Prime Mike Tyson (88) vs Prime Muhammad Ali (66)

Ali was better than all fighters Tyson struggled with and better than any fighter who beat Tyson.

What’s your point?

 

Prime Tyson didn`t struggle with anyone, but would always look human because he was only 5`11, however I don`t think Ali had the reach or strength to bother him.

 

Not that I doubt you but I’d have to watch it again.

Okay, I just rewatched round 3 (any excuse to rewatch FOTC in whole or in part is a good excuse ).

Ali battering Frazier for most of the round though Joe, psychotically impervious, keeps boring to invest in some very good bodywork. Last 10 secs or so, sure, Joe landed a big left, Ali felt it and covered up.

So:-

1) Mike has to take (and be willing to take) what Frazier absorbed to get in close enough to land such a punch - and Joe did only manage that big head shot toward the end of the round.

2) Frazier had a helluva left hook. Arguable as to whether Joe’s best lefts don’t scratch up to Mike’s hardest single shots - and if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be too far short.

Finally, Joe paid very heavy dues to get his big shots home - dues that I don’t think Tyson could or be willing to pay.

At the very least, I don’t think Mike would come close to maintaining Frazier’s willingness to fight through such punishment - his resolve would notably decline as the fight wore on.

 

He would inevitably get more cautious, which he proved in many fights. He would start going for the one shot, and that simply wouldn't work with Ali. He'd end up getting overwhelmed imo.

 

Mark, relative to projections (10-1 favourite) and in absolute terms to an extent, Tyson did struggle with Tillis - many scribes describing that he did as at the time.

Many might argue that wasn’t prime Mike but at the same time agree he was at least on the threshold of his prime. Even pre prime, certain substantive stylistic issues can be revealed.

Even as he was developing and even though he of course improved overall as a fighter, Ali’s vulnerability to the left hook was highlighted early in the piece.

Plenty of not great fighters have hurt great fighters - while those same great fighters haven’t been hurt by other great fighters.

If you extract a moment from a fight for transposition against another opponent, you have to understand that “moment” is often very unique in its original context - the specific opponent, actions/reactions, level of focus etc.

In simplified terms, using the first Cooper fight as an example - Ali was goofing, fighting to prediction and totally not respecting Cooper. He was completely ill prepared (in terms of defending against and bracing for) the left hook.

And, observed in its own right, that was a helluva punch Henry landed - even Earnie Shavers conceded that some fighters might match his own power with their best ever punch - but they didn’t consistently hit as hard as he (Earnie) did. Cooper had a terrific left hook - and the punch he landed on Ali still might’ve been his Sunday best within that context.

Another important thing to address is, IF those early career knockdowns meant as much as you claim, then, against the even harder punchers that Ali did face later, it would’ve figured in Ali’s own career to a much greater extent than it actually did.

 

I see it the same way Rules. For sure, Mike is a fighter to be extremely wary of during, say, the first 1/3 of a fight - and perhaps that much longer IF the opponent in question is only looking to survive.

While exercising extreme caution in the early rounds (like he did vs Liston) I see Ali still progressively establishing his offence - certainly enough to keep Mike honest - and when Mike slows down - Ali would ramp it up even more and begin to start putting a real beating on Mike.

 

Ruddock hit harder than every opponent who knocked down Tyson but Ruddock couldn't knock down Tyson.

Foreman and Shavers couldn't knock down Ali, but they hit harder than every opponent who knocked down Ali.

In other words, your argument is goofy. You're basically saying because Ali doesn't hit harder than the opponents who knocked down Tyson, this means Ali can't hurt him. So once again, by YOUR logic Tyson has no chance of hurting Ali. You're not making any sense. Do you think Holyfield and Douglas hit harder than Bruno, Smith, or Ruddock? Obviously they didn't. So I'll let you use your brain and try to explain to me why they failed to knock down Tyson.

 

Oh, so we’re playing the game where Mike Tyson’s ‘prime’ began after Tillis and ended before Douglas … so he had like a 2-year prime lol.

Not to mention he struggled to put together a consistent effort against the likes of Bonecrusher, Tucker, etc. Those guys weren’t close to beating him but he did precious little in those fights but throw a punch or two and end up in a clinch.

If Buster Douglas can ragdoll him, Ali could definitely give him trouble and likely completely outclass him.

 

Now waiaiaiat jus' a minute there.
I definitely favor Ali, & both of us can give a multitude of reasons.
But you are not being fair here.

You have accidentally pretty accurately defined Tyson's prime.
That he could & should have been in his prime longer does not obviate that ther term means when someone is at their very best-not what might be possible if circumstances were different-like Ali not suspended from boxing.

And the time *between* Tillis & Douglas was over 3 years & 9 months, with 17 fights!
In contrast, everything conventionally considered Ali's prime was Liston-Folley.
3 years & under 1 month-& 10 fights.

So actually Tyson had a longer, & somewhat more busy prime.
Without counting the fights on each end for him.

Also Tucker & Bonehugger were wide decisions.
"Eye on the RIng" averaged fan cards gave Tucker only 2 rounds.
And obviously a huge elite fighter who is determined to spoil is very unlikely going anywhere.

The average prime is not much different from these guys-even a 5 year prime, at least at HW, is difficult to find,

I think you were activated by bias from the other side. But one must be scupulously fair...
Keep this up & your "Saint" status might need to be revoked!

 

Tyson won't get hit anywhere near as much as Frazier did, he had a much better defense.

 

He didn’t have much better defence and he certainly didn’t practice his defence consistently over the long haul as Frazier did. Against competitive opposition who actually lasted longer than just 1/3 of a fight, Mike’s defensive practices took a notable downturn - and he wasn’t so difficult to hit.

 

Yes, it's a conveniently cropped prime. Despite Tyson's last fight prior to Douglas being a 93 second TKO victory over Carl Williams - the very type of quick result that Tyson's perceived invincibility was built on. Based on fights like that and the Spinks fight to name two, Buster Douglas himself was only afforded to last 90 seconds or so - therefore installed as a 42-1 underdog. Things go a bit different when you have a talented boxer who is actually fighting to win, and when the fight goes beyond more than 5-6 rounds. Also, if you critique Mike's performance against Bruno, the fight prior to Williams, there's a contingent that will tell you that Mike was already beginning to slide even as at that fight - a further tightening down on Mike's "admissible" prime. Saints preserve us!

 

Your clueless. This is called blind Tyson worshipping. Your wishing he was something he wasnt.

 

Your absolutely clueless. Not worth talking about this with u any longer lol

 

Ali couldn`t stand in front of Tyson and trade like that, Tyson was far more powerful than Ali.