Prime Mike Tyson (88) vs Prime Muhammad Ali (66)

As per my prev. post I obviously disagree WB.

All good but It’s all been said before - Ali was 29, just his 3rd fight back in after a 3.5 year exile vs an absolute prime Frazier who was favourite I believe.

Mike was just 23 yo, an active fighter, his last fight a first round TKO victory over Carl Williams, no less, just 7 months prior. He was installed as a 42-1 favourite vs Douglas. Due respect but it isn’t at all logical to suggest that Ali was closer to his own prime.

As to Ali being closer to his prime in 73/74, perhaps that requires better clarification. In 71 Ali would’ve been closer to his physical prime in all potential. But he was rusty, not fully trained or fully broken back in for actual ring combat.

Watch the FOTC, Ali gives Joe a terrible going over for the first 4-5 rounds, with Joe having some successes. Then observe Ali clearly beginning to tire badly in his own right - lack of match fitness, Joe is able to then get in harder and more consistently. Prime Ali would be no where as tired as Ali was after only 4-5 rounds. Anyway, that’s just my take.

By 73/74, Ali’s physical potential was logically less than it was in 71, being older with more wear/tear. However his potentials in terms of both the physical and being properly tuned back into fighting were better realised by 73/74 than in 71 - as such, imo, Ali was a better fighter overall in net terms.

I won’t argue against some of your observations re Ali vs Frazier 2 though, I agree that Joe was unfairly squelched via clinching that was not properly policed by Perez.

Ali got screwed himself to some extent when round 2 was cut short - but again, in all honesty, I still think he wouldn’t have stopped Joe anyway.

Perez mistook the newly installed 10 sec warning lights on the ring posts to be signalling the end of the round - not too bright or he missed the pre fight toolbox talk.

 

It does matter. How long a fighter remains elite says a lot about their mental fortitude and capabilities. Fighters such as Bowe, Ruiz, or Douglas were at the top for such a short time which affects how i view their h2h abilities. Tyson couldn't adapt to new challenges during his reign, which is why having a long reign can boost someone's h2h rankings.

No, he didn't clearly beat him. He barely avoided a draw due to his knockdown. That's Tyson's fault if he was supposedly unprepared for Douglas (seems more like he just underestimated him).

You can't say Tyson has the style advantage when he struggled with guys who fought similar to Ali. If you want to bring up Ali struggling with Frazier when Ali was past his prime then I can bring up Tyson struggling with guys like Douglas or even Hoylfield.

 

No, it doesn't matter one bit, it's dumb to say otherwise.
Some sportsmen simply don't care about staying at the top forever and want to enjoy life rather than train non stop.
It doesn't make them less good when at their best, it simply makes them less great cause they will achieve less.

Wrong. Tyson didn't have the heart and commitment anymore, he could have done so had he had the same desire and motivation.

No you cannot, and the reason is very simple. Yes Tyson was not prime when he faced Douglas or Holyfield, and yes Ali was not prime when he faced Frazier, but Ali still trained very hard for that fight and didn't have a diminished skillset, he was just a bit slower than in his prime. On the other hand, Tyson's skillset was clearly not the same, it downgraded bigtime after he fired Rooney, he became just a head hunter and also didn't train properly.

 

True, a better resume isn’t always the deciding factor but it can sometimes lend a lot to H2H conclusions given the specifics of the opposition that the resume is comprised by - the opposition that is in fact being deemed superior.

Of course I won’t argue that Ali’s 70s opp was superior to his 60s opp. overall - but it’s no small fact that Ali did in fact prevail over both groups - and logically Ali had an easier time doing so in his first, prime career, in no mean part because he was a much better fighter in himself.

I don’t think 60s and 70s Ali are mutually exclusive - certainly not like, say 70s Foreman and 80s/90s Foreman.

By that I mean, if faced with his 70s opp, 60s Ali would arguably do even better than he actually he did. He would also adapt the 60s version of himself as and when necessary to the greater competition. .

Even by the time he fought Chuvalo in 66, Ali deliberately came in heavier for better power - and I don’t see any difference in his power of punch against Chuvalo than when he fought Frazier in 71 - the difference was that Ali was much less mobile and energised by and as at 71.

I tend to think the version of Ali we saw fight Chuvalo is possibly the closest to the prime version we might see against Frazier.

Depends on prime Ali’s thinking - for Joe, he might conclude that lighter is better - Ali certainly came in lighter for the Frazier rematch.

You’re right, Ali does have Liston from his first career - and Terrell, while obviously not in victory, could give Mike some grief with his octopus, clinching act - ala Tucker and Smith.

For whatever it’s worth, some might rate Spinks as one of Mike’s best opponents, if not the best opponent.

Resume wise, maybe that holds to a degree (but his greatest successes were at LH), but certainly Spinks did not present as anywhere near Mike’s best opponent on the night of the fight - and even a fighter like Chuvalo wouldn’t have gone out the impotent way Spinks did - even 66 Big Cat might’ve given Mike a scare or two before ultimately losing in short order.

 

These are good arguments, but other fighters under 24 years old moved forward despite changed trainers, personal issues.

Of course, it can be hard for any athlete to get past diminished heart and commitment...

It's just that Mike was looking in top form as recently as his last fight (the Bruno fight wasn't the huge slip that so many people seem to think it was imo). Him being so dominated by Douglas was just completely out of left field. I mean, I don't want to take anything away from Buster, he fought the best fight of his life (though, really, even that night it's hard to see as him more than a second rate Holmes or Ali).

 

Ali wouldn`t stand and tried like those fighters and Holy roided up, Tyson needed Rooney in his corner.

 

Mike does not need a powerup to beat Frazier, Patterson et al. Tyson's era was simply better. than Ali's.

 

There are reports of Ali being with a hooker the night before the Frazier fight. Qualify as proper preparation?

 

This is very true

Not a chance would this be true. Some of those guys who Ali beat would've had too much on Tyson or just simply not be a good styling matchup, such as Foreman, Cleveland Williams or Lyle.

 

It's my opinion. It isn't dumb just because you disagree. Staying on top of the sport for a long time does raise your h2h stock because in order to actually prove how good you are, you need to face a wide variety of styles and matchups, which Ali did a lot longer than Tyson did. Tyson was the favorite to win in most of his matches, even after prison and lost most of his biggest challenges. Ali rose to the occasion even when he was written off. Ali made adjustments, won rematches against people who beat him, and got off the floor to win. Tyson did none of the above.

We don't talk about what Tyson "could" have done, we talk about what he actually did (or in this case, what he didn't do). Tyson didn't win in the first real serious fight he had with his titles on the line against Douglas. You can make all the excuses you want about japanese hotel maids, alcohol, lack of motivation, etc, but at the end of the day Douglas simply wanted to win more and those are all just excuses. Plenty of Tyson's opponents had valid excuses you don't want to hear.

He was 23 when Douglas whooped his ass, 6 years younger than Ali when he lost to Frazier. Ali had been out of the ring for 3 years while Tyson was an active champion in his prime. To say it's valid to use Ali of the Frazier fight but it's not ok to use Tyson of the Douglas fight is fanboy hypocrisy. Nobody said Ali didn't train hard for the Frazier fight, but he was slower, had less stamina, and worse reflexes compared to the 60's. Dundee, Patterson, and Chuvalo all stated that Ali had lost a step. Its pretty obvious if you have functioning eyes.

This is why Tyson fanboys are so funny. You will point out the obvious fact Tyson's head movement, timing, and speed got worse but if anyone says the same thing about Ali after his layoff you ignore it and cherry pick fights from the 70's. Just admit you're a hypocrite.

 

Both Ali and Tyson lost some of their physical assets, I've always admitted that, BUT the main difference is that Tyson also had a downgraded skillset, Ali did not, that is the main difference I am arguing.
Also, whom did Ali got up the floor to win against ?!?
The only one who had him on the floor was Cooper, and Ali got lucky the punch came at the end of the round. Also, he cheated by using smelling salts and Dundee enlarging the tear in his glove.

 

I don't get your point. Ali's skill set was tied directly to his foot/hand speed and stamina, all 3 of those declined after the layoff. His entire style was based around being fast and moving around a lot. If those things go down, Ali's skills go down. Ali also slacked off a lot in the 70's and his reflexes diminished when his parkinson's became an issue.

Ali got off the floor to win against Cooper, Sonny Banks, and Wepner. Fought with a broken jaw against Norton. Dealt with internal bleeding from body shots against Chuvalo and Foreman. Ali had more heart and will to win than Tyson by a mile.

 

Exactly, plus how about the Thrilla, both men were at some points practically beating each other all over the ring.

 

Ali got battereed in rd4 by Frazier, he was wide open to the left hooks, he looked really bad in that fight and ate tons of leather that night.

 

Ruddock nailed him good a few times here and there. Douglas and Holyfield beat the hell out of him over the course of an entire match to finally get him worn down enough to take out. If Ruddock had landed as often and as consistently as Douglas, he'd have won via KO.