|
On December 30 2006 01:15 ToT)Testie( wrote:
Any smart big heavyweight takes down Tyson.
Lewis vs Tyson was a rape. Was it Lewis? He abused his reach the entire fight and took him down.
Tyson never had brains. He was an animal of power. Not really speed.
wtf are you talking about? mike was a bullet for his size
|
On December 30 2006 01:15 ToT)Testie( wrote:
Any smart big heavyweight takes down Tyson.
Lewis vs Tyson was a rape. Was it Lewis? He abused his reach the entire fight and took him down.
Tyson never had brains. He was an animal of power. Not really speed.
I think you're wrong there. Tyson has PLENTY OF SPEED. Just look at his first few professional fights. No one could lay a glove on him.
However, I do agree that he was less intelligent than Clay. But I think, both fighters, at their prime and most in shape, it would be a draw. They both have SUCH great defense that it would be possible for either boxer to really damage the other (without any serious mistakes).
DRAW I SAY! DRAW!
edit: 3rd option plz! edit poll!
|
different generation man. tyson would punch a hole in ali. ali was great in his time but teleport him to the 80's and tyson will bite off his nuts and spit it on his children. or however tyson would put it. i'm serious though, tyson could punch bit holes in boxers from back then, however stylish and skilled they were. boxers today are way stronger, be it steriods or "refined training", ali would cease to have a bone in his body unfractured...
float like a butterfly, sting like a... oh shit my ribs are broken, my god, kill me. besides, tyson is underrated in intelligence and skill. he is way ahead of previous generations of fighters, sorry to say, but ali included. ali would not only be unable to hurt him, but unable to withstand him. it would be like nextel vs hovz all over again.
|
On December 30 2006 01:50 lugggy wrote:
different generation man. tyson would punch a hole in ali. ali was great in his time but teleport him to the 80's and tyson will bite off his nuts and spit it on his children. or however tyson would put it. i'm serious though, tyson could punch bit holes in boxers from back then, however stylish and skilled they were. boxers today are way stronger, be it steriods or "refined training", ali would cease to have a bone in his body unfractured...
float like a butterfly, sting like a... oh shit my ribs are broken, my god, kill me. besides, tyson is underrated in intelligence and skill. he is way ahead of previous generations of fighters, sorry to say, but ali included. ali would not only be unable to hurt him, but unable to withstand him. it would be like nextel vs hovz all over again.
I agree that Tyson is underrated and that he is an incredible fighter (that's why i made this thread in the first place) but you're basically saying one of Tyson's punches will kill Ali due to his power right? But I dont think Foreman and Tyson would have THAT much of a power difference even if Tyson might be stronger.
|
there has to be THAT much of a power difference. foreman doesn't just drop modern fighters if he lands one punch, even in his prime, against weaker fighters than today. tyson, in his prime (since we're talking about ali in his prime i'm assuming), would lay out anybody if he lands a real punch. while that isn't enough to win a fight today, i really doubt ali would have been able to do jack about it. say what you want about tyson's opponents, but if we're talking time travel, ali's are actually worse, the young foreman included.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
I am afraid much of this thread displays a misplaced faith in the total supremacy of power (admittedly important) in heavyweight boxing and an astonishing incomprehension of the level of ability, and endurance, of Ali. Throughout his career Ali fought fighters such as Sonny Liston (considered unbeatable prior to his first encounter with the then Cassius Clay), Joe Frazier (an all-time great) and George Foreman (a terrifying puncher in his day who had destroyed Frazier). Frazier managed one win over Ali in three fights but that was through a workrate and determination over a long hard fight that Tyson would have been completely incapable of replicating.
The reflex response of the Tyson crowd is that Tyson was better/stronger/faster but there is simply no basis for this and it is little more than an item of faith amongst those who have a limited knowledge of boxing prior to 1985. Tyson performed spectacularly well in his era before being utterly humiliated by a journeyman who hardly registers on the boxing radar. Holyfield and Lewis (quality fighters but perhaps not amongst the all-time greats) then exposed his limitations. Yet still the Tyson circus rolls on.
I might add that Ali's fights with Frazier demonstrated something which is also overlooked by those debating such issues as these: that Ali had an incredible determination and a damn strong chin he rarely had to display thanks to his other amazing gifts.
|
Muhammad Ali no contest; while Tyson just rushed in throwing punches like some madman, which won him most of his fights. Ali would think before acting and have a plan.
|
|
|
On December 30 2006 01:50 lugggy wrote:
different generation man. tyson would punch a hole in ali. ali was great in his time but teleport him to the 80's and tyson will bite off his nuts and spit it on his children. or however tyson would put it. i'm serious though, tyson could punch bit holes in boxers from back then, however stylish and skilled they were. boxers today are way stronger, be it steriods or "refined training", ali would cease to have a bone in his body unfractured...
float like a butterfly, sting like a... oh shit my ribs are broken, my god, kill me. besides, tyson is underrated in intelligence and skill. he is way ahead of previous generations of fighters, sorry to say, but ali included. ali would not only be unable to hurt him, but unable to withstand him. it would be like nextel vs hovz all over again.
You just don't know what you're talking about. Boxing is not all about physical attributes, and who the better athlete is. If it was, Ali would have been KO'ed by Foreman (who's still considered a top 3 puncher by all people with boxing knowledge. There are none such fighters considered that nowadays). Foreman, Fraizer, Liston, Patterson, all equally hard punchers to Tyson. Ali fought in the golden era of heavyweight boxing; I don't think there is a single heavyweight with those kind of names on his resume other than Ali.
That's all off the point, though. Today's fighters lack conditioning, they also lack technical skill, which is a lot of what boxing is about. The best heavyweight out there today would be brutalized by any of the old heavyweights. (That is, Wladimir Klitschko would be KO'ed by ALL past great heavyweights.) I'm trying to make some sort of sense out of my post, but it's like trying to explain quantum physics to a three year old, it's just not possible.
On December 30 2006 01:15 ToT)Testie( wrote:
Any smart big heavyweight takes down Tyson.
Lewis vs Tyson was a rape. Was it Lewis? He abused his reach the entire fight and took him down.
Tyson never had brains. He was an animal of power. Not really speed.
Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about either. Tyson was incredibly fast. He wasn't fleet-footed, but he cut off the ring well, and his punches came faster than you could blink. He was incredibly fast.
On December 30 2006 06:30 lugggy wrote:
there has to be THAT much of a power difference. foreman doesn't just drop modern fighters if he lands one punch, even in his prime, against weaker fighters than today. tyson, in his prime (since we're talking about ali in his prime i'm assuming), would lay out anybody if he lands a real punch. while that isn't enough to win a fight today, i really doubt ali would have been able to do jack about it. say what you want about tyson's opponents, but if we're talking time travel, ali's are actually worse, the young foreman included.
Tyson never fought anyone in his prime. Berbick was a nothing that scraped by an old Ali. Spinks was a light heavyweight, not a heavyweight, Holmes was well past his prime, and the other guys that he beat were nothing fighters. He DOMINATED them, and that's why he gets the sort of credit he gets, but he never beat anyone great. Foreman would literally destroy every top heavyweight of the modern era. 1990's George came back and won a title, that showed how much better he was than they were, and he was still KO'ing guys. The Foreman of the 70's, who thought he was unbeatable (and that is, by the way, the reason he stopped fighting for several years, the loss to Ali crushed him mentally), would undoubtedly destroy any heavyweight of the modern era, including Tyson himself. That's why Tyson was scared to fight Foreman, and that's a pretty well documented thing. I read an article from a former friend, or promoter, or something like that, where they suggested that Mike fight Foreman in the 90's. To make a long story short, Tyson jumped up and yelled that they were insane, and that his style was tailor made for a guy like Foreman's, he had seen what he did to Fraizer, and it would be no different to Mike. That's why the biggest fight of the 90's never happened, Tyson was scared.
On December 30 2006 10:24 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:
I am afraid much of this thread displays a misplaced faith in the total supremacy of power (admittedly important) in heavyweight boxing and an astonishing incomprehension of the level of ability, and endurance, of Ali. Throughout his career Ali fought fighters such as Sonny Liston (considered unbeatable prior to his first encounter with the then Cassius Clay), Joe Frazier (an all-time great) and George Foreman (a terrifying puncher in his day who had destroyed Frazier). Frazier managed one win over Ali in three fights but that was through a workrate and determination over a long hard fight that Tyson would have been completely incapable of replicating.
The reflex response of the Tyson crowd is that Tyson was better/stronger/faster but there is simply no basis for this and it is little more than an item of faith amongst those who have a limited knowledge of boxing prior to 1985. Tyson performed spectacularly well in his era before being utterly humiliated by a journeyman who hardly registers on the boxing radar. Holyfield and Lewis (quality fighters but perhaps not amongst the all-time greats) then exposed his limitations. Yet still the Tyson circus rolls on.
I might add that Ali's fights with Frazier demonstrated something which is also overlooked by those debating such issues as these: that Ali had an incredible determination and a damn strong chin he rarely had to display thanks to his other amazing gifts.
The notion that Lewis exposed him eleven years after his prime is utterly ridiculous. Even saying that Holyfield exposed him is ridiculous. There is a clear regression in the skills of Tyson as he progressed in age, and as he changed trainers from Cus, to Rooney (though the skill level was relatively the same, because Cus never saw him win the title, so it was under Rooney that he won it, therefore he was in his prime under Rooney), and then whoever he went to after that... the Don King era of his life.
I stated it earlier, styles make matchups, and Holyfield just had a style that was good to beat Tyson. Tyson was an inside fighter, that's where most of his damage came from, and Holyfield tied him up, and fought dirty on the inside, thus he won the fight. (Evander is notorious for being dirty, so I hope no one tries to rebuke that statement.)
Lewis is undoubtedly amongst the greats. You'd be hard pressed to find a boxing journalist who didn't rate him at least top 50 all time heavyweights. Many, if not most, journalists rate him in the top 20, some as high as top 10 (though I disagree with that).
In the case of Tyson v Lewis you could make the case that they are about the same age, and that Lewis is actually a bit older, therefore "prime" doesn't come into play, but then you would just be wrong, and show a complete lack of understanding for the sport. Tyson's prime, and this is almost unanimously agreed upon, was from 1987 to 1989, after 1989 he had completely lost focus, and his drive to be great. He has stated that he hasn't had the drive to fight for many, many years now. Either way, Lewis' prime came during the mid-to-late nineties, and in to the first couple of years of the new millennium. Tyson was already a washed up fighter looking for one big punch to send a guy to the canvas by that point. His jab was non-existent, he had slowed tremendously, had nearly no head and upper body movement (especially not comparatively to during the 80's on his way up, and his short dominance over the division).
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On December 30 2006 10:32 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
The notion that Lewis exposed him eleven years after his prime is utterly ridiculous. Even saying that Holyfield exposed him is ridiculous. There is a clear regression in the skills of Tyson as he progressed in age, and as he changed trainers from Cus, to Rooney (though the skill level was relatively the same, because Cus never saw him win the title, so it was under Rooney that he won it, therefore he was in his prime under Rooney), and then whoever he went to after that... the Don King era of his life.
I stated it earlier, styles make matchups, and Holyfield just had a style that was good to beat Tyson. Tyson was an inside fighter, that's where most of his damage came from, and Holyfield tied him up, and fought dirty on the inside, thus he won the fight. (Evander is notorious for being dirty, so I hope no one tries to rebuke that statement.)
Lewis is undoubtedly amongst the greats. You'd be hard pressed to find a boxing journalist who didn't rate him at least top 50 all time heavyweights. Many, if not most, journalists rate him in the top 20, some as high as top 10 (though I disagree with that).
In the case of Tyson v Lewis you could make the case that they are about the same age, and that Lewis is actually a bit older, therefore "prime" doesn't come into play, but then you would just be wrong, and show a complete lack of understanding for the sport. Tyson's prime, and this is almost unanimously agreed upon, was from 1987 to 1989, after 1989 he had completely lost focus, and his drive to be great. He has stated that he hasn't had the drive to fight for many, many years now. Either way, Lewis' prime came during the mid-to-late nineties, and in to the first couple of years of the new millennium. Tyson was already a washed up fighter looking for one big punch to send a guy to the canvas by that point. His jab was non-existent, he had slowed tremendously, had nearly no head and upper body movement (especially not comparatively to during the 80's on his way up, and his short dominance over the division).
You make some good points and I agree about the deterioration in Tyson's skills but I happen to think both Holyfield and Lewis would have beaten Mike Tyson even in his 'prime'.
Style can indeed be important but does not quite have the significance you attribute. Furthermore, being able to adapt to overcome the stylistic challenges presented by an opponent is not something separate from the range of considerations to be taken into account when considering a fighter's place in the canon but rather an important part of such considerations. Surely an elementary point.
As for Lewis and Holyfield's status: if you are going to define 'the all-time greats' as being the top 50 then I am sure we would be in agreement. I was using the phrase in a somewhat more restricted sense, although make no claim that my usage was any more valid than yours.
I stand by my substantive points. Tyson is ridiculously overrated and would have stood little chance against Ali, whichever 'era' Tyson showed up.
|
did you guys hear about the cocaine charges that tyson just got slapped on him?
|
Ali's "mind games" will make him lose... his ear... maybe even both
|
Ali hands down, easy choice
|
this should be a 90-10 poll for ali not sure what's wrong with tl 
|
i think ali
but I think it would be close
read a many-page debate on this exact topic in a boxing forum
most people seemed to pick ali, but many did pick tyson
|
oh my, another "knife vs bat"-thread 
my money is on Ali, but i won't say why or even quote random people.
|
Ali. He was to boxing as Curt Schilling is to baseball. Curt has note books full of stats vs the people he pitches against. Ali always had a counter to his opponents fighting style, they both did their homework on their opponents.
I just don't see Tyson having a chance to win against Ali.
|
hell, i don't really know who would win, but the prefight conference would be amazing!
|
It's this simple: Tyson could never beat a good jab and had to get his opponent up against the ropes or in the corner to finish someone decent. The Ali Jab+move would cut Tyson's face up so bad.
The Cleveland Williams fight was horrible. The guy just let Ali do everything to him. He landed like 1 punch and it was a baby tap.
As a sidenote, I play Chess with Ali's #1 sparring partner for a period of about 4-5 years. He even showed me a picture of him standing over Ali after knocking him to the canvas on ABC's Wide World of Sports!
|
On December 29 2006 22:47 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Ali is not the greatest boxer ever, though. He would beat guys at lower weights simply because he was a bigger man, but pound for pound he might hardly scrape the top ten list depending on who you're talking to. Of course Sugar Ray Robinson is considered the greatest boxer to ever grace the ring-- and you can tell that Ali thought so as well because he took the very style of Robinson, watch any film you can find of Robinson, and look at Ali, the styles are almost identical, but there are other guys who were just as great as him, and some who beat him regularly (such as Willie Pep. I think he was he was 3-1 or 4-0... something like that v Robinson). There are many guys who were much better technical boxers than Ali was. Ali isn't even considered the best heavyweight ever by all people (many people consider that to be Joe Louis). NOTE: This is in reply to the second reply, or so, talking about how no one to ever grace the ring was as gifted, etc.
I hate hearing about being pound for pound the best, especially at boxing. Since there is really no doubt heavyweights would beat the lower weight classes in boxing, to me that means they are the "greater" boxers. Anything else is unverifiable speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
