2 of Africa's greatest fighters, but who would you say was the better of the 2 in terms of achievement and H2H?
I once opened this very same thread awhile ago. I would say Tiger was greater. Deeper resume. Better? Well, Nelson was more talented and more versatile. Nelson also had fight-ending power, while Tiger had bruising/wear you down type power. I think I'd say that Nelson was better by a small margin.
Nelson....longevity,style, weight classes, quality of effort in losing fights to fellow ATGs like Sal Sanchez when thrown in deep. Tiger was just a very strong guy who really didn't fight the greatest guys at their peak until Foster and he markedly failed in that fight, faring no better than guys he was much better than, like Mike Quarry. I think that stands out, for me, basically doing no better with Foster than a load of other inferior guys did. Not only this, but Nelson improved on performances Vs common opponents than some of his contemporaries Eg he did Cowdell in 1, but Sanchez needed a SD over 15 rounds Vs the same guy. Tiger has a great story, arriving in Liverpool on a boat, outgrowing the UK and making his bones in the USA. But Fullmer had seen better days. Frankie DePaula was an underachiever who could have beaten him with better preparation and more dedication. I give it to Nelson.
Quite a bit would be a stretch. Tiger was every bit as offensively skilled, and every bit as granite chinned, if not more so. I would actually say that Tiger was more offensively skilled as he threw shorter, more compact combinations, and had a better jab. I would say that both were defensively responsible. Tiger was better at blocking shots, whereas Nelson had better head movement. Nelson's edge is that he was more dynamic, and could close the the distance a lot quicker. Also, like I said, Nelson could end a fight with one punch, whereas Tiger was an attrition hitter.
