Mike vs Wlad: Title reign breakdown

[Marchegiano]

I'm just going to take a look at major title reigns real quick

Only counting HW division work. CW titles don't matter

Only counting a name once.

Will differentiate between WBO's major and minor years

WBO minor will be the only minor belt championship noted

Just simply looking at Wlad's and reign to Tyson's own. Who they defended against, if that person was ever in their career a major body world champion, or Super for the period that pertains to, if so what defenses they were successful in, and, finally, what champions, former champions, or champions before they won the title, they beat.




Let's go




Wladimir:

Brock - Never Champ - Champions beaten: 0

Austin - Never Champ - Champions beaten: 0

Brewster - Former WBO champ when the WBO was a minor belt like the present IBO - defeated former WBO champion Wlad, also when the WBO was minor

Ibragimov - WBO Champ - 1 defense - Champions beaten: Holyfield, Briggs

Thompson - Never Champ - Champions beaten: 0

Rahman - Former unified WBC/IBF and WBC Champ - Never won a defense - Champions beaten: Lewis, Berbick

Chagaev - Former WBO Champ - 2 defenses - Champions beaten: Ruiz

Chambers - Never Champ - Champions beaten: Peter

Peter - Former WBC Champ - No defenses - Champions beaten: Maskaev

Haye - WBA Champ - 2 defenses - Champions beaten: Valuev, Ruiz

Mormeck - Joke at HW

Wach - Never Champ - Champions beaten: 0

Pianeta - Never Champ - Champions beaten: 0

Povetkin - Pretend Champ - Champions beaten: Chageav, Rahman

Leapai - Never Champ - Champions beaten: 0

Pulev - Never Champ - Champions beaten: 0

Jennings - Never Champ. - Champions beaten: Liakhovich but he was a minor champion given the WBO isn't a full major until 07, so you decided if he counts.

5 major title defenses, Resume: Holyfield, Briggs, Lewis, Berbick, Makaev, Ruiz, Chageav, Rahman, Peter, and Valuev



Mike Tyson:

Smith - WBA Champ - No defenses - Champions beaten: Bruno, Witherspoon, Weaver

Thompson - Former WBC - 1 defense - Champions beaten: Witherspoon, Weaver

Tucker - IBF Champion - No defenses - Champions beaten: Douglas, McCall

Biggs - Never Champ - Champions beaten: Tillis

Holmes - Former WBC, IBF Champ - 16 WBC 3 IBF defenses - Champions beaten: Norton, Weaver, Berbick, Ali, Spinks, Witherspoon, Smith, Mercer (WBO-minor)

Tubbs - Former WBA Champ - No defenses - Champions beaten: Smith, Page, Seldon

Spinks - Former IBF Champ - 3 defenses - Champions beaten: Holmes

Bruno - WBC Champ - No defenses - Champions beaten: Coetzee, McCall

Williams - Never Champ - Champions beaten: Tillis, Berbick,

23 defenses of a major world title, Resume: Bruno, Tillis, Norton, Weaver, Witherspoon, McCall, Berbick, Douglas, Ali, Spinks, Smith, Page, Holmes, Seldon, Coetzee


Everyone Mike Tyson beat as a major sanctioning body world heavyweight champion beat a major sanctioning body world heavyweight champion themselves. About half of the guys Wlad beat also beat a major sanctioning body world champion, despite there being an extra one and Wlad reigning for much, much longer.

We all know Wlad never actually beat a lineal champion, he had it handed to him by Ring and the world just agreed.

We all know Wlad never touched undisputed either.

We all know the only other thing to include for Wlad is his first WBO run, when the WBO was a minor belt, and Tyson would enjoy more major world title runs so it'd only help Mike to include the full scope of their work as champions, not both of them.



I did this rather quickly this morning, probably were some mistakes made, tell me if you spot them

[The D3vil]

Let em know.

The whole "Mike Tyson is was a overrated bum" take is pre-school level boxing fandom.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Another element you should probably add is when they beat them. A name like Holmes obviously holds weight but it wasn’t the same dominant force that dominated the HW scene 6-7 years.

Even still... Tyson does have the greater resume IMO. He fought and beat the better opposition.

However, I do think Wlad beats anyone Tyson beat when Tyson fought them and obviously vice versa.

[Marchegiano]

Another element you should probably add is when they beat them. A name like Holmes obviously holds weight but it wasn’t the same dominant force that dominated the HW scene 6-7 years.

Even still... Tyson does have the greater resume IMO. He fought and beat the better opposition.

However, I do think Wlad beats anyone Tyson beat when Tyson fought them and obviously vice versa.

I figured I'd just let timing go to juxtaposition because if I caveated timing it'd look like I'm taking away Wlad's only good names.

I mean consider Holy, Briggs, and Lennox for a second. Anyone in the know, knows, those men who beat Holy, Briggs, and Lewis to add them to Wlad's resume's resume were not actually better than the men they beat. Sultan brings in Holy and Briggs....in like 07. Rahman brings in Lennox and Berbick..berbick in 96 and Lennox, well, fair enough I guess but you know Lennox deserves a caveat. Ruiz appears a few times as an old man, Haye has no champion wins over champions who are not literally on their final fight. Pov could be argued out of Chagaev and definitely did not fight a prime Rahman.

I think it kinda buries Wlad and does little to change Tyson. Numbers yes, but, Tyson's guys still beat guys who were champions and Wlad's guys didn't. Once you bring timing into it, Tyson's guys beat some champions in their prime, Wlad and his opposition hardly ever did.

There's quite a bit still left up to the reader, I'll make it more complete in a while I guess. I could denote lineals.


I realize you asked about direct opposition, but, if I point out Larry was old when Tyson beat him don't I then have to point out Rahman was old when Wlad fought him and Berbick was old when Rahman fought him? Transitively anyway.


coulda just did that **** rather than typing all this babble

Anyway, that was why I hadn't, I'll spiff it up later.

[AJ's Boy]

Tyson accomplished much more in his short prime than Wlad did in his whole boring meaningless career.

[Larry the boss]

interesting thread

[Larry the boss]

But I have to respect Wlad more for his constancy and dedication to the sport and in life in general

[BodyBagz]

While neither guy had a resume to write home about, I'd pick Wlads reign to be consistently tougher than Mikes.

I would pick the Peter that Wlad beat to pretty much lay waste to everyone Mike fought WHEN he fought them.

[Marchegiano]

While neither guy had a resume to write home about, I'd pick Wlads reign to be consistently tougher than Mikes.

I would pick the Peter that Wlad beat to pretty much lay waste to everyone Mike fought WHEN he fought them.

What did Peter do to convince you he at any point in his career could have been the man to hand Tucker his first loss?

Tucker doesn't exactly have the greatest resume, but Peter has none. A win over a prime Douglas isn't much but it's better than no wins over any prime names ever in your career.

[BodyBagz]

What did Peter do to convince you he at any point in his career could have been the man to hand Tucker his first loss?

Tucker doesn't exactly have the greatest resume, but Peter has none. A win over a prime Douglas isn't much but it's better than no wins over any prime names ever in your career.

I'd give the Peter that Wlad beat a tremendous advantage over the Tucker Mike beat. That Tucker was a shell of himself.