He knew you were talking H2H he's not silly. You said " Prime Tyson is the best HW of all time". Don't run away from it already.
Ah, yes. I don't even remember him being a troll; just quarrelsome. Which shows how skilled he must have been. SuzieQ used to go berserk over some of these guys, IIRC. Wonder what ever happened to him. Demolishing Fitzsimmons monuments worldwide one by one, I should imagine.
I honestly wasn't sure. Heavyweight lists are subjective enough that in theory, I could see somebody with very nonstandard criteria making a case for Tyson as GOAT. But if WhiteBomber thinks he's the best head to head, then I want to see that defended in a thread.
Most people do not rate Tyson as #1 head to head, though. Overwhelmingly so in this forum. So I believe that an engagement with prevailing opinion on this point would be productive.
Suzie was last here a couple of years ago. It was short and sweet and he hadn't posted in almost a year prior to that. Great value that guy.
I know, but most don't know much about boxing either. In that hypothetical round robin event I mentioned, everybody probably racks up losses. I just reckon Tyson comes out with the best results overall. What does this mean ?! I don't understand.
What I mean is this: Asserting that people who rate Tyson low H2H don't know boxing is not going to convince anybody. Arguing and explaining WHY you believe Tyson is obviously the H2H #1 heavyweight ever will probably convince a lot more people. Assuming your arguments are good. That's why I suggest doing a separate thread, and trying to convince others that you're right about Tyson. That's much more likely to succeed than simply stating Tyson's superiority with confidence. And it will give everyone a chance to learn something.
But it cannot be proven one way or another. The only way this might work is with a detailed analysis of every ATG (that there's enough footage of), his flaws and assets. And that would take a very long time to make. But even then, that won't be conclusive enough, cause there have been many boxers that are not textbook and yet have had massive success due to their physical assets. A good example will be Wilder, who has limited skills, a view I reckon pretty much anyone on this forum will agree with. And people have egos, so they will never agree, no matter the argument.
Well, I assume you have reasons for believing that Tyson would beat other fighters, right? You're not just looking at the guy and picking him on intuition. As to egos, the people directly arguing with you might not be convinced. But the people watching the argument unfold, or sitting on the fence, may change their minds.
Also, you probably wouldn't need to compare him to every fighter. You could probably narrow it down to three or four of the usual suspects that many people rate above Tyson head to head. Ali, Louis, Lennox, maybe one of the Klitschkos, maybe Holmes, maybe Liston or Foreman.
Of course not. I'm picking him based my assessment of his skillset, and the physical qualities that he possessed, which I believe complemented his peek a book style perfectly. Patterson also employed the same style, but IMO not quite with as much success as Tyson.
