The rematch vs Holyfield shouldn't be considered a loss, since Mike had a good fight and Holyfield didn't beat him.
LOL!
Geez, I think I've about seen it all from you Tyson apologists and no, besides a brief moment in the third round I wouldn't say Tyson "had a good fight", consdering he lost the first two rounds to Holyfield on my card.
Mike Tyson could never be the best. He could have been the best of his era, had he not ruined it for himself, but he wasn't talented enough to have been the best ever. Still though, he was a great but flawed fighter (almost like a guy who can one night beat a guy into a coma and the next night could get beaten into one himself by a lesser opponent). Tyson's ferocity and aggression and intimidation were an integral part of his fights. He lost that in 1990. He never regained it, and never will.
Mike Tyson could never be the best. He could have been the best of his era, had he not ruined it for himself, but he wasn't talented enough to have been the best ever. Still though, he was a great but flawed fighter (almost like a guy who can one night beat a guy into a coma and the next night could get beaten into one himself by a lesser opponent). Tyson's ferocity and aggression and intimidation were an integral part of his fights. He lost that in 1990. He never regained it, and never will.
errrm.. So basically, your saying that if Tyson hadn't been mentally ****tarded he would definitely have been the unanimous and undeniable greatest of all time? Better than Ali?
Oh another thing I'd like to point out is that it's absolutely spasticated to penalise Tyson for losing to Williams and Mcbride. That's bull, because they were younger, and Tyson was basically about 40% of the fighter he was in '88.
errrm.. So basically, your saying that if Tyson hadn't been mentally ****tarded he would definitely have been the unanimous and undeniable greatest of all time?
no.
his era wasnt the greatest in HW history. ali's was.
i dont really need to say who the greatest is, now do i?
Comment