Why Tyson Isnt An ATG

Not really sure which way you're going with this. On one hand you're agreeing me that he wasn't a force for the entire duration that he was a pro, but then you're saying something about his relevance to the division. I guess the only point I was addressing before was your claim that he deserved credit for being "relevant" in the division from 1985-2002, which I felt needed clearing up.

 

reading some terrible analyses on here, to the point where I didn't even want to engage in conversation with such attitudes. nothing worse than having to point out where someone went wrong, especially when they seem to be deliberately misunderstanding anyway.
Mike Tyson was a great fighter in his day, the dominant force of his era, youngest heavyweight champ and at the time almost considered unbeatable. Sometimes there are no prime greats to test yourself against, so you do what mike Tyson, joe Louis and sonny liston did, clean out the whole division leaving a whole lot of prone bodies behind you.
Tysons acheivements stack up well against most heavies who are labelled 'great'.

 

Yep and you have been exposed as a ***** who makes accusations but when pressed to prove it becomes silent. You are a grade A puss with zero integrity or credibility.
I set the ban bet for you to prove that have even 1 alt account and you puss out ,unbelievable. You are a coward just like your hero.

 

To play along...

*He never came from behind to win a fight, or got up off the floor to win one.

*I hear you about the relevance part, but compared to some his prime years were relatively short. (Make that his peak years.)

*Lost to 42-1 underdog Douglas in a huge upset, and then lost years later to another heavy underdog in Holyfield.

One could argue that great fighters find a way to win, but Tyson if things isn't go his way, never could overcome genuine adversity.

That's about all I can come up with.

 

Yes but not consistently from 1985-2002 as you mentioned. And if you're going to give Tyson credit as being a major player throughout his ENTIRE career, then you shouldn't limit George Foreman's to just when he was prime.

 

Just a question...what the hell does DKSAB mean?

 

Ah, cool. I see it all the time but couldn't figure it out.

 

That doesn't account for his entire career, which you've given Tyson the luxury of including. :good

 

He was at the top tier longer than Marciano. He fought more (and better) defenses than Dempsey. Are these not all time greats?