Dont be silly , isnt greatest albums decided by sales ?
Is Frank Bruno Tyson's best win ? The guy lost like 15 fights ! Sheesh .
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
Reb wrote:
Dont be silly , isnt greatest albums decided by sales ?
Is Frank Bruno Tyson's best win ? The guy lost like 15 fights ! Sheesh .
The most popular albums are decided by sales.....I do not think the most clicks of the cash register is the best criteria for "greatness"
I was being ironic with my Frank Bruno nomination.
eciruam wrote:
Reb wrote:
Dont be silly , isnt greatest albums decided by sales ?
Is Frank Bruno Tyson's best win ? The guy lost like 15 fights ! Sheesh .
The most popular albums are decided by sales.....I do not think the most clicks of the cash register is the best criteria for "greatness"
I was being ironic with my Frank Bruno nomination.
Are you talking popular or great?
Sales do decide popular
Quite a few people here have lost all credibility. There isn't much to discuss. Tyson was heavy weight champion of the world and united three belts, but supposedly he didn't have any skills and got by on intimidation. Knocking someone out apparently doesn't require skill and is a form of intimidation.
He didnt beat a single great fighter in their prime , not one ! Why is this so hard for you to understand ? If you dont agree , fine then name some he beat ? ! Didnt you see how low he was ranked above , by people who know ?
So because he didn't beat anyone in their prime, that means he was no good and had no skills.
I never said that , I just said he was not a GREAT CHAMPION and he wasnt .
Reb wrote:
ya gotta think outside of the box man
Dont be silly , isnt greatest albums decided by sales ?
Is Frank Bruno Tyson's best win ? The guy lost like 15 fights ! Sheesh .
Justs99171 wrote:
So because he didn't beat anyone in their prime, that means he was no good and had no skills.
Tyson was a good fighter, and he was the champ. But that is also what some of us are trying to say. Tyson was a "good" fighter in an era of not 1 single dominant heavyweight. Tyson was the best of an average group of heavyweights.
Obviously Tyson had some skills. Intimidation, punching power, and obviously he had boxing skills. But so did Tommy Morrison, Pinklon Thomas, Marvis Frasier, etc.
Do the research...Tyson is not one of the top greatest fighters of all time. Sure he was exciting to watch, but that doesnt make him great, neither does dominating a group of average fighters. That isnt Tysons fault, its just the era he boxed in.
As soon as he ran into Holyfield - the one boxer that was not intimidated by him, we saw the real Tyson.
Mar 25, 2015
0
#751
Thing is, Tyson didn't just beat Larry Holmes or Michael Spinks, he ended their careers!* To say they were past their prime is to pretend for a moment that had nothing to do with Tyson himself.
I'm not saying Tyson's an all-time great boxer. But he was an all-time great hitter!
___________
*Yes, Holmes did unretire three years later. The only time he was knocked out was in the 4th round against Tyson.
Tyson was very obviously an all time great, that's beside the point. I quoted Tyson and instead of trying to understand the quote and how it related to competition in general, some people tried to undermine Tyson.
World champs tend to make their contemporaries look mediocre...
Go watch Tyson's fights against Razor Ruddock and tell me he only won because of intimidation.
Ali had trouble against smaller fighters. Tyson fits the bill, he is only 5' 10''. He was more of a swarmer then Frazer.
The Tyson quote about everyone having a plan until they get punched in the face is often atributed, even by Tyson himself, to his trainer Cus D'Amato, which is probably right.
By the way does this make Kramnik Klitschko? For a few years, they were both extremly unpopulor world champians.
Mar 25, 2015
0
#756
I've no clue who Kramnik was unpopular with. Just about every chess professional sided with Kramnik over Topalov. When Anand played Topalov, almost every elite player, including Kramnik, helped Anand to prepare.
I never heard Kramnik was unpopular, except perhaps among certain Bulgarians.
Casual fans who insist he is boring.
If Kramnik is boring then so is Carlsen.
"I never heard Kramnik was unpopular"
Kramnik played many very short draws during his years as World Champion, which earned him the nickname Drawnik. In one Linares I think his games were on average 23 moves long, and in the Dortmund tournaments 2003-05 he had a sequence of 17 straight draws in classical games, most in 15-25 moves. This combined with his being given a title match without qualifying for it made him less popular than many of his predecessors, who scored better results as World Champions.
fabelhaft wrote:
"I never heard Kramnik was unpopular"
Kramnik played many very short draws during his years as World Champion, which earned him the nickname Drawnik. In one Linares I think his games were on average 23 moves long, and in the Dortmund tournaments 2003-05 he had a sequence of 17 straight draws in classical games, most in 15-25 moves. This combined with his being given a title match without qualifying for it made him less popular than many of his predecessors, who scored better results as World Champions.
when studying chess its till are Kramnik's games that stand out for their educational value
What great champion did Tyson ever defeat while they were in their prime ?
That's a ridiculous question. Tyson's opponents had the greatest combined win loss record of any boxer ever. That's a fact. You can go find it. The people Tyson demolished were not considered great only because he demolished them. Another thing some people don't like to admit, boxing advanced and was a better sport in the 80s and 90s.
We as chess players tend to think that Fischer had strong opposition, which he dominated, because he played in a competitive era where the world chess championship throne was like musical chairs. In a short span, Tal, Botvinnik, Petrosian, and Spassky were all champion. Kasparov had much stronger competition but people point to how many world chess champions that Fischer dominated. Kasparov's contemporaries were not world chess champions simply because of Kasparov. Karpov, Kramnik, and Anand were all far greater players than Fischer ever competed with.
It's the same with Jordan. Jordan actually faced the best competition in NBA history. There was no Lakers/Celtics type of rivalry because That Bulls team was that much more dominant. Some of the teams that he vanquished were better than most past NBA champions. Some of the players from that era that retired with no rings were actually far better than past players that did.
I think youre mistaking what some are saying about Tyson. I enjoyed his fights, but he got by on intimidation, and knockouts.
A 1998 ranking of "The Greatest Heavyweights of All-Time" by Ring magazine placed Tyson at No.14 on the list. Despite criticism of facing underwhelming competition during his unbeaten run as champion, Tyson's knockout power and intimidation factor made him the sport's most dynamic box office attraction.
In Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years, released in 2002, Tyson was ranked at No. 72. He is ranked No. 16 on Ring Magazine's 2003 list of 100 greatest punchers of all time.
Need more be said ? Not even in the top 10 of the best heavyweights . I rest my case .
lol "I rest my case"... do you decide what the greatest albums of all time must be by consulting rolling stone magazine too?
"lol" and deflection in no way prove anything, but i will go with what an established boxing magazine has to say.