Quote Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote Originally Posted by BIG H
Can't beleive we are back to this on 'Tucker won 4 rounds' chesnut. It would be a lame argumnent even if it wre true, because it would mean Tyson won 2/3 of the fight. The fact that makes if even more lame is that Tucker didn't win 4 rounds, he probably only won 2 and none of the judges gave Tucker 4 rounds. 2 Judges gave him two 10-9 rounds and the other judge gave him 3.
Yes we are because if i use Douglas argument people say his prime was finished if i say Tillis gave Tyson all he could handle its Tyson hadn't reached his peak if i use Ruddock argument people say samething he was past it so what other argument can i use ?? i give up because theres always an excuse with Tyson and his struggles or losses.

And your not that much better BIG H with your Oliver and Rahman argument
Get your facts str8 young un, I've never used that before, because I am a Lewis supporter

Infact I usually defend those defeats as being due to him being unprepared