1988 Tyson vs 1964 C Clay

Tyson was much more developed at that time. His footwork was also extremely quick and very honed. A couple years later Ali gives him a hell of a fight but here Tyson wins.

 

Ali by wide UD. Even at this stage Tyson already showed that he would struggle against any decent tall fighter with a long reach. It was a weakness that plague him throughout his career. Tyson never beat a great fighter in their prime so there is that too. Tyson is pretty overrated in my estimation.

 

With whom exactly did he struggle? He comprehensively beat Tucker, Biggs, Thomas and Green. Between the four of them he lost maybe half a dozen rounds.

 

Clay by KO telling Tyson to get up off his bum and fight.

 

:good, Sweet post, yes Tyson was overrated, i think the Ali that fought Liston would have KNOCKED OUT, Tyson late in the fight, he was just a way better all around boxer...

 

Oh God. Not another thread that's gonna have all Mikeys fan club talkin their usual stuff.
May as well make way for them now....
I take it the thread starter was aiming this at prime v prime...as i have said before Nobody beats prime Ali.
Stand back though.. Mikey's fanboys are about to take over this thread ......��

 

I'd pick a 1967 Ali to beat Tyson, but probably not the 1964 version. Clay was still rough around the edges and his weakness for the left hook was very apparent. Henry cooper dropping him was a clear red flag. Sure he danced around Liston without much trouble, but he was fighting a much slower moving target who by that point fought with less tenacity and wasn't especially known for his ripping left hooks.

 

That makes sense Mr. Magoo. I would take 66/67 Ali, but '64 Clay was not his absolute prime, comparing it to prime beef Tyson is a bridge too far. You could not take '86 Tyson against eithe rof these Clay/Alis either.

Tyson was great at his peak. While he had relative trouble against tall/long fighters, even peak Ali did not totally dominate everyone, but both clearly won. Well Tillis & Ribalta showed exposed limitations, though made him better...

 

Clay was knock down by London guy who had a sloppy record, Tyson could have floored any man besides maybe George Foreman . I'd pick Tyson.

 

Tyson destroys Clay, wotever vershen of him

 

I will call this a great fight, Clay would move and cause problems for Tyson. Tyson having good foot work and speed to cut off the ring would have his moments trapping Clay on the rope where he sometimes stayed to long. I feel either man could be a KO victim in this fight. I will go with Clay by close majority decision. I believe Clay would be smart enough to keep his distance enough to pull out a close points victory.

 

1988 is the peak Tyson. 1964 Clay is not his peak therefore I go with Tyson. Tyson's peak was very short due to an abundance of immaturity. His ego, lack of discipline and living life in the fast lane robbed him of a true ATG legacy but his physical gifts in this small window of time were phenomenal.

 

He PROBABLY had quicker feet and hands, as well as height and reach on his side. Apart from that, Ali wasn't exactly all around better, especially if we're talking about Clay. In fact Tyson from the start was incredibly well rounded and his defensive work on his way in is better than most boxers I've seen. Tyson had more than enough speed as well as power to give this version of Ali absolute hell. I like Tyson here if he shows up. We're talking about the one that was fleet of foot and hand, threw crisp combinations, slipped on his way in and had enough power in both hands to take most men out. A very close, potentially controversial decision, with Tyson taking the majority of the early rounds, Ali coming on stronger later in the fight but I think Tyson probably pips it and could potentially stop this version of Ali