Modern ATG's will never be accepted

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

so that hurts you? im sooo sorry

No, it's because trying to straiten twisted views is fun. The argument aspect of this forum is fun or we all wouldn't be here. Well, at least it wouldn't be as fun. Just try not to take it all so personal guys.

[Hawkins]

No, it's because trying to straiten twisted views is fun. The argument aspect of this forum is fun or we all wouldn't be here. Well, at least it wouldn't be as fun. Just try not to take it all so personal guys.

Dude, if I ever took this forum personal I'd quit posting.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

And whose truth would that be? By your statements you're basically saying your viewpoint is the truth regarding the matter and all the others are baseless. Sure sounds like what you mean.

Yeah, for the most part. Especially when people say things like "Tyson was in his prime at a certain age because that's the age your supposed to be in your prime". LOL

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

Dude, if I ever took this forum personal I'd quit posting.

I wouldn't, I would just start cussing. LOL

[HeartAttack]

Its easy to claim bias if someone differs in opinion than yourself, and that is exactly what has been portrayed in this entire thread. Especially by the thread creator and RossCa. Who find it easy to play devil's advocate and write things off as bias. However, I am a believer in their concept. I do believe some past fighters get too much credit against some more "modern" fighters due to nostalgia. It though isn't always the case. Some of our fighters get too much hype as well and it would take an older great to put them into proper perception. I frequently watch tapes of older fighters to trully get an accurate portrayal of their talents and fighting styles. The level of talent realistically isn't all that different. Some were more techinical, some more powerful in all eras. Training is more of a "science" today and fighting was more of a "science" in yesteryear. After all my reviews (and there is a lot more for me to do) the one absolute is this. Some of today's fighters are better fighters, but some of yesteryear's fighters are greater fighters; there is a difference.

[them_apples]

so far we have argued about who has the most bias.

[HeartAttack]

so far we have argued about who has the most bias.

Thats where you directed the thread to head. In some of your rhetoric, it seems to be all you care about. the supposed topic at hand isn't even in the backseat, it's out of site of the rearview. That doesn't mean it hasn't created interesting banter, but don't pretend this wasn't your agenda.

[Hawkins]

Its easy to claim bias if someone differs in opinion than yourself, and that is exactly what has been portrayed in this entire thread. Especially by the thread creator and RossCa. Who find it easy to play devil's advocate and write things off as bias. However, I am a believer in their concept. I do believe some past fighters get too much credit against some more "modern" fighters due to nostalgia. It though isn't always the case. Some of our fighters get too much hype as well and it would take an older great to put them into proper perception. I frequently watch tapes of older fighters to trully get an accurate portrayal of their talents and fighting styles. The level of talent realistically isn't all that different. Some were more techinical, some more powerful in all eras. Training is more of a "science" today and fighting was more of a "science" in yesteryear. After all my reviews (and there is a lot more for me to do) the one absolute is this. Some of today's fighters are better fighters, but some of yesteryear's fighters are greater fighters; there is a difference.

A differing opinion doesn't necessarily make for biasness. I think biasness is nothing more than an unreasonably viewpoint to the level that you can't, or won't, see anything else. I think that is the case in this instance. I mean when some users bring Mike Tyson up in just about every thread, regardless of what the subject is, thats the way it looks.

[Jim Jeffries]

I never degraded Marciano, I just put things into perspective.

I guess when you called Marciano a bum, that wasn't degrading, right?

[them_apples]

I guess when you called Marciano a bum, that wasn't degrading, right?

That was me, I was exaggerating because of how ridiculous the thread was. Obviously he wasn't a bum, but he was far from 'great' and the competition he was being pitted against was absurd.