Ali v tyson

Tyson was only the underdog in 1 fight.

 

Im making a comparison between Tyson and Ali. Both hit the canvas but one got up to win, the other didn't.

"Since when is it a criteria that you have to get off the floor to be a great fighter".

Im laughing at that statement. Is it better to stay on the canvas, than get up?. You have just tried to knock my criteria, then at the same time make a complete mockery of your own.

 

holmes just wasn't in shape for that fight.

he would have done a bit better with some better prep.

he proved himself again in the 90's, when he got some comeback fights and got himself into shape.

 

So basically you just don't rank anyone, well except Tyson lol. 8 rounds? Many would beg to differ

 

Good lord, your fave Tyson would be the worst great in history regarding these circumstances

 

Ali was "past his prime" when he beat Fraizier, Foreman and Norton. 38-39 when he fought Holmes and Berbick and already showing signs of Parkinsons and even those losses were by decision or TKO.

How old was Tyson when he got his ass handed to him by Holyfeild? 30-31? Did Tyson ever get up when he was knocked down?

 

Ali was past his prime, but still showed what a great fighter he was against the fighters you mentioned. Tyson's best win after his humilation at the hands of Douglas, probably Ruddock. The others were mediocre heavyweights, and I'm including the fighter who Tyson regained the title from, Bruno.

Ive posted about five decent posts regarding Tyson and the element of greatness, on this thread and another.

Because Tyson was beaten at the age of 23 years of age, someone replied and said "Joe Louis was beaten at the same age by Schemling". Its what you prove after the defeat which counts, and we all know what Louis proved, which puts Tyson well and truely in the shade to be kind on him.

 

The comparison between Tyson and Ali.

Tyson in the 80s was better than Ali in the 60s.

Ali in the 70s was better than Tyson in the 90s.

The 70s and 90s had better opponents that allowed for better legacy fights. Ali flourished and Tyson for the most part floundered.

When people look at Ali's legacy they generally look at the 70s, not the 60s.

When people look at Tyson's legacy they generally look at the 90s not he 80s.

You missing the point of what I'm saying. Of course when you get knocked down you get up immediately but the point is you shouldnt get knocked down the first place.

 

Ali was never stopped in his 20's and showed he could actually come off the floor to win.

 

:bush

 

Holmes was trying his best to make the fight a "non-fight". As Larry Merchant said at a point during the fight, "Holmes has been practicing the art of escapology. The question is, when is he going to start practicing fightology". Holmes wasn't fighting. He was losing every round, and when he decided to open up a little bit, Tyson nailed him! It's often times hard to look good against a guy who is more interested in surviving than fighting!

 

Now its came to the point your trying to take the shine off Ali's ability to rise from the canvas and win. "the point is you shouldn't get knocked down in the first place". So your point it is, no fighter should ever get knocked down throughout the course of their careers?. Because I have clearly stated valuable facts when presenting you with the evidence comparing Tyson and Ali and the ingredients of greatness, its now suddenly came to the stage that getting knocked down means everything, no matter if its much more impressive getting up to win after being knocked down.

Ali got up off the floor to win against Banks, Cooper and Wepner. Was knocked down by Frazier and lost, then fought him again and beat him twice. Beat the fearsome Liston convincingly twice, and took Foreman's best blows when nobody gave him a prayer, then knocked him out. When well past his prime, he came back to outbox Spinks to win the crown for a third time.


Tyson was floored and beaten in his prime by Douglas, who was a 42-1 underdog. Again 6 years later was beaten up by Holyfield, again a massive underdog. And to make matters even worse, decided to get himself DQ'd in a rematch 7 months later.

Tyson has done nothing outstanding since the 42-1 underdog beat him up in front of the Japanese.

 

Agreed.

I have no doubt that if Tyson suffered a KD from the likes of Thomas, Berbick, Holmes, Spinks or any of his other foes from the late 80s he would have got up and gone on to win. But, he was both too elusive and too rock chinned. Surely this shouldn't count against him.

To put it further into perspective. How does his 4 year '86-'89 spell compare to other HWs in terms of not only never hitting the deck, but not looking close to hitting the deck? To my mind, most impressive indeed...

Which HWs compare favourably to this?

 

Trouble is Tyson did taste the canvas, and didn't get up to win. Obviously with the Douglas loss he didn't totally dominate. 2 years is a damn short prime, too short i'm afraid.