it is fair to say those are Vitali's 2 biggest fights, and he lost them.

[Cojimar 1946]

The beating great fighters argument doesn't seem like a strong one because greatness doesn't always translate from era to era and often in boxing greatness can depend on factors other than raw ability such as longevity and matchmaking.

If your contemporaries are not willing to fight you it is hard to establish yourself as great. Tyson Fury has squandered much of his prime with inactivity and mismatches that do little for his legacy but he seems to have a lot of ability despite not being willing to fight most of his contemporaries.

Povetkin only lost to Wladimir in his prime. He might well have attained greatness in another era

[oogiebe]

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.

Foreman might've been ahead 4 rounds to 3 going into the 8th, but Ali won some rounds spectacularly. Particularly the 5th where I remember he tags Foreman repeatedly with big shots to end the round.

Maybe. Maybe even...maybe ALi ahead. What i most remember about round 5 was the way Ali walked back to his corner looking over his shoulder at the state of Big Ole Tired George. I think that is when he KNEW he had him.

[gilgamesh]

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

Foreman might've been ahead 4 rounds to 3 going into the 8th, but Ali won some rounds spectacularly. Particularly the 5th where I remember he tags Foreman repeatedly with big shots to end the round.

Maybe. Maybe even...maybe ALi ahead. What i most remember about round 5 was the way Ali walked back to his corner looking over his shoulder at the state of Big Ole Tired George. I think that is when he KNEW he had him.

Yeah he lit him up at the end of Round 5. He actually hit him with more big shots to end Round 5 than he did in Round 8 when he finishes him.

[DrDuke]

40 votes, 29 vs 11, ~70% to ~30% in favor of Tyson.

Fair enough.

[Ezzard]

It should be closer but Mike is a massive fan favourite. I don't have a strong opinion on either one. Just think there's not a lot between them.

[gilgamesh]

It should be closer but Mike is a massive fan favourite. I don't have a strong opinion on either one. Just think there's not a lot between them.

And that's all the point I wanted to really make with this thread

[keithmoonhangover]

It should be closer but Mike is a massive fan favourite. I don't have a strong opinion on either one. Just think there's not a lot between them.

And that's all the point I wanted to really make with this thread

That's assuming biased. I voted for Mike Tyson and he is a rapist scumbag, I'm not a Tyson fan, never have been, never will be.

[gilgamesh]

It should be closer but Mike is a massive fan favourite. I don't have a strong opinion on either one. Just think there's not a lot between them.

And that's all the point I wanted to really make with this thread

That's assuming biased. I voted for Mike Tyson and he is a rapist scumbag, I'm not a Tyson fan, never have been, never will be.

I'm not saying everyone who picked Tyson didn't have a well thought out and conclusive reason for doing so. I just know a lot of fans who know less than you for instance, their just instant knee jerk reaction would be Mike without giving it some thought.

I at least made you, us and hell even myself give it some thought. Which again, was the point of this thread.

I think it was a good one.

[keithmoonhangover]

And that's all the point I wanted to really make with this thread

That's assuming biased. I voted for Mike Tyson and he is a rapist scumbag, I'm not a Tyson fan, never have been, never will be.

I'm not saying everyone who picked Tyson didn't have a well thought out and conclusive reason for doing so. I just know a lot of fans who know less than you for instance, their just instant knee jerk reaction would be Mike without giving it some thought.

I at least made you, us and hell even myself give it some thought. Which again, was the point of this thread.

I think it was a good one.

[Klee Gluckman]

Im going with Tyson.

I think he was better, I also think both at their best Tyson wins.

I also think that Wlad rued over a terrible era.

Also believe Vitale would beat Wlad which means for a significant part of his reign he may not have been the best. I cant prove this,

[Klee Gluckman]

Any Rooney trained Tyson beats Wladimir.

Hindsight is everything in this game. If Tyson passed away in 1988. This would not be a thread.

Seriously Mike Tyson with Rooney in his corner, Robin in his bed, and advertisers giving him endorsements would bet Wlad .

Tyson stuffed up his career but gee he had talent.

He was the first to knock out Thomas, Biggs, Holmes, Tuhbs and Spinks.

Tyson lived too fast and fated too young. But if Wlad had been one of those 8 Rooney Tyson opponents he would just be another Tyson victim.

The other thing is Tyson was improving under Rooney.

Cus was not joking when he said Tyson would go down as the greatest of all time. Tyson has the power, the defence and the hand speed. Wlad would be beaten like a mule by a Rooney Trained Tyson.

[Ambling Alp II]

Some people do overrate Tyson. some underrate him. We should just rate him what he did and forget what a scumbag he was.
A lot guys are below Tyson and above Wladimir Klitschko.

[Cojimar 1946]

Usyk is above both

[Ambling Alp II]

That would be a big fat no.

[Cojimar 1946]

Where would you rate Usyk.

He would be above Wlad if you place emphasis on losses

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

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

Foreman might've been ahead 4 rounds to 3 going into the 8th, but Ali won some rounds spectacularly. Particularly the 5th where I remember he tags Foreman repeatedly with big shots to end the round.

Maybe. Maybe even...maybe ALi ahead. What i most remember about round 5 was the way Ali walked back to his corner looking over his shoulder at the state of Big Ole Tired George. I think that is when he KNEW he had him.

- Foreman had been partially drugged by Sadler. Seconds into the fight, writer George Plimpton screamed, "It's a fixed fight." The first time I saw it many years later, I saw him as being drugged which only came out in George's retirement.

Prior, someone, likely King who was just getting started in boxing paid one of Foreman's journeyman spars to slice him open. That's when George found out he was being held hostage by a platoon of AK 47s unable to fly to France for advanced skin repair. Nor do any significant sparring because of the stake$.

George beat the shyte out of Ali's body so bad that Ferdie and Herbert forbid the lucrative rematch in Indonesia that Ali talked about.

In his next fight, Wepner who 3 fight novice George destroyed inside 3 rounds beat up Ali so bad he was crying to the ref. Finally Ali came up with a good combination to finish Wepner.

In case any of you lads didn't notice, Ali with Cosell in Canada for Foreman's return to boxing with a 5 man exhibition was screaming at George, "You ain't never getting a rematch" such that Security had to repeatedly put him back in his seat.

And it wasn't just Wepner. Ali looked like Shyte in most of his post Foreman fights, sometimes taking horrific beatings.

Now, that has nothing to do with the non sequitur of comparing two fighters in fantasy rating rationales. Tyson and Wlad are both record setting fighters in their day. They were both KO specialists, but Mike was much more exciting with Wlad one of the overall best record setting records of any Hvy Champ, most esp when combined with Vitali as they moved the Hvy division to Ukraine where it remains to this very day.

I rate both as top Hvys, fantasy numbers be damned..

[Ambling Alp II]

Where would you rate Usyk.

He would be above Wlad if you place emphasis on losses

Wlad had three embarrassing losses. but at least he did beat Byrd. Usyk had had four fights where he wasn't impressive but at least he won. Klitschko also did look good early in his career against some mediocre opponents. You could argue it either way. Neither are remotely close to Bowe.

[Cojimar 1946]

Sure but Byrds main claim to fame is beating Vitali who you don't rate highly. So in your book I wouldn't think that would mean much.

Obviously he beat old Holyfield but Holyfield was way past it by that stage.

[Ambling Alp II]

Byrd's biggest win over Tua. It was probably his best performance. Bryd was awful against Vitaly but luckily for him Vitaly was worse.

Byrd had no power and sometimes was not active enough. However, he was Very good defensively (though as great defensively as some people believe. Good hand speed, and overall good boxing skills.

Agree the Holyfield fight doesn't mean anything.

[keithmoonhangover]

Byrd's biggest win over Tua. It was probably his best performance. Bryd was awful against Vitaly but luckily for him Vitaly was worse.

Byrd had no power and sometimes was not active enough. However, he was Very good defensively (though as great defensively as some people believe. Good hand speed, and overall good boxing skills.

Agree the Holyfield fight doesn't mean anything.

The Tua win often gets overlooked.

[gilgamesh]

Where would you rate Usyk.

He would be above Wlad if you place emphasis on losses

Usyk also has bigger wins than Wlad's biggest. Wlad just has several more.