Who here believes Liston hit Harder than Foreman?

[BattlingNelson]

It did, but that was when Briggs fought Lennox I'm afraid.....

Poet

Touché, but try watching Vitali-Briggs and come back here when you are finished.

[StarshipTrooper]

Touché, but try watching Vitali-Briggs and come back here when you are finished.

Seen it. Been there done that. Got to see someone who couldn't get a completely washed-up Briggs out of there. Pathetic.

Poet

[TAC602]

Poet, I dont always agree with your takes (particularly on Tyson), but I've gotta say... Dark Side of the Moon avi, now Gretzky. Bowie in the sig.

Win, Win, Win.

[StarshipTrooper]

Poet, I dont always agree with your takes (particularly on Tyson), but I've gotta say... Dark Side of the Moon avi, now Gretzky. Bowie in the sig.

Win, Win, Win.

:chuckle9: My take on Tyson probably isn't as draconian as you think :hahahaha9:

Poet

[joseph5620]

If you wanna say the Lewis thing fine, but the Foreman part is a nonpoint. Vitali broke Shannon's face.

Foreman did break Briggs nose.

[nomadman]

Its generally true,Briggs said VK hit harder than Foreman and Lewis

Not to mention all the opponents who beat Shavers.

[TAC602]

:chuckle9: My take on Tyson probably isn't as draconian as you think :hahahaha9:

Poet

Hah, probably not. It's all subjective.

I'd venture to say having him either inside the top 6 or outside the top 12 may be bias in either direction. Inside the top 3 reaches deep into fanboyism while outside 15 is draconian.

As a massive fan, he ranges 7-9 for me.

I think he's definitely suffered a backlash from people reacting to ridiculous comments by the more uneducated of his fan base. The fact that some of his most significant fights came post-prison hurts his standing as well. I'm not sure Holyfield isnt the outright antidote for any version of Mike, although things undoubtedly get more even if itd happened as scheduled in 1991.

[StarshipTrooper]

Hah, probably not. It's all subjective.

I'd venture to say having him either inside the top 6 or outside the top 12 may be bias in either direction. Inside the top 3 reaches deep into fanboyism while outside 15 is draconian.

As a massive fan, he ranges 7-9 for me.

I think he's definitely suffered a backlash from people reacting to ridiculous comments by the more uneducated of his fan base. The fact that some of his most significant fights came post-prison hurts his standing as well. I'm not sure Holyfield isnt the outright antidote for any version of Mike, although things undoubtedly get more even if itd happened as scheduled in 1991.

I have him around 9 or 10 myself. He's an ATG and hardly a bum by any stretch of the imagination. I only bring out the guns when his nuthuggers are acting up.....which isn't very often these days.

Poet

[TAC602]

I have him around 9 or 10 myself. He's an ATG and hardly a bum by any stretch of the imagination. I only bring out the guns when his nuthuggers are acting up.....which isn't very often these days.

Poet

Plenty fair. Actually a favorable opinion if anything.

To the chagrin of a few, Tyson probably wont be a topic that ever truly dies out. While he's probably become doubly famous (or infamous) post-Bite Fight, people know him and the avenue to his legitimate boxing ability and credentials are right there to be discovered. The marketplace is saturated with memorabilia, documentaries, highlight videos, etc. He has the advantage of every fight being available, in color and free to view. He's a product of the excessive 1980s. I dont mean that in a bad way, but it was definitely the cultivation of media frenzy and the multi-millions. Even guys like Michael Jordan, Joe Montana, Lawrence Taylor, Wayne Gretzky are part of that group.

For me as a kid, the initial allure of Tyson was cut and dried: It was awesome seeing a short(er) manchild chopping down grown men who almost always stood 4-6 inches taller (not so important) and held exceptional reach advanatages (more significant) just about every time out. In some of those fights, he looks like a midget troll - but the power and hand speed - especially the speed and comhinations for a heavyweight are all too tempting to get sucked into. All the KOs and black trunks no robe, marketing techniques by Jacobs/Cayton is just extra fodder. At the core was a phenomenal fighter who unfortunately rather quicky (at least in real time, not number of fights) devolved into a crude headhunter.

[Barn]

Plenty fair. Actually a favorable opinion if anything.

To the chagrin of a few, Tyson probably wont be a topic that ever truly dies out. While he's probably become doubly famous (or infamous) post-Bite Fight, people know him and the avenue to his legitimate boxing ability and credentials are right there to be discovered. The marketplace is saturated with memorabilia, documentaries, highlight videos, etc. He has the advantage of every fight being available, in color and free to view. He's a product of the excessive 1980s. I dont mean that in a bad way, but it was definitely the cultivation of media frenzy and the multi-millions. Even guys like Michael Jordan, Joe Montana, Lawrence Taylor, Wayne Gretzky are part of that group.

For me as a kid, the initial allure of Tyson was cut and dried: It was awesome seeing a short(er) manchild chopping down grown men who almost always stood 4-6 inches taller (not so important) and held exceptional reach advanatages (more significant) just about every time out. In some of those fights, he looks like a midget troll - but the power and hand speed - especially the speed and comhinations for a heavyweight are all too tempting to get sucked into. All the KOs and black trunks no robe, marketing techniques by Jacobs/Cayton is just extra fodder. At the core was a phenomenal fighter who unfortunately rather quicky (at least in real time, not number of fights) devolved into a crude headhunter.

Poor Larry Sims getting no love around here.