If you are a lineal guy then Tyson beating Holyfield wouldn't have mattered because Holyfield wasn't the lineal champion at the time (George Foreman still was)
Interesting how everyone has said Foreman. Not the results I expected
That’s why it’s the history section so it’s not going to reflect more thought out opinions. Tyson had 9 title defenses ,and undisputed champion. Foreman had three I think and against unranked guys like Crawford Grimsley , in his first career he had 2 title defenses . When ranking these guys you aren’t going to get honest answers because then it would be Mike Tyson ranking higher .
That’s why it’s the history section so it’s not going to reflect more thought out opinions. Tyson had 9 title defenses ,and undisputed champion. Foreman had three I think and against unranked guys like Crawford Grimsley , in his first career he had 2 title defenses . When ranking these guys you aren’t going to get honest answers because then it would be Mike Tyson ranking higher .
Why would you call other posters' opinions 'dishonest'? -- Do you believe they all, in secret, know you're right but go ahead and lie anyway?
Or is it that your opinion is so universally accepted that it's a 'given' and anyone who speaks against it must be a liar?
Lefty likes to call me a 'half-wit' -- but he doesn't think I know the 'truth' and that I am lying, no he thinks I am actually ******. That I can wrap my head around, that I can understand.
But calling another man's opinion dishonest, it really doesn't make much sense (unless you're omnipotent.)
Why would you call other posters' opinions 'dishonest'? -- Do you believe they all, in secret, know you're right but go ahead and lie anyway?
Or is it that your opinion is so universally accepted that it's a 'given' and anyone who speaks against it must be a liar?
Lefty likes to call me a 'half-wit' -- but he doesn't think I know the 'truth' and that I am lying, no he thinks I am actually ******. That I can wrap my head around, that I can understand.
But calling another man's opinion dishonest, it really doesn't make much sense (unless you're omnipotent.)
If someone is claiming Foreman is ranked higher based on a few title defenses vs a Tyson with multiple ones , undisputed is also probably the biggest thing for anyone’s era ,seven more title defenses to be exact if we are going or using legit opponents and against better fighters for Tyson , are they telling the truth going with Foreman ? If they are , they can’t know as much about boxing because there’s no way anyone honest can do that .
What merits Foreman to be ranked over Mike Tyson , can you really give an honest answer that warrant a higher ranking , please don’t say because he arguably hit harder . Ha
Your own assessment was to take away from Tyson as if he’s not as good because he lost the belts but who did Foreman fight when he lost ? He lost to Jimmy young , he fought guys like Grimesley and lost to Morrison then got a title shot . You’re not being honest , no way . I don’t even think he defeated Axel Shultz that one time if we’re going on take aways instead of accomplishments to decide ranking higher .
Comment