Tweet
I am simply of the belief that he had as good a chance as any, regardless of the naysayers. It's not based on mystique, simply upon careful observation. The Ali mystique is far larger than Tyson's, as Tyson's tends to go from one end of the spectrum to the other. While I know that you are a crazy hugger of Ali's era, like butterfly with better information, I'm not going to hold the "mystique" factor against you. Rather, I will continue to discuss whatever topic tickles my fancy for the time being, and while that topic was pretty much a dead one for me as of last week, it did happen to show it's face again. Just because a few people have made up their minds about it, doesn't mean that it isn't worth discussing. A few minds set in stone doesn't make the situation set in stone.
I always find it interesting as well, how people on this site will ignore the in-depth posts full of detail and research, education opinions and facts, to take one line from a post, make a shabby attempt to tear it apart (usually resulting in the blatant insults of the poster), and then consider it acceptable as a counterpoint. What's more is the 2-3 people who will follow that post with things like, "..Good post..." ignoring what has been said in oversighted fashion simply because they don't like to read.
I have attempted, whenever attacked, to return to the main thread topic for the sake of keeping it in it's place, but some feel the need to attack the character of the poster and not the information presented. I have made it obvious on various threads, that while you (SABBATH) are a gigantic hater of Mike Tyson (and therefore, guys like mystikal, Yaman, etc.), you rarely post anything intelligent in my direction and accuse me of being a fanboy of the same calibur. Seeing as how I don't have a favorite era, or really a favorite fighter, I am viewing his career more openly than most. This will be a continuing trend as this generation dies out and the die-hards of the 60's and 70's finally realize that just because television finally became a staple in every household (pre-pay-per-view) during this time, doesn't mean that it was the best or deepest era.
There were a lot of great fighters with similar abilities, and exaggerated styles trading punches, which made for some very entertaining clashes. It was also the first time that boxing, which used to be the prize of the sporting world, could be viewed by everyone around the world with more ready accessibility. It's easy for anyone to see that this creates a lot of buzz, a lot of hype, and a lot of expectations. As time would have it, however, the fighters became more defensive, more counterpunch savvy, and the trademark styles started to slip out of the scene. This gave off the illusion that the fighters weren't as talented as the ones from the 70's, which is complete hogwash to the trained eye.
Maybe I'm the only one on this site that feels this way, but that doesn't make me incorrect. I refuse to base my inclination on personal preferences, but rather, on the observable. One has to challenge the ways of society and what is viewed as the norm, or else we just become apart of the repetitious fold. This goes beyond the accepted opinons of boxing, into many things that are often taught in a presupposed fashion.
I am probably wasting my efforts here, as usual, since this post is likely too long for anyone to read all the way through.
I always find it interesting as well, how people on this site will ignore the in-depth posts full of detail and research, education opinions and facts, to take one line from a post, make a shabby attempt to tear it apart (usually resulting in the blatant insults of the poster), and then consider it acceptable as a counterpoint. What's more is the 2-3 people who will follow that post with things like, "..Good post..." ignoring what has been said in oversighted fashion simply because they don't like to read.
I have attempted, whenever attacked, to return to the main thread topic for the sake of keeping it in it's place, but some feel the need to attack the character of the poster and not the information presented. I have made it obvious on various threads, that while you (SABBATH) are a gigantic hater of Mike Tyson (and therefore, guys like mystikal, Yaman, etc.), you rarely post anything intelligent in my direction and accuse me of being a fanboy of the same calibur. Seeing as how I don't have a favorite era, or really a favorite fighter, I am viewing his career more openly than most. This will be a continuing trend as this generation dies out and the die-hards of the 60's and 70's finally realize that just because television finally became a staple in every household (pre-pay-per-view) during this time, doesn't mean that it was the best or deepest era.
There were a lot of great fighters with similar abilities, and exaggerated styles trading punches, which made for some very entertaining clashes. It was also the first time that boxing, which used to be the prize of the sporting world, could be viewed by everyone around the world with more ready accessibility. It's easy for anyone to see that this creates a lot of buzz, a lot of hype, and a lot of expectations. As time would have it, however, the fighters became more defensive, more counterpunch savvy, and the trademark styles started to slip out of the scene. This gave off the illusion that the fighters weren't as talented as the ones from the 70's, which is complete hogwash to the trained eye.
Maybe I'm the only one on this site that feels this way, but that doesn't make me incorrect. I refuse to base my inclination on personal preferences, but rather, on the observable. One has to challenge the ways of society and what is viewed as the norm, or else we just become apart of the repetitious fold. This goes beyond the accepted opinons of boxing, into many things that are often taught in a presupposed fashion.
I am probably wasting my efforts here, as usual, since this post is likely too long for anyone to read all the way through.
and this is with some power 
Comment