Four Boxing Guru's Debate Ali Vs Tyson

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's a different affair in 1991, although you still have to give the edge to Holyfield based on what know. I can't refute that.

 

Holyfield would be wise not to slug it out with Tyson in '91. Very wise. Like Holyfield said himself, he fought Tyson at the right time. No fighter alive should slug with Tyson, not even the 1991 version.

 

Tyson was essentially faster and stronger version of Frazier and Ali would stop him in 3? atsch

 

They are different fighters but 3 round stoppage assumption may raise a few eyebrows:huh

 

It'd take a fighter the caliber of Don Cockell to stop Tyson by the 3rd round.

 

tyson wasn't mentally strong enough - ali would expose that weakness and he could end up quitting like liston. frazier was different, he had no mental weakness and would never quit - he also didn't fight a 60s peak ali. i do believe peak 88 tyson would KO a lot of other fighters in the first 4 rounds but not ali who never got ko'd in the ring. he was too smart and tough for tyson.

 

Wouldn't be surprised by a one round KO - Cockell was a beast!

 

They make excuses because they can't handle the truth.

The myth of an invincible Tyson (or an "almost invincible" Tyson) is very attractive. It's more comforting than the truth.

The truth : He was a very good fighter, a great puncher, an excellent champion. But nowhere near invincible.

 

I take it these guys usually discuss a sport OTHER then boxing ?

 

Aye, I have a hunch competitive men's circle-jerking is their usual sport.

 

I don't see anything wrong with this.

 

Yeah, he says it like it's a bad thing. atsch Conn is a Foreman Hook in disguise and making threads to demean Tyson's accomplishments. If he wants to be grouped with guys like Foreman Hook that's fine with me. :good

 

What's become a bad thing these days is to give Tyson credit for anything and admit being a fan. It's heavily frowned upon from what I've seen. What's worse is people actually make posts to meet this status quo as to not ruffle the feathers of some hipster **** whom they don't even know and is dead set in the belief that every lineal HW champion aside from Tyson would undoubtedly triumph over him.

 

Tyson seems pretty well respected on this forum. I rate him around seventh or eighth in an all time great heavyweight list.

 

What do you mean I say it like it's a bad thing ?
I'm just stating it for what it is.

People go around saying "Tyson of '88 was virtually invincible" ..... I say "NO ... He was a very good fighter, a great puncher, an excellent champion. But nowhere near invincible." .... and you accuse me of saying it like it's a bad thing.
I'm not saying it's bad at all.

That's the problem, sometimes Tyson's biggest fans want it both ways.
They want to evoke the myth of invincibilty, and "if only he had stayed focussed" no one would beat him ...... but if someone says, "I don't belive that. He was excellent but he was beatable", they reply, "well, what's wrong with that ?"

The guy was beatable. And he was beaten. If everyone accepts that (without a zillions qualifying statements and excuses), then we can all go forward and agree that he was excellent.