Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Towney007, post: 2957243, member: 5832"] Yeah well here you and I can agree on a lot. My not so bad hot take is if Ken Norton fights in any other era, he's Heavyweight Champion. He got screwed against Ali for sure - but plenty of other fights. Just wasn't the PR machine those guys were. But he's arguably a more complete fighter than all three. I think the only way you can do this is relative to their time periods. You just can't seriously make a case Jack Dempsey could do anything against Evander Holyfield. Or that Jim Corbett would last more than 2 minutes with Sonny Liston. Different physicality, strength, speed, nutrition, etc. I do however - think you can compare dominance relative to their competition in their area. One of my less productive, but some of my more fun thoughts are taking a particular 'great fighter' out of that era and try to project out the landscape. I'm also into both 'peaks' and 'sustained success' - because I think they're both important. Fighting is weird and so much can happen. Styles make fights, too - so like... while I think say a Tyson would murder an Ali, I think George Foreman would kill him dead. It's not that Tyson is greater than Ali or that Foreman is better than Tyson. IT's just how they'd match up is all. It's the same thing in MMA. Jose Aldo *objectively* was a better, more well rounded fighter than Conor McGregor. Absolutely superior ground game, battle tested, big chin, and just as good a hand speed as Conor. There are about 6 ways Aldo could have won their fight to Conor's one. But Conor's rangey which Aldo struggled with and at least at that weight class - his power is just on a different level. Is Aldo a better, more talented and skilled fighter? Yep. But Conor knocked him out in 13 seconds. That's kind of why when you asked me about Tyson - he'd be my 'peak' guy (I think, Louis is right there). I don't think anyone boxed better for a period of time than Tyson did when he was on top in the mid-late 80s. He was physically and technically doing things at a level I never saw before and honestly haven't really seen since. I also believe you just can't compare Tyson's resume to say - Ali and Louis. Because they're not comparable. Louis and Ali beat better competition over a longer, more sustained period of time. I still think one or both at *their absolute best* lose to Tyson at his *absolute best* I'm a huge MMA and boxing fan and these GOAT discussions are a lot of fun - i never tire of them, but they're also just really fungible. You can't just make a list and be done with it. I don't think you can put 'peak performance' ahead of 'sustained success' or vice versa. They're both wildly important and have to be part of the discussion. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach