AJ says prime Mike Tyson beats a prime Ali

'Ali would be a cruiser if he lost weight' is not an argument

 

My bad. You were referencing AJ's statement. Regardless, I am still right in my assessment. Ali was not prime when he fought Frazier, Tyson was. That's why he was a 40 to 1 favorite.

 

LOL That was Nakedsnake that said that.

 

Tyson partied his entire career. We can only go by what guys did in the ring. Saying what if this or what if that means nothing. If I were a millionaire I'd have assistant conversing with you and you wouldn't have the luxury of arguing with me. LOL

 

What I was saying was, if you say Tyson wasn't prime when he fought Douglas, you can make the same argument for Ali against Frazier. I did not agree.

 

Agreed, in a perfect world Tyson would have had the discipline of a monk and Ali would not have been exiled for 3 years. In that case, my pick would be a pick'em. Can't call it!

 

You have repeated exactly what I ssid about you about having bias-but without evidence.

1) Ali was undeniably not in his best shape against Auarry & Oscar-& by definition he was underprepared.
You can research how long he prepared, & nobody debates either that they were good challenges-or that he was rusty,

2) Wrecked them? Ali pulled it out in the 15th round againt Bonavena.
Nobody on this forum-or you if you are unbiased-would say he "wrecked' Oscar.

3) Ali did not get steroyed by Frazier. He clearly lost, though landed more punches.
This language betrays a huge bias by itself. You do know that "destroyed" means at least a very one sided fight, don't you?
Not both fighters absorbing damage, Frazier also visiting the hospital, & winning a clear but competitive decision.

4) I never suggested Ali could not be outpointed-but very unlikely in his prime.

5) Frazier was damaged by not only Foreman, but Ali, badly, in the first & mainly their last fights. Nobody debates this.

6) I believe Norton deserved the last fight-if I was so biased i would not admit that.
But not the second one.
Anyway, prime Ali would have the physical tools to beat Norton clearly & consistently.
'70's Ali did not.

 

I'd pick Tyson 9/10.

Ali never fought anyone with that same level of athleticism and skills combined as Tyson (and vice versa). Tyson had quick foot and handspeed, incredible head movement, and a more pin-point accuracy. So basically you have a guy who's a bigger, faster, stronger version of Frazier, with more refined defensive skills and combination puncher, with seemingly similar power to Foreman but the ability to pinpoint his shots.

I think super tall guys like Lewis, Klitschkos, Fury would have always troubled Tyson. I think spoilers would also trouble him, like what Holyfield did. You see this with guys like Tsyzu who I thought was clearly a level above Hatton, but he didn't like the spoiling. Ruiz made a career out of spoiling. Pac struggled with Sanchez and Horn who he was levels above, due to the spoiling tactics.