How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnared
He was what he was. You can focus on what you think is the most relevant when considering 'greatness'. I do.[/quote]
You must be the way you are talking about Tyson.
Printable View
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnared
He was what he was. You can focus on what you think is the most relevant when considering 'greatness'. I do.[/quote]
You must be the way you are talking about Tyson.
Within the wider importance of his contribution to social history, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by thestooge
But I think it's worthy of discussion. It's not so much his *** life as his wider treatment of women, especially women close to him. That was, at least in part, a manifestation of his faith and the role of women within that context. I'd say that's a talking point but I'm an increasing confrontational atheist so I've my own agenda there. [/quote]
You have to remember though stooge that the time he was living in there was a lot of people with the same views,women were seen as 2nd class citizens by a lot of men.
I'm not saying that it was right but it's kind of like saying that a comedian from the 1970s would not be accepted today as much as saying Ali wouldn't be.
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by rico94
He was what he was. You can focus on what you think is the most relevant when considering 'greatness'. I do.[/quote]
You must be the way you are talking about Tyson.[/quote]
I'm not quite sure what you mean but I'll take a stab at it...
Tyson is a despicable chunt, a truly horrible human being? If so I couldn't agree more.
@thestooge
That's what I assumed you'd say. You are of course completely correct. It's at best slightly ironic and at worst phukin tragic.
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnared
He was what he was. You can focus on what you think is the most relevant when considering 'greatness'. I do.[/quote]
You must be the way you are talking about Tyson.[/quote]
I'm not quite sure what you mean but I'll take a stab at it...
Tyson is a despicable chunt, a truly horrible human being? If so I couldn't agree more.
@thestooge
That's what I assumed you'd say. You are of course completely correct. It's at best slightly ironic and at worst phukin tragic.[/quote]
Well you seem to be focusing on things non boxing with Ali but just focusing on Tyson boxing wise when he done a hell of lot worse to any woman than Ali ever done.
Within the wider importance of his contribution to social history, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by rico94
But I think it's worthy of discussion. It's not so much his *** life as his wider treatment of women, especially women close to him. That was, at least in part, a manifestation of his faith and the role of women within that context. I'd say that's a talking point but I'm an increasing confrontational atheist so I've my own agenda there. [/quote]
You have to remember though stooge that the time he was living in there was a lot of people with the same views,women were seen as 2nd class citizens by a lot of men.
I'm not saying that it was right but it's kind of like saying that a comedian from the 1970s would not be accepted today as much as saying Ali wouldn't be.[/quote]
Totally agree there is a wider context
IMO Ali is the greatest heavyweight boxer because of the calibre of heavyweights in the period he fought as well as what he did against Foreman in Zaire and Frazier in Manila(just my opinion I don't mind if anyone disagrees that he isn't).
As far as his religious beliefs and treatment towards women goes,he certainly wasn't the greatest.He was far from perfect and had many flaws but who doesn't.
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by rico94
He was what he was. You can focus on what you think is the most relevant when considering 'greatness'. I do.[/quote]
You must be the way you are talking about Tyson.[/quote]
I'm not quite sure what you mean but I'll take a stab at it...
Tyson is a despicable chunt, a truly horrible human being? If so I couldn't agree more.
@thestooge
That's what I assumed you'd say. You are of course completely correct. It's at best slightly ironic and at worst phukin tragic.[/quote]
Well you seem to be focusing on things non boxing with Ali but just focusing on Tyson boxing wise when he done a hell of lot worse to any woman than Ali ever done.[
Well if you want to talk about boxings greatest then even discussing Tyson in the same breath as Ali just goes to show you how much you know about boxing I'm afraid.Its not all about being able to knock your opponent out with a punch to the head like iron Mike found out when he came up against boxers in their prime.
I will give you the fact that Tyson was impressive in his early days but he would never had got the chance to do that in Ali's era against Ali or the rest of the great heavyweights of that time.
If you said that Rocky Marciano for example was better than Ali like pacman did then I wouldn't have had a problem with that.
In my opinion, and your right I know phuk all about boxing, it's about beating the chunt your in a ring with end of phukin story. My opinion is Tyson in his prime would have phukin done Ali with 1 combo.Quote:
Originally Posted by rico94
How you think you are a more qualified person to give an opinion on an imaginary fight between
So you ARE saying that 20 years before Tyson, human beings were much stronger. [/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnared
Nope didnt say that at all.
Im saying ali's opponents were better than Tysons.
Most in the boxing world would agree too.
Ask them
:D