Contrast Holmes' reign with Klitschko's.

Lennox Lewis clearly has a better resume than Wlad. You could also make a decent case for Tyson, even though there's a few questionmarks about him.

 

They are fighters that beat Wlad. 3 losses in 67 fights isn't too shabby.

Getting beat by a guy twice that started 2 weight classes below you is pretty bad. Wlad would never lose to Spinks.

 

At this point, yes. Add Fury, Wilder and Glazkov and Wlad has the better resume.

 

Holmes went 48-0.

Wlad couldn't even go 25-0. Against bums.

If Wlad couldn't hurt Haye , there's not a chance he'd come close to hurting Spinks.

 

1) Wlad was entering his 12th fight in as many months against a very durable fighter. Wlad controlled the whole fight until he gassed. If he could have conserved his energy better instead of trying to knock him out we wouldn't even be talking about Ross Puritty.

2) Haye didn't want to engage and was falling to the floor on purpose (probably one of the most ***** things I have ever seen in a ring). Haye also punches a whole lot harder than Spinksy.

 

Comparing resumes are sometimes fairly simple (doesn't stop people from getting it wrong, though). It's not hard to tell that Lewis resume > Wlads resume, or Wlads resume > Holmes resume. But I find a comparasion between Tyson and Wlad to be complicated. Tyson fought some not very good competition, just like Wlad, and he was unable to last for very long. It didn't take much time before he got badly dominated and KO'd. On the other hand, Wlad hasn't fought that many top boxers himself, and he looked vulnurable getting KO'd by Purrity/Sanders/Brewster, even though he rebound from those losses perfectly well.

At the end of the day, I think Tyson will be remembered as the rising star who fell down really hard, while Wlad will be remembered as the dominant champ he is. But that's a speculation from my side. I fail to see how you can make a clear-cut case of Wlad being greater.

 

I think there's two fighters from this era that will grow in respect after their careers are over and down with. It's Wladimir Klitschko and Floyd Mayweather. Many debates that goes on about these boxers today will seem completly bizarre by then.

 

And there it is.

Spinks would probably UD Grabbamir...

 

Or get knocked out in 90 seconds...

 

I don't find a comparison complicated for Tyson vs. Wlad's resumes at all. It's pretty easy to me.

Tyson: 50-6 (9 title defenses, youngest HW champ of all-time, beat Holmes who was retired, 12-4 in title bouts, one of the most entertaining HW Champs of All-Time, little over 3 years as champion, unified multiple belts)

Wlad: 64-3 (18 title defenses, 25-2 title bouts, over 9 years as champion, unified multiple belts)

Wlad has a much better resume.

 

:hey:good

 

Spinks would last longer against Sanders than Grabbamir did.

Lol...

 

Tyson beat two legitmate ATG fighters. Two of them. Wlad, OTOH, hasn't even beaten a guy worthy of the HOF.

Tyson > Wlad

 

Vlad would have knocked Holmes out cold easily, hell, Snipes put Holmes down and almost out and he had not skills at all, Michael Spinks beat him, and of course Tyson ran right through him. Vitali or Vlad would have killed Holmes...............

 

I lean toward Klitschko