With all due respect, it has been done a million times, it only causes heavy disagreements among us posters. I have an opinion of this match.
This looks like the 1970's Muhammad Ali, lacked the skills of the 1964-1967 Ali, that would be more competitive.
They did note that Ali has the faster feet, but I think they were judging that based on Tyson's explosiveness. Tyson did have fairly quick hands.
He sure was my friend, and he had unending stamina in his prime years, 1964-1967, never lost his title in the ring back then, only the U. S. Government was able to take his title.
Tyson was faster at close range with combinations but Ali was like a cobra at long range. He obviously had faster feet too so they should have just said Ali was faster. The video did make a valid point that Ali's defense could be pretty bad and he hid it with his reflexes and movement. Ali also had bad fundamentals but made his style work.
The prime Ali's feet just looked faster because he had a different (dancing) style with light punches. Otherwise Tyson could outjab the 6'5" Tony Tucker ( Ali was only 6'3") who has fast feet and great stamina .
Tucker was not in the same galaxy as Ali in foot speed or finesse. Ali had the fastest feet in the history of heavyweight boxing. And he knew how to move and not get caught. Ali had a better jab than Tucker. Ken Norton was the only guy who managed to neutralize Ali's jab. If we're comparing guys tyson fought to Ali, james tillis gave a prime Tyson an extremely close fight and could have got the decision if not for the knock down. Douglas beat his ass and he didn't move nearly as well as Ali.
Yep Tillis gave Tyson a proper working over but in all honesty I'd say he hit harder than Ali, would Tyson give The Greatest that much respect?
Careful friend, somebody will always bring up the Henry Cooper fight on June 18 1963, Ali got up from the knockdown to win by TKO 5, but remember Ali cut up Cooper on May 21 1966, no knockdown there, TKO 6.