Haye reapplies for British licence.

First topic message reminder :

Subject to medical checks the board are expected to accept his application, but could this mean a deal with Vitali is close?

Haye has constantly said he would only fight Vitali or retire, and mentioned they've been in talks for a while during his gyms open day. Haye vs Vitali this summer anyone?

victorgarco wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Although I think you are partially riht Victor I'd favour Tyson because he is fast and throws excellent combos. I imagine he'd get throuh and take out wlad but if it went into the later rounds (big big if) then what you say could come into play. More often than not though wlad gets flattened

Before the Wlad v haye fight i would have said tyson would win cos he has too much speed. But wlad was excellent at avoiding haye and neutralising haye's speed.

Also Tyson bobs and weaves a lot to get into punching range and I think wlad would just lean on him and tire tyson out. Wlad is 6ft6 and 18 stone and him leaning on tyson would really tire tyson out. tyson suffered from stamina issues so the leaning and holding would be a tactic wlad would employ a lot.

Where does this nonsense come from? He went 12 with Bonecrusher and Tucker without blowing. Every boxer looks comfortable when they are winning and controlling the fight. But Wlad will not be so comfortable were he unfortunate not to be knocked out within 3. If he lasts to the latter part of the fight, I fear a career ending beating against Tyson.

I think he means that Tyson couldnt maintain his crazy aggression to the end.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:With no chin and no survival instinct you can't beat Tyson.

Douglas had a pretty rubbish chin but he gave Tyson an absolute beat down. Prime Tyson is a myth, he was vicious in the first few rounds but could get easily tied up and discouraged. He had no heart when things got tough, i think it's a 50/50 fight and can go two ways. Early victory for Tyson, or mid to late stoppage for Wlad after Tyson eat's jabs all night.

The douglas performance was a one off fueled by his mothers death, wlad would freeze and be blown apart.

Great logic, so a nobody like Douglas could beat Tyson but a guy with similar physical attributes but better in ever facet except punch variation would be "blown apart".

I don't think wlad has ever shown the ability to pull off a performance like Douglas. The jab, the movement, the power, the variation and the heart were all better than wlad is capable of.

monty junior wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I don't think getting big bro to fight for you shows great mental strength personally.

I think when he told him to retire in 2004 and he's came back and has won every fight with ease but one since show's he has a lot of mental strength. He will go down as a top 10 ATG, not by the haters, of which there are many but neutral fans ( doesn't include me of course) who appreciate although he isn't the most exciting since he started with the late Manny, he has become the world's number one heavyweight and dominated the division to the extent unmatched since Joe Louis.

Id be reasonably confiedent that a Tyson at his best would have too much for Wlad and would be able to get to him. But theres a handful of people on here who basically dont like the guy and refuse to credit him for anything. Hes come back from defeat, rebuilt his career, unified titles and never shirked a challenge outside of his own brother. I think hes displayed alot of heart and mental strength over the course of his career. Even when hes been beaten he hasnt quit and has got back when hes been knocked down.

I'd fancy Tyson to stop Wladimir in the mid rounds, but it's not impossible that Wladimir could cause him some serious problems and frustration. Tyson would have done away with all of Wladimir's victims, yes, but I'd say that the same applies in reverse and, as Tillis (a fight which could have been a draw on any other day), Bonecrusher and Tucker showed, there was a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel if you could keep Tyson off you in the early going. Even when Tyson was at the top of his game, Rooney still admitted that "After six rounds, he's not the same."

Wladimir's such an awkward and difficult man to get to now (as well as being as strong as an ox), so I don't think Tyson can just turn up, look mean, throw some cominations and have his night's work done inside one or two rounds, ala Berbick or Spinks. I think Tyson needs to patiently stalk his man like he did against Tucker or Holmes.

I think Wladimir's jab and movement give Tyson plenty to think about, but that the effects of being on the move for every second of each round tire him out a little and, by the fifth or sixth, Tyson is starting to get to his body (it's going to be very hard for Tyson to be getting clean shots to Wladimir's chin, I reckon). By the sixth or seventh, the body has started to die and then, of course, the head follows. I think Wladimir might rise once, but eventually the fire-power is too much and he's stopped in the seventh or so after giving a good account of himself.

Incidentally, Tyson recently had this to say of the brothers in 'Boxing News': "The Klitschkos are both great fighters, you can't take that away from them. They'd have given anyone in history problems - including me."

Also, having skim-read the rest of the thread, I'm disappointed that Wladimir's heart and set of 'nads are being questioned here. The man has got up off the deck to win in the past and has always taken a big load of punishment before falling to defeat. Question his chin if you like, but not his heart - there's no dog in him.

I find it particularly off-base given that we're comparing him directly to Tyson here - a man who never recovered from a knockdown to win and who disgraced the sport with one of the most ignominious displays of cowardice ever seen against Holyfield second time out.

victorgarco wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Although I think you are partially riht Victor I'd favour Tyson because he is fast and throws excellent combos. I imagine he'd get throuh and take out wlad but if it went into the later rounds (big big if) then what you say could come into play. More often than not though wlad gets flattened

Before the Wlad v haye fight i would have said tyson would win cos he has too much speed. But wlad was excellent at avoiding haye and neutralising haye's speed.

Also Tyson bobs and weaves a lot to get into punching range and I think wlad would just lean on him and tire tyson out. Wlad is 6ft6 and 18 stone and him leaning on tyson would really tire tyson out. tyson suffered from stamina issues so the leaning and holding would be a tactic wlad would employ a lot.

Wlads inside game has improved from non existant to competant in the last few years but I really doubt its anywhere near good enough to deal with a dynamic Tyson who was lethal on the inside. I think he either has to keep Tyson at bay with the jab or else he is going to be stopped if Tyson can get on the inside. Tyson is just too formidable on the inside.

I don't even know why this is seriously being debated.

I still think he got a tied up a little too easily but I agree with the General point - Wlad has to stay away for the bulk of the fight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I don't think wlad has ever shown the ability to pull off a performance like Douglas. The jab, the movement, the power, the variation and the heart were all better than wlad is capable of.

To be fair, Douglas never showed any of those qualities before or after the Tyson fight. Probably should be disqualified for use as a barometer in discussions. On that night one night he was otherworldly

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I don't think wlad has ever shown the ability to pull off a performance like Douglas. The jab, the movement, the power, the variation and the heart were all better than wlad is capable of.

Neither did Douglas until he was given the opportunity. It's simply an unkown and c'mon Douglas more powerful than Wlad? that is one of the dumbest thing's i have read, Douglas went the distance 13 times in 38 wins whilst Wlad has only went the distance 8 in 59 wins, the difference in power is substantial.

Stats stats stats blah blah blah

ShahenshahG wrote:I think he means that Tyson couldnt maintain his crazy aggression to the end.

He had a few mid to late round KOs.

Not maintaining a frantic pace to the end is not really a stamina issue. Against Tucker he settled for a points win.

monty junior wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:With no chin and no survival instinct you can't beat Tyson.

Douglas had a pretty rubbish chin but he gave Tyson an absolute beat down. Prime Tyson is a myth, he was vicious in the first few rounds but could get easily tied up and discouraged. He had no heart when things got tough, i think it's a 50/50 fight and can go two ways. Early victory for Tyson, or mid to late stoppage for Wlad after Tyson eat's jabs all night.

SO taking a beat down from Douglas and Holy for 21 rounds in total is a sign of a quitter. Great going there son.

monty junior wrote:Great logic, so a nobody like Douglas could beat Tyson but a guy with similar physical attributes but better in ever facet except punch variation would be "blown apart".

Wlad does not have the lateral movement Douglas has. He had terrific footwork, but not the type required to beat Tyson. Easy night for Tyson.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Stats stats stats blah blah blah

They hold more basis than one fight anyway.

Hes not a quitter but his will to win is questionable.

Not really, at no point has wlad taken out someone with tysons toughness or quality, says a lot more than stopping rubbish.

ShahenshahG wrote:Hes not a quitter but his will to win is questionable.

In what way? Would you say the same about Duran?

azania wrote:

monty junior wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:With no chin and no survival instinct you can't beat Tyson.

Douglas had a pretty rubbish chin but he gave Tyson an absolute beat down. Prime Tyson is a myth, he was vicious in the first few rounds but could get easily tied up and discouraged. He had no heart when things got tough, i think it's a 50/50 fight and can go two ways. Early victory for Tyson, or mid to late stoppage for Wlad after Tyson eat's jabs all night.

SO taking a beat down from Douglas and Holy for 21 rounds in total is a sign of a quitter. Great going there son.

He certainly had one heck of a chin, but yes a quitter, how else could anyone possibly justify what he did against Holyfield. He never came back from a knockdown, the only time i can remember showing anything was when he was getting outboxed by Botha before knocking him out. Though of course after he had tried to break Botha's arm a couple of rounds earlier. Tyson was a bully, when people stood up to him he had no answer. Kind of similar to Golota, constant fouling, biting, quitting, disgraceful.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not really, at no point has wlad taken out someone with tysons toughness or quality, says a lot more than stopping rubbish.

Tyson stopped more than his fair share of rubbish. Conversely he never beat anyone as good as Wlad and vice versa.

Against Holy he snapped. Lost the plot. Is Duran a quitter? He was taking a bigger beating against Douglas than Holy 2 yet didn't quit.

Look you don't like Tyson. That much is clear. But stop making stuff up. I'm a big fan of Wlad but realise that Tyson would slaughter him without much fuss. Styles etc and Wlad was simply made for Tyson.

A 36 year old Larry was better than Wlad.

In all fairness azania your hardly a big fan of Wlad. Your defination of a quitter seems to vary depending on who the boxer in question is. Vitali is a quitter for retiring with a mangled shoulder but Tyson isnt when opts to bite Holyfield and get himself DQed rather than get beaten up.

Not at all - because he proved it - when he wanted to. Tyson has no such win on his record. Durans problem was that he couldnt motivate himself to get to the ring in shape half the time. Particularly for opponents he felt he'd already beat. Witness Leonard 2, Camacho 2, Pazienza 2, watch the hunger in the first fights. Then watch the dejesus fights - Venom. Tyson took many beatings but never managed to turn a fight at the last against any credible opponent whereas Barkley at the very least, Dejesus 2 + 3 all bear witness to durans will to win.

As for holmes - he was 38 and coming off a two year layoff straight into a match with Tyson - his post tyson success was due to him starting small and building his way up. Wlad would murder that version of Holmes - not quite as stunning perhaps but Holmes would leave there broken and battered

manos de piedra wrote:In all fairness azania your hardly a big fan of Wlad. Your defination of a quitter seems to vary depending on who the boxer in question is. Vitali is a quitter for retiring with a mangled shoulder but Tyson isnt when opts to bite Holyfield and get himself DQed rather than get beaten up.

As a boxer I am. As a person etc, I can't tolerate his (and his brother's) butter wouldn't melt in mouth attitude.

Yep, Vit quit on his stool. Tyson snapped and momentarily lost the plot. So did Duran.

I think in what era and who was the darling out of the two at the time, and where they boxed would have influence over who wins the hypothetical match-up between a Prime Wlad and Prime Tyson.

If they fight in the eighties, in America, then Tyson has the advantage. He'd get away with murder using his rough house tactics, hitting on the break and using the elbow. A lot of refs would break the action if he was tied up to give him space to punch also.

Alternatively, if they fought in 2012, in Germany, then Wlad would be allowed to grab and hold with immunity and use his weight to to lean on, zapping the strength from Tyson's legs.

Unfairly some people, depending on where their allegiances lie, match a Prime Tyson with the below par Wlad who fought Brewster, while others pit a prime Wlad against the Tyson who fought Douglas (or beyond).

However, Tyson was closer to his prime both physically in terms of experience when he fought Douglas compared to when Wlad fought Brewster.
Tyson was very experienced at the point of loss, where Wlad was still learning during his losses.

azania wrote:Against Holy he snapped. Lost the plot. Is Duran a quitter? He was taking a bigger beating against Douglas than Holy 2 yet didn't quit.

Look you don't like Tyson. That much is clear. But stop making stuff up. I'm a big fan of Wlad but realise that Tyson would slaughter him without much fuss. Styles etc and Wlad was simply made for Tyson.

I didn't make anything up, Tyson as a boxer was exciting and devastating, as a man he was a bully and a coward who never showed anything resembling a champions heart. Lost the plot and quit? he was always "losing the plot" like all bullies do when they are scared, he knew Lewis (i am no fan of Lewis) wasn't remotely intimidated by him so he resorts to biting his leg, Holyfield was never scared of Tyson making Mike resort to biting his ear off as he knew it was the only way out of another beating. You are not a fan of Wlad, that much has always been obvious unless its a Lewis vs Wlad debate.

[quote="azania"]

manos de piedra wrote:Yep, Vit quit on his stool. Tyson snapped and momentarily lost the plot. So did Duran.

Tyson came out for the third round without his mouth piece in anticipation of biting Holyfield. Nothing 'momentary' about it, as he himself has admitted. Duran's actions, for what it's worth, didn't result in him fouling his opponent, and once the fight was over he at least had the good grace to embrace Leonard and congratulate him - unlike Tyson who suddenly decided, once there was a plethora of people between the pair, that he did want to try and fight Holyfield after all.

Vitali quit because of injury, Tyson quit because he knew he was likely to get another very well-publicised chasing off Evander again.

[quote="88Chris05"]

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Yep, Vit quit on his stool. Tyson snapped and momentarily lost the plot. So did Duran.

Tyson came out for the third round without his mouth piece in anticipation of biting Holyfield. Nothing 'momentary' about it, as he himself has admitted. Duran's actions, for what it's worth, didn't result in him fouling his opponent, and once the fight was over he at least had the good grace to embrace Leonard and congratulate him - unlike Tyson who suddenly decided, once there was a plethora of people between the pair, that he did want to try and fight Holyfield after all.

Vitali quit because of injury, Tyson quit because he knew he was likely to get another very well-publicised chasing off Evander again.

I don't think Tyson was looking for a way out. Moreover it's the corner's duty to put the gum shield in the boxer's mouth. I doubt Tyson told them not to put it in. He lost the plot. He wanted to take it to 'the streets' as he put it.

He also bit Holyfield more than once. The ref let him away and he did it again. Im not one of those people who believe Tyson lacked heart and courage but he got himself DQed deliberately against Holyfeild rather than get beaten up. And yes, Duran quit too. No other way to describe it.

manos de piedra wrote:He also bit Holyfield more than once. The ref let him away and he did it again. Im not one of those people who believe Tyson lacked heart and courage but he got himself DQed deliberately against Holyfeild rather than get beaten up. And yes, Duran quit too. No other way to describe it.

He lost his cool after being deliberately butted and not having the protection of the ref. He lost the plot and took matters into his own hands. I wouldn't say he quit. Much like no mas or McCall having a meltdown in the Lewis fight. Nothing to do with courage or heart, but anger, lack of mental discipline (not toughness) and self control.

Well, he was ordered back to his corner by Mills at the start of the third and told to have a gumshield inserted - given that pathetic yes men who were 'working' Tyson's corner at the time, as well as that slime bag 'manager' John Horne, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he told them not to give him a mouth piece and they simply complied.

To be honest, Az, Tyson has been very open about what his intentions were and how he wasn't interested in having a boxing match anymore, so why you keep trying to act as if Tyson has no charge of quitting or lacking mental toughness to answer to is a bit baffling. Whatever shame of 'quitting' Vitali has to shoulder, or whatever lack of heart Vitali has shown by retiring on his stool against Byrd is only a fraction of the shame and ignominy Tyson brought upon himself and the sport against Holyfield.

Anyway, besides the point. My general jist is this - arguing that Wladimir lacks the 'nads and heart to even give Tyson a reasonable argument and then giving Tyson a free pass for his less than impressive record once the going got really tough is a load of cobblers, basically.

Tyson was looking for a way out against holyfield that is obvious. AZania you are arguing for the sake of arguing if you disagree.

Someone posted a comment suggesting it is crazy to ask who would win out of Wlad v Tyson (because he thinks it is pointless as tyson would win hands down). Why I ask? Wlad is an olympic hw gold champion. A unified HW champ for 8 years who is undefeated in nearly a decade.

If you don't like WLad that is fine but it is crazy to suggest he is so bad that he cannot be compared to tyson. Career wise Wlad's career is better in terms of defences and belts won.

88Chris05 wrote:Well, he was ordered back to his corner by Mills at the start of the third and told to have a gumshield inserted - given that pathetic yes men who were 'working' Tyson's corner at the time, as well as that slime bag 'manager' John Horne, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he told them not to give him a mouth piece and they simply complied.

To be honest, Az, Tyson has been very open about what his intentions were and how he wasn't interested in having a boxing match anymore, so why you keep trying to act as if Tyson has no charge of quitting or lacking mental toughness to answer to is a bit baffling. Whatever shame of 'quitting' Vitali has to shoulder, or whatever lack of heart Vitali has shown by retiring on his stool against Byrd is only a fraction of the shame and ignominy Tyson brought upon himself and the sport against Holyfield.

Anyway, besides the point. My general jist is this - arguing that Wladimir lacks the 'nads and heart to even give Tyson a reasonable argument and then giving Tyson a free pass for his less than impressive record once the going got really tough is a load of cobblers, basically.

Of course he was ordered back. It has happened before to other fighters whose corner forgot the shield. I did say above that Tyson took it to the 'streets' and lost the plot totally. Didn't he first try an arm bar on Holy?

Agreed, Tyson's actions brought shame on himself. No justification for that. But it was not a quit in the usual sense of the word wrt boxing. Vitali quit on hi stool with an injury that certainly was not worse than Danny Williams fighting with a dislocated shoulder or Audley (Audley ffs) fighting with a badly damaged right shoulder. If those two, and Audley in particular, could continue, so could Vit who was strets ahead. He just quit.

Audley was 38 and basically knew a loss to Sprott spelled the end of his career, different circumstances completely to Vitali who had plenty of time to rebuild. As Manos said your approach on quitting seems to be dictated by your mood or personal preference on a given day. If I had the time or inclination would dig out the Vitali quote Manos doctored when you were defending Ortiz against similar charges.

Aye, Vitali quit. I'm just saying that, to me, his reason for chucking the towel in was a damn sight more understandable and less shameful than Tyson's performance against Evander.

As I said, anyway, that's not the issue and I should have known a bit better than to touch upon it (particularly with you knocking about, Az!).

My umbrage was just that I've seen Wladimir's heart and courage questioned and derided on this thread when, to me, there's no reason to do so, particularly when it's a fight against Tyson we're contemplating.

I think that Tyson is a big favourite against Wladimir, don't get me wrong, but it's not going to be bottle or heart which decides that fight in my eyes. And again, in my eyes, Tyson can count himself lucky that it's not, as Wladimir trumps him in that area for me.

victorgarco wrote:Tyson was looking for a way out against holyfield that is obvious. AZania you are arguing for the sake of arguing if you disagree.

Someone posted a comment suggesting it is crazy to ask who would win out of Wlad v Tyson (because he thinks it is pointless as tyson would win hands down). Why I ask? Wlad is an olympic hw gold champion. A unified HW champ for 8 years who is undefeated in nearly a decade.

If you don't like WLad that is fine but it is crazy to suggest he is so bad that he cannot be compared to tyson. Career wise Wlad's career is better in terms of defences and belts won.

Doesn't matter a jot when those defences have been against the likes of Mormeck, Thompson and the plethora of other rubbish he's faced. Career wise Tyson will always rate far higher than Wlad and rightly so.

Well Tysons heart saw him take prolonged beatings from Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis, hardly the sign of someone lacking heart.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

victorgarco wrote:Tyson was looking for a way out against holyfield that is obvious. AZania you are arguing for the sake of arguing if you disagree.

Someone posted a comment suggesting it is crazy to ask who would win out of Wlad v Tyson (because he thinks it is pointless as tyson would win hands down). Why I ask? Wlad is an olympic hw gold champion. A unified HW champ for 8 years who is undefeated in nearly a decade.

If you don't like WLad that is fine but it is crazy to suggest he is so bad that he cannot be compared to tyson. Career wise Wlad's career is better in terms of defences and belts won.

Doesn't matter a jot when those defences have been against the likes of Mormeck, Thompson and the plethora of other rubbish he's faced. Career wise Tyson will always rate far higher than Wlad and rightly so.

Great use two of his worse opponents he has defended against , one of which was a mandatory and base his career on it.

Who do I base his career on then the world beating Haye, Ibragimov or Peter?

who do you base tysons career on?

Ruddock he was the only one not snorting and or past his best.

Ruddock, Bruno, Spinks, Holmes, Tucker, Smith and Berbick, all a darn site better than anything Wlad has ever faced.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Well Tysons heart saw him take prolonged beatings from Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis, hardly the sign of someone lacking heart.

Nobody is saying that Tyson didn't have heart, Ghosty. He had heart, though not really a great deal of mental strength. My issue was Wladimir's heart and 'balls' being questioned when there's no basis to do so. He's taken a lot of blows before being beaten too, and has got up off the floor to win more than once. Tyson had heart, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Wladimir had just as much, if not more.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Who do I base his career on then the world beating Haye, Ibragimov or Peter?

chageav,Botha,Jameel Mcline, ray mercer, Chambers, haye, Peter,Ibragimov

Who has Tyson got on his record that is so much better? 38 year old Holmes who had not fought for 2 years? Frank bruno? His best win is probably Birbeck

Would argue that anyone that takes the beatings that Tyson took has an awful lot of heart, it's one thing to keep going against Peter or Brewster but another when you're faced with Holyfield or Lewis.

I'm watching a Prime Tyson Vs Smith as I'm writing. I don't see anything from Tyson which bothers Wlad to be fair.