Joined
·
22,168 Posts
I agree with Fella that there is/will never be any way to really say who was the greatest at heavyweight or any division for that matter.
It all comes down to what greatness is all about, wich isnt so easy to defineI agree with Fella that there is/will never be any way to really say who was the greatest at heavyweight or any division for that matter.
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.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.
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.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.
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.But there is no right or wrong, just opinion, no matter how much you do push your own view.
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.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.
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.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.
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.First of all who are you to question the opinion of everyone and their view?.
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.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.
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.Lets just put it all behind us now and continue to debate in a mature manner.
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.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.
You’re refusing to engage properly in the debate.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.
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.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?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.
Unpleasentness....Erm shall we count the number of insults made by us both and see who has been toting up the higher number?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
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.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
Rob ya ol' shoe! How ya been?Tyson just makes my Top 10 but is not the best ever.
No Bill- nothing of the sort, you have a very convenient/skewed view. That is nothing like what has happened.You did name calling, and he responded, then it didn't turn into a clean debate.
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.I don't care if you guys debate, just don't go around saying that you guys are forcing your opinions on each other.
.
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.I like both of you guys, but that doesn't mean that after enough crap I won't hand out infraction points.
.
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.Now, lets start all over again, state both of your reasoning, then we can all go from there.