It's a tricky thing... but my old man was banging on about Tyson the other day, and as much as I like Iron Mike as a fighter, I argued that Ali fought the better men overall...
I don't want to restrict this discussion to just those two men, but my question is: Where is the equivalent on Tysons record to the '71 Frazier, the '73 Norton and the '74 Foreman?
Comparing two boxer's opposition...
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Re: Comparing two boxer's opposition...
It goes deeper than the star names, too. Ali's general competition across the board was much, much better. There is just literally no comparison. Between Holyfield & McBride (97-05, a period of nearly ten years!), Tyson stopped fighting anyone with a pulse, the lone exception being Lewis. That right there is a hammerblow against him, looking at Ali's competition in his last seven or eight years in the ring. Even at the height of it all, Tyson's competition was pretty damn poor --- & that was before he stopped caring, stopped chasing challenges.MatthewS wrote:It's a tricky thing... but my old man was banging on about Tyson the other day, and as much as I like Iron Mike as a fighter, I argued that Ali fought the better men overall...
I don't want to restrict this discussion to just those two men, but my question is: Where is the equivalent on Tysons record to the '71 Frazier, the '73 Norton and the '74 Foreman?
I wonder if perhaps your father is new to Boxing, or perhaps not very-well versed in one or the others' competition...? There is just no way to defend that stance.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Re: Comparing two boxer's opposition...
As for the greater topic, I can only speak for myself, here --- but I try to weigh it all up (even with short careers, it's a big process) with the following criteria...
1. Where Fighter A was in his career.
2. Where Fighter B was.
3. Where the opposition were.
Before anyone rightly replies, "Well, duh," you'd be amazed how many arguments are sustained because one or two people simply aren't doing enough of this. A lot of people are looking at the big names, & a few beyond that, & sketching in no further detail about opponents faced, & where they were in their careers when they met one of the fighters being discussed.
Putting all this together, it gets complicated & subjective in the extreme. One case where you should have a slam-dunk to anyone sensical, though, is that Ali's achievements & competition mop the floor with Tyson's. Hell, one of Tyson's most trumpeted accomplishments --- being the youngest champion in division history --- is a falsehood. The distinction still belongs to Patterson. Tyson is just the youngest titleist.
1. Where Fighter A was in his career.
2. Where Fighter B was.
3. Where the opposition were.
Before anyone rightly replies, "Well, duh," you'd be amazed how many arguments are sustained because one or two people simply aren't doing enough of this. A lot of people are looking at the big names, & a few beyond that, & sketching in no further detail about opponents faced, & where they were in their careers when they met one of the fighters being discussed.
Putting all this together, it gets complicated & subjective in the extreme. One case where you should have a slam-dunk to anyone sensical, though, is that Ali's achievements & competition mop the floor with Tyson's. Hell, one of Tyson's most trumpeted accomplishments --- being the youngest champion in division history --- is a falsehood. The distinction still belongs to Patterson. Tyson is just the youngest titleist.