Originally posted by Own3d
View Post
The arguments people make for or against fighters are almost always the same.
"Wlad has never fought someone as good as Tyson"
Well the exact same thing can be said about Tyson (and nearly every other ATG HW)
"Wlad lost to bums, and Tyson could beat those bums easily"
How many ATG heavyweights can you name that lost to bums at some point in their career? Regardless if it was pre-prime or post-prime. I bet you can name QUITE a few if you know your boxing history. Let's be real though, does anyone honestly think that the Wlad of today would lose to Ross Purrity? Does anyone think that prime Tyson would have lose to McBride? These arguments are useless.
"Tyson has the tools to beat Wlad"
Again, the exact same case can be made the opposite way.
I'm all for fantasy analysis, it is good discussion. I just think that people ignore the shortcomings of the fighter they would want to win, or that they ignore the advantages that the other opponent represents. People are making cases for why one fighter loses to another, when in fact, the same case applies to not only both fighters... but most fighters in the history of the sport.
Comment