1988 Mike Tyson vs 2011 Wladimir Klitschko - who would win this match ?

[Riddick Bowie]

Some of the arguments in this thread are lamentable. Reigns and longevity, as if that decides who wins a fight. Wlad had longer reigns and more consistency than Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster, and Ross Purritty. Didn't help him much even in those fights, never mind against an elite opponent.

There is a reason why Tyson losing was a global event and Klitschko losing was an event on SecondsOut.com

Oh it's all so moronic and pointless.

[gilgamesh]

Some of the arguments in this thread are lamentable. Reigns and longevity, as if that decides who wins a fight. Wlad had longer reigns and more consistency than Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster, and Ross Purritty. Didn't help him much even in those fights, never mind against an elite opponent.

There is a reason why Tyson losing was a global event and Klitschko losing was an event on SecondsOut.com

Oh it's all so moronic and pointless.

I think most are picking Tyson to win the head to head fight with both men at their best. There's a few who aren't though. The conversation has kinda veered into who had the better career overall at this point, I think the answer to who wins the fight was given on Page 1 by most of us.

[Cojimar 1946]

If Carl Williams, Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tubbs count as quality wins for Mike, and I'd say it's fair to say they do.

Then it's also fair to say Wladimir has more than just Chris Byrd 2x. He also has Povetkin, Haye, Samuel Peter, Ruslan Chagaev and Brewster in their rematch.

And they both have a fair amount of Fringe contenders on their records as well. Their standard of competition is definitely comparable, though Wlad didn't have anyone quite as fierce as Holyfield or Lewis to have to deal with.

The Lewis fight isn't held against Tyson generally though due to him being well past it.

I didn't necessarily hold it against him, but I don't think being past it against a guy that's the same age as you is really an excuse.

Most of Tysons best wins were before Lewis even turned pro. They had radically different career trajectories.
That combined with the fact that people age very differently make that a strange argument in my view.

[gilgamesh]

The Lewis fight isn't held against Tyson generally though due to him being well past it.

I didn't necessarily hold it against him, but I don't think being past it against a guy that's the same age as you is really an excuse.

Most of Tysons best wins were before Lewis even turned pro. They had radically different career trajectories.
That combined with the fact that people age very differently make that a strange argument in my view.

So wild we care right?

[Ambling Alp II]

Some of the arguments in this thread are lamentable. Reigns and longevity, as if that decides who wins a fight. Wlad had longer reigns and more consistency than Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster, and Ross Purritty. Didn't help him much even in those fights, never mind against an elite opponent.

There is a reason why Tyson losing was a global event and Klitschko losing was an event on SecondsOut.com

Oh it's all so moronic and pointless.

"There is a reason why Tyson losing was a global event and Klitschko losing was an event on SecondsOut.com"


Nobody was kicking Douglas' ass the night he beat Tyson. He fought an incredible fight. Only Ali, Louis and a handful of others could have beaten him, and they all would have had trouble. Anyone watching this fight should be able to tell that.

Sanders gets propped up so it won't look as bad for Klitschko. Tyson would have done that Klitschko 9 out 10 times.
There is literally nothing else to point to in Sanders career. He was never a contender until he beat Klitschko. Was only a for a short while after that.
It's an embarrassing defeat for Klitschko. If it had only happened once, you could say it was a fluke. But it happened before and after.
In over 100 years of boxing, there is not another heavyweight that people try to say is great that was got stopped 3 times by three different non-contenders in their prime. That speaks volumes.

[Cojimar 1946]

Tyson's best wins were Spinks and Holmes. Wlad has nothing resembling wins that good.

Nope. Wlad has several wins better than Spinks and old Holmes.

Povetkin and Byrd most obviously

Old Holmes beat Mercer 4 years after Tyson destroyed him. Holmes almost beat McCall 7 years after Tyson beat him. Spinks looked good in his hw fights. These aren't even the best he beat. Tucker, Smith, Ruddock, Thomas, Bruno etc. Not great, but capable fighters.

Klitschko beat Chris Byrd, a good defensive fighter with zero power. That's the best. Lets stop pretending anyone else Klitschko beat was really good. It's pretty desperate when you have to bring up Povetkin. (Cue the win/loss records and WBS titles)

Oh, and he has the three embarrassing losses against guy much, much worse than Holyfield and Douglas. Near his prime, Tyson wasn't getting embarrassed by non-contenders like Klitschko was.

Id rate Povetkin over multiple 90s champs, say Moorer, old Foreman, Douglas etc. Have you actually watched any of his fights? He seems to have good speed, defense, combination punching etc.

[Ambling Alp II]

Old Foreman, depends on the fight. Moorer had a weak chin, otherwise he was better. Prime Douglas or Foreman, nowhere near.

[gilgamesh]

Some of the arguments in this thread are lamentable. Reigns and longevity, as if that decides who wins a fight. Wlad had longer reigns and more consistency than Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster, and Ross Purritty. Didn't help him much even in those fights, never mind against an elite opponent.

There is a reason why Tyson losing was a global event and Klitschko losing was an event on SecondsOut.com

Oh it's all so moronic and pointless.

"There is a reason why Tyson losing was a global event and Klitschko losing was an event on SecondsOut.com"


Nobody was kicking Douglas' ass the night he beat Tyson. He fought an incredible fight. Only Ali, Louis and a handful of others could have beaten him, and they all would have had trouble. Anyone watching this fight should be able to tell that.

Sanders gets propped up so it won't look as bad for Klitschko. Tyson would have done that Klitschko 9 out 10 times.
There is literally nothing else to point to in Sanders career. He was never a contender until he beat Klitschko. Was only a for a short while after that.
It's an embarrassing defeat for Klitschko. If it had only happened once, you could say it was a fluke. But it happened before and after.
In over 100 years of boxing, there is not another heavyweight that people try to say is great that was got stopped 3 times by three different non-contenders in their prime. That speaks volumes.

There's a lot of Heavyweights that got stopped more than 3 times, but when those are pointed out to you losses don't count for those guys. They only count for Wladimir.

[Cojimar 1946]

I didn't necessarily hold it against him, but I don't think being past it against a guy that's the same age as you is really an excuse.

Most of Tysons best wins were before Lewis even turned pro. They had radically different career trajectories.
That combined with the fact that people age very differently make that a strange argument in my view.

So wild we care right?

Not sure I understand....It's pretty unusual to have two people the same age where one is undisputed champ with 36 pro fights before the other guy even makes his pro debut.

Tyson scored almost all his best wins before Lewis had his first professional fight

[Cojimar 1946]

Old Foreman, depends on the fight. Moorer had a weak chin, otherwise he was better. Prime Douglas or Foreman, nowhere near.

Okay, but I'm not talking about prime Foreman, I'm talking about the guy who appeared to lose widely to Schultz and barely scraped by Stewart in addition to losing to Morrison.