Boxing Forum - Boxing Discussion Forums banner
101 - 116 of 116 Posts
Well straight away you will have people disagreeing with you, me for one, Tyson WAS past his prime when he fought Douglas. Tyson had lost Cus D’Amato, he had lost Atlas and he had finally lost Kevin Rooney, the one guy who seriously looked after Tyson after the demise of D’Amato.

By the time 1990 and prior to the Douglas fight Tyson was NOT training properly, he wasn’t spending enough time in the gym and he was getting into skirmishes/ fights in bars. Tyson had stopped targeting his opponents body, he had given up jabbing altogether, he had slowed down and stopped punching so much in combinations and had begun to headhunt his opponents with single shots. As importantly as anything else he had started walking into shots and had given up on the defensive lateral work had had previously made him so elusive.

Does this mean Douglas didn’t do brilliantly or didn’t deserve the win the fight? It is a rhetorical question, to which the answer is no. Douglas deserved to win and for it he was richly rewarded, both in monetary terms and in terms of the credit he got in beating Tyson and taking the world title.

But your assessment of Tyson still being in his prime at the time of the Douglas fight is an assessment that nobody who is anybody in boxing who knows/knew Tyson will agree with.

This fundamental error on your part means that the rest of your argument is built on a false premise and however eloquent it is largely irrelevant/incorrect.



You cannot apply wholesale arguments about offensive fighters and group them into one catch-all, this is just plain stilly. Also on a totally separate note Tommy Hearns is an ATG. I also notice that Marciano doesn't get a mention here despite being in the corret weight class (Hearns isn't) given it shows how stupid such wholesale comments are regarding boxers.




Complete and utter rubbish!

Your logic is absolutely appalling and has no merit whatsoever!

Tommy Hearns career and winning or losing has ZERO relationship to Mike Tyson, yet you have just detailed fights that Tommy Hearns had as though in some way they had some impact on Mike Tyson, and they did not!!!!

Going off this sort of crazy logic one could surmise that if Hearns had won, it would have meant that Tyson would have won, which as we all know is absolutely laughable. If you are saying that is not the case, then presumably you are saying that whether Hearns won or lost it didn't affect Tyson and if that is the case, then it makes all your comments in this regard logically redundant.

Tommy Hearns was fighting in the ring as Tommy Hearns and the only conclusions that you can draw from his fights relate to Tommy Hearns, his opponents and at a stretch the fighters that fought Tommy Hearns and his opponent or other fighters in his division at the time (the fighters they fought in common).

When Hearns won you could have an improved view on Tommy Hearns, a similar view or if he fought and won poorly an inferior view of Tommy Hearns. If he drew or lost you could again have a poorer view of Tommy Hearns, a similar view on Tommy Hearns or even perhaps if the opposition was really good in your eyes, maybe you could hold him in higher esteem. All this is true for the opponent that Tommy Hearns had fought.

What you could not do was watch a Tommy Hearns fight and think that altered the reality or view of a heavyweight fighter who has nothing to do with Tommy Hearns who is not even fighting yet but will do in years to come (mental).

The logic in you using Tommy Hearns like you have to suggest a problem with Tyson is like me using a deficiency with Sugar Ray Leonard to show why The New England Patriots lost the superbowl…

Not only is it ludicrous and stupid it also in some way suggests some type of mental chaos theory.

I mean maybe if a butterfly flaps its wings in the south Atlantic, it will generate a small knock on effect that will eventually generate a tornado that will smash my house to pieces?

(Shakes head)

Tommy Hearns fought for Tommy Hearn and nothing he ever did related to Tyson fighting or Tyson’s legacy. The idea that somehow all offensive fighters should be lumped in together is also logically ridiculous and daft and also belongs in a baby’s storybook.

Marciano was an aggressive offensive fighter, he is also from the same weight class, but I see you don’t raise his name as it doesn’t make your point for you, so you go for the tenuous and ludicrous link to Tommy Hearns.



Who says so? Ahhh you :)

You see what you did was write an eloquent post and one where you moved from arguable ground over to more and more loose questionable opinion. You shifted to increasingly tenuous ground that was nothing more than your opinion.

There would be nothing wrong with that if it wasn’t for one thing and it is this;

You have tried to promote that singular opinion as though it was/is fact and it is NOT!!!!!!

You have tried to craft an eloquent post that no one would question, but the post is complete claptrap and very heavily based upon your opinion and semantics.

Eloquence is not a substitute for water tight logic or common sense. People might have been too afraid to question your posts, they may have felt as though it sounded educated. You post was not educated at all, it was a case of the emperors new clothes and it does not stand upto even the flimsiest questioning.

If you just came in and offered your opinion in a genuine way that would be fine, but you never did that did you?

Rhetorical question again.

No you tried to misrepresent your opinion as fact.

Tyson’s reputation was built upon his record and what people saw him do to fighters in the ring. It was not built on entertainment value as you claim as opposed to true value.

Tyson was viewed the way he was because he beat everyone and won the heavyweight titles and he did so by pulverizing all opponents at the time and he remained the best in the world until he went off the rails.

Now you claim otherwise, you claim that the view people have of him was not based on true value.

First of all who are you to question the opinion of everyone and their view?

Has someone voted you in as the voice of boxing?

I am guessing not.

But tell me what gives you the right to dismiss the view that people have regarding Tyson and what is this 'true value' you speak of?

Who has decided upon the criteria for 'true value' and who is the judge of who meets that criteria?

Let me guess….you? Haha

So what you are saying is that you are the one who decides what true value is, you are the one who hands it out to fighters and you are the one who is looking objectively and without bias.

I tell you what you should be a stand-up comedian.



You are NOT judge and jury and it is NOT for you to tell anyone where they rate any fighter let alone who is in their ATG list. It is NOT up to you to vet which fighters can be in the top or bottom half of their ATG list.

P.S

Lots of semantics and opinion misrepresented as indisputable facts in a fairly eloquent (not that well written though), somewhat pompous post that was logically VERY, very poor.

The bottom line is you have an opinion that Tyson is not as good as what some other people think. But there is no right or wrong, just opinion, no matter how much you do push your own view.

Just for your information I do not have Tyson at number 1 in my ATG list, but what you wrote, the manner of it deserved a reply.
Well what a shock! I pop in to say hi to Bill, I throw my two cents in, and lo and behold I get insulted by another snidely Brit with a superiority complex.

Lots of semantics and opinion misrepresented as indisputable facts in a fairly eloquent (not that well written though), somewhat pompous post that was logically VERY, very poor.
First off, do you fancy yourself a literary critic? If so I would not quit your day job if I were you, and I don't think you'd recognize logic if it bit you on your union jack boxers. Your estimate of my writing is, like the opinion of all Tyson nuthuggers, irrelivent and based on emotional sentiment rather than intelligence.

But there is no right or wrong, just opinion, no matter how much you do push your own view.
This is the crux of the matter. British education seems to have been pushing since WWII the idea that there is no right or wrong (An absolutist idea in and of itself). Well, try this experiment. Anything tossed into the air will come down unless a third party intervenes to stop it. Go toss a ball in the air then come back and tell us how many times it stayed suspended in the air unaided. Then after we laugh at you for needing the demonstration I'll say welcome to the world of right and wrong.

Well straight away you will have people disagreeing with you, me for one, Tyson WAS past his prime when he fought Douglas. Tyson had lost Cus D’Amato, he had lost Atlas and he had finally lost Kevin Rooney, the one guy who seriously looked after Tyson after the demise of D’Amato.
First off, I'm not beholden to the "Tyson Uber Alles" crowd. Their ****-erotic reactions to their boy make me ill and I rarely take time out of worthwhile pursuits to give them the time of day. Secondly your statement seems to be taking the form of an absolute declaration of fact that you say is invalid. The claims of people who where close to Tyson, especially those of Kevin Rooney, tend to be extremely sel-serving and are usually prefaced with "If I had been there Tyson wouldn't have lost.....". Who's trying to make who look good here? It's people like Rooney trying to make THEMSELVES look good.

You cannot apply wholesale arguments about offensive fighters and group them into one catch-all, this is just plain stilly. Also on a totally separate note Tommy Hearns is an ATG. I also notice that Marciano doesn't get a mention here despite being in the corret weight class (Hearns isn't) given it shows how stupid such wholesale comments are regarding boxers.
Really? Who says? You? You obviously don't pay much attention to trends. My argument was not a comparison of the two as fighters, but rather a comparison of how media hype and popular reaction boosts fighters who generate a lot of offense up the pecking order. Your reading skills have either sadly diminished or were never there to begin with. For instance: I never said Hearns WASN'T an ATG. He is, albeit an overrated one (in other words he belongs further down the ATG list than he's usually placed). Gratuitously bringing in Marciano is meaningless: I could have picked between a couple of dozen offensivly oriented fighters (including Marciano) to use as an example. In this particulary point the issue is hype and perception NOT anything actually going on in the ring so weight classes are irrelivent. This, of course, leaves the great bulk of your post just as irrelivent, a state that could have been avoided if your intelligence had only matched your big mouth for volume.

First of all who are you to question the opinion of everyone and their view?.
First of all, who the f**k are you to ask? More pertinately, aren't you doing EXACTLY what you're deriding me for supposedly doing? Hmmm? Or are you another one of these pommies running around thinking only Brits are entitled to views on anything? You seem very hypocritical but that's something I've come to expect from people of your ilk. Do us all a favor: Make sure you somehow find some intelligence or reading skill before you post again. Of course that's probably too much to ask from a moronic spastic like you.

Poet
 
Discussion starter · #104 ·
Everyone, stop it. Calazaghefella, those shots at Poet were uncalled for, and Poet, please don't give him reason to dislike you.

Lets forget the comments were made, and debate in a mature manner.
 
Everyone, stop it. Calazaghefella, those shots at Poet were uncalled for, and Poet, please don't give him reason to dislike you.

Lets forget the comments were made, and debate in a mature manner.
I have no problems not carrying this further Bill. Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me whether he likes me or not as long as he affords me the respect any member of this forum is entitled to expect. I don't think that's too much to ask but that's just me. I have as sharp a tongue as anyone you meet but I usually reserve it for those who go out of their way to insult me.

Poet
 
I slated the logic, because the logic was poor.

I decided to slate the post more than anything because poet tried to misrepresent his own bias opinion as fact; I really don't like that.

Poet went further still in taking his opinion dressing it up as fact and then using it to try and deride people who have an opinion that differs from his own and doing it on a subject matter that is defined by nothing more than subjective opinions as opposed to fact.

I didn’t like it and I gave my opinion in what is an open forum.

If the poet does not like what I had to say, I would suggest in future not trying to misrepresent his own opinion as fact and would also suggest not using highly questionable/poor logic to push his opinions.

I didn’t like poets opinion because of its lack of logic, the fact it was bias opinion dressed up as fact, but at least I detailed what my issues were with the post without resorting to blatant criticism of his country of origin.

Poet you should stick to what is being said as I have.

The bottom line was I thought your opinion was a load of hogwash set out as fact and shoved at people, but being American certainly has/had nothing to do with that and I left your country out of it (it would have been ridiculous to criticize America because of your opinion/the opinion of one man).

I will thank you for leaving my country out of it also and cutting out the derogatory references to my country.

Back to the thread;

There is nothing wrong in arguing for or against boxers like Tyson or Lewis, Holmes, Marciano, Ali or Frazier etc. The important thing to remember is that there absolutely is no right or wrong and that it IS just about opinions. This is because there is absolutely ZERO verifiable means of proving who was the best fighter in their prime or who would win any ATG contest. Gravity and tossing things in the air is a useless metaphor as it offers no relevance to what is being discussed. In poets metapor something is thrown in the air and due to gravity it falls to the ground; you have your cause and effect. But no one knows what would happen if two ATG got into the ring when they were both primed, no one can know the cause and effect of such would be and no result or answer or anything verifyable is ever going to be offered- ever. You can't push what you think would be the case as some substitute for facts, you just can't. This is one of those things that you just have to be more accepting of when it comes to opinions. It is something that is totally at odds with conversation of current boxers in a given weight class as we can hope and see a given outcome. It is a world away from talking about Hatton Mayweather where we have our cause and effect.

A really good thoughtful post about Tyson and the questions regarding his status and possible number 1 ATG heavyweight was put very well by Megarodon.

The reason his post was brilliant was because it was very balanced, it made very good concise logical arguments, it was respectful of other people’s opinions and its author knew the difficulty of such evaluations and the inherent and it must be said insurmountable issue of none of us ever being able to prove that are opinions are anything greater than faint possibilities..

His post was brilliant and I said as much.

Given the above fact I think it is a little strange to claim I am a Tyson nuthugger as though I am very bias and dogmatic; I’m clearly not….no Tyson polemic from me.

Also I have already said I don’t think Tyson is my #1 ATG heavyweight anyway, I’m not sure I have a linear list, but either way I don’t think Tyson would top it for me….
 
Lets just put it all behind us now and continue to debate in a mature manner.
So much for putting it all behind us! I don't suppose it occured to this nitwit that I pegged his country of origin by his manner of writing and his word choice. I also see that he dodged the issue of his feux pas devoting two thirds of his his original post to something that wasn't even the issue and that he flat out misinterpretted in any case. Also, it's an analogy not a metaphor. He needs to consult his copy of "The OED For Dummies" so he can tell the difference.

Now! Our little pommie prick is going on ignore for being insulting AND asinine. I have little time and less patience for jerks who want heckle from the peanut gallery. It's better that way: Interacting with this ignoramus is likely to set my Borderline off with a not very pretty seen soon following. Game, set, and match! Bottom line? I'm not getting into it with creeps anymore. He can rot in my ignore bin while I blissfully go on about my business.

Poet
 
I don't suppose it occured to this nitwit that I pegged his country of origin by his manner of writing and his word choice.
Actually it is VERY simple to differentiate between the use of US and UK English, so don’t pat yourself on the back too much.

Any simpleton could have done that, I use a lot of words with the UK spelling for instance such as the word ‘favour’.

So please do me a ‘favour’ and stop bringing up my nationality with derogatory language and implications. Such racist/nationalitic generalizations do you no favours whatsoever and they do not have any place in this debate. I have not and do not make derogatory generalizations about your country, so stop doing it about mine.

I also see that he dodged the issue of his feux pas devoting two thirds of his his original post to something that wasn't even the issue and that he flat out misinterpretted in any case. Also, it's an analogy not a metaphor. He needs to consult his copy of "The OED For Dummies" so he can tell the difference.
You’re refusing to engage properly in the debate.

You have not dealt with any of the arguments and points made to you.

You have not made any REAL attempt to refute the CONSIDERABLE points put to you, and you have NOT offered any valid and cogent logical arguments of your own (counterpoints).

You have substituted the above, the legitimate with nothing more than personal attacks and questionable remarks.

You have decided to try and attack my use of English because you are so uncomfortable with dealing with the actual debate. You can’t deal with that put to you, you can’t deal with the meat and drink of the debate so you have tried to turn the issue to minor point of English.

Whether a point you made was a metaphor or an analogy is not the issue. On which note you are quite correct, you did make an analogy as opposed to use a metaphor.

You’ll have to forgive my faux pas. That is what it was by the way, ‘faux pas’ as opposed to feux pas; which is not a word at all.

Now I could go through all of your posts, look for and point out all of your spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and minor errors regarding definitions if you want?

Of course this would NOT remotely improve or in fact weaken my position in this debate or in any way or alter yours. The validity or lack thereof in our respective arguments are based upon what it is we are actually saying and implying in terms of CONTENT.

Given the above fact and given the fact I am actually very sure of the validity and strength of my debated position, I would much rather debate the content of our respective positions; whereas I am sure you will prefer not to do that Haha.

The FACT of the matter is this, you are either going to engage in legitimate debate with me (in which case I can inform you that you WILL lose as your debated position is a weak one and you’re not good enough to deal in semantics with me) or you can accept that you have lost the debate.

The choice is yours; you lose the debate either way :)

Now dismissing the issue of definition and concurring that you did in fact use an analogy, I must say that it does not alter one iota the fact that your point was entirely redundant.

The analogy was VERY poor because it is so completely at odds with the subject matter that you are debating.

When you toss something into the air it comes down, that is assured by gravity, there is a cause and a pretty much guaranteed effect.

But you are talking about who would have been the best boxer IF given fighters had fought each other and who would win IF they could box one another in their prime state etc. You are talking about a subject where it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE to create the situations that we are referring to in order to see what would happen and who would be the best.

NONE of us can state factually what would happen or who would top a list if they all fought each other.

The ONLY thing we have is OPINIONS, the VERY thing that you have deriided and which differs from your analogy.

There is ZERO verifiable evidence or facts in terms of which boxer would be the best ATG and NOTHING you do or say will EVER change this INALIENABLE, UNALTERABLE and INDISPUTABLE FACT!!!!!!!

In light of the complete lack of cause and effect that your analogy makes use of and in light of the impossibility of proving who is right or wrong all we have left is nothing more than OPINIONS!!!!

Furthermore and separately;

Your reference to Tommy Hearn’s career given he was NOT a recognized heavyweight (not natural or fighting there predominantly in his career) is VERY questionable.

Your use of Tommy Hearns career and examples of his losses have ZERO bearing on the career of Mike Tyson.

Your statement on offensive fighters into one catchall group and dismissing the abilities of such fighters on the basis of one single career in Tommy Hearn is LUDICROUSLY illogical and wrong.
Pointint to Tommy Hearn losing when it quote ‘mattered’ according to you in no way shape or form means that offensive fighters as a whole fail in their careers when it matters. What Tommy Hearns did or did not do relates to Tommy Hearns; it does not have a bearing on what happens to other fighters.

I raised the name of one boxer, namely Marciano precisely because it refutes and show the fundamental error in your logical implication. I mentioned Marciano because he was a heavyweight, he was an offensive boxer and he proved that your catch-all statement was UTTERLY WRONG!!!


P.S

Now deal with the actual debate with me or face the fact that you failed and lost the debate.

If you do wish to continue the debate;

A) Forget about my country of origin, as it is NOT the issue and I do not criticize your country.

B) Actually quote and try and refute the points put to you, deal with and try and counter my considerable arguments before going on to make your own.

C) Insult me if you want, but at least make sure you are engaging properly in the above whilst doing so. In other words if you are to insult me at least do it whilst properly engaging in the debate and do not thing that in some way insults or minor niggles in some way compensate for a fundamental lack of cogent argument or position.

I chose not to insult you back, I feel that you have gone way beyond any insults I may have made in my original post to you, but have let you have a go back. Remember though any insults I my have made in my first post to you also came with a LOT of debate and detailed arguments. You have failed in this latter regard and if you are to have any chance in this debate then you have to engage on central arguments.

P.S to the P.S

I suspect you wont do much more than throw more insults or give yourself some deluded pat on the back, the most I expect from you is to dodge the central points and only try and push your own points without dealing with all I have put to you.

You would surpass my current opinion of you if you could actually deal with all I had to say and debate this with any verve, logic and thought….
 
Discussion starter · #110 ·
Everyone drop it. Just because you disagree or misunderstand, doesn't mean a scene needs to be made. Forget what ever was said and please move on. I'd hate to give out infraction points on such a silly matter.
 
Everyone drop it. Just because you disagree or misunderstand, doesn't mean a scene needs to be made. Forget what ever was said and please move on. I'd hate to give out infraction points on such a silly matter.
It's okay Bill. It's dropped on this end. Two mouse clicks and now I see nothing he posts. So if he continues on you know who's keeping the unpleasentness going.

Poet
 
Everyone drop it. Just because you disagree or misunderstand, doesn't mean a scene needs to be made. Forget what ever was said and please move on. I'd hate to give out infraction points on such a silly matter.
What is wrong with debate?

Or it it simply that this guys is a friend of yours Bill?

I have put forward many detailed legitimate arguments and counterpoints and largely ignored his insults and pressed on with the debate....that is what should happen and I have done it.

If he can't deal with the deabte he can't deal with it, but he doesn't need to be babysat by you or anyone else and you're not supposed to quash debate on a forum Bill. If you read my last mail and comapare it to his you can see I have continued to put the debate at his door and not tried to even up the personal stuff.

Let him respond to my mails or accept the fact that he can't deal with what is put to put to him.


It's okay Bill. It's dropped on this end. Two mouse clicks and now I see nothing he posts. So if he continues on you know who's keeping the unpleasentness going.

Poet
Unpleasentness....Erm shall we count the number of insults made by us both and see who has been toting up the higher number?

You have insulted me to the tune of about 10/1, I could check for you if you like?

The fact is you can't deal with the debate, it has got to much for you.

You have no answer to the logic of my last post and you can see that posting simple insults only had a limited shelf life and they weren't getting you anywhere.

Prove me wrong though, debate the issue, let's see where you get with your position and arguments.

let's see how you counter my logic/points, let's see you try and win the debate :)

It can't be done;)
 
Discussion starter · #114 ·
What is wrong with debate?

Or it it simply that this guys is a friend of yours Bill?

I have put forward many detailed legitimate arguments and counterpoints and largely ignored his insults and pressed on with the debate....that is what should happen and I have done it.

If he can't deal with the deabte he can't deal with it, but he doesn't need to be babysat by you or anyone else and you're not supposed to quash debate on a forum Bill. If you read my last mail and comapare it to his you can see I have continued to put the debate at his door and not tried to even up the personal stuff.

Let him respond to my mails or accept the fact that he can't deal with what is put to put to him.




Unpleasentness....Erm shall we count the number of insults made by us both and see who has been toting up the higher number?

You have insulted me to the tune of about 10/1, I could check for you if you like?

The fact is you can't deal with the debate, it has got to much for you.

You have no answer to the logic of my last post and you can see that posting simple insults only had a limited shelf life and they weren't getting you anywhere.

Prove me wrong though, debate the issue, let's see where you get with your position and arguments.

let's see how you counter my logic/points, let's see you try and win the debate :)

It can't be done;)
You did name calling, and he responded, then it didn't turn into a clean debate. I don't care if you guys debate, just don't go around saying that you guys are forcing your opinions on each other. I like both of you guys, but that doesn't mean that after enough crap I won't hand out infraction points.

Now, lets start all over again, state both of your reasonings, then we can all go from there.
 
You did name calling, and he responded, then it didn't turn into a clean debate.
No Bill- nothing of the sort, you have a very convenient/skewed view. That is nothing like what has happened.

I slated his posts logic and content.

I'm not sure I actually made a single personal insult to him.

Go back and look again.

I think you might find that I was slamming the logic and content, but barely said anything in terms of personal insults.

This is at complete odds with your friend who has gone on a tangent and basically came up with none tirade of personal insults.

I didn't rise to the bait and just continued to deal with the debate.

If I insulted him in he original (questionable) post it was nothing in comparison to what he subsequently unleashed in a number of on-going posts and I certainly did NOT respond with anything personal, I just ploughed on with the logic and debate.

I have laid out my case and put my side of the debate and I am not reiterating it, it is all there to be read.

He cannot win the deabte because his position is untenable, so it is over in any respect.


I don't care if you guys debate, just don't go around saying that you guys are forcing your opinions on each other.
.
That is quite ironic. I mean my whole point is that when you talk about who is the best boxer, who is the best ATG in any list, that there isn't a factual right or wrong. What you are saying here is ironic because my whole argument is that all we have is subjective opinions, so I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone regarding who is the greatest etc. His argument is in effect that people are either not entitled to opinions such as 'X boxer is the best' or that they should be derided for saying such unless it concurs with his opinion.

The only one forcing an opinion was poet.

I am saying everyone is entitled to put forward who they think is the greatest and we have to just respect each others opinions given there is ZERO factual way of proving which boxer would be the greatest or who would win any given bout.

My opinion is the logic he used was poor, that you cannot present your opinion as fact when it is not and no amount of pushing your own opinion makes you any more correct than anyone else as nothing is provable.

People who think Tyson, Ali, Holmes, Lewis etc are the best all have the right to their respective opinion and they should not be derided by someone who has the misguided idea that his opinion is fact; because it isn't fact and is has no more worth than the opinion of anyone else.

An agument against Tyson being the top ATG was put really well and respectfully by Maegarodon. I said I though it was one of the best posts I had ever read on this forum.

How could I do that if my argument was pro Tyson, or if I was in fact on any given side?

I am not diametrically opposed to the opinion that some have aired regarding Tysons limitations.

What I AM diametrically opposed to is people trying to push their subjective viewpoint as fact when it isn't fact, or using poor logic in order to semantically try and bully the worth of their opinion. I am against someone trying to suggest that their opinion is worth more than others peoples, trying to somehow justify their opinion as almost being factual and more right than that of others....

That is what I have been against!!!

And that is why I went about reducing the arguments and points made to rubble by exposing the weakness of what he was pushing.

I like both of you guys, but that doesn't mean that after enough crap I won't hand out infraction points.
.
Count the number of times I attacked the logic and count how many times I made personal remarks....Bill you will see that it is the logic that was hammered, not the individual. I am allowed to hammer poor logic and ridicule poor logic in a debate while making my points.

If you want to give out points for someone handing out tough arguments you go ahead. The personal insults have been very much one sided and from poet and I have just stuck to the issue of the debate.

You have to do as you see fit, but I know I have done nothing wrong so I am not really interested in what you do to be honest.

Now, lets start all over again, state both of your reasoning, then we can all go from there.
The reasoning has been stated in two very long and detailed posts that contained no personal insults despite a lot of provocation. I am not reiterating what is already there.

I will give a summary and that is it;

Tommy Hearn’s losses have no bearing on the career of Tyson

Offensive fighters are NOT all the same

Offensive fighters do NOT all lose key fights because of what happened to Tommy Hearns or because of being offensive fighters. e.g Marciano.

There is ZERO verifiable way of proving who is the best ATG or who would win individual fights.

Given the above the only thing we have is subjective opinion and that opinion can be debated and even toyed with a little, but it should still be respected and you should not try to prove that your opinion is right; because it is NOT any more right than anyone elses (within reason).

My ATG heavyweight is probably NOT Tyson, and I am not on the other side of the debate on this point. I am not pushing for Tyson particularly as can be seen by what I said of Megarodon’s post.

You can argue to and for a fighter and do it in a way that uses really good logic and is at the same time acknowledging the respect for other people’s opinions. You can do that whilst acknowledging the fact that none of us can know who really is the ATG….see Megarodon’s post.


I’m done.
 
101 - 116 of 116 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top