Tyson vs McCall.

The only category where McCall was possibly better than Tyson was chin. His chin isn't going to win him the fight, it'll just prolong the beating he gets. Tyson UD12.

 

I rewatched it

You're right in that his legs weren't gone. However, It seemed a legit. stoppage as he had just gotten up after being floored and took a few unanswered follow up shots. Plus he had basically taken a beating throughout the fight.

 

Over 30 rounds McCall would have a great shot.

 

In hindsight, Tyson should've fought McCall early in his comeback post jail to get rounds in. He hadn't fought a single durable guy since Ruddock.

 

STFU you fool.

As with most idiots you can't see the stupidity of your own logic. You and the other Tyson apologists actually try to convince others that a guy born in 1966, was past his " prime " in 1990.

The ludicrousness of that train of thought is beyond belief.

 

Wilfredo Benitez was past it at 24. Guess he was rubbish too. :roll:

 

Very poor a&&logy.

Benitez won his first title at 17, his second title at a higher weight aged 20, and a 3rd weight title at 22. During the period between winning his first title and losing to Tommy Hearn's aged 24 he had 21 fights over 6 yrs 9 months.

Tyson on the other hand won his first title aged 20, held it ( and the others at the same weight ) for 10 fights over a period of 3 yrs, and 3 months and got beaten aged 23, NOT 24.

Furthermore after the Hearns defeat Wilfred was indeed so shot he never even fought for a title again, much less won one.

Tyson did, even if he could only manage to beat a plum like Bruno, and defend successfully against an even bigger plum in Seldon.

No comparison whatsoever.

 

Berlenbach's point was that not all great fighters have longevity at the highest level. Benitez was a perfect example of this. If you don't think the Benitez comparison was a reasonable one, than you clearly are not capable of logical reasoning. But, this is nothing new. My only question is whether or not you and Wass are even different people. You seem to stick together on any anti-Tyson thread. And you seem to often reply very close together. The old phrase about "arguing with a fool" is coming to mind, so I will stop before your blind, illogical ranting brings me down to your level.

 

:rofl

All I said was prime Tyson would beat prime McCall and you go on a diatribe.

 

In the 90s Mcall got outboxed and outpointed by Frank Bruno.

A guy whose chin and stamina were much worse than Tysons.

 

McCall was a mental case with limited skill. People overrate him. He was probably better as a sparring partner than a contender.
One of the worst alphabet title holders ever at HW.