Better resume Mike Tyson or Wladimir Klitschko?

[DreamFighter]

Under which circumstances?

under the same circumstances that Wlad fought some of his top defences rahman and tony thompson. aged as shyt.

thanks for showing wlad is a league below tyson again.

[King Snake]

Tyson no question

[a.rihn]

I think Tyson had slightly better wins for a short time, while Klitschko had a longer run of wins over lesser names. Interesting comparison. It's a shame these two didn't hit their primes during stronger heavyweight periods.

[JakeTheBoxer]

They are about the same.

[JakeTheBoxer]

Both were champs in weak eras. Tyson fought everyone he could and became undisputed. Wlad would only fight mandatories.

Wlad had 3 belts + IBO. he had to fight mandatories.

[Skip Bayless]

Mike Tyson would have KTFO Carl Thompson and Tony Bellew

and haye would have blasted out buster duglas, so what? the haye that fought wlad isn't comparable to the one that fought bellew or thompson.

tyson would prob ktfo of wlad quite easily but the question is about resume. wlad has better resume and was champ for a decade, in a weak era yes but tyson doesn't have a win over a great fighter on his resume either.

aj has better resume than both.

[NORMNEALON]

Wlad had 3 belts + IBO. he had to fight mandatories.

Tyson was undisputed, Wladimir wasn't. Mike had mandatories too . He had all 3 belts( wbo belt was non existant til around the time Mike beat Spinks, and up until 2002ish the other major sanctioning bodies would make you drop the wbo belt if you wanted to fight for their strap....they didn't recognize the wbo at all). Honestly both their resumes are so so from an ATG standpoint. It depends what ur criteria consists of when ranking the two. Mike had 2 hof scalps in Spinks and Holmes ( one being a past prime ATG ) both being former lineal Champs , wlad beat 0 hof entrants , and 0 ATG . He beat one former lineal champion in hasim rahman .

I'd say Mike Tyson had the better resume . If you wanna break it down further into belt holders tyson beat 8 , Wladimir beat 7( wlad should be 5 tho as I counted the wba regular belt for haye and povetkin [there was only one wba belt when tyson was active, and I'm not counting interim titles either ]) . Really all wlad has going for him is his 20 title defenses or whatever the number is . Its def Mike hands down . And iam not a big tyson fan . There is no bias here , just facts

[JakeTheBoxer]

If I am not mistaken, Wladimir was recognised as lineal champ after beating Chagaev in 2009.

[bojangles1987]

I'd probably lean Wlad because he was dominant for longer. Their competition isn't different enough to say either guy clearly beat better fighters, so I'd go with the fighter who was champ for longer.

[champion4ever]

Also, keep in mind that we are talking about the 1990s here; For the exception of the 1960s and 1970s was the deepest and strongest division ever in Heavyweight boxing history. Mike Tyson just so happened to have fought in that era. Which was a much more competitive, tougher and hungrier era than Wladimir Klitschko's.