Who's greater: Wladimir Klitschko or Mike Tyson?

Tyson rates higher than Wlad, I'd put Tyson just inside the top 10 while Wlad is top 15.

Tyson's best wins-Spinks, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno rate higher than Wlad's best wins-Byrd, Haye, Chambers, Chagaev but Wlad may have more depth in the win department but I'm not sure about that.

Where Tyson puts distance between he and Wlad is in his losses. Tyson lost to Douglas and his two losses to Holy were past his best and Holy is a great heavy himself. Thats better than losing to Sanders, Brewster, and to a lesser degree Purity.

Head to head Tyson rolls through Wlad. I think Wlad could match up well with a number of past greats but Tyson is not one of them. I'd say Tyson by ko within 4-5 rounds.

Now, Wlad isn't done and is dominate right now with a number of decent looking you heavies coming up. He could move ahead of Tyson if he has another dominant year or two.

 

Wladimir

beat Mormeck who people said was like 'the french mike tyson'


Buster Douglas beat the actual Prime Mike Tyson....



Douglas >then Tyson AND Wladimir deal:deal

 

Not sure that I really want to know

 

personally, when I look at a peak mike tyson, I see a great fighter, but when I look at wlad, I see a good fighter with superior athleticism who dominates a weak era. come on, jean marc mormeck? ray mercer? sultan ibragimov? hasim rahman? get real.

 

Wladimir who?


Seriously.

 

Guys like Max Baer, Tunney, Jeffries, patterson, Walcott, Norton, Schmelling, Liston all deserve to be above Tyson, and Wlad. . .

Top ten is pretty clear: Ali, Louis, Holmes, Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman, Frazier, Marciano, Dempsey, and Johnson. . .


So, 11-15,16ish for me would be: Langford, Jeffries, Charles, Tunney, Walcott, Willis, . . . Then Patterson, Liston, Norton, Schmelling, Baer. .


Tyson would be somewhere around 20-25 actually. . . And Wlad right around 20-25. . . Tyson a few spots ahead as of now.

But Wladimir has time to get to 12-15th depending on what he does. . .

 

Wlad.

He career is much longer and he has more WM fights. He is 16 years a pro boxer and in unbelievable shape.

The most WM fights:


Joe Louis
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Wladimir Klitschko!!!!

 

tyson from 86 to 91........... after 95 tyson i would say wlad.....PRIME 4PRIME......????? MIKE TYSON KNOCKS OUT WLAD IN 2 OR 3 RDS

 

But not with Emanuel Steward in Wlad´s corner!

I am tired of reading this ****. Sdunek ruins the most talented Heavyweight since Ali. Sdunek turned Wlad into a "stand boxer" who stands direct infront of his opponent. Watch Wlads fight before 1999 and you can see the difference. With Steward the "old" Wlad comes back and you can see this today, Wlad is much more confident because this is the Wlad in the ring, he wants to be.

But Wlad shows that he has the heart of a Champion. Learned from the mistake and becomes a much better and complete fighter with Emanuel Steward in his corner. Great defence, footwork, punching power, timing, tactics.

 

Prime for prime, head 2 head, is a completely different area of simply ranking a boxer for the totality of his career, and accomplishments. . . H2H, I'd put Wladimir top 3. . . Tyson top 7. . .

But as far as what they accomplished in their careers, there's no way Tyson deserves to be above 15.

 

Oh, but there is dear King Khan.

Tyson's prime didn't last long, but it's made up for with his activity level. Prior to his incarceration, he compiled a 41-1-0 (36 KOs) record over the course of just seven years from 1985-91. That W/L ratio and the number of fights look awfully similar to another heavyweight regularly rated inside the top five on here. Don't worry, they both beat pretty much the same number of world-rated opponents. You can cite the lack of greats all day long, but the blame certainly doesn't fall on Tyson, who was fighting the best opposition available to him. Need proof? Here's the rating of several fighters he fought during his prime at the time he fought them, not including himself obviously: Trevor Berbick (31-4, #1), Bonecrusher Smith (19-5, #1), Pinklon Thomas (29-1, #1), Tony Tucker (34-0, #1), Tyrell Biggs (15-0, #8 ), Michael Spinks (31-0, Lineal claimant), Carl Williams (22-2, #2), James Douglas (29-4, #7), Razor Ruddock x2 (25-1, #1). He also took care of Frank Bruno (32-2) as a mandatory, who had been and would again be a top-rated heavyweight and future titlist, beat the hell out of Tubbs (24-1) inside two for a large payday in Tokyo, who'd give prime Riddick Bowe all sorts of a fight long afterwards; Alex Stewart (26-1) inside of a round, whom was never on the canvas against Holyfield (and would go the distance with in a second fight) and lost a close decision to Foreman afterwards.

You guys continually bring up Spinks the LHW and Holmes the washed up ATG and refuse to acknowledge a few key points here. Spinks beat an undefeated Larry Holmes at Heavyweight convincingly the first go-round, who while no longer prime, was again: undefeated. He's not exactly John Ruiz, folks. Second, it was at the time an absolute public demand that Tyson fight Spinks and The RING had recognized him as the Top Heavyweight until Tyson beat him. A good number of people in and around boxing actually gave him a fair chance to win the damn fight. To see his performance ravaged by revisionist historians is pretty dispicable.

As far as Holmes, there is quite a lot made about his 21-month lay off between Spinks II and Tyson. He didn't willingly retire so much as he was basically forced into it, partly by his own hand with the comments he made. There's little doubt he won and was screwed out of the Spinks re-match and it left a bitter taste in his mouth. Perhaps the case for it being a worthless win would have credibility if Holmes hadn't decided to come back four years later at 42 and put a schooling on Ray Mercer to EARN himself a title shot against Holyfield, whom he won several rounds against and went the distance with, ditto for Oliver McCall at the age of 44. Nobody stopped or KO'ed Larry Holmes before or after, much less within four rounds.

 

This.
I can't believe ppl bringing up MTs wins over CW Spinks or way past prime Holmes as some kind of argument.
Here's an argument. Tyson prime... B Douglas... Mike stopped :think

Tyson's prime was way too short. Prison time? Who's fault was that?

 

And I can't believe people try and write off his career in a few brief sentences. Please refute everything posted above and lay out a similar case for why 14 heavyweights should be placed above him.

And since Spinks is a Cruiserweight despite beating an undefeated Holmes, make sure they're All Heavyweights.

 

Mike won the HW ttle when he was a kid, something Klitto could never do in an multiverse. And from absolutely terrible upbringings too, whilst Klit had a good upbringing.

on the other hand, Tyson didnt have the mental approach and social support for the longevity that Klit has enjoyed. One could easily argue that if Tyson had Klitts advantages socially, then he would have been able to sustain his career into his thirties as Klit does, but Klit could never share Tyson's physical abilities that lent him his meteoric teenage rise.

And lets be honest, if Tyson was facing off against fatty fortysomethings like Mormeck and those cruisers, theres no doubt he would have reigned till he was in his late thirties.


So all in all Tyson easily.