Do you consider Mike Tyson to be more "skilled" than Ali?

Two very different skill sets.. But I'll go with Ali. More versatility. His ability to move and attack was incredible.

 

Would you not say the same thing applied to Tyson as well? his defence was great and he had a really good arsenal as well?

 

Of course he was not more skilled than Ali.

Ali could win going backwards, forwards, whatever.

Tyson couldn't and Holy used that to his advantage.

 

Ali was more unorthodox. Tyson was more traditional. Ali achieved more, and was, overall the greater fighter in my opinion.

 

It's pretty close, actually.

Let's consider punching form, footwork and defense:

Punching form: slight edge to Tyson. Ali threw the jab and cross masterfully, but his hook was way too wide--oftentimes slapping--and his uppercut was good but not with the best leverage. Tyson threw every punch correctly and amazingly leveraged: jab, hook, cross, uppercut, power combos.

Footwork: huge edge to Ali. Again, planting the feet for proper punching goes easily to Tyson, but Ali utilized his great running-bred stamina to develop that extraordinary lateral movement, plus his truly unique athletic coordination to nimbly hit and run while moving in-and-out and backward(!). Tyson stood square too many a time and could be pushed around and caught off-balance.

Defense: edge to Ali. Tyson was great at slipping the jab on the way inside, but, at the same time, could be timed with a jab and was not consistent with his head movement. Ali's defense, though unorthodox, was amazing: first of all, his defense was his legs, which were nimble enough for a 200-pounder such as he to throw while out of range and slip out before that face could be touched. Plus, he had a supple torso which allowed him to pull back faster than the oncoming punch--a true marvel--but he also possessed proper head slipping technique and, of course, those concrete-like forearms that proved effective in covering up against the power of George Foreman. Before so much wizardry, his low right hand pales in comparison.

Tyson had amazing physical skills--concussive power, blinding speed--and he harnessed them with a cracking technical prowess, on offense. Ali possessed lightning speed and unique athleticism, which he melded into--in his prime--a great offense and a great defense.

 

If pushed, I'd say yes. It's much, much harder being short and having to get inside as opposed to having the physical build to fight outside and use lateral movement.

Tyson dominated in an era where most boxers were far taller then he. It may be the last time we see such domination from a short fighter.

Ali made his unorthodoxy work for him amazingly well though. It's difficult to compare them directly because they were such vastly different fighters. But I think Tyson's job, because he was so short, was always harder.

 

Mike Tyson would knock out Ali in the first 4 rounds. Mike Tyson is probably faster than Ali.

 

Knockout a prime Ali within 4 rounds? Not a chance. He'd never catch him...at least often enough to ko him. Tyson had the power but not the legs to catch Ali. James Tillis gave Tyson a tough fight by employing lateral movement and decent combination punching. Imagine what a prime Ali (say 1967-1969) would do.

 

Tyson was more skilled Ali relied on his reflexes but was not technically skilled

 

Some terrible posts in this thread

 

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...=qaw1UaK9O5OByQHk6YBA&ved=0CD8Q9QEwBA&dur=427

 

Tyson had better technique.
Ali had better skill.

 

Very skilled fighter, but not as skilled as Joe Louis in my opinion. As to Ali, Tyson had more punches to his arsenal but Ali had greater resolve and was excellent with basically two punches: left jab and right hand! I know he threw others but he relied on these 90% of the time which is incredible when you think what he achieved.

 

More technical, yes. Total skill.... Ali was so fast he could stand outside the bedroom and turn off the lights and get under the bed sheets before the room turn dark. They have diffferent skills set, that are hard to compare