Haye reapplies for British licence.

by **hampo17** Thu 17 Jan 2013, 3:02 pm

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?

by Imperial Ghosty Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:27 pm

I could always watch the Holmes fight instead Mackem, would give a slightly better indication of how Wlad would fare.

by Champagne_Socialist Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:28 pm

John Bloody Wayne wrote:
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?

I already did. You asked does wlad have great movement going back or side to side and i replied all his fights.

by Champagne_Socialist Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:29 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I don't give two f**ks quite frankly what criteria you use Victor, put quite simply Wlad has no single win that comes close to comparing with Holmes or even Spinks for that matter. Former light heavyweight or not you don't 'beat' Holmes twice without having an exceptional level of skill.

When you are the only one who believes something and no one else shares your view it usually means you are wrong.

by John Bloody Wayne Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:33 pm

Anyone notice the way Wlad throws the same two punches over and over again?

Just imagine him trying to do that over and over then watch how Tyson delt with "keep away" jabs and more solid, Pinklon Thomas esque jabs. Tyson was a coming in fighter more than an infighter. Tyrell had good feet and a fine jab, Tyson had him beat early then extended the punishment for as long as he wanted.

Maybe if Wlad was allowed to lean his elbow on Tyson's head he could win, but if we're disregarding the rules of boxing then why not let Mike bring a chainsaw into the ring?

by **ShahenshahG** Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:34 pm

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.

Agreed - I made this point earlier, Wlad moves back and then across rather than in flowing movement - against most heavies that would be more than sufficient but Tyson would trap him there on the ropes and one time to many could spell the end.

by azania Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:38 pm

victorgarco wrote:
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.

Well Tyson didn't quit. He got DQ'd. You have argued without evidence or investigation or asking tyson or anyone else in his camp that he deliberately got himself DQ'd. Its BS from you. Unless you know 100% that he deliberately got himself DQ'd, then all we have is an opinion from a jerk.

by **88Chris05** Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:39 pm

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?

You'll be delighted to know that I pick Tyson to stop Wladimir in the mid-rounds, JBW, but nonetheless I'd say that Wladimir's movement and footwork against Haye going backwards wasn't bad at all. Look at how he uses the wide stance and half-step back compared to his younger days. Definitely a much harder man to get to now than he was back then, or certainly to the head at the very least.

I did add the caveat that Wladimir could well frustrate Tyson too, similar to how Bonecrusher did. Neither of these two are angels when it comes to inside operating, but Wlad's an immensely strong fighter in close and I wouldn't write off his chances of being able to smother quite a few of Tyson's early attacks.

As I said, I pick Tyson inside-schedule every time, but just don't think it would be the two-minute slaughter others are talking of.

by TheMackemMawler Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:40 pm

John Bloody Wayne wrote:
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?

Read my above post to see why Wlad wins.

Footwork doesn't have to be like ali's (thats just wasteful to be honest). If you time an opponents attacks, prempt the kind of attack and judge distance well then foot movement needs only to be 1mm to be effective (though its normally about four inches for a good push off).

by Imperial Ghosty Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:41 pm

I would say it's a 50/50 personally Victor and considering YDKSAB I couldn't care less for your opinion.

by azania Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:42 pm

Against Tyson Wlad would need more than one step back. He would need one step sideways. Something he doesn't do.

by TheMackemMawler Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:46 pm

John Bloody Wayne wrote: Tyson was a coming in fighter more than an infighter

That's why Wlad beats him.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:47 pm

I'm sick to death of people slagging Tyson off....he telegraphed etc....

He also moved his head from side to side and was lightning fast..

Just stop even thinking any Klit would do anything..

Holmes was quicker than any Klit at 38.......and he couldn't get off...

by TheMackemMawler Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:47 pm

azania wrote:Against Tyson Wlad would need more than one step back. He would need one step sideways. Something he doesn't do.

Absolute rubbish

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:49 pm

People make it soond so easy to stop Tyson coming in....

Holmes was faster...............he couldn't..

Tubbs had the fastest jab probably of any heavy......that couldn't stop him...

Bruno was stronger and more powerful than any Klit and he couldn't....

Berbick had a rock chin and got destroyed..

Let's stop this stupidity..

by TheMackemMawler Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:49 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm sick to death of people slagging Tyson off....he telegraphed etc....

He also moved his head from side to side and was lightning fast..

Just stop even thinking any Klit would do anything..

Holmes was quicker than any Klit at 38.......and he couldn't get off...

You'd think you's were related

by Imperial Ghosty Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:49 pm

Finally Truss someone with a bit sense has turned up, the cretins seem to have corrupted the minds of those I thought knew a thing or two.

by Champagne_Socialist Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:50 pm

azania wrote:
victorgarco wrote:
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.

Well Tyson didn't quit. He got DQ'd. You have argued without evidence or investigation or asking tyson or anyone else in his camp that he deliberately got himself DQ'd. Its BS from you. Unless you know 100% that he deliberately got himself DQ'd, then all we have is an opinion from a jerk.

My advice to you is go and turn your computer off and have a cup of tea. You must have real problems in your life if you are getting angry having a discussion on the internet about boxing. It's quite sad really.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:50 pm

Also the intimidation factor Tyson had...

Victor and mackem you are young guys.....You don't appreciate the aura of iron Mike...

We experienced it..

by azania Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:51 pm

Which fight has made him display lateral movement continually in a manner Buster did or Holmes

by TheMackemMawler Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:51 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:People make it soond so easy to stop Tyson coming in....

Holmes was faster...............he couldn't..

Tubbs had the fastest jab probably of any heavy......that couldn't stop him...

Bruno was stronger and more powerful than any Klit and he couldn't....

Berbick had a rock chin and got destroyed..

Let's stop this stupidity..

Douglas had just the right proportions all of those thing and beat him. On that performance he would have beat any version of Tyson you care to mention.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:52 pm

Would you pick Cooney to beat Tyson????

What's the difference...

by Imperial Ghosty Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:53 pm

He had the tools to beat the version of Tyson who turned up, the defining moment that illustrates that is when he has him hurt but doesn't have it in him to finish the fight.

by azania Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:53 pm

victorgarco wrote:
azania wrote:
victorgarco wrote:
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.

Well Tyson didn't quit. He got DQ'd. You have argued without evidence or investigation or asking tyson or anyone else in his camp that he deliberately got himself DQ'd. Its BS from you. Unless you know 100% that he deliberately got himself DQ'd, then all we have is an opinion from a jerk.

My advice to you is go and turn your computer off and have a cup of tea. You must have real problems in your life if you are getting angry having a discussion on the internet about boxing. It's quite sad really.

Not angry son. I have a cup of Honduran coffee also. But I'm just stating simple facts. You're making stuff up in this debate which is a tad sad imo.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:53 pm

Here we go........I'm talking 86/87 Rooney Tyson....

But I bet he beats the Wlad that fought Sanders....

Or is it garbage Tyson vs prime Wlad????

by azania Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:53 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Would you pick Cooney to beat Tyson????

What's the difference...

I'd pick Wlad to beat Cooney.

by azania Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:55 pm

TheMackemMawler wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:People make it soond so easy to stop Tyson coming in....

Holmes was faster...............he couldn't..

Tubbs had the fastest jab probably of any heavy......that couldn't stop him...

Bruno was stronger and more powerful than any Klit and he couldn't....

Berbick had a rock chin and got destroyed..

Let's stop this stupidity..

Douglas had just the right proportions all of those thing and beat him. On that performance he would have beat any version of Tyson you care to mention.

Absolute rubbish. That Tyson showed zero movement...nothing.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:56 pm

Oh by the way before you knock Douglas.....He was one of the biggest talents I've seen at Heavy in the last 30 years..

Grew up watching him...saw him school Oliver Mccall and others....

When he was in shape he had everything......Best jab since Holmes..

by TheMackemMawler Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:56 pm

azania wrote:Which fight has made him display lateral movement continually in a manner Buster did or Holmes

I'm not saying he displays lateral movement? I'm saying you don't need to replicate something which had mixed success to win.

I can't see why he needs it to be fair. If you care to enlighten me...

by Champagne_Socialist Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:57 pm

azania wrote:
victorgarco wrote:
azania wrote:
victorgarco wrote:
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.

Well Tyson didn't quit. He got DQ'd. You have argued without evidence or investigation or asking tyson or anyone else in his camp that he deliberately got himself DQ'd. Its BS from you. Unless you know 100% that he deliberately got himself DQ'd, then all we have is an opinion from a jerk.

My advice to you is go and turn your computer off and have a cup of tea. You must have real problems in your life if you are getting angry having a discussion on the internet about boxing. It's quite sad really.

Not angry son. I have a cup of Honduran coffee also. But I'm just stating simple facts. You're making stuff up in this debate which is a tad sad imo.

calling people a jerk is an indication of anger/frustration.

Do you remember a thread about slave contracts where you had no evidence whatsoever yet you were making up facts. Now you know how it feels to argue with someone who makes things up.

by Imperial Ghosty Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:57 pm

Doesn't really matter he does, the most important movement he'll be doing all night is hitting the canvas.

by TheMackemMawler Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:58 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Oh by the way before you knock Douglas.....He was one of the biggest talents I've seen at Heavy in the last 30 years..

Grew up watching him...saw him school Oliver Mccall and others....

When he was in shape he had everything......Best jab since Holmes..

I'm not knocking Douglas Truss, I agree he was a massive talent. He had everything and wasted the lot.

by John Bloody Wayne Sun 20 Jan 2013, 7:59 pm

I've never seen Wlad move with the angles shown by Buster on THAT night. I'm not talking Ali flamboyance.

He can't fight backing up from what I've seen. He can fight going forwards then move back, but I haven't seen much ability to actually fight off the back foot. Even if his push off was as effective as you think - which I doubt - he can't simply push off all night and win, he'll need to throw punches. Holmes and Douglas could do that going backwards and side to side. Wlad never does. He can't go toe to toe with Tyson.
Wlad jab
Tyson slip, roll, jab, jab, right body, right head all in the space of a couple of seconds.

by Rowley Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:00 pm

If the insults and attempts to get round the swear filter continue the thread is getting locked.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:00 pm

Just don't think you guys appreciate the intimidation factor Tyson had!!

Like Liston he won before the first bell an awful lot..

by azania Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:04 pm

calling people a jerk is an indication of anger/frustration.

Just stating a fact.

Do you remember a thread about slave contracts where you had no evidence whatsoever yet you were making up facts. Now you know how it feels to argue with someone who makes things up.

Show me the evidence that Tyson deliberately went out into the 3rd round to get himself DQ'd. That is your opinion and not fact. But I see ou have admitted to making things up. Wrt to the slave contract, I was giving an opinion based on evidence. You offer nothing of the sort.

by azania Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:05 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Doesn't really matter he does, the most important movement he'll be doing all night is hitting the canvas.

by TheMackemMawler Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:06 pm

Earlier I wrote a piece as to why Wlad would win against Tyson however I could do exactly the same thing as to why Tyson destroys Wlad each and every time.

With that in mind, the whole conversation is pointless. I'm out.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:07 pm

You're not Deborah Meaden off Dragon's den are you??

by J.Benson II Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:09 pm

There are numerous rumours that Tyson had over-loaded on Cheque Drops before the 2nd fight with Holyfield.

Not sure if its true but it would help explain his actions. I've heard some crazy stories regarding those things.

As for heart, come on. Every boxer has heart. To become a boxer in the first place, especially a pro, you need some element of courage and mental strength.

by TheMackemMawler Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:09 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're not Deborah Meaden off Dragon's den are you??

by J.Benson II Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:15 pm

monty junior wrote:

Wlad is a "weaker inferior" version of Bruno? i know this is a British board but this is nigh on moronic. Bruno has nothing that's better than Wlad, he's slow, robotic, poorly balanced, no idea how to tie up when hit. It's amazing how guys get some sort of aura about them when they have been retired for a decade or so. It's just a myth, Bruno lost every big fight he had except getting the W against a junkie. It's a shame Wlad get's so little respect when it comes to even average fighters in a past era, Bruno was a big puncher so he's a threat to anyone theoretically but 99/100 he would get outboxed and stopped as soon as Klitschko opens up a bit. He was awful when hurt.

You missed my point. I don't think Wlad is inferior or weaker than Bruno. I was just mocking Dave's delusion - Bruno mopping up Wlad easily but being unable to deal with Haye's speed and reflexes.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:19 pm

I agree Haye would be tougher for Frank...as Frank never could relax and would be spent after 6..

Wlad and Vit would be there for him.....

by Champagne_Socialist Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:20 pm

azania wrote:
calling people a jerk is an indication of anger/frustration.
Just stating a fact.
Do you remember a thread about slave contracts where you had no evidence whatsoever yet you were making up facts. Now you know how it feels to argue with someone who makes things up.
Show me the evidence that Tyson deliberately went out into the 3rd round to get himself DQ'd. That is your opinion and not fact. But I see ou have admitted to making things up. Wrt to the slave contract, I was giving an opinion based on evidence. You offer nothing of the sort.

your evidence was hearsay eg David Haye said so hahahahahah

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:23 pm

You know what Victor...

I'll lay money (only thing I get to lay these days raspberry

) that you haven't seen the likes of Tyson, Bruno, Holmes and Spinks fight....

Three out of the four are all time greats and you write them off like dud cheques...

by J.Benson II Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:24 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I agree Haye would be tougher for Frank...as Frank never could relax and would be spent after 6..

Wlad and Vit would be there for him.....

You reckon? If he cannot neutralise Haye, I really doubt he would have the tools to beat the K's.

Its irrelevant anyway, given that we're never going to know the answer.

by Imperial Ghosty Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:24 pm

No wonder you call yourself handsome Truss.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:25 pm

It's called styles making fights...........

by Champagne_Socialist Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:30 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You know what Victor...

I'll lay money (only thing I get to lay these days ) that you haven't seen the likes of Tyson, Bruno, Holmes and Spinks fight....

Three out of the four are all time greats and you write them off like dud cheques...

My argument with Holmes is that he was retired for 2 years had come off 2 losses and had said his only motive for fighting Tyson was for the money. That is why I don't hold that victory that high.

Who has spinks fought and beat that is any good? 36 year old holmes and thats it.

Bruno was good but is behind the likes of haye.

The debate is who had the better victories Wlad or Tyson. tyson's best victories are a 38 year old 2 year retired Holmes, Bruno spinks and Birbeck.

Wlad's are haye, chagaev,ibragimov and Chambers

Taking into account age/prime etc as discussed before I would say wlad's and tyson's victories are roughly the same.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:32 pm

But he was still faster than the Klits.. watch the fight....

He also came off a lay off later to take Holy 12 and beat Ray Mercer easier than Lewis in his prime....

by Imperial Ghosty Sun 20 Jan 2013, 8:34 pm

He beat a guy called Gerry Cooney, never heard of him before so Spinks must be rubbish.

by Sponsored content