Better resume Mike Tyson or Wladimir Klitschko?

[NORMNEALON]

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

he was recognized as lineal champ after Chagaev as they were no 1 and no 2 fighting ( Vitali was retired at the time) so a new lineage was formed .

[////]

Are we talking about historical accomplishments/significance as a HW champion? Like ruling the division for an entire decade and completely changing the global geography of HW boxing viewership?

Or internet meme/laugh factor?

Both dominate their respective niches, perhaps with the exception of Butterbean in Tyson's case.

[LacedUp]

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.

And Klitschko rightfully doesn't get any credit for those below average wins

Literally never heard anyone mention those bums when it comes to klitschko's resume.

[LacedUp]

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.

wtf did I just read.

He happened to fight in the 90s era (well, 95 and beyond) and let's look at the champions during the 90s:

- Foreman
- Holyfield
- Bowe
- Lewis
- Moorer
- Briggs
- Bruno

Tyson fought a total of 2 of those in the 90s and lost one.

It's not the era's fault that Tyson literally only fought bums in the 90s.

Look at his resume, there's no one in the 90s you'll look back on and say "wow that was a solid win against a rival".

At least Wlad had a few of those.

[NORMNEALON]

Are we talking about historical accomplishments/significance as a HW champion? Like ruling the division for an entire decade and completely changing the global geography of HW boxing viewership?

Or internet meme/laugh factor?

Both dominate their respective niches, perhaps with the exception of Butterbean in Tyson's case.

The better resume . Who beat the more accomplished competition.

[VatoMulatto]

Tyson fought better fighters and a few more better wins than Wlad.

[NachoMan]

he was recognized as lineal champ after Chagaev as they were no 1 and no 2 fighting ( Vitali was retired at the time) so a new lineage was formed .

More evidence of why people should really stop talking about the lineal championship (in any weight class). It's not a real thing, folks.

[sunny31]

Tyson

He beat the better names and had two significant reigns. His competition is also underrated, because he blasted most of them out.

Larry Holmes was NOT shot when Tyson beat him, he was over the hill, but he is a consensus top 10 maybe top 5 heavyweight ATG. He went on to beat an undefeated Mercer and lose a competitive fight to a prime Holyfield after Tyson beat him.

He blasted out Spinks in 1 round, in the previous 2 years he'd beaten Holmes twice and Cooney. Spinks was an ATG Lightheavy and a very good heavyweight.

Tubbs and Tucker were just as good as Wlad's best wins. (Haye, Povetkin)

Bruno was solid, Ruddock was solid, so was Golota (no contest is BS)

I think that beats Wlads resume, considering the length of his reign, the competition really was very poor on the whole. Brewster I would put in the solid department, along with Peter, Thonpson, and Pulev.

Povetkin and Haye were good fighters, not elite.

It's a shame Joshua, Wilder, and Fury didnt come 5 years earlier. Depending on how those fights went, would've added a lot.

[NORMNEALON]

More evidence of why people should really stop talking about the lineal championship (in any weight class). It's not a real thing, folks.

I hear ya , its more a barometer of greatness . Which can be relevant in the day and age of so many belts . If you follow the lineage atleast you know they either beat the man , or it started when the two top ranked guys fought. Its not a title per se Its more of a unit of measurement for greatness without having to break it all down manually . But it is subjective for sure as can be title belts . I miss the days when the ring was top notch and u could follow their titles and 9 outta 10 times know who's the best based off that . But there is definitely a huge difference between a belt holder and the lineal champion. Iam just not a fan of lineal champions who don't hold a major belt even . It def helps when breaking down stuff like this topic for young fans etc . In the day and age of up to 4 title belts per weight class.

[DreamFighter]

wtf did I just read.


It's not the era's fault that Tyson literally only fought bums in the 90s.

bums? that would be 100% your fault.

of your list, tyson had 2 ATG bouts and 2 title bouts from those names...what were saying about wlad's entire resume?