Is Mike Tyson a Top Ten heavyweight alltime?

A gem from another Azzer85 thread.
Read the red parts in the same order they appeared originally.
This person used the words liar and hypocrite referring to someone else in this thread.

And the target of these words was even stating the obvious truth in a clear manner in this thread.

 

Foreman's Jab, we can certainly make a Good claim for Tyson being lower top 10, OR your 12-ish. Either notion is very defensible, & in part it goes to how much peak brilliance/H 2 H vs. longevity is valued.

Yes he would have needed to do what you describe to be amongst the tippy-top.

And your rating of Wlad seems fair. Though I do not see his opposition as being as good as Tyson's, he does get points for longeivity & consistency. Tyson beat other good guys, & Spinks was not shot at all, just scared, but a very skilled though overmatched fighter.
Many Tyson fought were prime or near prime, you can mention others like Thomas & Green.

The one thing I strongly disagree with is Douglas would have beat a well trained Tyson. How could that be-not only was Tyson training poorly, literally whoring it up, drinking, losing much weight before the fight...He also shows much less energy, general & head movement & STILL almost had Douglas out of there, there was a mini-long count controversy too.

I ask you to rethink that proposition. If a guy almost beats another when their physical state & basic skills-movement, combinations, aggression-are significantly eroded, & their is no exceptional achilles heal that the victor could have exploited even when the man was 100%...You cannot reasonably say Douglas would have won, & it is quite unlikely he would have seen the distance.

 

Your English has improved :good

oh and i find it strange, you didnt mention that those posts in red....are what i wrote over 4 years ago?

As if my opinions havent changed since then atsch

 

Hahaha i tis funny saying that holyfield 91 was smaller than he wa sin 1996.. In 1996 when he kicked the ass of tyson weighed 215 pounds, in 91 we weighed 209-212, o yes a great difference... He was more athletic, faster, more durable, better combination puncher, more aggresive, he was much better in 91 and he would have stopped tyson 100%

 

The thing is, and it was clearly expressed in my post, that your opinions changed 180 degrees twice during less than a week then.
If they changed at all and if both were your opinions by the time you posted them.

 

If you cant see the difference between the Holyfield of '91 and the Holyfield of '96, dont bother posting on here again

 

What's looks got to do with anything you ******, the scales show Holyfield was barely heavier in 96 compared to 91. Holyfield of 91 would have given Tyson a right drubbing!

 

Holyfield was around 205lbs back in 1991.

 

The Holyfield that was nearly knocked out of the ring by the Mike Tyson wannabe Bert Cooper?

Yeah ok then :good

 

Hahaha you're living in your fantasy world again, facts are Holyfield wiped the floor with Tyson. There's not one little sign in their two fights that Tyson would compete at any time in his career.

 

Actually, Holyfield was saved by a standing eight count while the ropes saved him from going down. If the ref let Cooper at him we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we?

It's all good, class soon showed as Holyfield came back with authority. Still, Evander was lucky that he fought Tyson when he did.

 

And your point is?? Tyson was left crawling on the floor by feather fisted Douglas.

Holyfield would have beat Tyson at any points of their career, there's no hope or sign in both fights that Tyson would have ever beaten Evander!

 

Fukk you're ******ed

 

Sangria, this guy is a complete ****, best to put him on ignore

hes an utter fraud, hypocrite, liar and a troll

see the conversation i had with him on this thread

Page 8 onwards, he got owned

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=511633&page=8

 

You're a window licker!