Let me explain, I AM NOT A TYSON HATER, I am taking Tyson as an example of someone who is universally respected and pointing out that most of the **** people write criticizing JC could be said about practically anyone - even a legend like Tyson.
Yeah ok but I was not talking about your last post. I was talking to the haters out there! hahah They won't hide for long.
Let me be clear, this is not an Anti-Tyson or Anti-America thread it's a credit where it's due thread.
Tyson was ranked in the mid 70s by Ring magazine in 2002 before he picked up losses later on in his career (he must sit lower now). Calzaghe probably gets in the low 90's as of today. What on earth is the point of this thread when these guys are pretty much ranked together ATG wise anyway. Tyson gets widely criticised for the lack of big names on his resume just as Calzaghe does; it is Tysons biggest downfall when ranking him!!!! At the end of the day though any idiot with half a brain cell acknowledges that Joe Calzaghe is no Mike Tyson - and for a variety of reasons.
So, are you saying Tysons a ***, a sex fiend or both? And to think I've been accused of being a Tyson hater.
People are missing the very simple point made by the thread starter. The point being the type of excuse that can be provided on a whim. It has little to do with Tyson himself, and is an excellent point. Rational thought should be embraced, not spat upon.
Is there perhaps a case for saying both their divisions were relatively weak at the time of their respective peaks. Before Tyson came on the scene most of the money in the sport went to the likes of Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvyn Haggler and not to the heavyweights. As the old cliche goes, you can only beat who's in front of you, I do not understand, as a 'new person' where all the derision for Joe C comes from, weather he bitchslaps, showboats or ass****s his way through rounds he gets the wins and seems, to me at least, to have taken the big fights (and purses,) when he's had the chances.