Tyson lost every fight he was in , hit him back and he lost.
Tyson lost every fight he was in , hit him back and he lost.
Prime gets blurry but Vitali stayed on his stool with Byrd. I honestly have to chuck the perceived weight advantage out there, jacked up arm or not and respect Vitali. But speed angles and power works his legs as much as his chin and late I see Vitali soaking up damage. If ever he looked "robotic" it would be trying to work in circles vs Tyson when distance collapses in the late rounds.
Vitali is a worst match up for Tyson then Lewis is because at least with Lewis he can be chinned. Vitali was never even knocked to the ground in his boxing career his only loses were with a dislocated shoulder and a cut stopped fight he was winning before hand. Tyson great but he was king of beating the bums in his time as well his best win is a 38 year Holmes which is a good win but common on now. Vitali is not his brother he is even more awkward, has far more killer instinct and has most likely the best chin in hw history i say that because what champ has never been floored as a hw. Tyson has a lot of match ups he can win with atgs in prime but Vitali is just plain bad for him.
Tyson beat better fighters than Vitali did, it's not even close. Like it or not, Lewis and Byrd were surely his best opponents.
Fair enough but that doesn't mean automatically that Tyson would win. Vitali was a very skilled boxer, he could take a punch, he could deliver a punch, and he was something Mike Tyson hadn't seen before either.
Who the Hell knows what would happen had they fought in their primes. Who the fuck thought Buster Douglas would be the guy to beat Tyson?
Both fighters were hard hitters who were hard to hit themselves, they knocked out a lot of fighters between them, and they had great careers.
Wasn't saying it did mean that, as I said at first for me it's a pick em as they both had tools which could be too much for the other. Calling Tyson a bum beater doesn't make much of a case is all, and despite still being so young, it's pretty clear he wasn't in great form against Douglas.
Tyson looked like crap against Buster, very little head movement, prats in his corner and not in the best condition. It showed in his performance and he took a fearful beating from Douglas. That was not prime Tyson, the best Tyson would be between Berbick and Spinks.
From there he went downhill.
Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.
The pressure fighter in general has a short prime even the greatest pressure fighters have short primes. Tyson's headmovement was great....not really similar to the defensive posture of Byrd...can't really say Vitali vs one would equal Vitali vs the other.
Pressure fighters also struggle down the homestretch, they fade they always always fade unless their opponent fades first.
Mike Tyson, incredible fighter and for his style he was one of the very best of ALL-TIME
It's not as if Vitali had any business losing to Byrd either, I don't think anyone was trying to make a comparison in styles there. Longevity isn't in play either as the question was about their peak, although I'd say Tyson had more than just his style going against him on that.
How the fight would go late is kind of what makes this one so hard to call. Vitali is odd in that for a monster who knocked nearly everyone out, take a look at the few guys who did manage to go the distance with him, they sucked! Tyson also only went the distance a few times before he was clearly past it, against guys who fought to survive and at least one of them in Tucker being a big man and pretty good on the night.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks