I already knew the article cited by Thomas. It is interesting indeed, but I think it has a basic flow, maybe, in the fact that for 35mm they used a Carl Zeiss Tessar T* lens (multicoated, a modern lens) while with the Hasselblad they used a Carl Zeiss Tessar lens, not multi-coated, which means a decades-old lens. Add to this that the 35mm was not used at full aperture while the Hasselblad lens was tested at f/5.6, its full aperture, and full aperture is probably where the lack of coating is more noticeable. If there are decades of difference in the technology to produce the lenses, the results lose some scientific value. They remain, I think, quite interesting and thought-provoking.
I never used a MF camera. I remember a spectacular image, here on APUG, of a detail of a dollar banknote taken with a B&W high-resolution film, with a Leica. The detail was quite stunning, and the contrast was quite high.
Generally speaking, the advantage of MF over 35mm is the lesser grain and the higher tone gradation, I think somebody calls it the micro-contrast (others use this term to mean "acutance" though, that's not what I am talking about). 35mm is supposed to have something more hard-cut and gritty which can work great sometimes, but not always. Proponents (or "fans") of MF normally don't cite resolution as a distinguishing factor, but grain and better tonal gradation.
Police and spy-workers, including paparazzi of all kind, always used the small format as far as I know which means that, when quality is not at stake and resolution is all that matters, when usage considerations are taken into account, 35mm wins. Aerial photography uses MF but in that case usage considerations do not constitute a hindrance.