Why the **** would you bump a three year old thread? One with a foregone conclusion nonetheless, with zero room for debate. What the **** is the point?
Floyd I would argue was actually faster than Tyson (as in he still maintained his speed without having to plant his feet, that's real speed), was lighter on his feet, could fight from a longer range, could actually evade being tied up on the inside, and could fight going backwards (which Tyson definitely couldn't do). Tyson obviously was the more powerful and physically stronger fighter, more durable as well. With all those advantages I would actually still pick Tyson to win, because Tyson's best attribute is Floyd's Achilles' heel. Tyson would come in like a wave and he's durable enough early to take what Floyd has. Floyd would end up battered flat on his back.
I think the world of Floyd and continually argue that he’s underrated to the point of being disrespected here, but a Hollywood screenwriter couldn’t dream up a worse scenario for him than taking on Tyson.
There's always talk about Floyd's "weak" chin but his slender frame was the greater culprit in his fights with Liston. Mere seconds into the 1962 bout Sonny belted him in the ribs and Floyd flinched and bent over from the force of it. He wasn't built to take such powerful body shots. I think that was the telling moment and Tyson's body attack would be similarly devastating. It's a match I wouldn't want to see. Nor would the public.