Who ranks higher as a heavyweight, Joe Frazier or Mike Tyson?

Really? I'm a Tyson hater...why would I have Mike at #9 ATG if I hated him?

You seem to be getting worse...baffled as to why. It's like someone peed in your Cheerios this past couple of weeks. Hire a professional taster before breakfast from now on.

Bring Sangria back.

 

No, some of you guys are irritating. Plus I like exposing the Tyson Hate Crew for all to see. That will be my job from here on out.

 

Ok, I guess I'll resign myself to being a Tyson hater lol. I really just don't feel that way...

Is there a Pay Pal address I can send a couple of bucks to in order to NOT be a certified Tyson hater?

 

Actually you're alright. But I can read between the lines in your posts. You can run but you cant hide RULES...

 

lol!

Alright, my friend.

 

A lot of sense in this post. Arguments can be made Tyson, though great for about 15 minutes, wasn’t a truly great fighter overall. You never see these arguments against Frazier for a reason. I like and appreciate both but Frazier is definitely considerably greater.

 

Tyson beats Frazier H2H anyday

 

I disagree with that but also mythical matches are useless. Measuring careers, opposition etc; is a better metric.

 

Tyson is stronger, faster, can hurt you with both hands and most importantly, he is far more skilled. He mops the floor with Frazier.
Even in terms of measuring careers, Tyson is greater.

 

Yea man I think you need to tone down that Tyson hate. Your out of control with your common sense and sound logic. We have no use for that in Tyson World.

 

In that case, I find it difficult to place Frazier ahead. I've already made a detailed post about this earlier going over their championship reign, resume, losses and omissions, head to head ability and historical significance.

 

The flaws of which have been pointed out to you.

 

Of which I rejected the subjective manner of your assessment in favor of my more objective criteria.

 

Errr - No. You have not responded to the case I've made for the flaws in your "detailed post". This does not surprise me because, I think you would find it more than a little difficult to dispute the critique provided.

Of course, you can reject my opinion of Frazier being rated higher than Tyson, in favor of your own opinion. That's fine and it matters not. That much I had already made clear on this thread, before you even responded to me.

However, it is the basis for you rejecting my point of view where I find flaws, in addition to your initial case ("detailed post" ).

I find it is not without some degree of mirth that you actually accepted (rather than rejected) my point about the interpretation of the facts being subjective, but then you more than imply that somehow the mere use of "objective criteria" actually makes your case 'objective'.

Not only have you subjectively selected the criteria to assess; you have also subjectively determined what data is relevant for the assessment of each criterion (siloing), before assigning to it a binary grade (an absolute) of your choosing, arriving at this by way of your own subjective assessment of the same.

On the face of it, it all looks well and good, but it is by no means a better argument. As I say: the flaws of your "detailed post" have been pointed out to you and these points cannot be rejected by you, because they are true.

 

The criteria I used is the same one that I use to compare other fighters which factors in just about every aspect of their career.

The criteria that you're using seems specifically designed to give Frazier a boost by placing incredible emphasis on intangibles and very little on tangibles. Your argument fails to demonstrate why Frazier should rank higher than Tyson, whereas my argument at least articulates a better rationale that adds context.