Prince Naseem: hall of fame!

[Dirk Diggler UK]

What's your top 10? Out of curiosity.

I dunno actually, I dont really make lists but Tyson wouldnt be in it. Ali, Louis, Johnson, Dempsey, Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Marciano are 10 off the top of my head that would be ahead of him

[RubenSonny]

I dunno actually, I dont really make lists but Tyson wouldnt be in it. Ali, Louis, Johnson, Dempsey, Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Marciano are 10 off the top of my head that would be ahead of him

Those are all names that can be justified as better but there is a case for him to be the top 10 though I personally wouldn't put him in either, but I think he can be described as one of the greatest heavyweights ever for sure he is atleast top 20.

[IronDanHamza]

I dunno actually, I dont really make lists but Tyson wouldnt be in it. Ali, Louis, Johnson, Dempsey, Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Marciano are 10 off the top of my head that would be ahead of him

Carlos is not going to like that lol.

That's fair really. Personally I consider Tyson a top 10 HW, I usually vary him between #7-#10.

Although it's rare he isn't considered Top 10 on a list I understand the reasoning behind why someone may not consider one.

In response to your comment on Tyson though doesn't that paralell Marciano's resume?

Tyson lacked longevity which hurts him but didn't Fraizer also?

I'm not knocking your choices or anything there's a legit reasoning for pretty much any of them I'm just thinking if that's why you consider Tyson not to be what about those guys too?

[CarlosG815]

Carlos is not going to like that lol.

That's fair really. Personally I consider Tyson a top 10 HW, I usually vary him between #7-#10.

Although it's rare he isn't considered Top 10 on a list I understand the reasoning behind why someone may not consider one.

In response to your comment on Tyson though doesn't that paralell Marciano's resume?

Tyson lacked longevity which hurts him but didn't Fraizer also?

I'm not knocking your choices or anything there's a legit reasoning for pretty much any of them I'm just thinking if that's why you consider Tyson not to be what about those guys too?

Just as I thought Dirks list is a laughable joke and for him to purposely go out of his way to leave Tyson out just to make a point is more laughable.

Stick to not making lists because you can't.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Just as I thought Dirks list is a laughable joke and for him to purposely go out of his way to leave Tyson out just to make a point is more laughable.

Stick to not making lists because you can't.

I didnt make a list....lol. I just said 10 names off the top of my head that would be above Tyson. If I really thought about it, I could probably go for 15+

[UmarImranKhalil]

CarlosG815.


Wait.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same guy who said he 'wasn't impressed by Ali's abilities' or something?

[Dave Rado]

Tyson is regarded as one of the greatest of all time, and a top 10 ATG heavyweight.

By fans maybe. But certainly not by boxing historians. They mostly rate him as an almost great, but not quite an actual great, and they mostly rank him just outside the top 10. See here and here for example (Cliff Rold, who ranks him 13).

The International Boxing Research Organisation also ranks him at 13 - see here - and their rankings are a concensus list from around 30 of the world's most respected boxing historians.

He just makes Monte Cox's top 10 but only just.

Bert Sugar ranks him at 14 or 15 - see here.

So despite your scathing attitude to his posts, Dirk Diggler is much more in line with the leading boxing historians than you are.

[CarlosG815]

I didnt make a list....lol. I just said 10 names off the top of my head that would be above Tyson. If I really thought about it, I could probably go for 15+

Of course you could, because you wouldn't know greatness if it was staring you in the face. The fact that you believe Hamed to be greater than Tyson is proof of this, so what you've said above is not surprising at all to me.

[RubenSonny]

By fans maybe. By certainly not by boxing historians. They mostly rate him as an almost great, but not quite an actual great, and they mostly rank him just outside the top 10. See here and here for example (Cliff Rold, who ranks him 13).

The International Boxing Research Organisation also ranks him at 13 - see here - and their rankings are a concensus list from around 30 of the world's most respected boxing historians.

He just makes Monte Cox's top 10 but only just.

Not being in the top 10 doesn't stop you from being a great.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Of course you could, because you wouldn't know greatness if it was staring you in the face. The fact that you believe Hamed to be greater than Tyson is proof of this, so what you've said above is not surprising at all to me.

I dont think Ive ever said either was greater. I said there was nothing Tyson did at HW that Naz didnt do at FW. I think their prime careers were quite similar.

You have not said why Tyson is so great, you've just.....said hes great....over and over.