Better resume Mike Tyson or Wladimir Klitschko?

since tyou admit to trolling, you'll be added to ignore.# cheers. I don't even know who you are.

Or I’m using intelligence and showing why you cannot use Wlad Klitschko was never undisputed against him ? Maybe you don’t understand it’s a Mike Tyson resume vs his ? Now that’s crazy . Ha na you had to bring vitali into it to equal up.

I know.... since tyou admit to trolling, you'll be added to ignore.# cheers.

Sanders was stopped by hasim rahman bro . Iam not joining the debate just simply correcting the result of said fight . I know....

Sanders beat Hasim Rahman who beat Lennox Lewis. That's a better win than any win on Douglas' resume. Sanders was stopped by hasim rahman bro . Iam not joining the debate just simply correcting the result of said fight .

good idea. Add the quotes from boxing authors about alis prime being wasted outside the ring too, it will make you look twice the fool. What does Ali have to do with tyson? :lol1:

Both underated ,Klitschko more so he defeated more undefeated fighters and he and his brother dominated the era where undisputed wasn’t possible . Mike had the more marquee names but Wlad reigned way to long to say Mike was a better resume . There’s also lost posters claiming Klitschko opposition themselves didn’t defeat champions ,but how is that likely if both brothers have all the belts, what craziness is that ? Ha it means you are doing the craziness of combining two brothers resumes.

:lol1: :lol1: Hilarious. Today I learned that Tyson's prime came after Buster Douglas. hahaha adding this to my sig. good idea. Add the quotes from boxing authors about alis prime being wasted outside the ring too, it will make you look twice the fool.

Tyson was in his prime mid20s to early 30s, curtailed a little by prison. Its you who isnt at home with the figures, not me. :lol1: :lol1: Hilarious. Today I learned that Tyson's prime came after Buster Douglas. hahaha adding this to my sig.

No I understand perfectly fine. And at which point in that range was Tyson in his prime? I'll wait for that, then maybe you should rethink whether you know boxing like you think you do. Here's a hint: you don't. Tyson was in his prime mid20s to early 30s, curtailed a little by prison. Its you who isnt at home with the figures, not me.

Tyson will always have the X factor, but objectively looking it is not even close - Wlad.

tyson easy. he has all three champs on his resume, wlad has bum champs, the best of whom would get wiped out by any of tysons champs. I'm sure Wlad's opponents would be quaking in their boots if they were to meet the mighty Bruce Seldon, or Michael Spinks or Frank Bruno. All heavyweight greats.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything you complete and utter moron. The topic of discussion was weather Mike was able to compete in the era of Lewis, i'm not denying that he chose and easier choice in Holyfield. Botha was one of the few fighters that was around when Tyson was trying to build himself up, maybe if W. Klitschko wasn't busy trying out BJJ against Sanders, he could have been in a position to fight Tyson. I'm convinced you've gone insane. What the f*%k does this have to do with what're discussing here? We've already had this debate in another thread. This thread was about who's resume was better. Seriously LacedUp, put the computer down and walk away. Resorting to insults to make your point = blocked. The last point is the entire reason we're discussing this in the first place :lol1: You literally said "Who did Wlad beat that makes you think he could beat Tyson?" :lol1: bye bye

Undefeated means nothing when the toughest guy you fought is Botha and you got boxed cicles around by him, a tough journeyman essentially. Yes he was and great for him, he was a great fighter, it's like you think I'm not a Tyson fan :lol1: 4. this is the key point. Tyson could have had a Lewis fight at any stage during his career. At any stage. He didn't have to "fight himself into a position". that's pure BS. Tyson didn't want the fight. He could have had it in '96 and '97, but chose the 'easier' fight against Holyfield. The perceived easier choice. Holyfield says this himself. It's just hilarious to hear newbie boxing fans rewrite history to suit their agenda. I'm a much much bigger Tyson fan than klitschko fan. Ask anyone hear, I probably more than anyone criticized Klitschko all the way through his career on this forum. But I can't just pretend like Tyson fought and beat top heavyweights when he didn't, and wasn't done by the mid 90s when he was. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything you complete and utter moron. The topic of discussion was weather Mike was able to compete in the era of Lewis, i'm not denying that he chose and easier choice in Holyfield. Botha was one of the few fighters that was around when Tyson was trying to build himself up, maybe if W. Klitschko wasn't busy trying out BJJ against Sanders, he could have been in a position to fight Tyson. And I think Klitschko of 2010 would beat mid 90s Tyson because at that time he just wasn't the same. I'm convinced you've gone insane. What the f*%k does this have to do with what're discussing here? We've already had this debate in another thread. This thread was about who's resume was better. Seriously LacedUp, put the computer down and walk away.

you have problems understanding ranges. now you can rewrite your post. No I understand perfectly fine. And at which point in that range was Tyson in his prime? I'll wait for that, then maybe you should rethink whether you know boxing like you think you do. Here's a hint: you don't.

Prime comes in different ages. Mike Tyson's prime came before he was 25 for example. No one in their right mind would argue Tyson was in his prime when he was 33 years old or anywhere near it. Klitschko may have been in his physical prime when he fought Sanders and Brewster, but I don't think any person with a brain would say that Klitschko was as good as the one from 2008-2012. you have problems understanding ranges. now you can rewrite your post.

He's a total moron, he'll bring up Mike losing to Douglas but closes his eyes, ears and starts yelling when you mention Purity, Sanders and Brewster. yuh it is amusing seeing him nuke his own arguments, well said. Ah so cute. Look a them :luvbed:

Court case prick face Dude please, I was following boxing all the way through this. No one criticized Lewis for stepping away from John Ruiz and neither should they. Everyone wanted Grant and Tua.

I don't know about you but something about: 1. Going undefeated for 5 years, only having lost to Evander Holyfield (former unidisputed and lineal heavyweight champion) in more then a decade. 2. Being a former undisputed and lineal heavyweight champion himself. 3. Being seen as one of the few legitimate threats to Lennox (7-4 odds) 4. Being the fight the world wanted to see - turned out to be only the most luceratuve fight in heavyweight history. 5. Lewis publically stating he couldn't retire without fighting Tyson. Kinda does tell you he got himself into a position to fight Lewis right? Undefeated means nothing when the toughest guy you fought is Botha and you got boxed cicles around by him, a tough journeyman essentially. Yes he was and great for him, he was a great fighter, it's like you think I'm not a Tyson fan :lol1: 4. this is the key point. Tyson could have had a Lewis fight at any stage during his career. At any stage. He didn't have to "fight himself into a position". that's pure BS. Tyson didn't want the fight. He could have had it in '96 and '97, but chose the 'easier' fight against Holyfield. The perceived easier choice. Holyfield says this himself. It's just hilarious to hear newbie boxing fans rewrite history to suit their agenda. I'm a much much bigger Tyson fan than klitschko fan. Ask anyone hear, I probably more than anyone criticized Klitschko all the way through his career on this forum. But I can't just pretend like Tyson fought and beat top heavyweights when he didn't, and wasn't done by the mid 90s when he was. And I think Klitschko of 2010 would beat mid 90s Tyson because at that time he just wasn't the same.

yuh prime isnt 25-33 only when the name is klitschko explaining those horrible prime losses. u destory yourself, nice Prime comes in different ages. Mike Tyson's prime came before he was 25 for example. No one in their right mind would argue Tyson was in his prime when he was 33 years old or anywhere near it. Klitschko may have been in his physical prime when he fought Sanders and Brewster, but I don't think any person with a brain would say that Klitschko was as good as the one from 2008-2012.