Iron MikeyJ

Despite the fact that I started this thread, I am NEARLY pulled back in by Wandavision, lol. While I don't think the show itself is amazing (Mandalorian was better), it's providing a glimpse into where the MCU might be heading.

Based on what we've seen so far (and what I've heard on the rumors mill), this multiverse idea is FANTASTIC. We don't need to reboot the x-men (even though many of the films are flawed, they have some GREAT moments). Just cherry pick characters from the x-men movies, and incorporate them into the MCU. Make the x-men films, tobey maguire spiderman and Garfield Spiderman films cannon. It's THE best way to incorporate the x-men imo (with the spiderman being a happy bonus). Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine. Sure they could try and recast, but it'll be a hard act to follow. 

If they bring in Quicksilver, Deadpool, Magneto (probably Fassbender), Prof X (Mcavoy) and cherry pick a few others... That's perfect. You don't even "need" to use Hugh Jackman all that often, use him for cameos and the BIG crossover films. Wolverine has ALWAYS been my favorite Marvel character, so him the MCU will keep me invested. Having said that, we don't need to have solo films, if they make the Fox films cannon. It would also explain why the x-men time line is so messy, different universe. Same for the Spiderman films. Tobey maguire will ALWAYS be my favorite spiderman. Not because I don't like Tom Holland (because I do), but because Spiderman 1 and 2 are STILL the best spiderman movies. 

Having said all of that, they SHOULD reboot Fantastic Four, which they are. Give me the X-men films and Maguire Spiderman films as official MCU cannon, and I'm a HAPPY Marvel fan. 

44 minutes ago, downzy said:

I agree with most of your post except this.

First, she played a supporting character that wasn’t in every episode. The overarching narrative arc of the first two season had been resolved. The notion that such a move resulted in major upheaval that couldn’t be overcome is nuts. If they could get past Carrie Fisher dying, they can move past this.

Second, how is it not fostering a hostile work environment by keeping her on?  You honestly think her co-workers, who are most likely liberals, wanted to work with a raging idiot who brought attention to their work for all the wrong reasons?  Remember, this wasn’t the first time she had been called out for broadcasting some rather wretched opinions and attitudes.

Third, why are you convinced that this was solely the call of Disney executives?  Jon Favreau is half Jewish. You don’t think it’s possible Jon and other executive producers weren’t too thrilled to keep working with someone who would use a horrible moment in human history to make an ignorant and wrong argument?  

To me, it's like when James Gunn got fired from Guardians 2 (although I think Dave Batista got him back). Or even what's going on with Johnny Depp. Do we have to agree with people politically, personally, or whatever to enjoy their work? 

I have heard that Dave and Jon went to bat for her, and we're UPSET when they heard the news. Obviously it only rumors, but these Star Wars rumors tend to be pretty accurate, from what I've heard so far. 

Overall I agree that Star Wars and the Mandalorian can survive this issue, it's just a dangerous presidence that's being set. In Star Wars context anyways.

For the record, if I made movies or was in the public spotlight, if I had the ability (higher in command, like a Kevin Feigie), I would have a STRICT no social media clause in the contracts. I would say "I don't care what your political or religious views are, if you want to work here, then we have a ZERO tolerance policy." This would solve a LOT of issues imo.

Just now, ZoSoRose said:

I mean, anyone can get fired over what is said online on major websites because it represents the company. Most people won't post opinionated stuff on LinkedIn where their company is connected. Posting dumb shit on her social media platforms as a public persona working for Disney is just asking for it  as far as I can see, they even gave her a chance or two. Gina should have just shit posted on a GNR forum, instead

True

1 hour ago, downzy said:

NFL owners were within their rights to not hire Kap because of his political expression on their property on their dime. 

That doesn’t mean it was the right moral decision, but it’s still their call.  Nike decided it was in their business interests and gave Kap a ton of money to use his likeness and cause to promote their products  

The only thing worse than a business owner deciding what they want hearing from their employees is some bureaucrat deciding. 

Well we agree for once. 

I'm of the opinion right now that focusing on what unites us is FAR more fruitful than focusing on what divides us. As such, promoting things cause divide (whether intentional or by accedient), should be frowned on, by both sides of the political spectrum. 

Take what's going on in the NBA at the moment, in regards to the National Anthem. Even though, as an American, it would make me sad if they stopped playing it before sporting events. For the sake of unity, it might be for the best. Athletes have the right to say or do what they feel is right. While spectators, fans, etc have the right to agree or disagree with them for it. But to continually focus on the issue, is only creating further divide at this point. So removing the element that is causing the divide (in this case the anthem), will provide both sides with less feeling of animosity. As well as returning focus back to why everyone is here to begin with, in this case the sport.

As for Star Wars and Disney, the Mandalorian has restored my faith in the brand, and as such ANYTHING that compromises that is threatening to me. That's why when I first heard what she said, my initial feeling was "why?" Why poke the bear, even if it was accidental or unintentional... Just don't do it. 

Having said that, I didn't want her to be fired over it. Not because I agree or disagree with her, but because Star Wars doesn't need any more controversy. 

I also feel that if I were Jon Favero and Dave Filoni I would March into Disney CEO's office and say "if she goes, we go." Not because I would want to back her personally, or support what she said, but because as creators, Disney is fostering a hostile work environment. A place where people can get fired over tweets being taken out of context. As a creator, they can't control what everyone in the cast and crew says and does. But to cause such a severe reaction, while Dave and Jon were in the midst of writing the next season. So now they have to drastically change how they planned the story to unfold. All because of a tweet and twitter puritans response. 

That's not a place where creative people can flourish imo. Star Wars as a brand is also NOT in the place where it can afford these types of controversies. Right now, Jon Favero and Dave Filoni have ALL the power when it comes to Star Wars. If they walked, Star Wars would be done. The franchise couldn't survive that, not after it finally is on the up swing. I would walk into Disney CEO's office and remind him of that, if I were them. If Disney doesn't like that... Well good luck on you future Star Wars content. 

There is SO MUCH going on behind the scenes at Disney in regards to Star Wars, that most don't even know about. It's Kathleen Kennedy vs Favero and Filoni (with Lucas helping them from the shadows). It's not like the MCU, where Kevin Fiegie has complete creative control. Star Wars is literally right in the middle of a civil war behind the scenes. So much so, that removing the sequel trilogy from cannon is on the table. I could go on and on here.

17 minutes ago, Jw224 said:

The line is probably comparing being republican to experiencing genocide, lol. 

But WHO gets to decide that, that's my point? 

On a counter point, those that support Disney's right to fire Gina, was the NFL right to black ball Colon Kaepernick? Or is that some how different? You can't have it both ways.

Where is the line though, and who gets to decide? It seems like Twitter and other platforms seem to be the deciding factor in what's ok or not ok to say. As a society, do we like that? Do we like that mob mentality gets to decide what's ok or not ok to say? 

I don't think Disney is wrong for firing here (although I feel it was a poor choice) nor do I think what Gina said was good or smart (nor do I find it absolutly awful either). She made a comparison, a poor one yes, but we all say and do poor things from time to time. That deserves loss of employment? Basing employment on things that were said on the internet is a slippery slope.

Honestly most of us on this forum could NEVER work for Dinsey, just based on the things we've said here. Fat shaming Axl Rose... You can't work here. Before someone says "comparing what Gina said to fat shaming Axl Rose is hardly a fair comparison." Where is the "line" and who gets to decide it? That's the issue, or at least it WILL be eventually. If fat shaming Axl Rose, causes another "heavy" member to really feel bad about themselves. They commit suicide, and leave a note saying it's what people on mygnr said that caused it. Would Downzey be held accountable then? It IS his forum. Could he be held accountable in the court of law? He allowed to happen, on HIS forum. Begs the question...

I'm by NO MEANS encouraging that type of behavior. I'm saying that it IS a problem that is just getting worse, and unfortunately many liberals don't see a problem with it. 

This is a deeper topic than I want to get into here, but when the topic of morality comes up, it's a slippery slope. I find it amusing when morality topics are discussed within the confines of something like Star Wars. The ONLY moral issues Star Wars should be worried about is the Jedi vs Sith, that's it. I also don't believe for one second that woke, SJW Twitter puritans are some sort of moral compass.

I heard a "supposed" plot leak. It sounds pretty credible imo. Slight difference over what I described earlier. 

Anyways, I can share what I heard if anybody wants to hear. One does "defeat" the other, but they both have to team up to beat a BIGGER threat.

I'm looking forward to this movie (as is my 5 year old son). I honestly REALLY like the monster verse, push comes to shove, it's the best Godzilla series imo. I have seen every Godzilla movie at least once, and own the entire Heisei and millennium eras, (and 6 or 7 Showa era). So I am VERY familiar with these films and franchise. I LOVE the Toho films, and they will always be special to me, but having said that, quality wise they have always been subpar (with the 54 original being the ONLY exception). My point being, these films have always been "out there" so I'm not sure what people's expectations for Godzilla vs Kong are? It's the two most famous giant monsters battling it out, that's it. Honestly, the same basic plots get recycled over and over again, because what else can you do? It's ALL literally been done before, by Toho. 

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the plot is a mashup of the original King Kong, original King Kong vs Godzilla, and the original Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla. With the last one being the one that will be the most "similar" to. Which I think is great, and REALLY fits into the "feel" these films have, they are like the Showa era films. 

Possible spoiler here 

In the original Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla, Mecha "pretends" to be Godzilla for a while. I can almost guarantee that's what's going on here. If you saw the credit scene from King of the Monsters, than it all fits together perfectly. Not to mention, Mechagodzilla HAS leaked from this film. 

I'm on team Godzilla (although I'm worried). I haven't heard if Legendary and Toho agreed to any more films after Godzilla vs Kong. So, they might try to push Kong front and center, and make him carry the franchise. Although, I feel that is a mistake. Kong has yet to prove he can carry a franchise. Godzilla on the other hand is the larger, more iconic character. Godzilla has produced 30 something films. While Kong has had plenty of films, outside of Skull Island, they are all basically remakes/retellings. Honestly, Skull Island is that as well, although it adds more to it. I don't have faith that Kong can carry the franchise without Godzilla, and the REST of Tohos Kaiju. So if you want anymore of these films, Godzilla HAS to win. Having said that, they are going to team up and defeat Mechagodzilla. Seriously, go watch Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla (1974/5). King Kong is taking the role of King Ceasar, lol. 

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Just watching Berbick being sized up by Tyson and he was already shitting his pants. My god. Feel sorry for him. 

Berbick is an interesting fighter. I like all those guys from that late 70s early 80s era. I own this book called "Facing Tyson" and it tells the stories of all these different guys leading up and after their bouts with Tyson. I believe the same guy also did one called "Facing Ali". Anyways, I can't remember all the guys in the book off the top of my head, but the Bone crusher Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, Trevor Berbick, etc were all really good, solid heavyweights. 

That era (after Holmes and before Tyson) was similar to what happened after Lennox Lewis retired, the heavyweight division was in shambles. Holmes pretty much got screwed out of his titles, and Spinks didn't defend. So all the belts got scrambled around (although, if memory serves, Holmes dropped a belt or two along the way). But what that era DID have was Tyson on the way. So it was only in "shambles" for a year or two, not the going on 20 that it's been now. 

On the flip side though, when the belts get scattered like that, it creates alphabet champions that can claim a portion of the title. Which leads to interesting fights (like what's going on now). A guy like Andy Ruiz can rise to the top of the division. That's essentially what happened back then as well with the guys I just mentioned.

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Did you ever see Trevs car park brawl with Larry Holmes?

 

I HAVE seen this before. Honestly, people like to talk about the Tyson vs Lewis prefight brawl, but this one was worse. Holmes jumping off a car... That's epic.

15 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Plus Jersey Joe Walcott has the best ''boxer's name'' in the history of the sport. 

This is one of the best documentaries ever made - must've watched it about five times,

 

I have this on DVD 😀

@DieselDaisy @Len CnutCnut,

I could talk boxing with you guys all day long. Talking to you two is really the only reason I even post here anymore, lol. Not just about boxing, but I appreciate getting your perspectives from across the pond. 

anyways...

How would you guys rate fighters like Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe, etc. Outside of Joe Louis, which of those early guys do you like?

for me, Jack Johnson has always been an interesting fighter. I would have loved to see him in the ring with other early greats like Dempsey or even Joe Louis. I'm not sure he beats Louis, but it's an interesting thought. 

I don't know if I ever told you this Len, but Chris Byrd used to live a couple of houses down from me. When I was 16 or so, I knocked on his door, met him and his wife, and got a signed picture. He was a good (not great) fighter. I didn't care for his style, but a good guy.

I asked him about fighting Tyson, Holyfield, and Lewis he said "I want to fight them all, and I think I can beat them." He DID beat Holy for a belt a few of years later. He ended up moving to Vegas, and I think got with Don King a bit.

Anybody care to hear my thoughts in regards to Holyfield?

Dude was on roids for the Tyson fights. For one, he WAS named in a steroid clinic controversy. For two, look at his career, the dude was a cruiserweight and ended up being bigger than Mike. Tyson was naturally a heavyweight, Holyfield was not. 

My final piece of evidence is his first title run. He weighed less, looked smaller, etc during this run. He also had hair (which roids effects that). In the third Bowe fight, Holyfield was WASHED. I've never seen another fighter look so old, wore out, and just plain DONE as Holyfield looked in that 3rd fight. Yes he said he had a "heart condition" then two years later magically goes away (which is questionable). 

Then he comes back, bigger and better than ever. IDK, when you add it all up, sounds like roids to me. I'm not knocking his first title run, I think he was clean then. He got in the ring with Bowe for the first fight, and wasn't sure if he could hang at heavy anymore. But I WILL give him the 2nd fight with Bowe, he earned that one (and might have been clean for it as well). But after the loss to Michael Moore, then to Riddick for the 2nd time (and looked bad during that loss), I can't think of another story quite like that. What fighter has looked DONE like that, and come back better than ever? Usually when they are washed, they are done, it's over. 

Then for the Tyson fight, he comes back bigger and better than ever. It just doesn't "feel" right to me. Tyson has alluded to it in interviews. He's never said "Holyfield was on roids" but he HAS said "I wanted them to know I was BETTER than them, man to man, without help" and "guys wanted to get that extra edge, everybody knew." Given that Holyfield was named in a steroid controversy, who else could he be alluding to?

7 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

 

Also, it wasn't a flash knockout, luck of the draw kinda thing, or some fluky Oliver McCall eyes closed punch, he beat the shit out of Mike.  I cried when I saw that fight the first time (fuck off alright, I was a kid, what do you want from me? )  That bastard Mike Tyson broke my fuckin' heart, robbed me of my innocence, made me realise that I wasn't born in a time of heroes

Ya, me too. I'm 39 years old, and Mike Tyson in the late 80s was IDK??? Mythic. I remember where I was when I heard the news, I didn't watch the fight. His career was mostly just let down after let down after Douglas as well, which sucks. But there WAS a time, when Mike Tyson was like a real life super hero, an unbeatable beast that will knockout people in the first few seconds of the fight. All the other best fighters can't even get past 3 rounds with him. Just plain invincible.

He WAS in real life, just like he was in the video game. One punch, and your down. Michael Jordan is the only other athlete that I've seen that compares. Jordan surpassed Tyson though, he never let me down.

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is impossible to iterate how seismic that was, unless you followed the late '80s Tyson hype, which I was just young enough to do so. Still unbelievable today - like something out of Rocky really.

It is moments like that why I watch sport.

It's one of those stories that make boxing (the heavyweight division especially) so compelling. When you really go back and look at all the legendary fights and legendary moments, it's really unlike any other sport. Heavyweight boxing during the ENTIRE 20th century is literally THE best sports story of all time imo. We could just go on and on about all the moments that were "seismic". Every fight fan should start there, just trace the lineage from Jack Johnson untill Lennox Lewis. Amazing stuff really.

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Still say Buster Douglas is the biggest sporting upset in sporting history. 

Yup. 

This is the interview I was talking about. At times I want to give the guy a hug and say "Buster you are the man, you have NOTHING to be ashamed of, before or AFTER Tokyo." I say that as HUGE Tyson fan obviously.

43 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Its something of a niche sport here too, its not so much on the rise, its just the your lot have gotten shitter so the competition is balancing out   Also, with all due respect, Americans are getting soft.  This is my sociological theory.  Boxing flourishes where a particular part of the population have it hard.  Black Americans, the last American race to dominate boxing, perhaps, don't have it as hard anymore, ain't cut from the same cloth?  Now I ain't an American, I don't see that shit but I read, there's a growing black middle class over there (not that this started yesterday).  Even Mexican Americans ain't hot shit like they used to be.  Most of our boxers come from the gypsy community or poor black people from urban communities.  And even they ain't tough nuts in the way our Nigel Benns and Chris Eubanks used to be.  AJ is from the same town as me and its basically a home counties type place, certainly not some fuckin' badman manor.  The fact is black Americans appear to have better oppertunities available than to get smacked in the mouth for a living...and the ones that do come out still (and there are some fantastic ones btw) tend to be from places like Baltimore and Detroit and Philidelphia, places that, I am led to believe still have some pretty fucked up and disadvantaged parts.  Now you get a lot of fighters from Eastern European background and Russian fighters and shit, along with a good influx still from South America.

As far as Cus, people make that old guy out to be a bit more of a fuckin' saint than he was.  He had fighters living with him in the Catskills and Mike was one of em, he only adopted him later in the day when he showed signs of prodigious talent, Cus saw in Tyson an oppertunity to make a lot of fuckin' money and make himself a fuckin' big noise in the boxing scene too, he wasn't just this fuckin' saint who adopted this kid after seeing him have a quick little spar, it was very obvious from day one that Mike had a lot of the tools and if he could he honed and harnesed then he was a fuckin' earner.  Remember, this kid was smashing through people that were a level or two above him.  Cus was not some kind of kindly old gentleman that saw poor disadvantaged Mike and took him under his wing and stroked him, he was a mean and nasty old Italian bag of nails.  And hey, thats not a bad thing cuz it certainly worked wonders with Mike.  All Cuses life he struggled to find someone that truly suited and worked his peekaboo style perfectly.  He had Patterson (tall, glass chinned), Jose Torres, Buster Mathis...but Tyson was tailor-made for that shit. 

Cus was great for boxing but I'm not sure how well he could be considered as great as he is these days.  I'd put Angie Dundee ahead of him, Ray Arcel above him, a great many. 

Lacking commitment is hardly a good reference...and even less of an excuse to explain why a guy got tanked.  And no, he doesn't look better now that he did at 38, he just doesn't.

Len, I agree about everything you said about Cus. He wasn't taking in just anyone, no way. They had to have something about them he liked. He wasn't a saint, no way. He had his own interests in mind as well. Having said that, he DID take guys in, give them room and board, food, a gym, pay for clothes and workout essentials, plus PAY someone to train them (Teddy Atlas in Tysons case). That's a pretty HUGE finacial commitments, if you think about it. Even when they turn pro, they make what $50 per fight at first. It's that gamble on these young fighters that just doesn't happen anymore. I understand WHY, but it's also why boxing has regressed imo, not progressed. Even a great fighter like Wlad Klitchko, I don't know how great he would have been if you put him in the 90s or 70s. He still would have been a serious contender, yes. But did he have the level of amature training, etc to REALLY prepare himself for guys like Ali, Foreman, Tyson, etc that had been boxing since they were 12? You can't underestimate how valuable starting so young is. Wilder didn't start boxing till he was like 21, 22. Mike had been fighting and training for 10 years at that point.

I also agree that Angelo Dundee is #1 all time trainer (for me anyways), but I'd have Cus at #2. Angelo had Ali and Leonard, can't argue with that.

7 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Even I must fetishize him to a point them because I just can’t bring myself to say he’d lose to Deontay Wilder   Even though, y’know, he fuckin’ lost to Kevin McBridge (yeah, who?  Exactly) in his last fight 15 yrs ago).

Yes, he lost. But he didn't care about boxing at that point. He ONLY fought because the IRS was on him, he owed money. It was the easiest way to get them off his back. But Mike didn't care about boxing or training at that time. Honestly, the last time Mike probably took boxing/training seriously was before the 2nd Ruddock fight, at least when I watch his career, that's how I see it. Even those Ruddock fights are NOT the best of Tyson, but they DO show that Mike can win a fight when faced with serious adversity (despite what some of his critics say). Every fight after the Holyfield fights you can see a steady decline in skills. Was some of it due to age? Yes. But Mike was still young enough, that if he REALLY wanted to (dedicate himself to training), he could have and should have beaten both Holyfield and Lewis. But he didn't, and those two trained for the fight of their lives (I'm sure). You can say "I'm just making excuses." But the proof is in the pudding, how does Mike look better at 54 than he did at 38? Because he is actually trying now, that's the difference. 

On a side note, Buster Douglas has talked about fighting Mike in one of these exhibitions.  Mike would probably go for the knockout on Buster, lol. Speaking of Buster, I watched an interview by him the other day, and man... Poor Buster needs a hug. You can see he still has ALL SORTS of confidence issues. He LOVES to talk about Tokyo, but you can see he HATES talking about why Tyson didn't get a rematch, the Holyfield fight, and everything after. I'll be the first to admit that he plain ducked Mike after Tokyo, and I also think he got lucky that night as well. Having said that though, you were Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the world. How many living men can say that? Tyson, Holmes, Bowe, Foreman, Holyfield, Lewis, Rahman... Anyone else??? That's a pretty elite club. Have some pride Buster. I may not "like him" because of who he beat, but I gotta respect the man. Anyways, it pains me to see him STILL shaken about his legacy all these years later. Mike's come to terms with the loss, but it's like Buster still hasn't come to terms with the win. Interesting imo...

Disagree with me all you want (that's fine, and is kinda the point of these what ifs), but I honestly believe Tyson right NOW would win 6/10 against Wilder. I'm not saying it would be easy, or he'd just run him over (in his prime yes, Wilder doesn't get past round 3). 

For me it's all about the era, and this era is pretty weak. Sure it's better now than it was 10 years ago. But 10 years ago it was the weakest era of heavyweight boxing arguably EVER. So anything is an improvement. Fury is the only legit guy out there right now (meaning he would have been good in any era). AJ is Frank Bruno 2.0, which nothing wrong with that, but Bruno didn't exactly light up the 90s. Wilder is harder to compare. He's not Mike Tyson, not Foreman, not Liston, not even Shavers (who never won a belt). I guess the best comparisons would be closer to like a David Tua or Razor Ruddock (both never won a title, but I think both were quite a bit better than Wilder).  Tua or Ruddock, in their primes would have put Wilder on his back imo, yet neither won championships in their eras. 

As Len said, guys from the 70s used to rag on guys from the 90s, and they had a point. The 70s was the best era in heavyweight history, so any era comes up short compared to it. Having said that, they also cut the 90s a little short, I would argue it was the 2nd best era all time. Some eras are better and worse than other eras, it's just a fact. That's why you can't say that Deontay Wilder is better than a guy like Earnie Shavers. Shavers never won a belt in the hardest era ever, while Wilder did win a belt in one of the weaker eras. Who do you think was the better fighter? My money would be on Shavers. But if Ring Magazine (or some other publication) had a 100 best heavyweights ever list, I'm sure Wilder would be rated higher because he won a belt. So I personally only look at in ring accomplishments as half of the equation. The other half, is the eye test. Who do my eyes tell me is the better fighter? Who has better technique, footwork, in ring presence, etc. 

Why is boxing (especially in America) seemingly declining, when it is thriving in the UK and elsewhere? That seems to be the question of the day. I've heard guys talk about this (Roy Jones, Tyson, Mayweather, others) and it's because (here in America), boxing has become a niche sport. Your average guy from 1998 (or so) and before, learned boxing if they wanted to learn how to fight. Now they do MMA instead, so that's part of the problem. Another part of the problem is many of the old boxing gyms are no longer in business. Take what Cus did with Tyson as an example. This old man, basically adopts this 12 year old black kid, gives him a place to live and teaches him boxing. That just doesn't happen anymore. Cus took on all the risk by doing that, all the expenses. If Tyson never amounts to anything, Cus lost all that time, money, and effort for nothing. So it's a huge gamble to develop younger fighters. It's easier to wait till a guy is 18, then you can at least make some money back on his pro fights. But by that time, hes behind on the 8 ball (this is what happened with Wilder). They found an older guy with potential, and carried him to the top. But he never learned the fundamentals of boxing, not properly anyways. 

Bottom line, the development process for fighters here in America is really weak right now, and won't likely change. Which in turn has had a HUGE effect on the sport in general. That's also why (I believe) we've seen so many fighters succeed from England and the rest of Europe lately. They still have decent fighter development going on. Sure in America, there are a few of the legendary gyms still open. Here in my home town, Chris Byrd and Andre Durrell are from Flint. As a result, Flint has a good boxing program, if you want to learn. But if we didn't have Byrd and Durrell, we wouldn't have that gym anymore, which I'm sure has happened in MANY cities.

3 hours ago, spunko12345 said:

There is nothing wrong with holding boxers from the past up and giving them their dues. We all enjoy doing that, its a unique part of boxing fandom, getting into the history of fights and revisiting them.

But you seem to fetishize Mike Tyson. Hes been and gone mate, in 2020 he cannot beat Deontay Wilder. You can bang on to me about his head movement all you want but I'm going on biology and the degeneration of the human body which happens to everyone. Even Mike Tyson. 

I don't "fetishize" Mike Tyson, and I resent you saying that. I just know what my eyes saw, and Mike Tyson in 1987/8 was as good or better than anyone that ever stepped in a ring. He's not the only one that I feel that way about though, Leonard after the Duran loss, was also as good as it gets. Ali around 65/66 was also just plain unbeatable. I have a pretty big fight library, I've watched all the best fighters (mostly heavyweight, but also light heavy, middle and Welter). I'm not saying all this to say "hey I know more than you," or anything of the sort. Im just saying I've really followed the sport closely in my lifetime, again the heavyweight division especially. Tysons peak was higher than 99% of other fighters, it just was. The sad thing is he didn't live up to his potential, honestly. But for a moment in time 87/88, THAT Mike Tyson beats every other heavyweight thats ever lived (except for Ali in 65/66). Yes he would have had problems with a few others; George Foreman, Joe Louis, Evander Holyfield (he was always going to be hard for Tyson)and Sonny Liston. Those are the fighters that are the worst potential matchups for Tyson imo. Even the great Larry Holmes, was at no point, a bad match up for Mike. Tyson had actually been training for Holmes his entire career. They found a "flaw" in his style, much like Max Schmeling found with Joe Louis before their first fight. 

11 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I am the last person to be found comparing Mike and Wilder man, that shit is laughable to me.

AJ though, remember, is a young gun, Wilder and Fury have been around for a lot longer than him.  Yeah Fury might have ended the Klitschko era but remember he out-boxed him, barely put a mark on him, AJ flattened him.  Plus AJ is the one who bought the money back to boxing, the golden boy if you will.  Then look at how many top ten fighters are in AJs resume compared to Wilder or Fury.  I mean Fury for example, who is even on his record other than Klitsch’ and Wilder?  What, Steve Cunningham the cruiserweight?  John McDermott who nearly beat him?  He’s a doorman, literally a fuckin’ doorman.  Then look at Wilders, bearing in mind they’ve been around a lot longer.  Now look at AJs resume, Brazeale, Joseph Parker, Dillian Whyte (the man who was WBC mandatory for over a thousand days but Wilder wouldn’t fight him), Alexander Povetkin, Andy Ruiz, Carlos Takam...all good solid top ten heavyweights and former champs, he is doing what the great champions do, or attempting to and that is clearing out the division.  Now will he manage it?  Personally I don’t think so but you can’t call him an alphabet champion, the man is putting it down.

And if Fury has fought two of the top men its because he was allowed to because they thought he’s a fat smelly gyppo from Morecambe that they are gonna steam through, make no mistake about it Wilder fought him because he thought he was a soft touch and they were trying to freeze AJ out because he wouldn’t go 50/50 in the negotiations for a Wilder AJ showdown (nor should he, AJ fills out stadiums, Wilder can’t even sell out his own hometown).  And nobody gave Fury a hoot in hell against Klitschko, thats why Wlad took the fight.

Listen, I’m not saying AJ is king shit but he deserves respect, he is not at all an alphabet champion.  Come to that Bruno deserves more respect too, I think Bruno could fuck AJ up on the right day   I met him y’know, lovely bloke...leans a little heavy on the Joop! though, you could smell him coming down the road  

I disagree about AJ, at THIS moment. Like I said, it could change in a year or two. He had 3 belts, but look at his path to those belts man, he only had two really good wins (Klitchko and Ruiz), and the Ruiz win came because he got caught in the first bout. Yes I know, you can only beat who's out there at any given time, but again he's only fought 1 of the top 4 (Klitchko, Fury, AJ, Wilder), and that win came after Fury ALREADY beat him. Ok, so he's beating up the rest of the top 10, so good for him. He's made a name for himself, which in boxing is HUGE. But he NEEDS to beat Fury if he wants to be the man, period. 

The same applies to Fury, but to a lesser degree. At no point in his career has Fury been the UNDISPUTED Champion. But he DID beat the man (Klitchko), who rose to the top after Lennox Lewis retired. Although neither Klitchko brother ever became Undisputed either, Wlad DID reign over his belts for a long time. So he "kinda" became the MAN by default. By man I'm talking about "the man who beat the man, who beat the man," the lineage. So when Fury beat him, he became the Lineal champion. Which I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here, but anyways... That win over Klitchko is EVERYTHING now man. When you add that with what he just did to Wilder, add the fact that he is undefeated... Come on man. 

It ALL goes back to the Klitchko brothers still. Since at no point during that era there wasn't an Undisputed Champion, the waters have been merky. To put it point blank, since the brothers never fought each other, they held the division hostage. I understand they vowed to never fight each other, and all that stuff. But that's besides the point, the bottom line is the 2 best heavyweights in the world for 10 years refused to fight each other. As a result, we are left to pick up the mess. That's also why I have a hard time putting either in my top 10 all time, but that's a different topic. 

Anyways, here we are now, and we are the closest we have been since Lennox, to having an actual TRUE UNDISPUTED Heavyweight champion. That's exciting stuff. Fury is in the driver's seat though, you gotta admit that. AJ is second, that's for sure and Wilder is a distant 3rd. Interestingly enough, Klitchko would still be 4th, if he fights again.

11 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I would not put Wlad anywhere near Joe Louises league.  In fact, no heavyweight is except Ali, you can’t fuck with Joe Louis, the guy lost, what, three fights his whole career, with the last two being his last two fights, other than that was Schmeling took him in his prime and got washed in the rematch.  
 

And Mayweather is fucking class man, you can’t deny Mayweather his props.  He might talk a load of fuckin bollocks (which boxer doesn’t?), in my opinion if you beat everybody in your era (and a few from outside your era) then you have the right to call yourself King Shit, why should you dedicate your life to boxing to pay lip service to other fighters, Ali certainly didn’t do it so why should Floyd Mayweather, look at Mayweathers entire career, apart from Castillio I can’t think of a fight that was even close, he beat all the best of his era and then even beat the fuckin’ future face of boxing in Canelo Alvarez...and easily at that, pissed all over him, I got nothing but respect for Floyd, I think he’s a G...the fact that he has the personality of a cunt is a matter for his family and friends, if being a horrible person was reason to dislike a fighter I wouldn’t be a fan of Liston or Tyson, two men who were, by all accounts, very unpleasant to be around in their day.

Do I like Floyd? No, I DESPISE his style as well. I also don't like how "careful" he was about selecting opponents. Having said that, I respect his in ring accomplishments. At Welterweight (I don't follow or care about lower than Welter), he HAS to be considered top 5 all time. I think a couple of guys would have taught him a thing or two in the ring (Leonard and Hearns), but his resume is great. 

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The odds are deliberately stacked to prevent that now. In Louis and Ali's day there were only two sanctioning bodies. Tyson and Lewis'? Three. Now there are four and the WBA have weird stuff like like ''super'' champion and ''interim'' which nobody understands. 

The only belt which sort of counts is the Ring one as that represents the lineal championship, or Ring's own version of the lineal. The rest are a bunch of alphabet bollocks.  

Oh I think the WBC, WBA and IBF (WBO to a lesser degree) mean something. I'm not just trashing the sanctioning bodies. What I'm saying is that fighters are no longer encouraged to go after all the belts (if anything they seem to be discouraged from it). At the end of the day, a fighter should WANT to be the best, without doubt. The way to do that hasn't changed, get all the belts and clear out the division. Fighters (all athletes anymore really) are more interested in preserving their legacies than actually earning them.