I asked AI to simulate a fight between Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson

He got the first rematch because Ali duly sought revenge, as ATGs do.

In that rematch he ran a VERY interested, best shape of his second career Ali, to the wire.

Norton’s resume was excellent otherwise - including beating Jimmy Young.

There is also a certain Larry Holmes, another ATG, against whom a near mid 30s, past prime Norton lost an official, razor thin SD to.

Some have Ken poking his head into ATG status (for which there is an obvious spectrum) while others have Ken deservedly close but not quite there.

 

I need a simulator , but Ali is the favorite here.

This content is protected

 

The fact Norton ran Ali close says more of Ali then Norton, this is the flawed logic of the 70s fans. Norton ran Ali close so he must be great, Ali beat Norton so he must be really great- looking at the rest of his career is MUCH more telling he beat my Uncle Jimmy Young who was no great fighter, I hate to say but it's what it is and watching is all you need to realise this and beat a shot Quarry... That's it, he made it into the big leagues off the back of an upset then besides his meal ticket with the ever overrated Ali, had a string of crushing defeats that really show his actual level, a win over Young and cut it close with a one armed Larry Holmes. Douglas has the poorer record probably, but if he had a return bout with Tyson in a losing but even effort, he'd be more or less the same IMO.

 

You said he beat a “disinterested” Ali.

I struck that out with reference to the rematch - so now you’re moving to an overrated Ali - but 2nd career Ali (not prime - which you choose to ignore) beat everybody otherwise.

Ali didn’t earn or share his rep. with Norton - that’s the circular logic you’ve trapped your own self into. The reference points for Norton’s own rep. extended beyond that of just Ali.

So to counter that, you’re now understating Jimmy Young as at the time Norton beat him - Jimmy Young was a very good fighter, carrying a resume that included an early career draw vs Shavers (most observers thought Young won) and easy victories over Lyle (x2) and a victory over Foreman.

As per the trend here, I guess the next move will be to try and pull the rug beneath those performances and vanquished opposition.

Okay, let’s move to the one armed man, Larry “The Fugitive” Holmes - though it’s Larry’s left we’re speaking of - not his right.

Again, let’s ignore that Norton was past prime, near mid 30s - because he’s the guy we’re trying to paint a distorted and negative picture of - the one you’re trying to pull down.

Less just focus on a near prime Holmes and excuses as to why he found Norton to be a tough fight also. The left eh?

Please point out where there was any visible issue for Larry pumping out the left hand. In fact, the Norton fight is a virtual poster fight for Holmes’ sterling left hand.

No problems with the left hand there, unless Larry had a bionic left arm temporarily fitted with his real left arm put on ice just prior to fight time - that thing was pumping out hard, fast and accurate jabs like a piston. It was a deadly entity unto itself.

Speaking ONLY in deference to Norton’s performance, Holmes said his title defences thereafter were a relative cakewalk.

Quarry might’ve been past his own prime but Norton’s victory is reasonably measured in proportion to that context and none the less impressive when properly weighted.

Bobick of course was built on hype - but again, all things considered, Norton still dealt with him in appropriate and highly impressive fashion.

It’s also best to deal with what actually happened during these fighters careers - rather than hypothesise what might’ve been - with if buts and maybes to try and make a comparison that doesn’t actually fit in with reality.

 

Okay, to save you typing so much because now it’s become about Nortons status as a fringe great- tell me what is Nortons best win besides Ali?

 

I'll take a crack at it. Would it be a past it Quarry? Or maybe Jimmy Young?

 

Exactly.

 

I've typed only as much as was required to solidly refute the points that you clearly felt made your case. Refutations you haven't addressed. Including the facts that Norton gave a perfectly fit Ali absolute hell, and that Holmes was not a one-armed fighter vs Norton. Funny about that.

Failing all that you've tried thus far, now you're grasping hopefully for the all-conquering Socratic question method.

Norton had an official win over Ali. The rematch was so close to be arguable for Norton also. The rubber Norton def. won. He should've been awarded the decision (very much an arguable robbery). If the judges duly awarded Ken that victory, we'd be talking a legit HW Champ also who beat none other than Ali for the title.

Besides Ali? I pretty much already outlined Norton's best wins and performances otherwise. Of course, the post prime win over Young was a top shelf victory. And the post prime performance vs Holmes was also right up there. And then you take all Norton's other fine performances in descending order for a complete view of the fighter.

Since you're in question mode. Mike Tyson is a def. an ATG. What were Mike's TWO best wins? Will those wins, including the quality of the opposition as and when Mike met them, adequately define and reflect the overall quality of Tyson as a fighter? What about Larry Holmes, an undoubted ATG also? What were Larry's two best wins? Be mindful to tip toe around Ken Norton as one of the nominations. Hmmm.

 

Now, Nortons best results not including a disinterested AND Overrated Ali are a shot Quarry who was a finished fighter and Uncle Jimmy Young who many pretend is great for Foreman’s sake but his resume reads VERY differently…

Returning to the original point, let’s compare Norton and Buster, Prime Tyson is Busters only great-win, I’d argue a better win then Nortons over Ali but it’s similar, both guys made there resume off one win.

Buster like Ken has a crushing loss to the only other great fighter he fought similar to Norton, and just like Norton he has a few wins and losses to lowish tier guys thrown in. If Buster rematched Tyson then I’d say they’d be on a similar tier, If Norton never rematches Ali and has the exact same career he looks a lot more like Douglas.

 

Prime Ali...(1963-1967)...gets into Tyson's head before the fight...and the fight is over before it starts! Tyson was not "mentally" tough!!! That's an important ingredient of a great fighter. Things don't go Mike's way...he falls apart!!!

 

Norton's resume wasn't just based on his single, official win over Ali. Ali wasn't disinterested for the rematch which still went to the wire. Second career Ali was a reduced version of his prime self, but he still returned as a GREAT fighter and was by no means overrated. This has already been categorically illustrated.

Buster had a crushing loss to a former cruiser in, I think, Evander's 7th fight in as a HW, a former cruiser who wasn't considered to possess anything like the power that Foreman displayed in all his fights, including when Foreman KO'd Norton. Buster was also one-shotted by Evander. Do you think THAT Buster was going to reaffirm himself in a rematch vs Tyson? Should we also ignore Douglas' very non-descript post Tysokyo resume?

Next fight up for Evander after Douglas was against an old and slow as molasses Foreman. Evander couldn't even manage to tip the old man over. It's mind boggling how that overrated, off prime Ali managed to KO a young, prime and far more deadly Foreman in 8 rounds some 16 1/2 years prior.

Bottom line: Ken Norton wasn't a FOR ONE NIGHT ONLY guy like Buster.

IF Buster rematched Tyson? IF Norton never rematched Ali? What IF my aunty was my uncle also? You're talking up some nice rearranging of historical facts trying to make this ill-conceived comparison work.

I'll also note that you didn't answer my "in kind" question re Holmes' and Tyson's TWO best wins? Doesn't matter, there's a number of points/refutations you're choosing not to address....

 

Ali wasn't quicker than Tyson, people seem to forget.

Tyson was very quick and WOULD catch Ali at some point.

 

If Fraizer can catch Ali, knock him down and win, Tyson can.

 

Tyson won't be around for the 15th round to knock him down

 

Tyson could literally do things that nobody else has. It’s not hard to imagine prime Tyson landing bombs and getting a knock out vs any version of Ali.

But I favour Ali to get a decision he had the mobility, range, chin and endurance to handle Tyson imo. Probably the only fighter I really favour over Tyson.