Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpeck100
I always find it odd at how quickly people can say someone from the 30's was better than someone from the 70's or 80's etc. If you just look at images of athletes that span this time frame you rarely see athletes with physical attributes that compare to more modern day athletes. Whether that is from dietary changes, more vigorous exercise routines, enhanced training regimens, performance enhancing drugs, better lifestyle choices or just human evolution it is what it is.
It is hard for me to conceptually agree that even though they were participating in the same sport it is the same. While Tyson's entire career may leave him coming up short for the top five or top ten, I just don't see how he doesn't garner more respect in the discussion from his time in his prime.
|
I usually try to look at these all-time great discussions in the context of what the competition was like in that era and the level of dominance. The mid to late 1980s was one of the weakest eras ever for heavyweights. So many of the top fighters from that era either lacked heart, were perpetually out of shape or had drug problems.
But the reason Tyson does not get respect when compared to the all-time great heavyweights is because his resume is so thin when compared to the top heavyweights of all-time. Tyson was absolutely breathtaking to watch and a phenomenon in the 1980s, but he lost convincingly when matched against guys who were not intimidated.
One of the other reasons Tyson does not get much respect in the all-time rankings is that he was so weak mentally and folded up his tent when he could not simply intimidate an opponent into quitting before a fight even began.