Now that retweeting and social media has made politics easy, every fruit and nut in creation has something to say.Most of these people are the type who didn't vote at all in the 80's, but now they do what's trendy... if it requires little effort and makes them feel good about themselves (for whatever silly reason)

And if they don't like a candidate that person becomes a lightning rod for them to heap criticism onto, but that's mainly due to the misery and inadequacy these people feel in their own miserable lives.

But they need a boogieman.

Trump's been in office for 40 days and people are going nuts. He hasn't even done that much -- because he hasn't had a chance to yet!! Even the most thorough deportation programs take time.

When Obama was in office for a few years and everyone was asking what the heck has he done, the libs were like, "Oh, he's so smart. He doesn't just RUSH into everything like Cowboy Bush did! He THINKS! He is soooooo measured..."

Now, 40 days in, the libs want to know why he hasn't done everything on his list. Why isn't the wall built?

It's the most serious case of butthurt I've ever seen but I love every minute of it. It feels so good to watch them really suffer. I mean it. When I go to the <rogoff page> and see all the bellyaching, I feel like it's Christmas all over again.

He didn't even bother to use his bully pulpit to stump for Obamacare all those years. Why? Because he didn't want the pushback to reflect on his popularity. Trump is not afraid to do that, you gotta push your laws through with vigor and let the cards fall where they may.

He waited til his 2nd term to do anything about law enforcement or his designs for tranny legislation. Too late.

His approval ratings were inflated because he avoided controversy. He tried to do everything on the sly, like when he started fudging the deportation numbers so the American people couldn't see what he was actually doing.

He didn't even bother to use his bully pulpit to stump for Obamacare all those years. Why?>

Because the media will carry his water for him.

Besides what evidence is there he would even care? Once the cancer is inflicted on the America people, it's a success! Saying he didnt stand up for Obamcare, is like saying he didnt do anything to stop the murder rates in Chicago.

<gsm>, where did you learn that line about if you like guns, it's because you see yourself as inadequate?

That is straight out of a women's lib book.

You are like <unf> and <mort>. Bottom tier.>

<BP>, sometimes I think you are too hard on the poor fellow. <HMM> is entertaining as can be!

He just writes what pops into his head, without fact checking, without a filter. And it is mostly just wide-eyed wonder of a child.

The guy posts all the time about soccer, yet last year he wrote a post about the 2014 FIFA World Cup that contained three factual errors in the space of about 2 sentences.

It was breathtaking to behold, especially in the age of google, where fact checking is a breeze.

<gsm>, where did you learn that line about if you like guns, it's because you see yourself as inadequate? >

My take on guns, as an American.

We have a Constitution, which protects our rights. One of which is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

If you don't like having guns, get enough votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment. There was a time when my vote would be one that could be gotten for that cause.

Nowadays, I am much more likely to buy a gun, than to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

He just writes what pops into his head, without fact checking, without a filter. And it is mostly just wide-eyed wonder of a child.>

I know, maybe you're right. I'm too hard on him.

<I don't respond to him as often as I used to. I just read what he writes and let it remind me of my nephew... When my nephew was 4 years old. Oh the things that boy would say...>

Nowadays, I am much more likely to buy a gun, than to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment.>

He just writes what pops into his head, without fact checking, without a filter. And it is mostly just wide-eyed wonder of a child.>

As if there's an "adult" liberal.
That's the whole concept of liberalism.

Cus D'amato and Muhammad Ali talk a hypothetical Ali v Louis.

Btw I've spoken to Steve Lott a few times over the last 8 months (Early #TeamTyson <before> Don King!) and he said Tyson was technically the greatest ever aged 19!.. Now 12 months ago I would have agreed with the man but given that I'm now a boxing historian (I swear, lol) I believe that Ali would have beaten Tyson 9/10....<But>. I also believe that at 20 years of age Tyson would have beaten a 20 year old "Clay". Ali aged 12 weighed 88lbs. Tyson aged 12 weighed 190lbs, not an ounce of fat on him. One learned to fight the other was born to fight. I don't see any HW in the history of boxing beating a 20 year old Tyson, his head movement is unmatched, his speed and power would have taken anyone's head off. If Henry Cooper dropped a 21 year old "Clay" then I have to go with my head and not my heart and say Tyson would have sparked him. Fast forward a few years and it's Ali all the way for me. The matador always beats the bull.

Don't get it twisted though. On social media and in the pub/bar/barbers I'm 100% team Ali now when the debate comes up. He's up there with John Lennon to me, I have framed photos of him around my place at £18 a pop :)

One thing to keep in mind is that Tyson's opponents let him do whatever he wanted with his feet. They gave him a free hand. Tyson was allowed to have his feet in punching position, with full leverage. A good boxer will make you shift position with your feet so that you aren't able to get off your good shots. You need to be in position with your front foot inside his his front foot. Ali would always "turn" his opponents. That's why Big George wasn't able to do his thing either.

Ernie Shavers and Foreman hit harder than Tyson. Foreman beat Moorer when he was like 44, and Moorer beat Holyfield who had beaten Tyson. Just think, if Foreman could walk into the HW division in his mid forties and become champ, how badass was he when he was 25 years old? Well, not bad enough to beat a past-prime Ali!

One more thing.

If Tyson had the same fighting spirit and inhuman determination as Frazier had, then he could beat Ali, say, 6 times out of 15. Frazier was not like Tyson who gave up if he met any resistance. Frazier swarmed his opponents, bobbing and moving all over, never stopped jumping and pushing and pulling and punching. In Ali-Frazier 1, those first 7 rounds were totally one-sided for Ali and yet Frazier still kept coming harder and harder.

Tyson didn't have that.

Tyson was just the modern version of Sonny Liston, who was great too, but Clay handled him with never seen before or again evasive techniques.

No one like Ali, ever.

<If Tyson had the same fighting spirit and inhuman determination as Frazier had, then he could beat Ali, say, 6 times out of 15.>

I'm 50% in agreement. Joe Frazier is an icon and without question one of the most fearless men to ever step into the squared circle, I love the man, he's in my top 10 of <any> weight division (Ali, SRL, Duran, Hagler, Hearns, were all as brave) but Tyson had something he didn't... Speed, <more> power, and most importantly...head movement. Fraziers head had a bobbing up and down motion, Tyson learned to slip a punch whilst moving <side to side> and would throw a HARD punch gaining balance knocking many a man down. D'amato created a fighting machine. Frazier had a bigger heart though no doubt about that. Tyson did indeed fight bums, for me his absolute greatest <fight> (NOT <performance>! I think that's the Spinks fight) was the 2nd Ruddock fight. 12 rounds of slugging away at a man who wasn't afraid of him, a novelty to Tyson back then. Everytime he met someone close to him he struggled but you could also argue he peaked way too early. He was done by 26 years old whereas Ali wasn't. Ali was some kind of superhuman with an unbelievable chin.

<Tyson was just the modern version of Sonny Liston, who was great too, but Clay handled him with never seen before or again evasive techniques.>

Well firstly Liston was my age and on his way out when he fought Ali but Ali still humiliated him. Tyson was similar but only in stature and intimidation, as fighters Tyson would have took his head clean off of his shoulders. There's no other comparison, Tyson was faster, technically superior, fitter, head movement etc etc etc.. Just a superior boxer. I've seen all available fights from both Liston and Tyson, I'd put my life on Mike.

<No one like Ali, ever.>

In any sport.

<Ali was the Donald Trump of boxing.>

But did you ever notice Tyson could *only* fight moving forward and he could never fight going side to side, circling left, circling right or going backwards?

Did you realize that Holyfield made that his strategy? If Holyfield didn't make Tyson go backwards, he would have lost. He's talked about it. Remember playing PacMan? When PacMan would eat the POWER pellets, he could eat the ghosts. That's like Tyson. When he was moving forward, it was like he ate the power pellet. When he wasn't going forward, he was inactive during that round.

So when we think of Tyson fighting Ali, there is the Ali of 64-66 and the Ali of 74-75. Ali in 74-75 could stand there, cover up, slow the fight down, hold, lean on his guy, lean on his neck, cover up some more, go to the ropes, take shots and come back later to win.

Who did this to Tyson? Well, Bonecrusher Smith didn't win, but he went the distance with Tyson in the style of a *very poor man's* 75 Ali. So we aren't talking about prime Ali, but rather the elder Ali with the slow style. This happened to be effective against Tyson as well as making him go backwards.

If it were Ali in there instead of Bonecrusher Smith, he would have survived like Smith did (no one took a better punch than Ali and no one covered up like Ali) but he also would have had the skills to land jabs and score points, going the distance and winning as the fight went on. Remember, after 3 rounds, Tyson wasn't *so* dangerous.

A lot of people only think of a prime Ali 64-66 going up against Tyson, but a good argument can be made for the 75 Ali as well.

One must always keep in mind that Ali took a punch better than any heavyweight ever. Sure, he went down a few times, but he took great shots from people like Frazier, Shavers and Foreman.

<Spinks>

I watched live on TV back in the day. Tyson was thought to be unstoppable back then. It was like Liston all over again.

I saw him whoop Tony Tubbs too. Unreal. Then Larry Holmes but larry was very out of shape and past his prime.

The 2nd Ruddock fight was pretty good. Tyson fought hard in that one. With Mike, his problem was that he was a one trick pony and if the opponent could stuff his trick, the fight would be boring. Tyson's punch output would go down to almost nothing, a few punches, a clinch and that's it.

My favorite Tyson fight is the one he lost(!) against Buster Douglas. Back then I wasn't right for like 6 months after that. I was the biggest Tyson fan in the world and it killed me to see him lose. I was sad every day. Now when I watch it, I am amazed at Douglas's heart and determination. He just wasn't going to take it from Tyson.

Yes. But with the exception of men who were in their prime in a crap division (Think Lennox Lewis and his Ilk) <nobody> but Mohammed Ali has ever done that as a heavyweight. He was truly unique. I've seen SRL and other 145-160lbers make those kinda movements but never ever a heavyweight, so Tyson wasn't alone. You are right, but he was such a ruthless bully he wasn't used to taking a backwards step/getting hit back and apparently he was told to <always> fight but with the side to side, bobbing and weaving motions making him a moving target. His punches speak for themselves so if you can't hit him and he hits you it's lights out, adios, goodnight, pipe down.

<So when we think of Tyson fighting Ali, there is the Ali of 64-66 and the Ali of 74-75.>

I believe the Ali of 66, the Ali that turned up to fight Williams in the Houston superdome was the greatest heavyweight <boxer> of all time. He got dropped by Cooper in 1964 so I think it's safe to say Tyson would beat that Ali but no way Jose in 1966. Even Kaplan (that old fella that managed Tyson after D'amato, and had the biggest collection of boxing matches on video tape in the world) said, and I quote.. "Perhaps the most devastating fight and fighter I've ever witnessed" about the Ali/Williams fight! That's some accolade from a true boxing historian.

<Ali in 74-75 could stand there, cover up, slow the fight down, hold, lean on his guy, lean on his neck, cover up some more, go to the ropes, take shots and come back later to win.>

Only if he was fighting the Tyson of 1990 onwards. 86-89? Forget about it! I believe that Mike would have chipped away at Ali's body (who'd long stopped dancing at that point) and creased him up before knocking him out. Ain't no man in history can just stand there as a 20-21 year old Tyson hits you, lol. In TRITJ Foreman was pretty pathetic by round 6.. His punches were wide and slow, mikes were on a different level and even Holmes admits that nowadays.

<One must always keep in mind that Ali took a punch better than any heavyweight ever.>

Apart from Chuvalo. He never ever hit the canvas but yeah I know what you're saying.

<Sure, he went down a few times, but he took great shots from people like Frazier, Shavers and Foreman.>

Only Frazier dropped him from 64 onwards. And even that was in the 15th round!

<<Spinks>

I watched live on TV back in the day. Tyson was thought to be unstoppable back then. It was like Liston all over again.>

I saw SRL before Xmas at a meet and greet and asked him about Mike Tyson and that's <exactly> what he said. "I heard there was this kid with the power of Sonny Liston". I got the feeling all he wanted to talk about was Mohammed Ali and the infamous No Mas fight but he was a lovely bloke.

<I saw him whoop Tony Tubbs too. Unreal. Then Larry Holmes but larry was very out of shape and past his prime.>

But he took him 4 rounds (3?) and would have seen the round out had he not got his arm caught in the ropes, watch the fight again and slow down the KO... he throws a punch and his arm stops half way and he got sparked, a 45 second KO job.

<The 2nd Ruddock fight was pretty good. Tyson fought hard in that one. With Mike, his problem was that he was a one trick pony and if the opponent could stuff his trick, the fight would be boring. Tyson's punch output would go down to almost nothing, a few punches, a clinch and that's it.>

Amen! It was a silent agreement when he tied a fighter up and <whoever> he fought was more than happy with a "let's rest, I won't hit you so you don't hit me" kinda thing. But he only started tying fighters up post Douglas fight, he <never> ever ever took a backward step. Never!

One of the things that surprised me when I watched all available Ali fights (x5 easily!) was he never threw a body shot! Terrell and Williams possibly but I noticed that immediately about him, I didn't need to read about it I just noticed he didn't really believe in body shots. Exact opposite of Tyson who loved getting stuck in and in all seriousness.. Making a man bend over <towards him> (behave, lol) where he could make a big man into a small man.. Then he'd KO them.