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:

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

A 38 year old Holmes is a far bigger challenge than Haye, while Bruno would have had a field day against the slow fat opposition that Wlad has fought on the whole.

Suppose he doesn't have an amateur style does he Mackem so obviously you would see nothing.

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.

Oh belt up Vic and don't tell me what I'm thinking or why I'm posting. I doubt he went in the third round thinking "right this round I'm going to get myself DQ'd". More like he just wanted to hurt Holy in any way he could and sod the outcome.

I rate Wlad very highly as a fighter. Higher than most here that's for sure. But his style is made for Tyson. He doesn't have the lateral movement needed to keep Tyson off him. Tyson in 2 if he's lucky. In 6 if he's unfortunate.

What i mean is, who the hell is bonecrusher smith other than someone who got beat off anyone half decent? He only has a name over here because he fought Bruno.

Bonecrusher goes the distance with tyson, Wlad beats him.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

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

A 38 year old Holmes is a far bigger challenge than Haye, while Bruno would have had a field day against the slow fat opposition that Wlad has fought on the whole.

I would argue that a 38 year old holmes who was inactive for 2 years and was coming off 3 straight defeats is not someone that you should rate very highly.

Anyway the point is that you discredit Wlad for having such poor opposition but I have named 7/8 fighters he has beat and I would argue that they are on level or at the very best slightly worse than any opponents Tyson has beat.

Haha this is hilarious.

Rowley wrote: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.

For crissakes. Excuses. And Williams? People would have forgiven him and not held it against him if he quit. He didn't. Vitali had 8 minutes to go in a fight he was winning one handed but he decided to stop. People give Sonny Listin grief for quitting against Ali for a shoulder injury yet forgive Vit for the same thing. Perhaps Sonny knew he had time to regroup and his backers would fix it for him.

You could name all of his opponents Victor it's not going to make any of them a world beater. A has been in Holmes is far better than any never was.

88Chris05 wrote: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.

I have never once questioned Wlad's courage. He gets up when decked and wants to continue. I believe it was you who said to me that you were surprised when I wrote a piece appreciating Wlad's skills. I have said he is a deffo nailed on top 15 ATG and a supreme talent.

Tyson is just wrong for him. Styles and all that.

I'm not forgiving or excusing anyone am just saying you seem to have a fairly flexible approach to what constitutes quitting. Label Vitali a quitter at the drop of a hat but spent an inordinate amount of time on here leaping to Ortiz' defence when he was accused of similar. Seems a little odd to me. I personally never call any fighter a quitter, have generally too much respect for what they do, it's the inconsistency that confuses me.

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

Plus the manner in which he got rid of them. Do you think Haye would last 60 seconds with Tyson even with him trying to beat Bolt's sprint record?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You could name all of his opponents Victor it's not going to make any of them a world beater. A has been in Holmes is far better than any never was.

My point was that wlad's level of opposition is roughly the same as Tyson's (in terms of victories).

Name some of tyson's victories that are better than wlad's? or are you just going to stick with the 1, Holmes?

TheMackemMawler wrote:What i mean is, who the hell is bonecrusher smith other than someone who got beat off anyone half decent? He only has a name over here because he fought Bruno.

Bonecrusher goes the distance with tyson, Wlad beats him.

And Witherspoon who was much better on anyone Wlad has fought including Haye.

I've thrown out a few names Victor but you seem to have fixated on Holmes.

Bruno, Ruddock, Smith, Thomas, Spinks and Berbick were all more capable than anything Wlad has faced.

Rowley wrote:I'm not forgiving or excusing anyone am just saying you seem to have a fairly flexible approach to what constitutes quitting. Label Vitali a quitter at the drop of a hat but spent an inordinate amount of time on here leaping to Ortiz' defence when he was accused of similar. Seems a little odd to me. I personally never call any fighter a quitter, have generally too much respect for what they do, it's the inconsistency that confuses me.

In that fight he quit. Right or wrong?

azania wrote:

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

Plus the manner in which he got rid of them. Do you think Haye would last 60 seconds with Tyson even with him trying to beat Bolt's sprint record?

who the hell is bonecrusher smith other than someone who got beat off anyone half decent? He only has a name over here because he fought Bruno.

Bonecrusher goes the distance with tyson, Wlad beats him.

Ibragimov and chagaev are better than anyone tyson beat considering the time (holmes) and the conditions (spinks) in which he beat them.... (Tony Tucker aside).

Just because those two Eastern Europeans aren't from america and don't have a book doesn't make them any worse. They were two VERY GOOD fighters.

victorgarco wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You could name all of his opponents Victor it's not going to make any of them a world beater. A has been in Holmes is far better than any never was.

My point was that wlad's level of opposition is roughly the same as Tyson's (in terms of victories).

Name some of tyson's victories that are better than wlad's? or are you just going to stick with the 1, Holmes?

Tucker, Spinks, Berbick, Thomas, Smith, Tubbs, Holmes, Tillis. All of those guys are better than any of Wlad's opponents with the exception of Haye who I believe would have beaten Tillis and Berbick only.

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

Haye is demonstrably a better fighter than any of Berbick, Smith, Ruddock and Bruno, I'd say.

Berbick? Very resilient, but got an absolute tanning every time he stepped up a level aside from beating a drug-addled Thomas, who was a wasted talent in any case. Nowhere near the speed and defense of Haye.

Smith was outboxed for nine and a half rounds by Bruno, which tells me everything I need to know about his technical merits. Again, big and strong, but could always be relied to lose when he stepped up, aside from when he stunned an overweight drug addict in Witherspoon.

Bruno's a more natural Heavyweight than Haye, but it's the latter who'll deservedly rank much higher in the all-time stakes for British fighters and I wouldn't be confident of Bruno beating Haye at all if the fight went past the first four or five rounds.

Ruddock was a flat-track bully of the highest order. Again, what names on his record make him a "darn sight" better than Haye?

Tyson's list of victims does read better than Wladimir's, but let's at least be reasonable.

azania wrote:

Rowley wrote:I'm not forgiving or excusing anyone am just saying you seem to have a fairly flexible approach to what constitutes quitting. Label Vitali a quitter at the drop of a hat but spent an inordinate amount of time on here leaping to Ortiz' defence when he was accused of similar. Seems a little odd to me. I personally never call any fighter a quitter, have generally too much respect for what they do, it's the inconsistency that confuses me.

In that fight he quit. Right or wrong?

Yes he did, however I don't recall ever saying he didn't so I am not too sure why you ask.

Spinks was a light heavy, Holmes was "past it", tucker aside, Ibragimov and Chagaev are better than the rest.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

azania wrote:

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

Plus the manner in which he got rid of them. Do you think Haye would last 60 seconds with Tyson even with him trying to beat Bolt's sprint record?

who the hell is bonecrusher smith other than someone who got beat off anyone half decent? He only has a name over here because he fought Bruno.

Bonecrusher goes the distance with tyson, Wlad beats him.

Ibragimov and chagaev are better than anyone tyson beat (at the time (holmes) and the conditions (spinks) in which he beat them (Tony Tucker aside).

Just because those two Eastern Europeans aren't from america and don't have a book doesn't make them any worse. They were two VERY GOOD fighters.

Yep, WLad beats Smith and most of the fighters Tyson also beat. I'm not here to kick on Wlad as I believe him to be a superb boxer. But Tyson beats him with ease. Styles and all that. Smith could take a beating and a punch. He was physically very strong and could nullify what a green Tyson tried to do inside.

Wlad would not be able to do that. His tactic would be to stick out the jab and hold when Tyson gets close. But Tson would slip his jab, push him back and unload. Tyson's speed and combinations would nail Wlad late in the first and end it early in the second.

Sorry Mackem but the average eastern european tubs of lard that Wlad has beaten are just that average, Haye and Byrd are his stand out wins and they're no world beaters.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Spinks was a light heavy, Holmes was "past it", tucker aside, Ibragimov and Chagaev are better than the rest.

I beg to differ. Those guys would probably be fighting for the WBO or IBO title and defending it amongst themselves.

Rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

Rowley wrote:I'm not forgiving or excusing anyone am just saying you seem to have a fairly flexible approach to what constitutes quitting. Label Vitali a quitter at the drop of a hat but spent an inordinate amount of time on here leaping to Ortiz' defence when he was accused of similar. Seems a little odd to me. I personally never call any fighter a quitter, have generally too much respect for what they do, it's the inconsistency that confuses me.

In that fight he quit. Right or wrong?

Yes he did, however I don't recall ever saying he didn't so I am not too sure why you ask.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me seeing as we agree. He quit on his stool.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I've thrown out a few names Victor but you seem to have fixated on Holmes.

Bruno, Ruddock, Smith, Thomas, Spinks and Berbick were all more capable than anything Wlad has faced.

Spinks was decent but his only good victory came against an ancient Holmes, everyone else he fought was a nobdody.

bruno is not exactly great now is he. He was a loveable fighter but he will never be mentioned as a great fighter.

Smith was about 36 when he fought tyson and had 4 defeats in about 8 fights. Hardly something to suggest is a great victory.

Revisionism Chris, so we're elevating Haye based on beating Valuev and Chisora?

Bruno would have jabbed the majority of Wlads opposition to death before ending it with a big right hand including Haye.

victorgarco wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I've thrown out a few names Victor but you seem to have fixated on Holmes.

Bruno, Ruddock, Smith, Thomas, Spinks and Berbick were all more capable than anything Wlad has faced.

Spinks was decent but his only good victory came against an ancient Holmes, everyone else he fought was a nobdody.

bruno is not exactly great now is he. He was a loveable fighter but he will never be mentioned as a great fighter.

Smith was about 36 when he fought tyson and had 4 defeats in about 8 fights. Hardly something to suggest is a great victory.

You're just arguing for the sake of it.

Tyson had no great victories but he had some very good ones, is this the ancient Holmes who was 35 when he first lost to Spinks?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sorry Mackem but the average eastern european tubs of lard that Wlad has beaten are just that average, Haye and Byrd are his stand out wins and they're no world beaters.

I like them because they were good amateurs!

azania wrote:

Rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

Rowley wrote:I'm not forgiving or excusing anyone am just saying you seem to have a fairly flexible approach to what constitutes quitting. Label Vitali a quitter at the drop of a hat but spent an inordinate amount of time on here leaping to Ortiz' defence when he was accused of similar. Seems a little odd to me. I personally never call any fighter a quitter, have generally too much respect for what they do, it's the inconsistency that confuses me.

In that fight he quit. Right or wrong?

Yes he did, however I don't recall ever saying he didn't so I am not too sure why you ask.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me seeing as we agree. He quit on his stool.

Not arguing just saying I find it odd you still hammer him for it years after the event but when similar criticisms are levelled at guys like Oertiz you leap to their defence, if I didn't know better you could get the impression you did some things on here just to be contrary.

Different circumstances Rowley. One was winning the fight with ease and decided to stop. The other had a shattered jaw which made it impossible for him to continue.

if I didn't know better you could get the impression you did some things on here just to be contrary.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sorry Mackem but the average eastern european tubs of lard that Wlad has beaten are just that average, Haye and Byrd are his stand out wins and they're no world beaters.

The point here is that wlad's victories are roughly the same as tyson's victories. The level of opposition is the same. At most you can argue Tyson's victories are SLIGHTLY better but no more than that (and you could also argue Wlad's victories are also slightly better)

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Revisionism Chris, so we're elevating Haye based on beating Valuev and Chisora?

Bruno would have jabbed the majority of Wlads opposition to death before ending it with a big right hand including Haye.

Well Valuev's just about as good a win as any on the records of Smith and Berbick, for starters. Haye's record also isn't littered with a long series of defeats to journeymen or middling operators like those two. Berbick and Smith were extremely limited fighters and you only need to watch Haye in action a couple of times to see that, while he's not the Heavyweight saviour he paints himself as, he easily has more appreciable dimensions and skills to his boxing than those guys have.

Maybe Bruno would have beaten Haye, but there's just as much chance that Haye emerges out of that one victorious, I'd imagine. As I said, in terms of career and record, Haye leaves big Frank eating his dust.

I just don't see how Berbick, Smith, Ruddock and Bruno can be classed as being a "darn sight" better than Haye, regardless of which angle you're looking at it from.

You may argue that Victor but unlike a few of you on here I prefer to see Wlad for he is, a fortunate champion who is extremely lucky to be the brother of a better one.

azania wrote:Different circumstances Rowley. One was winning the fight with ease and decided to stop. The other had a shattered jaw which made it impossible for him to continue.

if I didn't know better you could get the impression you did some things on here just to be contrary.

Vitali quit on his stool due to a torn muscle in his shoulder that could have caused permanent and career ending damage if he carried on.

Tyson quit v holyfield by getting disqualified. He was losing the fight badly and was looking for a way out. He did not do it for any other reason other than to get DQ. he had alrready been warned by the ref so he knew that the ref was watching etc.

Golota got Dq for low blowing Bowe but it was not cos he was looking for a way out. Golota was winning against Bowe and had dropped him twice. Lord knows why in 2 fights he decided to low blow him when he was winning both.

azania wrote:Different circumstances Rowley. One was winning the fight with ease and decided to stop. The other had a shattered jaw which made it impossible for him to continue.

To be fair neither of us have the slightest clue the pain or otherwise either guy was in, which is my point, you can't say Vitali chose to stop with all the inferences that carries and then say Ortiz would have found it impossible to continue, either they are both given some leeway or are both considered quitters. As I am not a doctor I think the only fair approach is the former as in neither instance is there a scrap of evidence to suggest the injuries were not genuine

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Different circumstances Rowley. One was winning the fight with ease and decided to stop. The other had a shattered jaw which made it impossible for him to continue.

if I didn't know better you could get the impression you did some things on here just to be contrary.

Vitali quit on his stool due to a torn muscle in his shoulder that could have caused permanent and career ending damage if he carried on.

Tyson quit v holyfield by getting disqualified. He was losing the fight badly and was looking for a way out. He did not do it for any other reason other than to get DQ. he had alrready been warned by the ref so he knew that the ref was watching etc.

Golota got Dq for low blowing Bowe but it was not cos he was looking for a way out. Golota was winning against Bowe and had dropped him twice. Lord knows why in 2 fights he decided to low blow him when he was winning both.

Career ending? Rubbish. A dislocated shoulder is more career threatening. Audley carried on with a career threatening injury.

Go watch the fight again. He was not losing it badly. It wa spretty even going into the third. Christ, why do you have to make sht up to make your point? Why lie?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You may argue that Victor but unlike a few of you on here I prefer to see Wlad for he is, a fortunate champion who is extremely lucky to be the brother of a better one.

I'm just highlighting that Wlad's level of opposition is the same as tyson's. Maybe wlad would have lost many fights in the 60's who knows. But what I do know is that a lot of people give Wlad grief and say he fights bums but the truth is he fights a lot of top level opposition and his best victories are equal to tyson's best victories.

Rowley wrote:

azania wrote:Different circumstances Rowley. One was winning the fight with ease and decided to stop. The other had a shattered jaw which made it impossible for him to continue.

To be fair neither of us have the slightest clue the pain or otherwise either guy was in, which is my point, you can't say Vitali chose to stop with all the inferences that carries and then say Ortiz would have found it impossible to continue, either they are both given some leeway or are both considered quitters. As I am not a doctor I think the only fair approach is the former as in neither instance is there a scrap of evidence to suggest the injuries were not genuine

I've broken my jaw once before. Freak footie accident. Believe me, just touching my jaw hurt like hell and back. But I suppose with adrenelin the pain may not have been felt. But to shatter your jaw is something else. How many boxers have you seen continue with one hand after breaking the other? Its an occupational hazard with boxing.

Two questions for those who give Wlad a chance against Tyson and use his footwork as part of that argument: Can you tell me of fights in which Wlad showed great movement going side to side or backwards?
And
If not, are you seriously suggesting he could beat Tyson by taking the front foot and going toe to toe?

Monty, please don't call Tyson a coward. Standing 5'11 he got in the ring with the biggest, most powerful athletes of his era and almost never took a backwards step. Go on youtube and search "Mike Tyson". The footage will show you lots, but not a coward. Also, you use Holyfield II against Mike. This is Mike at his worst, and at his best lots of guys tried to stand up to him and he never even looked discouraged. If we're taking Mike from '97 why not compare him to the canvas hugging, square on Wlad from ten years ago?

Mackem, Bonecrusher was just there to survive. Didn't Tyson win every round? Some guys have taken Wlad the distance too.

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Different circumstances Rowley. One was winning the fight with ease and decided to stop. The other had a shattered jaw which made it impossible for him to continue.

if I didn't know better you could get the impression you did some things on here just to be contrary.

Vitali quit on his stool due to a torn muscle in his shoulder that could have caused permanent and career ending damage if he carried on.

Tyson quit v holyfield by getting disqualified. He was losing the fight badly and was looking for a way out. He did not do it for any other reason other than to get DQ. he had alrready been warned by the ref so he knew that the ref was watching etc.

Golota got Dq for low blowing Bowe but it was not cos he was looking for a way out. Golota was winning against Bowe and had dropped him twice. Lord knows why in 2 fights he decided to low blow him when he was winning both.

Career ending? Rubbish. A dislocated shoulder is more career threatening. Audley carried on with a career threatening injury.

Go watch the fight again. He was not losing it badly. It wa spretty even going into the third. Christ, why do you have to make sht up to make your point? Why lie?

Are you going to spend the whole night arguing what is worse a dislocated shoulder suffered by Audley or a torn rotator cuff suffered by Vitali?

And what fight should i rewatch?

victorgarco wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You may argue that Victor but unlike a few of you on here I prefer to see Wlad for he is, a fortunate champion who is extremely lucky to be the brother of a better one.

I'm just highlighting that Wlad's level of opposition is the same as tyson's. Maybe wlad would have lost many fights in the 60's who knows. But what I do know is that a lot of people give Wlad grief and say he fights bums but the truth is he fights a lot of top level opposition and his best victories are equal to tyson's best victories.

He fights bums because only bums are available. Hardly his fault. He would have held his own in the 1980s without doubt but would not have beaten Tyson or Holmes. Probably beaten Holy. Struggle with 'Spoon and Tubbs' handspeed would have given him issues.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Two questions for those who give Wlad a chance against Tyson and use his footwork as part of that argument: Can you tell me of fights in which Wlad showed great movement going side to side or backwards?
And
If not, are you seriously suggesting he could beat Tyson by taking the front foot and going toe to toe?

Monty, please don't call Tyson a coward. Standing 5'11 he got in the ring with the biggest, most powerful athletes of his era and almost never took a backwards step. Go on youtube and search "Mike Tyson". The footage will show you lots, but not a coward. Also, you use Holyfield II against Mike. This is Mike at his worst, and at his best lots of guys tried to stand up to him and he never even looked discouraged. If we're taking Mike from '97 why not compare him to the canvas hugging, square on Wlad from ten years ago?

Mackem, Bonecrusher was just there to survive. Didn't Tyson win every round? Some guys have taken Wlad the distance too.

He has good footwork in every fight if you watch.

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Different circumstances Rowley. One was winning the fight with ease and decided to stop. The other had a shattered jaw which made it impossible for him to continue.

if I didn't know better you could get the impression you did some things on here just to be contrary.

Vitali quit on his stool due to a torn muscle in his shoulder that could have caused permanent and career ending damage if he carried on.

Tyson quit v holyfield by getting disqualified. He was losing the fight badly and was looking for a way out. He did not do it for any other reason other than to get DQ. he had alrready been warned by the ref so he knew that the ref was watching etc.

Golota got Dq for low blowing Bowe but it was not cos he was looking for a way out. Golota was winning against Bowe and had dropped him twice. Lord knows why in 2 fights he decided to low blow him when he was winning both.

Career ending? Rubbish. A dislocated shoulder is more career threatening. Audley carried on with a career threatening injury.

Go watch the fight again. He was not losing it badly. It wa spretty even going into the third. Christ, why do you have to make sht up to make your point? Why lie?

Are you going to spend the whole night arguing what is worse a dislocated shoulder suffered by Audley or a torn rotator cuff suffered by Vitali?

And what fight should i rewatch?

Rewatch Tyson/Holy 2 and Audley didn't dislocate his shoulder. At least argue from a point of fact as opposed to guesswork.

You're giving your opinion that there of equal level but my opinion differs from that. You are in fact highlighting absolutely nothing to me as i'm well aware of the opposition the pair have fought and would consider Tysons to be of a far higher standard. He has one loss to a ridiculously on fire Douglas and two to Holyfield in what one could consider his best years, he doesn't have losses to Sanders, Brewster and Purrity.

The Douglas loss is something I find hard to get my head around as nobody expected it, that performance that night would have beaten a hell of a lot of great heavyweights including Lewis, Wlad, Vitali and even Holmes. Losing to someone when they perform that damm well is not forgiveable but quite understandable, losing by knockout three times to journeyman is neither.

victorgarco wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Two questions for those who give Wlad a chance against Tyson and use his footwork as part of that argument: Can you tell me of fights in which Wlad showed great movement going side to side or backwards?
And
If not, are you seriously suggesting he could beat Tyson by taking the front foot and going toe to toe?

Monty, please don't call Tyson a coward. Standing 5'11 he got in the ring with the biggest, most powerful athletes of his era and almost never took a backwards step. Go on youtube and search "Mike Tyson". The footage will show you lots, but not a coward. Also, you use Holyfield II against Mike. This is Mike at his worst, and at his best lots of guys tried to stand up to him and he never even looked discouraged. If we're taking Mike from '97 why not compare him to the canvas hugging, square on Wlad from ten years ago?

Mackem, Bonecrusher was just there to survive. Didn't Tyson win every round? Some guys have taken Wlad the distance too.

He has good footwork in every fight if you watch.

Yes he has. But he lacks lateral movement which is what is needed for Tyson. Wlad is a master at judging range and distance with timing. But against Tyson you need exactly what Wlad lacks, lateral movement.

A peak Holmes I believe would have handled Tyson primarily because of his excellent lateral movement.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You're giving your opinion that there of equal level but my opinion differs from that. You are in fact highlighting absolutely nothing to me as i'm well aware of the opposition the pair have fought and would consider Tysons to be of a far higher standard. He has one loss to a ridiculously on fire Douglas and two to Holyfield in what one could consider his best years, he doesn't have losses to Sanders, Brewster and Purrity.

The Douglas loss is something I find hard to get my head around as nobody expected it, that performance that night would have beaten a hell of a lot of great heavyweights including Lewis, Wlad, Vitali and even Holmes. Losing to someone when they perform that damm well is not forgiveable but quite understandable, losing by knockout three times to journeyman is neither.

I'm basing it on age(as in past their prime)/level of activity/losses leading up to the fight/losses after the fight/who they have as a victory on their record before the fight.

The above is what I am using to ascertain whose victories are better. Of course opinion plays a part. You think an inactive Holmes who had not fought for 2 years and had 2 losses leading up to the fight (and who said his only motive for fighting tyson was because they offered him 2.5 million) is better than anything Wlad has beat. That is your choice but I think that the majority would disagree with you as shown already on the forum.

Did anyone notice in the bonecrusher fight how ineffective tyson was in close and tied up? He needs half an arms length to be effective.

Anyone notice how Smith just stood there and let Tyson Jab him, ok it was a fast jab but at least move your feet.

Also, anyone notice how tyson slips to the left at times (not even to avoid a punch) then waits there for a second, loads up, and then throws a left hook? This is beyond telegraphing a punch, it is insane, and was always there to be exploited. Wlad, being smart, would make him eat a massive right hand if he attempted this more than once.

No one would time Tyson's attacks better than Wlad. Tyson wouldn't even get close and when he did Wlad ties him up (and more effectively than the appalling Smith ever did)

Wlad would push off with a defensive jab each time Tyson launches an assault from mid range (by doing this he'd reaffirm the distance, frustrate Tyson, anger tyson and make tyson load up, all of this is to Wlad advantage). Ok he misses a few, but ties Tyson up anyway.

While Tyson was muscle bound and extremely powerful, he didn't have the physical strength to over power the big guys (thats whay in close why he'd get tied up and rely on the forearm to the throat). Wlad would push him around like a school yard bully.

Tyson's combination attacks, while all out aggression, were more often than not a counter to an opponents attacks. This wouldn't work, Wlad would have the sense (and patience) to be the one doing the countering.

Also, wlad would watch Tysons feet. There was no subtley in Tyson's foot movement when at range and this is how he would telegraph his intentions to Wlad. No one puts an end to an opponents intended attack like Wlad does, by using a well timed jab.

Watch the Bonecrusher fight, and imagine Wlad doing the things mentioned.

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Different circumstances Rowley. One was winning the fight with ease and decided to stop. The other had a shattered jaw which made it impossible for him to continue.

if I didn't know better you could get the impression you did some things on here just to be contrary.

Vitali quit on his stool due to a torn muscle in his shoulder that could have caused permanent and career ending damage if he carried on.

Tyson quit v holyfield by getting disqualified. He was losing the fight badly and was looking for a way out. He did not do it for any other reason other than to get DQ. he had alrready been warned by the ref so he knew that the ref was watching etc.

Golota got Dq for low blowing Bowe but it was not cos he was looking for a way out. Golota was winning against Bowe and had dropped him twice. Lord knows why in 2 fights he decided to low blow him when he was winning both.

Career ending? Rubbish. A dislocated shoulder is more career threatening. Audley carried on with a career threatening injury.

Go watch the fight again. He was not losing it badly. It wa spretty even going into the third. Christ, why do you have to make sht up to make your point? Why lie?

Are you going to spend the whole night arguing what is worse a dislocated shoulder suffered by Audley or a torn rotator cuff suffered by Vitali?

And what fight should i rewatch?

Rewatch Tyson/Holy 2 and Audley didn't dislocate his shoulder. At least argue from a point of fact as opposed to guesswork.

if you label 1 boxer as a quitter because they quit due to injury you have to label all boxers as quitters who quit. Simples. Can't change the goalposts or the criteria to suit your argument, that just makes you look like a fool.

victorgarco wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Two questions for those who give Wlad a chance against Tyson and use his footwork as part of that argument: Can you tell me of fights in which Wlad showed great movement going side to side or backwards?
And
If not, are you seriously suggesting he could beat Tyson by taking the front foot and going toe to toe?

Monty, please don't call Tyson a coward. Standing 5'11 he got in the ring with the biggest, most powerful athletes of his era and almost never took a backwards step. Go on youtube and search "Mike Tyson". The footage will show you lots, but not a coward. Also, you use Holyfield II against Mike. This is Mike at his worst, and at his best lots of guys tried to stand up to him and he never even looked discouraged. If we're taking Mike from '97 why not compare him to the canvas hugging, square on Wlad from ten years ago?

Mackem, Bonecrusher was just there to survive. Didn't Tyson win every round? Some guys have taken Wlad the distance too.

He has good footwork in every fight if you watch.

On the front foot, I agree. Now can you answer either of the questions?