Mike Tyson vs James Toney circa 2003???

I'll give you a clue, because the obvious seems far too complicated for you.

It is all TIME great, as in compared the the best fighters over a long period of TIME, decades in fact, and sometimes even centuries.

Now this would include how their WHOLE careers panned out. Not the highlight parts in a mere flash in the pan 2 years out of a total of 20.:roll::roll::roll::roll:

An example even you might understand would be Ray Robinson, who started boxing in 1940, and lost his first fight in 1943, but then went a further 8 years unbeaten avenging the first defeat numerous times.

Geddit?

 

The idea of an 'All time great' to me is a fighter that would succeed in any era. That is all.

 

Then you have got the wrong idea. Simple as that.And it is NOT difficult to understand. A fighter from the 20's 30's 40's whatever might well have had a very good two years out of his 20 year career. Does that mean he would have automatically had those same 2 good years in later era's? Doubtful. Whereas if he proved himself over more than a decade the chances of his succeeding in later or earlier era's increases.

Geddit?

 

I only have the wrong idea in your mind. With all due respect, which I don't have to show you, but for the sake of hopefully avoiding similar discussions in future, I'll try not to scrutinise to much. What you fail to see is you questioned my statement and offered little resistance, evidence or a counter argument to. All you did was bring up time, which is in fact undefined

I don't take pleasure from outbursts like this, in fact it angers me that 99% of the world is so far up their own ass that for one reason or another discount others opinions and fail to see how they have formed that opinion. Rather than working constructively to reach a conclusion even if we have to agree to disagree.

There is no proof whether Tyson is or isn't an all time great, only evidence. Evidence to support and oppose and whilst Tyson's longevity isn't that of some fighters, over a 3 year period he may well have defeated any fighter there ever has been.

Whether you agree with that or not it is redundant. I have my beliefs you have yours, but before you reply please just think about what I'm say here It is because of these sort of replies and responses that finds myself keeping my opinion to myself rather than getting involved on a lot of topics more often than not.

There is no right or wrong answer unless the evidence you've supplied doesn't support your argument, so I'll leave you with a quote from Carl Sagan

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion ... Or on this forum