- 07/03/2011, 11:15AM ET
DJRoxalot said 07/03, 12:12 PM
Zach and I are arguing both fighters in their prime. And he does not have to pick a different fighter. We can simply argue how long Vitali will last.
Mike Tyson in his prime was a beast of a fighter. An animal in the ring that jumped all over his prey and finished many of them in the 1st or 2nd round. Sure, he lacks a distinct height and reach advantage being just 5-10 and a 71 inch reach. But Tyson often faced fighters much taller than him.
Trevor Berbick was 6-2 with a 78 inch reach. Tyson destroyed Berbick in 2 rounds to become the youngest Heavyweight titleholder.
Frank Bruno was 6-3 when Tyson faced him and Mike demolished the taller boxer in 3 rounds.
Why was Tyson successful? Because he was able to work the body and catch a fighter with hooks and uppercuts fighting at a close distance. Tyson would not be accurately described as a boxer or ring technician. But more of a brawler who would want to get someone on the ropes and go for the knockout punch.
Tyson by KO in 7th round against Vitali. Vitali is a far better boxer than his brother who would be lucky to last 2-3 rounds.
BRING IT, ZACH!!!!
And good luck, it has been a while buddy.
Bigalke said 07/04, 01:45 AM
Thanks for the offer, but I'm going to take Vitali straight-up in this fight. Why?
First, the height disparity:
Tyson: 5'10.5" (he has erroneously been listed at 5"11.5" before, though he is shorter)
Even giving Tyson that extra inch, he gives up 8-9 inches on Klitschko. You mention Bruno at 6'3"... but add 4.5 more inches & things are different. Tyson had problems with taller challengers... 6'4" James "Bonecrusher" Smith & 6'5" Tony Tucker are two prime examples where he had to go the distance.
Second, the reach disparity:
Tyson: 71" (180cm)
Vitali: 80" (203cm)
Tyson is going to work the body close? Vitali, even more than his brother Wlad against Haye, would keep Tyson too far away with steady jabs to allow him close enough to wreak havoc.
... and third, the skill disparity. You said it yourself:
"Tyson would not be accurately described as a boxer or ring technician. But more of a brawler who would want to get someone on the ropes and go for the knockout punch."
Vitali, like his brother, has been called a boxing robot. He would alter his gameplan to neutralize Tyson's strengths & finish with the decision...
DJRoxalot said 07/04, 11:13 AM
Changed your mind on Tyson actually winning from the comments of the blog, huh? Cool. Gives us a lot more to discuss.
Vitali is closer to 6-5 or 6-6 despite being listed at 6-7 1/2.
If Tyson exaggerated you are saying Vitali hasn't?
"Tyson had problems with taller challengers..."
Bottom line he still won. They may have given him issues but he didn't have a problem winning the fight.
Andrew Golota was another big guy Tyson faced. 6-4 with a superior reach advantage. Tyson was usually the smaller fighter in most of his fights but that didn't prevent him from being a "Bull in a China Shop" in the majority of his fights.
He was like the Tazmanian Devil in the ring, a whirling dervish that was all over his opponent
"Vitali, like his brother, has been called a boxing robot."
What I meant is his movements are predictable and Tyson would be able to telegraph his movements and catch him with shots as he throws a jab and such. And the body shots Tyson would deliver? Would wear down Vitali and by the 6th or 7th round he would be hunkered over trying to block the body shots with his arms and elbows when Tyson would finish him off.
Bigalke said 07/05, 10:29 AM
Even if you shave an inch or two off Vitali's height, you still get a fighter taller than anybody Tyson ever faced in his career. While Tyson survived several bigger fighters in his career, he didn't exactly flourish as his targets got taller.
I keep coming back to this "Tasmanian Devil", "Bull in a China Shop" label you are placing... ON TYSON. For somebody so confident in his pick's ability to win here, the fact that you're giving Tyson's actual ring skills so little credit doesn't say much good. Tyson had a few good combos, but for the most part he wasn't a pugilist as much as he was a swinger.
Contrast that to Vitali, who is no more predictable than Tyson. You know Iron Mike is going to try to force his opponent toward the ropes, load up his right hook and then try to follow with the uppercut. Vitali is a much more tactical fighter, who better neutralizes his opponent's strengths.
The last thing to remember is that you're demanding not just a TKO or a decision for Tyson... but a knockout. And Vitali, for all the glass-jaw accusations, has been knocked out three FEWER times than Mike.
As in NEVER. That's a tall task to reverse on Tyson's part...
DJRoxalot said 07/05, 01:16 PM
"While Tyson survived several bigger fighters in his career, he didn't exactly flourish as his targets got taller."
Frank Bruno (twice)
Tyrell Biggs (6-5)
all indicate otherwise.
James "Bonecrusher" Smith was 6-4 and had a reach of 82, significantly more than Tyson.
The reason it was a decision? Smith was clinching and holding. He was scared of Tyson's power and it was an extremely ho hum fight because he knew Tyson was a better fighter.
He tried to do what Haye did. Get a late round KO but it backfired.
Vitali lost to Lennox Lewis. Who was an excellent boxer but he didn't exactly have more power than Tyson. Tyson was 1 of the hardest hitters I have ever seen in watching boxing for the last 30 years.
You don't think Tyson could overwhelm Vitali?
"And Vitali, for all the glass-jaw accusations, has been knocked out three FEWER times than Mike."
Lets not forget we are arguing in their prime. And 2 of Tyson's KO losses came when he was past his prime.
Not to mention he destroyed Buster Douglas in the rematch.
And lets not forget Tyson lost several years due to his time spent in prison.
Bigalke said 07/05, 02:56 PM
The problem lies right here: "... because he knew Tyson was a better fighter." After doing nothing to counter my argument -- the argument YOU made -- disparaging Tyson's ring skills, you try to support your case with a guy whose ring skills were inferior TO TYSON?!
Comparing Klitschko to Smith is like comparing Bobby Fischer to your average teenager playing chess. Vitali is a far better strategist than Tyson -- and FAR BETTER than Smith. You never said anything to refute that, so I assume your silence signifies agreement.
And yes, we're talking about prime... so the knockout loss total measures: Tyson 1, Klitschko 0. You still lose that argument when you're advocating for a 7th-round KO of Vitali. (And since we're talking prime, that Douglas rematch comes too late for your case.)
Sure, Tyson lost several years of his "prime" in prison... but that is neither Vitali's fault nor anybody else's but Iron Mike's. We're arguing prime IN THE RING, so that is a moot point as well in this debate.
When it comes down to it, the physical attributes lean Klitschko's direction. The mental attributes lean his direction. The tactical leans his way. Vitali wins decision.
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia