Tyson quits boxing after defeat

[manker]

Yeah, Busy, I read what you said. You were taken in with his spiel believing it to be genuine. I wasn't.

[Busyman]

He is the greatest heavyweight, besides, Muhammad Ali,

What do you base this on.

I base it on what I've seen and how he beat his opponents.

Lennox and Evander were after his prime, so was Buster.

I firmly believe he is meidcated to a fault and mentally unstable. When I watched the Lennox fight, he looked great in round 1 then in round 2 he went catatonic. It was weird.

I remember when he was on Arsenio Hall (years ago) he was so intelligent and calm) but since Robin Givens divorce and all the trouble that followed, he's been a maniac.

I don't believe he even raped that woman.


edit: Oh and to add to that, I, among others, simply regard his fights more entertaining. The way in which he KO'd opponents was simply gratifying.

Watching other heavyweights just doesn't have the same appeal.

[Busyman]

Yeah, Busy, I read what you said. You were taken in with his spiel believing it to be genuine. I wasn't.

Mmk.

[JPaul]

What do you base this on.

I base it on what I've seen and how he beat his opponents.

Lennox and Evander were after his prime, so was Buster.

Not much of a prime then, Buster Douglas was 1990 and pretty much a journeyman.

So who did he beat of note.

You have him as the second greatest heavyweight boxer. In order to be this he has to have competed against other great (or really good) boxers.

Take Foreman for example, a great boxer, who fought the likes of Ali, Frazier and Norton.

Like I said, Tyson may have become one of the greats. However beating up average boxers, who were intimidated by his reputation, does not prove that he was. It certainly does not place him as second only to Ali.

[Busyman]

I base it on what I've seen and how he beat his opponents.

Lennox and Evander were after his prime, so was Buster.

Not much of a prime then, Buster Douglas was 1990 and pretty much a journeyman.

So who did he beat of note.

You have him as the second greatest heavyweight boxer. In order to be this he has to have competed against other great (or really good) boxers.

Take Foreman for example, a great boxer, who fought the likes of Ali, Frazier and Norton.

Like I said, Tyson may have become one of the greats. However beating up average boxers, who were intimidated by his reputation, does not prove that he was. It certainly does not place him as second only to Ali.

From what I've seen, yes it does.

Keep in mind, I've seen Ali fights from watching Superbouts (I'm in my 30's).

Frank Bruno could have had an illustrious career (great stats) and beat many great fighters but 1) I've seen only about 7 Bruno fights and 2) those fights were boring.

You are talking stats and I'm talking pure adrenaline rush.

[JPaul]

Not much of a prime then, Buster Douglas was 1990 and pretty much a journeyman.

So who did he beat of note.

You have him as the second greatest heavyweight boxer. In order to be this he has to have competed against other great (or really good) boxers.

Take Foreman for example, a great boxer, who fought the likes of Ali, Frazier and Norton.

Like I said, Tyson may have become one of the greats. However beating up average boxers, who were intimidated by his reputation, does not prove that he was. It certainly does not place him as second only to Ali.

From what I've seen, yes it does.

Keep in mind, I've seen Ali fights from watching Superbouts (I'm in my 30's).

Frank Bruno could have had an illustrious career (great stats) and beat many great fighters but 1) I've seen only about 7 Bruno fights and 2) those fights were boring.

You are talking stats and I'm talking pure adrenaline rush.

I would not suggest, for a second that Frank Bruno was a great fighter. Far from it, he was a bit above average with a good dig if he landed it.

"You are talking stats" = I am looking at what people have achieved and against whom they achieved it. Tyson simply did not fight / beat enough good fighters to be considered "second only to Ali"

Keep in mind I watched the "Rumble in the Jungle" when they were rumbling in the jungle. That was a pure rush, see I didn't know who had won when I watched it. When you watch the greats, you already know the result. When you watched Tyson it was probably live, or at least delayed but you didn't know who had won. Tho' with the mugs he fought it wasn't hard to guess.

Like I said, he may have been a great, but we will never know because he fecked up his career before he could go on to prove it. The cannon fodder he fought early on and beat easily proves nothing.

[Busyman]

From what I've seen, yes it does.

Keep in mind, I've seen Ali fights from watching Superbouts (I'm in my 30's).

Frank Bruno could have had an illustrious career (great stats) and beat many great fighters but 1) I've seen only about 7 Bruno fights and 2) those fights were boring.

You are talking stats and I'm talking pure adrenaline rush.

I would not suggest, for a second that Frank Bruno was a great fighter. Far from it, he was a bit above average with a good dig if he landed it.

"You are talking stats" = I am looking at what people have achieved and against whom they achieved it. Tyson simply did not fight / beat enough good fighters to be considered "second only to Ali"

Keep in mind I watched the "Rumble in the Jungle" when they were rumbling in the jungle. That was a pure rush, see I didn't know who had won when I watched it. When you watch the greats, you already know the result. When you watched Tyson it was probably live, or at least delayed but you didn't know who had won. Tho' with the mugs he fought it wasn't hard to guess.

Like I said, he may have been a great, but we will never know because he fecked up his career before he could go on to prove it. The cannon fodder he fought early on and beat easily proves nothing.

The problem is I ain't trying to prove anything. I like what I like.

[JPaul]

I would not suggest, for a second that Frank Bruno was a great fighter. Far from it, he was a bit above average with a good dig if he landed it.

"You are talking stats" = I am looking at what people have achieved and against whom they achieved it. Tyson simply did not fight / beat enough good fighters to be considered "second only to Ali"

Keep in mind I watched the "Rumble in the Jungle" when they were rumbling in the jungle. That was a pure rush, see I didn't know who had won when I watched it. When you watch the greats, you already know the result. When you watched Tyson it was probably live, or at least delayed but you didn't know who had won. Tho' with the mugs he fought it wasn't hard to guess.

Like I said, he may have been a great, but we will never know because he fecked up his career before he could go on to prove it. The cannon fodder he fought early on and beat easily proves nothing.

The problem is I ain't trying to prove anything. I like what I like.

It isn't a problem, you are entitled to like what you like, fair dinkum.

However you made a ridiculous statement, even you know that.

It would be like saying Tim Henman is the second best tennis player in the world. It is clearly untrue, the statistics show it. Whether one likes him or not.

[Busyman]

The problem is I ain't trying to prove anything. I like what I like.

It isn't a problem, you are entitled to like what you like, fair dinkum.

However you made a ridiculous statement, even you know that.

It would be like saying Tim Henman is the second best tennis player in the world. It is clearly untrue, the statistics show it. Whether one likes him or not.

Nope. You are absolutely wrong again.

Read again would you.......

He is the greatest heavyweight, besides Muhammad Ali, that I have ever seen

I made no factual allusions whatsoever. Nice edit of my post on your part though. No really...nice try.

There is a prize waiting for you at the door on your way out.

[JPaul]

It isn't a problem, you are entitled to like what you like, fair dinkum.

However you made a ridiculous statement, even you know that.

It would be like saying Tim Henman is the second best tennis player in the world. It is clearly untrue, the statistics show it. Whether one likes him or not.

Nope. You are absolutely wrong again.

Read again would you.......

He is the greatest heavyweight, besides Muhammad Ali, that I have ever seen

I made no factual allusions whatsoever. Nice edit of my post on your part though. No really...nice try.

There is a prize waiting for you at the door on your way out.

If Tyson is the second best heavyweight you have ever watched then you haven't watched much heavyweight boxing.

But wait, what have we here

"Keep in mind, I've seen Ali fights from watching Superbouts (I'm in my 30's)."

So have you also seen George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Evander Hollyfield, Lennox Lewis .... etc

So either you have watched a lot of heavyweights in which case your judgement is that Tyson was better than all of them (Ali excluded). I say again, what would you base that on, the facts deny it,

or

You haven't watched very much heavyweight boxing, in which case, my bad. I had thought you were perhaps a fan.