Who ranks higher alltime? Wlad or Tyson

I think Tyson

Tyson is ranked higher in the alltime ranking for sure!

Mike Tyson definitely ranks higher.

I don't believe Thompson was ring top 10 at the time of fight. So I guess 2012? No he was rated number ten at the time Lace.

I dont care what the hell his name is. Im a fan of alot of fighters and I call it as I see it. if a fighter fixes his flaws and becomes a more complete fighter whether its after 10 fights or 100 fights hes then considered in his prime. wlads peaked over the last 5 yrs or so fundamentally I respect your strong desire to stand by your opinion.

the main one would be picking better opponents than he does now, I would imagine. he did fight haye not too far back and hes fighting povetkin next. cant fault him for opponents not wanting to risk it in there with him. u can only fight those who are willing

so as long as someones called Klitschko, its ok for them to be green with 80 fights under their belt. How were you trying to define blindness again? I dont care what the hell his name is. Im a fan of alot of fighters and I call it as I see it. if a fighter fixes his flaws and becomes a more complete fighter whether its after 10 fights or 100 fights hes then considered in his prime. wlads peaked over the last 5 yrs or so fundamentally

he made alot of amateur mistakes back then that hes corrected the main one would be picking better opponents than he does now, I would imagine.

I dont care if he had 80 fights. hes clearly better now than he was when he lost to sanders and brewster. he doesnt make the same amateurish mistakes. hes smarter,,,paces himself bettter and uses his height better. if you cant see that youre either blind or a hater so as long as someones called Klitschko, its ok for them to be green with 80 fights under their belt. How were you trying to define blindness again?

Well does it not also correlate with a downgrade in level of opponents also? No question he's gotten better, but it's naive to say he wasn't in his prime. Wlad is certainly the first I've ever heard of who was a 27 year old, 6time defending champ, gold medalist, and 7 year pro who still hadn't reached his prime! Mate, how do you define prime? To be more clear - Wlad wasn't 65% of a fighter he's today. If you can be in your prime while being 65% of your best so be it. Byrd, Chagaev, TT I, Chambers, Peter, Haye, Ibragimov are all better than Sanders.

Well does it not also correlate with a downgrade in level of opponents also? No question he's gotten better, but it's naive to say he wasn't in his prime. Wlad is certainly the first I've ever heard of who was a 27 year old, 6time defending champ, gold medalist, and 7 year pro who still hadn't reached his prime! yes,,he is a rarity in peaking so late. I still dont believe he was in his prime when he lost to brewster and sanders. he made alot of amateur mistakes back then that hes corrected

Wlad is certainly the first I've ever heard of who was a 27 year old, 6time defending champ, gold medalist, and 7 year pro who still hadn't reached his prime! who then went on to become prime at 37, I would add. Talk about leaving it late. oh someone is going to mention the exception that is Bernard Hopkins, I can see it coming. man even he wasn't prime at 37.

I dont care if he had 80 fights. hes clearly better now than he was when he lost to sanders and brewster. he doesnt make the same amateurish mistakes. hes smarter,,,paces himself bettter and uses his height better. if you cant see that youre either blind or a hater or both + more in this case :D

I agree with this. wlad is clearly a better fighter now than when he had those losses even if he had a lot of fights back then. his prime has been over the last 5 years or so. some peak early like tyson,,,some peak late like lewis and wlad Well does it not also correlate with a downgrade in level of opponents also? No question he's gotten better, but it's naive to say he wasn't in his prime. Wlad is certainly the first I've ever heard of who was a 27 year old, 6time defending champ, gold medalist, and 7 year pro who still hadn't reached his prime!

welcome to planet Klitschko, where having over 40 fights means you are still green (if it helps to explain a loss to a 38 year old fat golfer, that is). I dont care if he had 80 fights. hes clearly better now than he was when he lost to sanders and brewster. he doesnt make the same amateurish mistakes. hes smarter,,,paces himself bettter and uses his height better. if you cant see that youre either blind or a hater

wlad wasn't no where near his prime when he suffered those defeats. prime is not determined by age or no of figts. in case of wlad is defined with manny's involvement with him. wlad is much better figter now than he used to be when he fough sander/Brewster. he does everything better. even his speed was improved. he was faster and more elusive against haye then against any of his previous opponents. I agree with this. wlad is clearly a better fighter now than when he had those losses even if he had a lot of fights back then. his prime has been over the last 5 years or so. some peak early like tyson,,,some peak late like lewis and wlad

he had alot of fights but he still made alot of amateurish mistakes back then that hes corrected. cant just judge a prime on the number of fights a guy has. some improve later in there careers some decline. its variable welcome to planet Klitschko, where having over 40 fights and in your physical peak means you are still green (if it helps to explain a loss to a 38 year old fat golfer, that is).

Wlad was 27 years old with 41 professional fights when he fought Sanders: He was in his fvcking prime dip****. Poet he had alot of fights but he still made alot of amateurish mistakes back then that hes corrected. cant just judge a prime on the number of fights a guy has. some improve later in there careers some decline. its variable

Name one calendar year he did not defend against a Ring-ranked top ten in the world. I'll save you the trouble. There aren't any. I don't believe Thompson was ring top 10 at the time of fight. So I guess 2012?

Bottomline is that at the height of tyson's peak,, he was an unstoppable force,, cleaned out the entire division, undisputed champ having beaten everyone with any remote claim to a belt,,, defended his undisputed title a couple of times, was the face of just not boxing but all of sports,, had pepsi commercials, and his own video game,, and then lost the undisputed title.............. All by the age of 23......... Mike was a prodigy, and has clearly the most dominant force the division had ever seen,,,,, Trouble with mike is that a pressure fighter like he was,, those guys dont have long shelf lives,,, only a few years and then they slow up,,, much like a joe frazier, or ricky hatton, whereas a more controlled boxer like Wlad can last much longer just like how a floyd, and hopkins have done,,, Longevity doesnt necessarily make you better,,, it may in some instances but not in this case,,,, And people talk about Wlad's lengthy title reign, but he is fighting in one of the weakest era's ever in the sport,,, Wlad can stay on top for a long time, because there are no more riddick bowes, holyfields, ruddocks, lewis, mercer, golata, moorer, foreman, bruno.... if wlad fought in a division like that,, there is no way he would have had such a long title run..... both mike and wlad are great,, but in terms of legacy and resume,, i gotta go with mike,,, he was one of a kind