Ok, so people say things like "Tyson would knock out Ali with a single punch" or "Tyson wouldn't be able to get a single hit on Ali." Well, we'll never know so give you're opinion and explain why.
Ali in his Prime (1966) vs Tyson's (1988)
Poll: Who would win? (Vote): Muhammad Ali (Vote): Mike Tyson
I honestly think Ali would win because of all his technique. He fought George Foreman who was the hardest puncher at that time, very much like Mike Tyson. Ali always played with people's minds, making them mad then tiring them out. I think Tyson would be manipulated by Ali's mind games and also wouldn't be able to land as many hits while Ali is "floating" around.
No man ever to grace the boxing ring could ever beat Ali at his prime. Right after he was Heavyweight Champ and before he was kicked to the curb and had his belt taken from him. In the 3 years he was out of Boxing he lost his legs and from that point on he drove himself through his genius of the sport. I think most of the "talent" that got him there was in those legs.
On December 29 2006 19:17 _PulSe_ wrote: No man ever to grace the boxing ring could ever beat Ali at his prime. Right after he was Heavyweight Champ and before he was kicked to the curb and had his belt taken from him. In the 3 years he was out of Boxing he lost his legs and from that point on he drove himself through his genius of the sport. I think most of the "talent" that got him there was in those legs.
..... and if you still have any doubts go watch Ali vs Cleveland Williams to witness a perfect display of the most amazing boxing skills ever.
On December 29 2006 19:17 _PulSe_ wrote: No man ever to grace the boxing ring could ever beat Ali at his prime. Right after he was Heavyweight Champ and before he was kicked to the curb and had his belt taken from him. In the 3 years he was out of Boxing he lost his legs and from that point on he drove himself through his genius of the sport. I think most of the "talent" that got him there was in those legs.
..... and if you still have any doubts go watch Ali vs Cleveland Williams to witness a perfect display of the most amazing boxing skills ever.
Cleveland Williams was nothing. That's like saying "I'm the best boxer ever, watch me beat up a little kid." If you REALLY want to see how good he was, see Clay-Liston I. Liston was heavily favored to beat the young, up and comer Clay, and Clay whooped his ass. Liston had to have something wiped on his gloves and put in Clay's eyes (so the legend goes) to even make himself competitive, and he could still hardly hit him.
Ali in his prime (as Cassius Clay) could be beaten, it would just take another great fighter to beat him, such as Joe Louis.
Ali in the 70's might lose to Tyson, but in the 60's he'd probably beat the hell out of him. Tyson's style is like a combination of Floyd Patterson, and Joe Fraizer when he was in his prime. He had excellent head movement, and an underrated jab that helped set up those big punches he used to KO guys with.
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 have heard that tyson has never been taht good a heavyweight fighter, never defeating a legitimate champion. (from you know, those "experts" on tv shows) so i'll go with ali.
On December 29 2006 23:01 AmorVincitOmnia wrote: tyson would wreck ali.
Bro, you have to follow that up with a good argument, just look at what the guys above you wrote. I also believe tyson in his prime would kill ali but i don't have the textbook knowledge to prove my point. But i can say i would beat the crap out of any of the above posters in a real fight! :p
On December 29 2006 23:06 thedeadhaji wrote: i have heard that tyson has never been taht good a heavyweight fighter, never defeating a legitimate champion. (from you know, those "experts" on tv shows) so i'll go with ali.
He KO'ed Larry Holmes, who is a top 10 all time heavyweight, and he also beat Michael Spinks who was a champion at the time, the first man to beat Holmes, and undefeated until he fought Tyson. I don't think he had ever even been down in his career before Tyson.
Tyson under Cus, and Rooney was a great fighter. He had the potential to be one of the greatest fighters ever, but when those guys died, he lost it all.
On December 29 2006 23:01 AmorVincitOmnia wrote: tyson would wreck ali.
Bro, you have to follow that up with a good argument, just look at what the guys above you wrote. I also believe tyson in his prime would kill ali but i don't have the textbook knowledge to prove my point. But i can say i would beat the crap out of any of the above posters in a real fight! :p
He might beat Ali as Muhammad Ali, but he would not beat him as Cassius Clay. Try and find some of his fights as Clay and you'll see why. In fact, try and find Clay-Liston I (not II, because that ended in round one I think, maybe two, on the most infamous punch ever thrown in boxing).
To the asked confirmation: Tyson's "prime" is generally considered '87-'89. In '86 he was still an up and comer, until November of that year when he beat Berbick to become the youngest HW champion ever, but that was at the end of the year, and his real streak of dominance over the best that division had to offer was during that time.
More on Tyson: He was not the same fighter for Douglas (Which I think he got fucked over on, because Douglas DID get a slower count than did Tyson... the fight should have ended much earlier or been allowed to continue on longer), or after jail as he was pre-1990. The reason why is he had become far too distracted by outside things, and money. Rooney and Cus were both dead at this point, and he lost his focus. He was out partying in the weeks leading up to Douglas, living up the Japanese high life, so to speak, and that cost him dearly, because he didn't know that Douglas did not care if he died in the ring that night. Douglas had lost the only person that had ever really mattered to him prior to fighting Tyson: his mother. So he figured that he'd give him all he could, even if he died, because he had nothing to live for anymore. That's why he got up, and that's why he beat him.
Holyfield beat Tyson because Holyfield was A) a VERY dirty fighter, and B) he kept grabbing on the inside, which is where Tyson is most effective. A guy like John Ruiz with his punch, punch, grab style is likely to beat Tyson because his arms are never free to move on the inside, despite the fact that Ruiz is an inferior fighter. That was a match-up of styles, and Tyson's style was tailor made to Holyfield.
tyson is a tank. no one takes a blow like tyson. ali may have been more "skilled" but when it comes down to it tyson would just walk all over him with brute force.
On December 29 2006 23:27 AmorVincitOmnia wrote: tyson is a tank. no one takes a blow like tyson. ali may have been more "skilled" but when it comes down to it tyson would just walk all over him with brute force.
edit - insert "was" in there a few times.
Tyson could only take a blow for the first few rounds. If the pressure stays consistent, and the person's will is strong enough to win the fight, Tyson was like anyone, and he cracked. Ali's jab might not have hurt him, but it probably would have cut him. Tyson was afraid to fight a 40+ year old George Foreman, because he knew he would be beaten badly, he wasn't as tough as you think he was.. (Not that he had a chance v Foreman, but if he was so tough he would have fought him.. also not to take anything from the guy, because he'd kick the shit out of everyone on this forum, even now)
I have expressed the same view on this forum several times: Tyson is a vastly overrated fighter who would not be in my top 10 heavyweights. Not only would Ali win such a confrontation but he would win it handily. My own prediction would be that the fight would end in a middle round stoppage.
On December 29 2006 23:27 AmorVincitOmnia wrote: tyson is a tank. no one takes a blow like tyson. ali may have been more "skilled" but when it comes down to it tyson would just walk all over him with brute force.
Any review of Ali's illustrious career exposes your claim that 'Tyson would just walk all over him with brute force' as utter nonsense.
Boxing is kinda silly now with MMA around and stuff to me and I just always have liked Mike from bein a kid in the 80s and having such lustre surrounding his name. Its like Michael Jackson, even though he is creepy and a shadow of his former self.. You put on thriller and you can definitely remember how dope he was.
For me Mike Tyson is the same way. Back in the day he WAS pretty dope, even if it was all image.
Wasn't alive during Ali's prime, so pretty just going off of video, but I was around when Tyson first won the title and at the time no one could touch him, he had it all, the power, the speed, the toughness mental and physical, the brains(where the fuck did they go)then he had to go be a retard and fuck his career/life up to the point where he is now taking shots at cops and doing coke.
Don't get me wrong would still be one hell of a fight going into the late rounds for sure.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
How can anyone say Tyson ??? Either you must have brain damage or you're from Brooklyn, NY.
Take a look at Ali's resume:
He defeated a large list of fighters, most notably Liston twice, Patterson, Williams, Frazier twice, Foreman by TKO, Leon Spinks, Foster, Norton. All hard and tough fighters, and all these fights involved Ali using different strategies, and showed the determination and will to win he had.
He was more than a boxer. He was a proffesional at boxing.
Ali lost only 5 fights, which 2 of them were bouts that shouldn't have happened (Spinks, Holmes), another one was when he was about to retire (Barbick) while the one vs Norton he really got what he was looking for by getting hit while talking during the fight. I mean to me he only lost 2 fights fare and square (Norton and Frazier), and he came back and beat them both again. Tyson never did that.
Tyson lost to every fighter that meant a threat for him, plus he never had different strategy inside the ring, just go for the TKO. Tyson would have probably lost to Ali via the "Rope-a-dope" method used vs Foreman. Hey I'm not saying Tyson's bad fighter, he was domitating as hell during 86-89, but those were 3 yearts that's it. Then he started to be dominating at beating and raping women.
Ali's dominance spanned from 64 to 78, and he couldn't fight for 3 years during the time that we all agree was his prime.
Sure the Cleveland Williams fight was a beat, that's not my point. Focus your look on the footwork the man had, the bicycles, the quickness moving around the round, the precision of his punches. Quoting Ali himself "how can you hit what you cannot see?"
EPT
