Mike Tyson Prime Vs Muhammad Ali 1964

I would definitely bet on Tyson 1987 over Ali 1964. But Tyson 87 vs. Ali 1967 would make me wonder.
Ali gets a lot of points for Liston, but people forget a few things:
1. Tyson 87 was much faster than the rusty and injured Liston, who also showed no determination.
2. Liston-Ali 1964 was much more evenly matched than it seems.
3. Tyson's style is worse for Ali than Liston's.

I have no idea what people are talking about with Tyson getting into his head. Mike got two people in his head – Tyrell Biggs and maybe Larry Holmes. Did Douglas get into his head? Holyfield? Lewis? Danny Williams? Oh no... I don't know when anyone got the idea that Tyson's roust was a magical way to win. Moreover, we're talking about Tyson in 1987, not 1997, when, as we know, he started taking psychotropic medications and really shouldn't have been in the ring.

People look at him through the prism of his resume, but that's irrelevant in the context of prime vs. prime. The 1964 Ali was someone who made too many mistakes, someone who was almost defeated by Sonny Banks, Henry Cooper, and Doug Jones.
I think Tyson would have won much easier than it seems, but we all know that people look at things through sentiment and a general resume.

 

1987 Tyson fought the basic Bonecrusher Smith and spent 12 rounds looking like he was about to cry because Smith kept holding him.
Ali would destroy him physically and mentally.

 

Fact: Mike Tyson was in his prime.

Excuse: He wasn’t ready for Douglas.

Great fighters adapt and overcome. Ali was far from best prepared in some of his title defenses that he won … but he won them anyway — and none of them were 42-1 underdogs.

 

Smith settled into a survival rhythm, and that was the only thing he could do. Considering Tyson's prime, I'm betting on his form against Biggs and Holmes. They say Tyson's best is Spinks, but it's hard to say. Tyson himself, for example, said he wasn't prepared for Tucker and Tubbs. I think Mike would have won much easier than we think, but I don't think he would have beaten, say, Liston in 1960. Ali could have done it in his prime, better than Mike.

 

Come on man, I mean I even heard that Tyson only had 2 eggs that morning as opposed to the usual 3, how can you expect him to perform at his best????

 

I don't think Tyson has the depth of character or adaptability to handle Clay/Ali.
Tyson's got no plan B. He has one style.
Clay/Ali breaks him in the mid rounds, stops him.

 

Hmmm. I think it's possible with Ali from Kinshasa or FOTC, but Cassius from 1964? Too light, too many mistakes, and Tyson would destroy him unless Cassius went into survival mode. Then he'd be high on points.

 

Most people have also never taken the time to look up the weather in Tokyo at that time.

It was a little bit cloudy.

How is a guy supposed to be on top of his game when it’s overcast?

What the posters who dismiss Tyson’s losses don’t realize is that they’re making the point that he is, at his essential core, Goldilocks.

For Mike, who they argue on one hand is some kind of ATG monster, everything apparently had to be just right.

Michael Jordan was Michael Jordan because when he has the flu and can barely get out of bed, he balls out to win an NBA final. Look at all the acts of courage in boxing history where guys overcame extreme adversity. Iron Goldilocks never had those kind of moments because he wasn’t made of the right stuff to produce those kind of moments.

 

Then we have to assume Lennox Lewis doesn't beat McCall and Kirklaing-Laing is beyond Duran's reach. And what the hell is Wlad Klitschko doing ahead of Ross Purritty and Corrie Sanders in all classifications??? Ossie Ocasio always beats the Foreman killer. Your Tokyo theory could overturn everything we know about boxing.

 

Ali beat Liston in February 64. He took a few big punches in that but and responded well. He also had to fight a round where he was struggling to see. I'd take the Ali of 64 post that win. He gained plenty of belief and confidence beating Liston and we know he came out the other side a different fighter. Ali also belted Liston plenty hard in that first bout as @META5 always remembers.

Pre Liston I'd favor Tyson. Post Liston nahhhhhhhhh.

 

Ali. And it's barely debatable.

 

I agree with everything you said but Bahamas Ali was almost gone in that fight, 600 year old Tyson was totally gone for Paul. A better analogue is McBride and Williams Tyson. Ali acquitted himself better at a similar stage of his career against better fighters.

 

I think the gulf in mentality is what wins this. I doubt Ali ever contemplated the fact he might lose, before or during a fight. But Mike's mind was full of fleeting shadows of doubt. Ali exploits those shadows and Tyson's doubts become a reality...

 

Fact: Mike Tyson was not in his prime. His prime was 86-88, with Rooney.
Fact: Mike Tyson wasn't ready for Douglas.

 

64 Ali did not have the tools to beat a prime Tyson, especially the holding part.
Ali stands no chance.