BoxRec

Holyfield looked to be slipping as far back as his fight with Bert Cooper in my opinion - He was such an athlete though, and had a huge fighting heart that enabled him to come through some big fights after this point, but the signs where there.

Happy Slapper wrote:Tyson never fought any of the best guys in their prime. He didn't want know about Lewis, Holyfield or Bowe and was happy fighting the Frank Bruno's of this world.

He was a murderous puncher with a scary reputation, but there's a few heavyweights who could have or would have beaten him, even in his prime.

I think Vitali wears him down and stops him late by the way... Wlad gets stretched out in round 1.

It's mental what you read on this forum... Staggering. The first time Tyson fought Bruno Holyfield was fresh out the cruisers and Lewis and Bowe hadn't yet turned pro! He DID sign to fight Holyfield in 1991 when Holyfield was The Man and at his peak.

And the second time he fought Bruno, to reclaim the WBC belt, he WAS fighting Holyfield only months later, whilst Bowe & Lewis were struggling with Golota & Mercer.

Vitali stops a prime Tyson? What, like he stopped a 40 year old grossly overweight Shannon Briggs?

Name ONE fighter Vitali has beaten who is in any way comparable to Mike Tyson.

This forum is freaking loony!

Vitali gets over-rated because he was a hard puncher and had a great chin. Oh, and he's a giant. Lewis found it easily enough, though, so I think people should bear that in mind. Not only that, but Lewis wasn't anywhere near him prime in that fight, whereas Vitali arguably was.

Asterix wrote:Vitali gets over-rated because he was a hard puncher and had a great chin. Oh, and he's a giant. Lewis found it easily enough, though, so I think people should bear that in mind. Not only that, but Lewis wasn't anywhere near him prime in that fight, whereas Vitali arguably was.

We are talking about a Tyson-Vitali fight though. Lewis is seven inches taller than Tyson, which makes it much easier to land clean. To a certain extent, Vitali needs his height advantage, because he leans back to avoid a lot of shots. Some people don't seem to think a 10 inch difference between fighters makes a difference, but it does. Lewis also has a longer reach than Vitali (and much longer than Tyson), which again played a factor in him being able to penetrate Vitali's defence. Tyson would not be able to land shots from a distance like Lewis did (like the right hand that opened the cut) and let's not forget Vitali was more than holding his own against Lewis.

---
The two biggest opponents Tyson beat were 6'5. One was Saverese, who was never even a world class fighter, and the other was Tony Tucker, who lost a decision, but managed to win a couple rounds. Vitali is better and almost three inches taller than both these guys. When you factor in his massive size advantage, excellent chin, and great conditioning, I see Vitali giving any version of Tyson trouble. He certainly would not destroy him in three rounds as someone suggested. If Tyson did win, I imagine it would be a decision, and in a very ugly fight.

It is true Vitali never beat anyone like a prime Tyson, but I would also say that Tyson never beat a fighter as good as Vitali. Obviously Holmes is a legend, but the version of him that Tyson beat was not. Spinks was a great LHW, but didn't do alot at HW. Ruddock and Bruno were solid, but I still rank Vitali ahead of both of them. It's not like the opponents Tyson beat were amazing. I would favor Vitali over the version of every fighter Tyson beat.

How is Vitali better than Tony Tucker? In what way? You surely don't mean skill-wise? Tucker was such a gifted boxer. He's got faster hands, faster feet, much better arsenal of punches, hits in combinations, not cut prone, just a complete boxer, and huge as well. And Tyson beat him! Vitali? He's just a jab & a right hand, and an endless string of fat blobs who don't bring any technique or fitness or mean intentions to the table.

Are you saying Vitali is better because of the numbers? Tony Tucker would reign forever defending against the likes of Sam Peter, Shannon Briggs, Povetkin, Gomez et al.

superpunchout wrote:

MIG wrote:Prime Tyson would beat any fighter from any era in their prime - only Ali, Holmes and Lewis would offer any genuine challenge. Haye wouldn't last 3 rounds with prime Tyson

What about Liston, Evander & Foreman? Was Tyson really so good that these men could be ruled out entirely?

Fair point but Ali, Holmes and Lewis may of been able to beat him - I'd say Liston, Foreman and Holyfield not up there with those three. All the above mentioned would beat Haye

overhand_right wrote:How is Vitali better than Tony Tucker? In what way? You surely don't mean skill-wise? Tucker was such a gifted boxer. He's got faster hands, faster feet, much better arsenal of punches, hits in combinations, not cut prone, just a complete boxer, and huge as well. And Tyson beat him! Vitali? He's just a jab & a right hand, and an endless string of fat blobs who don't bring any technique or fitness or mean intentions to the table.

Are you saying Vitali is better because of the numbers? Tony Tucker would reign forever defending against the likes of Sam Peter, Shannon Briggs, Povetkin, Gomez et al.

Vitali has a better workrate, takes a better punch, and has better stamina. Before his layoff Vitali had impressive KO power and he would also be about three inches taller and 30 pounds heavier than Tucker was when he fought Tyson. I also think he uses his size much better than Tucker did, and fights in a way that would be more difficult for Tyson to handle. Tucker had a history of losing to fighters much shorter than himself. Tucker didn't exactly beat great opposition either. His best win was a razor thin decision over McCall and for the most part the opposition he beat wasn't too good. Tucker was also defeated by Orlin Norris, Seldon, and Akinwande. I don't think Norris or Seldon are much better than the top contenders of today.

I am very confident that Vitali would not be destroyed in three rounds like one poster suggested. I also feel like he could provide Tyson with a lot of problems and push him very close if he was on his game. His style is very effective against smaller opponents, and he has other attributes that make him a tough ask for almost any HW in history.

You don't have to be amazingly skilfull to be a good fighter. Marciano was ugly to watch, but he was incredibly tough and resilient, was extremely fit and had mind numbing power, which was enough for him to overcome far more skilled opponents.

Vitali is effective, his style may not win him many plaudits, but he has made it work for him. Vitali can't be held accountable for the dire state of the division. He leapt at the chance to fight Lewis, so it's not like he is avoiding anyone.

crusader wrote:Vitali has a better workrate, takes a better punch, and has better stamina. Before his layoff Vitali had impressive KO power and he would also be about three inches taller and 30 pounds heavier than Tucker was when he fought Tyson. I also think he uses his size much better than Tucker did, and fights in a way that would be more difficult for Tyson to handle. Tucker had a history of losing to fighters much shorter than himself. Tucker didn't exactly beat great opposition either. His best win was a razor thin decision over McCall and for the most part the opposition he beat wasn't too good. Tucker was also defeated by Orlin Norris, Seldon, and Akinwande. I don't think Norris or Seldon are much better than the top contenders of today.

I am very confident that Vitali would not be destroyed in three rounds like one poster suggested. I also feel like he could provide Tyson with a lot of problems and push him very close if he was on his game. His style is very effective against smaller opponents, and he has other attributes that make him a tough ask for almost any HW in history.

Most of your comments refer to the heavy, drug-addled Tony Tucker of the 1990's. His form then is irrelevant as we're discussing Mike Tyson and Tucker at his best when he was a top athlete in his prime in the 80's.

You say Klitschko has a better workrate? What, when he's pummelling heavy bags like Arreola or Williams? When has he competed at the pace of Tyson-Tucker? I.e. a give & take fight? After 6 rds with a 40 year old fat Lewis he was gored and knackered. Too many posters here fail to grasp that Vitali reigns over a bunch of cadavers. He wasn't dominant or remotely destructive over an old, fat, ill-prepared LL.

"Tucker didn't beat great opposition"? Well I suppose Buster Douglas wasn't exactly Albert Sosnowski or Shannon Briggs or Corrie Sanders. Lol.

overhand_right wrote:

crusader wrote:Vitali has a better workrate, takes a better punch, and has better stamina. Before his layoff Vitali had impressive KO power and he would also be about three inches taller and 30 pounds heavier than Tucker was when he fought Tyson. I also think he uses his size much better than Tucker did, and fights in a way that would be more difficult for Tyson to handle. Tucker had a history of losing to fighters much shorter than himself. Tucker didn't exactly beat great opposition either. His best win was a razor thin decision over McCall and for the most part the opposition he beat wasn't too good. Tucker was also defeated by Orlin Norris, Seldon, and Akinwande. I don't think Norris or Seldon are much better than the top contenders of today.

I am very confident that Vitali would not be destroyed in three rounds like one poster suggested. I also feel like he could provide Tyson with a lot of problems and push him very close if he was on his game. His style is very effective against smaller opponents, and he has other attributes that make him a tough ask for almost any HW in history.

Most of your comments refer to the heavy, drug-addled Tony Tucker of the 1990's. His form then is irrelevant as we're discussing Mike Tyson and Tucker at his best when he was a top athlete in his prime in the 80's.

You say Klitschko has a better workrate? What, when he's pummelling heavy bags like Arreola or Williams? When has he competed at the pace of Tyson-Tucker? I.e. a give & take fight? After 6 rds with a 40 year old fat Lewis he was gored and knackered. Too many posters here fail to grasp that Vitali reigns over a bunch of cadavers. He wasn't dominant or remotely destructive over an old, fat, ill-prepared LL.

"Tucker didn't beat great opposition"? Well I suppose Buster Douglas wasn't exactly Albert Sosnowski or Shannon Briggs or Corrie Sanders. Lol.

Douglas was a good fighter and nothing more. I do not think he was significantly better than the current contenders today. Vitali is also a much different fighter stylistically and was physically tougher and more durable than the likes of Douglas and Tucker. What exactly did Tucker do in the 80s except for his win over Douglas? Nothing. Barley scrapping by the average 5'11 Norris in 1991 was not that impressive either, and once again shows he struggled with shorter fighters, a problem Vitali has not had.

Tyson never beat a guy that big who used his height that well. Vitali would offer Tyson many challenges he had never come across before, and he certainly would not fall after getting hit clean a couple of times. He has all the tools to make it a tough night for Tyson.

I think your main problem is you discuss fighters you clearly know little of. Citing Tucker vs Orlin Norris? Again, this is drug-addicted, overweight past it Tucker of the 90s.

Tucker did 'nothing' in the 80's? Erm, he fought one of the most dangerous ever punchers, at his peak, and went 12, giving him a very good tussle despite a broken right hand. He didn't quit on his stool despite an injury that severely hindered him, even against a lethal opponent (not Chris Byrd btw).

'Tyson never beat a guy that big who used his height well'? Lol. He beat 6'5' guys who were actually nimble & athletic yet he can't beat a 6'7' guy whos slow, one paced and predictable?

Unbelievable.

And who has Vitali used his height so effectively against anyway? Shannon Briggs? Herbie Hide? It's hardly freaking Mike Tyson is it? Then again I'm debating with a man who can watch Buster Douglas-Mike Tyson and say Douglas is 'good. Nothing more'. Not significantly better than Kevin Johnson, Chris Arreola, Shannon Briggs? Really? Laughable.

overhand_right wrote:I think your main problem is you discuss fighters you clearly know little of. Citing Tucker vs Orlin Norris? Again, this is drug-addicted, overweight past it Tucker of the 90s.

Tucker did 'nothing' in the 80's? Erm, he fought one of the most dangerous ever punchers, at his peak, and went 12, giving him a very good tussle despite a broken right hand. He didn't quit on his stool despite an injury that severely hindered him, even against a lethal opponent (not Chris Byrd btw).

'Tyson never beat a guy that big who used his height well'? Lol. He beat 6'5' guys who were actually nimble & athletic yet he can't beat a 6'7' guy whos slow, one paced and predictable?

Unbelievable.

And who has Vitali used his height so effectively against anyway? Shannon Briggs? Herbie Hide? It's hardly freaking Mike Tyson is it? Then again I'm debating with a man who can watch Buster Douglas-Mike Tyson and say Douglas is 'good. Nothing more'. Not significantly better than Kevin Johnson, Chris Arreola, Shannon Briggs? Really? Laughable.

Right, so the most impressive things Tucker did in the 80s were lose a one-sided fight to Tyson and stop Douglas...One decent win in an entire decade. He did nothing else worth mentioning during that time and was then defeated by average names in the 90s. Tyson did not beat a guy 'that big'. Please look at his record and you will see that I am correct, he never fought someone who was almost 6'8. What 6'5 guys did he beat that used their height well? Not Tucker. Tucker lost to the 5'11 Norris and 6'1 Seldon while he was still young, and he was later defeated by two 6'2 fighters..he regularly stuggled with smaller fighters. Also, being fast and nimble doesn't mean you use your height well. Timothy Bradley is fast and nimble, but he gives up height in almost all of his bouts and fights on the inside.

Vitali has used his height effectively against all his opponents except Lewis. Sure, he hasn't fought the greatest opposition, but I don't think Peter, Gomez, or Hide are that much worse than guys like Tucker. Sure, Vitali may not be fast and his style is not pretty, but that doesn't preclude him from being a good fighter who could trouble most heavyweights. Rocky Marciano was slow and had an ugly style, as did George Foreman. I'm not saying Vitali is as good as Foreman, but the point is you don''t have to be aesthetically pleasing to be a good fighter.

I'll say it again. Vitali has ten inches and thirty pounds on Tyson, he has a great chin, a good workrate, and a very good motor. He is very good at keeping smaller opponents at a distance and timing their attacks, and at his best he had some pop. I think all these strengths would give Tyson trouble. I am not saying I would pick Vitali to win, but it is my opinion that it is not impossible. If you don't think so fine, but you should not get so perturbed.

By the way, typing "Lol" in every message doesn't strengthen your points

MacTavish wrote:Prime Lewis would beat prime Tyson. And that's my 500th post

Wow...Just wow

Crusader,

I think you're putting too much value into Vitali's size. Pacquiao is fighting a much bigger Margarito, but Pacquiao is the favourite for a reason. Tyson would get past Vitali's jab -- don't you agree? We're talking about someone with excellent footwork, with fantastic head movement and who used angles well.

Asterix wrote:Crusader,

I think you're putting too much value into Vitali's size. Pacquiao is fighting a much bigger Margarito, but Pacquiao is the favourite for a reason. Tyson would get past Vitali's jab -- don't you agree? We're talking about someone with excellent footwork, with fantastic head movement and who used angles well.

In that example the size is not comparable. Margarito has 4.5 inches on Pac, Vitali would have 9.5 on Tyson, and 30 pounds. Those types of figures can't be ignored. Tyson would have a lot of trouble punching with the same type of power he could when he was fighting guys around 6'3 or so. It would make everything more difficult for Tyson. I think he would get in, but he would take shots in the process, and Vitali is not going to fold after being hit with a few good shots. Once he was inside, it would also be difficult for Tyson to land flush on a target that high. Vitali has mastered a style that works well against shorter opponents and his other attributes would make it very difficult to beat him easily. I think he gives Tyson a tough fight.

I have a minority belief that Tyson was the most gifted boxer in history after Robinson. But he was akin to an outright dominant F1 car that shattered if you ran it over a kerb. Joe Frazier - a man of similar build - didn't have nearly as much natural talent; in fact, he was arguably one of the least talented ATGs. He was also one of the bravest men I can think of in modern history. So if Tyson had had Joe's resolve, then yeah, I'd say that would've made him the greatest of all time. I guess I'd place him somewhere near the back of a P4P top 30. Never given it much thought, to be honest. There are a number of guys who rightly come in higher, including Frazier.

Also, most of us remember the hooks and uppercuts, or the rolls before them. But recall his roll into a lightning-fast left body shot. Terrifying because you know he can turn it into a hook or uppercut if you shield with your elbows too early. Watching to see where it's going was impossible for many heavies to react to once Tyson was on the inside. You'd naturally guard your head and stand there scared shitless of an imminent crack. Heavies with great movement gave Tyson trouble (for this reason I'd have favoured Holmes), but those guys were typically lighter and lost out in trades. That left to the body was as close to a perfectly executed punch as I've ever seen in regular use.

The interesting thing about Tyson was that his motivation seemed to come from not wanting to be fear's bitch. He was tuned by D'Amato and Rooney, but his ferocity apparently came as a backlash against his youth. Though he finished his career as wide as a barn door, he was a small 5'10" heavy when he won the title, and he was intimidating all but the most courageous.

crusader wrote:

Asterix wrote:Crusader,

I think you're putting too much value into Vitali's size. Pacquiao is fighting a much bigger Margarito, but Pacquiao is the favourite for a reason. Tyson would get past Vitali's jab -- don't you agree? We're talking about someone with excellent footwork, with fantastic head movement and who used angles well.

In that example the size is not comparable. Margarito has 4.5 inches on Pac, Vitali would have 9.5 on Tyson, and 30 pounds. Those types of figures can't be ignored. Tyson would have a lot of trouble punching with the same type of power he could when he was fighting guys around 6'3 or so. It would make everything more difficult for Tyson. I think he would get in, but he would take shots in the process, and Vitali is not going to fold after being hit with a few good shots. Once he was inside, it would also be difficult for Tyson to land flush on a target that high. Vitali has mastered a style that works well against shorter opponents and his other attributes would make it very difficult to beat him easily. I think he gives Tyson a tough fight.

I'm obviously not saying Margarito = Vitali and Pacquiao = Tyson. It was an example of how size isn't everything.

tonyevs wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

tonyevs wrote:
Correct

Point I was trying to make was, Tyson had the speed and power to turn the big guys legs to jelly like no other heavyweight I can think of. He also had the skills to land these punches on just about any opponent also. Guys that went the distance with a prime Tyson, did so with a negative safety 1st style ...

Tyson for me was the best ever. Skill, speed, power, great chin.
Just a real shame he fell out of love with the game when still so young. He was a real cluster-bomb of pugilistic pleasure when he was at his peak

Yes he was, but Tyson lacked a plan B. When someone got him on the back foot, which admittedly, was easier said than done, he unravelled. A classic on-top fighter. The likes of Holmes and Ali would have punished him in their primes, their speed, movement and output would have made it very hard for him to be the aggressor.

Holmes, i think, may have given Tyson more problems than Ali.
If you had to look at any Ali opponent to find a similar style to Tysons, it would have to be Joe Frazier.
And Frazier gave Ali fits .... Tyson was far superior in every dept than Smoking Joe.
Ali himself had problems with fast fighters, he also struggled with the big strong ones ....

But its all 'fantasy' stuff anyways .....

Tyson is the most overrated fighter of all time...

who did he actually beat worth mentioning?

Ali woulda destroyed him mentally before he even set foot in a ring…

Mike was a busted flush once people were no longer intimidated by him.